The Washington Post joins the New York Times in finally admitting that Hunter Biden's Laptop from Hell was real...

 

One of Hunter Biden's photos that was on the laptop. New York Post. 

The Washington Post has joined the New York Times in admitting that Hunter Biden's laptop was real. New York Post. The paper said that it had used cryptographic techniques to confirm the authenticity of 22,000 e-mails from Hunter Biden on the laptop. Included in these e-mails are Biden's contacts with a Chinese energy company and the infamous Ukrainian energy company Bursima Holdings. The Washington Post had claimed that the laptop story was debunked when the New York Post broke the story in October of 2020. Hunter Biden left the laptop at a repair shop and did not pay for the repairs. 

My Comment:

I covered the New York Times admitting that the laptop from hell was real here. Like in that story I am not linking directly to the Washington Post. Why? Because they killed the story in the first place. They should get no credit for doing the right thing way after it was too late to prevent Joe Biden from getting into office. 

And I consider killing this story to be another example of how the 2020 election was not legitimate. If the news media had done their due diligence here in an election that was so close there was basically no chance of Biden winning. But the news media colluded with big tech and the Democratic Party to utterly kill the story. 

It turns out that the story was even more relevant than we thought back in 2020. With Ukraine dominating the news I would think that having a president that has been credibly accused of receiving kickbacks from Ukraine is a really big deal. Given our policy is 100% in favor of Ukraine it's worth it to ask if that is because Joe Biden actually believes they are the good guys or because he doesn't want the gravy train to end. 

I also have to say that the media is still ignoring the more salacious threads from the story. Hunter Biden was seen on video having sex with prostitutes and doing all kinds of drugs. But there was also the theory that he may have molested his niece, Natalie Biden. That story has not been confirmed as even the New York Post doesn't want to touch it but there is a circumstantial case to be made. That too would have prevented Biden from being elected if it was confirmed. 

I do wonder why these two papers have switched course. It could be because they are cutting Joe Biden loose. It's hard to argue that Biden has been anything but a total failure and the newspapers may not want to expend any more political capital on someone that has no chance of winning in 2024. They may also be upset with Biden for not following their priorities 

Wave of terrorism in Israel continues with a mass shooting leaving six dead including the shooter.

 

A screencap of the attack. New York Post/Reuters. 

A wave of terrorism in Israel continues with a mass shooting in Tel Aviv left six people dead including the shooter. New York Post. The attacker was identified as Dia Hamarsha, a 27 year old from the West Bank. The attacker was armed with a rifle and shot and killed five people before he was killed by the police. Two other people were arrested in connection with the attack. The shooting is the third incident in Israel in a week. The other attacks, a mass stabbing and car ramming attack and the murder of two police officers, was found to be connected to the ISIS terror organization. 

Warning: The following video contains graphic images of the shooting. Given the content do not be surprised if the video is removed from Twitter. 

#Israel: (NSFW) The attacker from the terrorist attack in Tel Aviv, apparently carrying an AR-15 pattern rifle. Given recent events and style, quite possibly ISIS-related. #Israel pic.twitter.com/7jIlasoFHI

— Ravi HTF (@raviagrawal3) March 29, 2022

My Comment:

Pretty terrible video from that attack. The guy that was on that bike was extremely lucky that the attacker either had a weapons malfunction or ran out of ammo as he was seen reloading after shooting at him. The person in the SUV though? They were utterly screwed... 

I am not sure what is causing this wave of violence in Israel. ISIS has not really been active there before but at least two of the recent attacks were inspired by them. It's not clear yet if this attack was as well but it is very possible. The article mentioned that the peace process and new alliance between Israel and Arab states might be a motive for the attack, but ISIS hardly needs a reason to attack Israelis. 

I know one of the attacks was put down by armed civilians but this attack was not. It's a shame as well because if someone was close enough to film the attack with such clarity they could have easily shot the attacker if they were armed. At the very least they could have forced him to take cover, giving police more time to put this guy down. 

This attacker was fairly well armed. I'm not sure if he had a full auto M-16 variant or a civilian AR-15 but considering some of the attacks in Israel have involved knives and car ramming's, he was better armed than many attackers in the area. This makes me think that the guy had help as it probably wasn't easy to get him a firearm. 

Will this wave of terror attacks continue? I think it's possible. ISIS is making a bit of resurgence lately, even though the media isn't really covering it. The war in Ukraine has killed pretty much all other stories lately, foreign and domestic. And it's not like these terror attacks in Israel are that complex or difficult. We could be seeing the start of more attacks. 

Germany makes a letter of the alphabet illegal.

 

A destroyed Russian APC with the Z painted on it. Politico/AFP.

Germany has announced that people will be prosecuted if they use or display the letter Z due to associations with the war in Ukraine. Politico. The letter Z has been painted on Russian military vehicles involved in the invasion of Ukraine, likely to differentiate between Russian and Ukrainian vehicles. The letter has now became a symbol of support for the Russians. Germany has said that they will prosecute people under a law that forbids people from celebrating "illegal" acts. Violators could spend up to three years in prison. Critics say that the law is unenforceable and legally questionable. 

My Comment:

Germany has gone totally insane. You can't ban a letter of the alphabet. Are they going to arrest school children that are learning English? A teacher who has the alphabet in her class room? Are they going to ban the movie Z? It's utterly insane. 

But even worse they are banning all dissent against the state. Many people, myself included, do not support NATO's actions in regards to Ukraine. Indeed, though I don't support Russia I do like them more than NATO and Ukraine as the lesser of three evils. I don't think I would wear a Z t-shirt or anything but if I was in Germany would I be sent to prison because I wished for a quick end to the war or pointed out a quick Russian victory would probably the best thing for everyone? Under Germany's restrictive laws I might. 

I also think that Germany is discriminating against people of Russian descent. Many Russians outside of Russia do not support the war but many do and they deserve to support their country of origin. I wouldn't support banning Ukrainians from supporting their side of the war, why would you do it to Russians?

It also makes me wonder why Germany isn't going to ban people from supporting the Ukrainian military. After all they have the Azov Battalion, a group of actual Nazis. That's not a euphemism or slander, they have been filmed flying the swastikas' and other Nazi symbols. And what about all the normal Ukrainian fighters wearing things like the black sun symbol? Supporting the Ukrainian military seems like it would fall under the draconian anti-Nazi laws in Germany. 

And it's important to note that the Z symbol isn't just a symbol of Russia, it's a symbol of the Russian military. Given that many Russian soldiers are conscripts and had little to no choice about going to war I don't think it is wrong to support them. 

Honestly, I don't think it's wrong to support any side in this conflict. People should be free to make up their own choices. And it's not like Russia and NATO are at war, at least not officially. If that is the case then it makes no sense to censor people's opinions. People should be able to support Ukraine, Russia, both or neither. 

But I think that this is just dangerous. Banning dissent when it comes to war is dangerous. Without being able to criticize the government you are nipping peace movements in the bud. You are also preventing people from pressuring their government into changing course. Given that tensions are extremely high right now, wouldn't be nice if there was pressure into not starting a war with Russia?

Most importantly though? Who the hell does the Germany government think they are? Who are they to tell people what to think and who to support? Do they even understand the concept of free speech anymore? Where does it end?  

Biden walks back regime change comments on Russia...

 

Joe Biden. 

Joe Biden has walked back comments advocating regime changes in Russia. Reuters. Biden said that Vladimir Putin "cannot remain in power" and called him a butcher. The Biden administration immediately tried to spin the comments and said that Biden does not want regime change in Russia. After being asked by a reporter if he did support regime change Biden gave a one word reply of "no". Putin used fears of regime change in Russia as one of the reasons why he launched the war in Ukraine, with many Republicans saying that Biden was playing into Putin's hands. 

My Comment:

Once again, Biden went off script and caused major diplomatic damage. I don't think the Reuters article explained how serious of a gaffe this was. It's the kind of mistake that can start wars and given that Russia has thousands of nukes pointed at us it's a mistake that we cannot afford. 

I also think that it stopped any doubt in Vladimir Putin's mind that the USA's foreign policy is in fact regime change. He's going to think, correctly I might add, that Biden said the quiet part out loud. I personally think that our foreign policy under Obama and Biden was in fact overthrowing the Putin regime. It wasn't under President Trump, but I think the deep state did in fact work towards that goal.

Why they would want this is beyond me. Russia does have an aggressive foreign policy, but so do many of our allies do as well. The cold war is long over and the Soviet Union is dead and gone. Putin and Russia do have many problems but nothing that suggests that our foreign policy against Russia is justified. 

Regardless, I think this is another sign of Biden's mental decline. I have to think that Biden would know that this is not a thing that he should have said but he did so anyways. The government says he was angry but uncontrollable  anger is also a sign of mental decline. I know Biden has always been gaffe prone don't think Senator Biden or Vice President Biden would have made this bad of a mistake. Like I said, this is the kind of thing that can cause wars. 

The worst part about this is that there is evidence that both Russia and Ukraine want a way out of this war. The Russians have not gained as much ground as they wanted and Ukraine wants to keep what is left of their country. Both sides are starting to try diplomacy and that's a good thing. It's clear that the war won't end with a total victory for either side now and a peace deal should be the major goal. 

But Biden's actions here? It's going to hurt the peace process. He has single handedly retroactively justified Putin's actions in Ukraine. If Putin didn't think that NATO was going to use Ukraine as a base to attack Russia before he absolutely does now. That means he is a lot likely to accept a peace deal and that means that the killing will continue. 

Are the Russians changing course in Ukraine?

 

An Ukrainian fighter near Kiev. AP. 

Russia appears to be switching strategies in Ukraine, abandoning a drive to the Capitol, Kiev, and focusing more on the Donbas region. AP. Russian officials claimed that they had finished the first stage of the war and said that they were now focusing on liberating the Donbas region, which is home to Russia's allied breakaway Republics. Russia's offensive near the capitol had largely stalled out compared to other fronts. It is unclear if that was due to Ukrainian resistance, logistical problems or due to some larger strategy. Ukrainian forces have made some progress in taking back some of the area around Kiev. 

My Comment:

This seems to be the Russians just admitting what has been going on for quite some time now. Compared to the other offensives the Russians launched, the one targeting the capitol has stalled out. I think it has a lot to do with logistical problems more than anything else. Unlike the other fronts, the supply line that serviced the Kiev front were ran through Belarus, not Russia itself. That appears to have caused numerous problems and largely halted the Russian offensive. 

However, it's important to note that the Russians have done well in other theaters of war. Right now the main push seems to be in Mariupol, a major city between the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. Their offensive there has been more successful and it seems clear that the city will eventually be captured. Keep in mind that Ukraine's best units were deployed in Mariupol and those units are in the process of being completely destroyed. 

I think it is also possible, even probable, that the entire Kiev front was a feint. Russia always seemed to want to secure Donbas and destroy Ukraine's best military units, which were stationed in the area during the beginning of the war. The major attack near Kiev may have been to draw attention away from this area, thus making the capture of the area easier and eroding defenses. 

I guess it all depends on what you think Vladimir Putin's war goal was. Did he want to take over the entire country? Did he just want Donbass and the Kiev attack was a feint? Or did he simply want to destroy as many Ukrainian military units as possible? I don't really know and it sure doesn't seem like anyone else does either. 

Another question is if Russia is actually winning the war? Without knowing the war goal that's a hard question to ask. I do think Western media coverage is totally biased against the Russians and even if the Russians were clearly winning the war they would claim otherwise. I personally think that the casualty figures cited by the AP are fanciful at best and ten times what the Russians have admitted.  Not that I trust Russia's numbers, mind you, but I am guessing that the numbers are somewhere in between Russian and Western estimates. And the western sources are also downplaying how much ground has been gained in the eastern and southern fronts. 

With that being said, I also don't think the war went as well as the Russians thought it would, or even I thought it would in the early days in the war. Like I have been saying from the start, Russians are not that good at logistics and it appears to have cost them greatly in the northern front. They just have not been able to move weapons and supplies to the front as fast as they should have been able too. 

The Russians have also not been using their weapons all that effectively. If they wanted to they could have leveled Kiev. The city is in artillery range and they also have heavy bombers that they could have used. They have chosen not to for some reason, the Russians claim to reduce civilian casualties, which makes little sense given they are using the same tactics in Mariupol with some success.  

I also think that the Russians made some fairly obvious mistakes, the most obvious being when they chose to launch their attack. I was totally convinced that there was not going to be war because I couldn't imagine Russia deciding to invade in late winter/early spring. That's mud season and it has bogged down much of their offensive, limiting actions to the roads and generally making things miserable. 

It also seems that the Russians spread their forces too thin. If the goal was never to take over the entire country, than the feint at Kiev was a major mistake. They committed major forces to that theater that might have been more useful elsewhere. If they had ignored the entire northern front and focused on cutting off the units in the Donbass region the war might be over by now... 

Speaking of the war being over, it seems clear that we are a long way from that. From what I understand there are peace negotiations going on but the sticking points are the territorial concessions that Russia wants. Zelenskyy does not appear to want to give up his claims on Donbas and Crimea even though it's clear that he will never get them back. I think he knows that but doesn't feel comfortable in granting that concession to Putin, even though it's essentially status quo ante. Why? I am sure that if he did his life would be in danger, not only from hardliners in his own government, but from the US government as well.

It's clear what our government's goal is in Ukraine, even if it's not clear what the Russians goal is. Biden wants the war to get as bad as possible and wants as many dead Russians as possible and if that means every Ukrainian has to die he doesn't care. Indeed, he's willing to risk World War III to get the Russians involved into another Afghanistan style conflict. There has been zero diplomatic push from the United States to end the war despite how many casualties are being inflicted on both sides. 

Still, I do think that an Afghanistan style conflict is unlikely as both sides in the conflict appear to be wanting out. Zelenskyy will probably give in on the territorial demands and I think if the Russian's goal was ever to take over the entire country they have given up on that. I think an negotiated settlement where Russia gets much of what it wanted but not a total victory is likely to be the actual end game of this war. 

Biden blames Russia for upcoming food crisis...

 

Joe Biden speaks in Europe. Fox News/Getty.

Joe Biden has admitted that the world is approaching a food crisis and blamed Russia for it. Fox News. Biden said that the food shortage is "real" and is due to sanctions. He also admitted that Russia and Ukraine are Europe's breadbasket and the war will disrupt production. Biden's admission is in contrast to his Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, who said earlier that a food crisis would not affect the United States. The food crisis will cause higher prices in the United States, which is already having major problems with inflation. In the third world consequences could be even worse...

Biden on food shortages:

"With regard to food shortage...it's gonna be real." pic.twitter.com/F3dQ7NLqqB

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) March 24, 2022

My Comment:

I consider this a deflection from Joe Biden, who bears much of the responsiblity for the oncoming food crisis. I will point out that I do not blame him for wheat failures in China and the US Midwest, as those are acts of nature, not government. But for the problems in Ukraine and Russia? That's largely on Biden. 

Why? I consider the war itself to largely be Biden's fault. Yes, Putin deserves much of the blame for choosing a war of choice but it's undeniable that Biden drew him into it. From what I understand Biden falsely said that Ukraine was going to join NATO, which was of course a red line for Putin. The war was the natural consequence of this.

And the sanctions too? That's on Biden as well. Trying to destroy the economy of Russia over Ukraine has made them a lot more reluctant help out Europe with their food problem. Why would they export grain and fertilizer to countries that are sanctioning them? They will sell that stuff to countries that are still friendly to them. Biden made a choice here, there were a ton of options instead of just sanctions that could be used.  

But the most egregious way that Biden is responsible for this crisis is the fact that he is making zero effort to actually end the war. It's clear that NATO's plan is trying to draw out the war so it can turn into an Afghanistan style insurgency. That obviously don't benefit the Ukrainians and it doesn't benefit the rest of the world. It does benefit weapons manufacturers but that's about it. 

The fact is that the war could end today if Biden pushed for it. Zelenskyy could give into Putin's demands right now and end the war. Putin's demands aren't that extreme, just Ukrainian neutrality, no joining NATO and status quo ante concerning Crimea and Donbass. But Biden won't let Zelenskyy do so. Indeed, there is pretty much no diplomatic push to end the war at all other than from Ukraine and Russia themselves. 

As for the food crisis itself, I don't see anyone in the United States starving. America has a ton of food and even though our winter wheat crop isn't going to be great we will still have huge amounts of corn and other grain to feed our people, not to mention our large herds of livestock. 

The real problem will be inflation. Food prices, along with all other prices, are already totally out of control. I've seen my grocery bills increase quite a bit and there isn't much there to cut unless I want to reduce myself to eating plain rice. The sanctions are going to make this much worse, added onto the natural problems caused by the winter wheat failure. It's going to make things extremely tough for everyone that isn't rich and even the rich will probably feel the pinch. 

But that's nothing compared to what is going to happen to the third world. Millions of people are dependent on Russian and Ukrainian food and fertilizer, and with the war happening and sanctions a lot of those people will be cut off from their best source of food. Since food insecurity is already a problem for those areas it is very possible that will lead to starvation and instability... 

If there is any good news at all it's the fact that people are starting to wake up to the problem. That means actions can be taken to avert the worst of the problems. I would recommend stocking up on foods if you can. I don't expect the government to do anything helpful so keep in mind you might be on your own if this crisis gets bad. 

White House complains they don't have enough money for a fourth dose of Coronavirus vaccine...

 

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky. Politico/AP.

The White House is saying that they do not have enough money for a fourth dose of the Coronavirus vaccine for most Americans. Politico. Congress did not authorize a $22.5 billion bill to fund the fight against the virus and a $15.6 attachment to the omnibus spending bill. A fourth shot has not even been approved and there are questions about how effective the booster will be against the prevailing strains, Omicron and the new BA2 subvariant. Most virus restrictions have been lifted throughout the country and cases have not risen in the United States, but cases have been rising in other countries. 

My Comment:

It's hard not to see this is anything but a cash grab for the vaccine companies. This would be billions of dollars more for them and given their vaccines have made them billions of dollars already, I think enough is enough. 

And I think it's pretty stupid to continue vaccinations at this point anyways. I do support it for certain people, with major risks and bad immune systems, but for normal people it doesn't seem worth it. Why? Because the virus has changed. Omicron is not the same virus as the original Wuhan strain and it is dramatically less deadly and it seems that the BA2 subvariant is even less deadly than that.  

I don't think the current vaccines are capable of stopping Omicron, given how easily the variant spread even in highly vaccinated countries. They were made for the original virus but that virus is long gone now. Vaccines might not be totally useless but at this point they aren't that useful either. 

And it's not like any new vaccines are going to be developed for Omicron. And it's easy to see why, by the time they did and got approval for it, Omicron wouldn't be the main variant. Indeed, it's already being replaced by BA2. So what is the point?

Another problem is that the vaccines have been proven to have side effects and many of them are pretty bad. We still don't have long term data on how dangerous the vaccines but given the weakness of Omicron the costs probably no longer outweigh the benefits for all but the most vulnerable people. 

But the biggest reason why this is a dumb idea? Because nobody cares anymore. I stopped caring about the virus last year already, as soon as the vaccines were released, let alone now when it's basically a cold virus. I did get the first two doses of the vaccine but I did not do so for the booster and I have no interest in doing so. 

My reasoning is why would I take additional shots of a vaccine that wasn't developed for the disease strain that dominant, isn't that effective, has risks against a disease that is no longer a threat and I have somehow avoided for two years? And a lot of people that have had the disease wonder why they should take another dose of vaccine for a disease that was mild? If money is given to this effort I see those vaccine doses rotting away in some warehouse. The vaccine companies won't care, they will already have been paid... 

Knife wielding terrorist kills four people and injures two more before getting shot by armed civilians in Israel.

 

Police investigate the scene of the crime. NPR/AP.

A knife wielding terrorist killed four people and injured two more in a mass stabbing before being shot and killed by armed civilians. NPR. The attacker rammed his vehicle into a cyclist and then stabbed five people. Video shows two armed civilians shooting the attacker. The attacker was a 34 year old Arab man who had served time in prison for trying to join ISIS. The attacker was an Israeli citizen, not a Palestinian. 

Warning, the video below contains graphic content. 

⚠️ Video from scene of this afternoon’s terror attack in #BeerSheba, southern #Israel, where an assailant rammed his car into group of people and then began stabbed them, murdering 4.

Thank G-d there was passerby with gun, who took him out, averting an even further catastrophe. pic.twitter.com/V6sqyJY1yP

— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) March 22, 2022

 My Comment:

A fairly major ISIS linked terror attack in Israel. Though I don't know if the attack counts as an ISIS terror attack as it appears the attacker acted alone. He did try to join the organization and was imprisoned for four years so that makes it an ISIS attack as far as I am concerned, even if the organization did not help the attacker in anyway. 

This attack shows that you don't need a gun to kill multiple people. A vehicle and a knife is all you need and this guy killed four people and injured two more before he was put down by armed civilians. Indeed, he probably would have killed more if he hadn't been confronted by good guys with guns. 

I'm not super familiar with Israeli gun laws. From what I understand they are fairly restrictive and are on a may issue basis for concealed weapons carrying and owning of firearms in the first place. That being said, Israelis are very familiar with firearms and if they do manage to get a permit I wouldn't want to go up against a guy that had one. 

As far as the shooting goes, it's not great video but in America it would have been a totally justified shooting. The two guys that fired at the attacker did not fire until he started to charge the man in the blue shirt. Blue shirt guy fired his gun, stopping the attacker while the other guy helped by shooting him a couple of additional times. I don't know what the self defense laws are in Israel but it would be an obvious good shoot in America and I can't imagine any Israeli prosecutor actually filing charges against these men. 

I really think that the attacker shouldn't have been let out of prison. Indeed, I don't think there is a case to be made for letting most ISIS people out of prison for a very long time. Maybe life in prison is to harsh but a four year sentence for trying to join ISIS is a joke. And this attack shows why, if an ISIS sympathizer is let out it's a bad idea. There is a very high chance of a terror attack occurring, just like this. 

The World Health Organization says Coronavirus cases are rising. Does anyone still care?

 

A woman being tested for the Coronavirus. Reuters. 

The World Health Organization says Coronavirus cases are rising. Reuters. Cases have been declining for about a month, but that trend was recently reversed, with cases in China. Factors that could be causing the increase includes the high transmissibility of the Omicron variants and the fact that most countries are pulling back on Coronavirus restriction. The increase is not universal as some areas had declines, but the increase was due to Asia, Africa and Europe. 

My Comment:

The World Health Organization may want Coronavirus to still be a thing but I think everyone else has moved on. People are mostly back to normal here in Wisconsin and I am guessing nobody wants to go back to restrictions, other than people that profit from it and the few people that have been obsessed with the virus from the start. 

Of course the reason for this is pretty obvious since the media has for the most part totally moved on from the Coronavirus and is instead focusing on the Ukraine war (and drawing NATO into it). Indeed, I had to look pretty hard for this post as my usual sources are covering nothing else besides Ukraine. It's like the past two years never happened. 

Should we be concerned? Of course now. Most of us now have antibodies, either natural or through vaccination, at this point and our immune systems are much better prepared to deal with the virus should it make a comeback. 

It's also clear that the virus is not anywhere near the threat it was two years ago. The virus is no longer anywhere near the danger it is because the virus evolved into a weaker but more easily spread form. The death rate isn't anywhere near as bad as it was during the heyday and there is little reason for someone who is in decent health to care. 

Much of this rise is due to China of course. Though it is unclear how successful China was in defeating the virus in earlier waves, they did not really get much of the current Omicron wave. With much of China being virgin territory for Omicron it makes sense that they would be having a major wave, even despite of their restrictions. 

As for another wave here, even if it does happen, I don't think anyone will care. Most people have had the virus and gotten over it fine. People are getting use to not having restrictions and I can't see people going back to it. Indeed, people were so pissed off about the virus restrictions in Canada that the government was almost overthrown, and if the virus becomes an issue again people won't stand for it. 

Houthi rebels launch attacks on Saudi infrastructure, no casualties.

 

Firefighters battle a blaze at an Aramco terminal. Fox News/AP.

Houthi rebels from Yemen have launched another series of attacks against Saudi infrastructure, though did not cause any casualties. Fox News. The attacks targeted Saudi Arabia's oil industry and also targeted desalination plants. The strikes involved ballistic missiles as well as drones. The Saudis say that the strikes did not result in any deaths but civilian vehicles and homes were damaged. It is unclear how much damage has been done but the Saudis claim there will be no disruption in oil supplies. The oil market is already tight due to the war in Ukraine and western sanctions. The war in Yemen has largely devolved into a stalemate with little movement on either side, with peace talks not yet agreed to. 

My Comment:

The war in Yemen needs to end. The suffering of the people there is obviously one reason but at this point the conflict is out of control. The Saudis and the UAE are now getting regularly bombed by ballistic missiles and drones. This isn't just affecting the Yemenis, it's now threatening global oil supplies. 

Oil prices are already out of control with the utter disaster that is Ukraine and the United States simply failing to drill for new wells. The last thing we need is the Saudis and the UAE having their own supplies disrupted by a major Houthi attack. 

The good news is that these attacks have not been very effective. This attack didn't seem to do too much damage, depending on how much you trust the Saudi government to tell the truth. That's understandable since ballistic missiles were designed to deliver nuclear and chemical warheads. They aren't the most accurate things in the world. You would think that the drone strikes would cause more damage though I am guessing the Houthis just aren't that good at using them yet. 

As always, I have to mention that Yemen isn't really about Yemen. It's partially about religion as it's Sunni vs Shia, but that really just translates to the Saudi led Gulf states vs Iran. It does seem that Iran is doing well against the Saudis as they have made zero progress in beating back the Houthis despite seven years of war and a major technological advantage. 

I also have to say that it's fairly hypocritical that the United States is boycotting Russian oil when lining up to buy from the Saudis and even considering buying from the Iranians. Though I do think that Russia can be criticized for launching a war of choice in Ukraine, all the same criticisms could be levied against both Saudi Arabia and Iran due to their actions in Yemen. But nobody is calling on us to stop buying oil from those two countries. 

As for the war itself I don't see it ending anytime soon. The war has reached a stalemate with little movement on either side. And peace talks don't appear to be happening at all. Part of it is that there is no neutral third party to mediate. But given the proxy nature of the conflict I don't see either the Saudis or Iranians backing down anytime soon... 

How polling can be deceptive... Support for Florida's bill banning discussion of LGBT issues for grade schoolers depends on how you frame the question.

 

Protesters rally in Miami. Fox News/AFP.

Polling on a Florida bill that would ban age inappropriate discussion of LGBT issues for elementary age students varies greatly depending on how you word the question. Fox News. A widely spread ABC News poll said that 6 in 10 Americans would oppose Florida's bill, which the media has falsely described as a "Don't Say Gay" bill. However, the poll oversampled LGBT Ameircans and left out that the bill would only apply to very young students. The law would only ban age inappropriate discussion for students between kindergarten and 3rd grade, which would mean the bill would only apply to teaching 4 to 9 year olds about the issue. Other polls, including Politico/Morning Consult and Daily Wire/Lucid found much higher support of the bill with the former finding 51% support and the later finding 64% support. Those polls worded the question so that it was clear that the bill would only affect very young children. 

My Comment:

This is why it is so important to question polling. Poll construction is just as important to any other factor when it comes to polls. If you ask the wrong question or word the question wrong you can get totally different results. And it also depends on who you ask. This poll is just the latest example of a polling company doing bad polling and getting the result they wanted, not the one that was real. 

It's also important to note how badly the ABC poll was misrepresenting reality here. The bill never was going to totally ban discussion of LGBT issues in schooling, it was always going to be limited to elementary aged school children. There had been looser language that could have been interpreted that way but the language of the bill was cleaned up so it was clear that it would only apply to 3rd graders and under. It is not surprising that the Politico and Daily Wire polls got more balanced results since they worded the polling different. 

Does that mean that the other two polls are infallible? No, all polls are flawed in some way. But I think the fact that they were more honest about what they were asking means that they are probably closer to reality than the ABC poll. However, I do suspect that the Daily Wire poll might have had similar issues to the ABC poll in terms of sampling bias, so you shouldn't blindly believe it either. 

ABC totally changed the context of the bill. I know for me personally it would have changed my opinion of the bill. I don't think it's inappropriate for teenagers to get some kind of knowledge of what homosexuality is, as long as it is done in an appropriate way, such as in a health class. But I also don't think that pre-pubescent children need that at all, since it isn't relevant to them in any way. 

And keep in mind that much of the LGBT "teaching" that we have seen over the years has been extremely sexually explicit. There is a major difference between teaching what the difference is between gay, lesbian and bisexual and much of the stuff that is currently being taught. There is absolutely no reason for a 3rd grader to learn what a strap-on dildo is, but I have seen books that have explained that and how they work. 

Also keep in mind that much of the objection to this kind of education is focused on the T part of LGBT. People are a lot more tolerant of gays and lesbians but are genuinely afraid of their children being brainwashed into being transgender. I know the LGBT community thinks it is blasphemy to say that anyone can be recruited into being transgender but that's not how most Americans feel. 

I don't think that the science backs up claims that a small child can determine his or her gender, or sexuality for that matter. Children often clam to be different things but in most cases it is just a phase they go through, not an actual statement of fact. Pre-pubescent children aren't really going to understand gender issues and they will do what they will think pleases adults, and if everyone tells them they are transgender they will probably end up believing it. 

Regardless though, my main point wasn't to debate the merits of the bill in Florida, but to set out another example of how easily it is to manipulate polling. Keep that in mind whenever you see a poll, no matter the issue. I've seen the same thing with election polling and polling on other hot button issues, such as the Coronavirus pandemic and the war in Ukraine. It's a very good thing to not take polling at face value. 

Hunter Biden's laptop from hell confirmed by the New York Times...

 

Hunter Biden. New York Post

The New York Times has confirmed that Hunter Biden's laptop was legitimate and that Biden is under investigation. New York Post. The New York Post had broken the story in October of 2020, right before the election, but the story was killed by other media outlets and tech companies like Twitter and Facebook. Hunter Biden had left the laptop, which was full of incriminating photos and evidence linking the younger Biden to Ukraine, via the energy company Bursima. The Times report also said that Biden had been under investigation by the IRS but he had paid $1 million in back taxes. 

My Comment:

I'm not linking to the New York Times piece due to the fact that they killed this story when it first came out. The New York Post broke the story back in 2020 and they are the ones that should be getting web traffic via this blog, not the New York Times. 

It's utterly insane that it took this long for the Times to admit that the laptop was legitimate in the first place. The story had been confirmed by the person who had possession of the laptop and there was never any implication that the laptop was fake. 

Of course, that didn't matter to the media or big tech. They killed the story as hard as they have ever killed any story and I consider it election interference, or reason #1001 why the 2020 election was not legitimate. If the media had covered the story with the amount of outrage the story actually deserved there is no way that Joe Biden would be President right now. 

The laptop had evidence of corruption for both Hunter and Joe Biden. Hunter served on the board of Bursima and there is evidence he used that position and the fact that he was Joe Biden's son for corrupt purposes. 

And there were of course the personal photos of Hunter Biden that were extremely embarrassing for the Biden family. There were pictures of Hunter having sex with prostitutes, smoking drugs and generally being a scumbag. But what was really disturbing was his relationship with his niece, which may have been inappropriate. Even now those claims are not being investigated. 

Of course, all of this is in the context of the war between Ukraine and Russia. It's very clear that there is, at the very least, the appearance of impropriety between Biden and Ukraine. At worst, Biden could be subverting US foreign policy for the sake of his bank account. Would Biden really be so gung-ho against Russia if he wasn't corruptly involved with the government of Ukraine? Is he providing weapons to Ukraine because Zelenskyy didn't rat him out? Did he provoke the Russians to invade so they would destroy evidence of his corruption?

I don't know if any of those things are true but any of those things are plausible. Without an adversarial press and a tech industry that censors the truth, even if those things are true we might not hear about it. But it is a good reminder that everything in the Ukraine war is not what it seems... 

Senate passes the Sunshine Protection Act, which would make daylight savings time permanent.

 

A sunset. Wikipedia user Kskhh. 

The Senate has passed the Sunshine Protection Act, which would make daylight savings time permanent. USA Today. Currently, expect in states that don't practice daylight savings time, the time is set forward one hour 8 months of the year. The practice is widely reviled due to the forced changing of clocks every spring and fall, which leads to major health problems and causes accidents. Popular support for removing the change was widespread, but there is disagreement about whether to stick with daylight savings time or standard time. The bill passed the Senate with unanimous consent and now goes to the House. 

My Comment:

If this actually works out it will be the best thing that the Senate has ever done. I can't tell you how much I hate switching the clocks every year. I probably hate it more than anything else, and I would have seriously voted for Hillary Clinton or even Joe Biden if they had made it the cornerstone of the campaign. The day that the clock changes for the last time will be a day worthy of celebration. 

I won't speak for anyone else but the clock change always completely destroys my sleep cycle. I'm not even sure what it is, because switching from day shift to night shift wasn't that bad and vise versa. Jet lag isn't that bad. But changing times every spring and fall? Totally discombobulates me. It totally disrupts my sleep pattern and it's pretty much guaranteed to screw up how much sleep I get for about a month after it happens. I hate it more than just about anything else as sleep is already a precious commodity. 

The real important things is if it will pass the house as well. I actually have no idea. Getting rid of the time change is widely popular and I am thinking that people would love this, but Congress is always distracted by other things that usually don't matter. And I also don't know if Joe Biden would allow it to pass. Given he penchant for doing exactly the wrong thing in every situation I could see him vetoing it. But if he does allow it to pass I can say "at least he did one good thing in his miserable presidency".

I can't tell you how disappointed I would be if this doesn't become law of the land. I have hated the time change my entire life and to have it not come to pass after this would be devastating. Guy sitting at the electric chair, gets a call from the governor and instead of a pardon he hears the governor say "fry the bastard". It would be horrible. 

I don't have strong opinions on if it should remain standard time or remain daylight savings time. I probably would like daylight savings time more because I am a lot more active in the afternoon and evenings than I am in the morning and it would be nice to have light out. But I would honestly like either if we just got rid of the time change. Hopefully this passes.... 

More bad food news, US wheat crop threatened by drought.

 

File photo of distressed crops in Colby, Kansas. Reuters. 

A drought in the US plains is threatening the winter wheat crop, adding to fears of global food insecurity. Reuters. Many farms in Kansas, which is America's top wheat producing state, have not seen any meaningful rain since October. The drought conditions are also found in Oklahoma and Texas, which are also major wheat producers. The crop was also damaged by a major winter storm that had 100 mph winds and stripped away crop soil. The conditions are not much better than in 2021, where droughts harmed crops. But last year there wasn't the issue of the Russia-Ukraine war and the fact that China is facing the opposite problem with their winter wheat crop, damage due to flooding. 

My Comment:

I have written about the problems caused by the Russia-Ukraine war  and I have also written about the problems China is having as well. To find out that America is having our own problems with failing wheat crops is not reassuring. One of these crisis's alone would be enough to raise food prices but all three at once could be a major issue. We should all hope that these great plains states get the rain they desperately need so the winter crop gets saved. 

A quick note on what winter wheat is. It's just normal wheat that is planted in the late fall-early winter and lies dormant until spring. It is ready to harvest during June or July, depending on where you are in the world. This problem is far off but it is already causing higher prices as people buy up crops in anticipation of higher prices down the road. The good news is that we could see good harvests for spring wheat, planted in March to May, but those crops won't be ready until fall. 

As I mentioned in the previous posts food inflation and shortages is the quickest and most dramatic way to cause revolutions, civil wars and general unrest. When you can't feed your family you start to realize that change is necessary and worth the costs. I am certain that if things get worse there will likely be instability on countries that rely on imports to feed their people. I mentioned Egypt in previous posts but really it's much of Africa and there are other countries outside of Africa that will be affected by this as well. 

Food prices are likely to explode in the near future, and that's even in comparison to what it is now. Wheat is a staple grain used in many foods and if the price for it goes up a lot of things get more expensive. And it will have ripple effects beyond just the price of wheat as people turn to other grains to make up for it. 

And the situation is likely to get even worse. The economic warfare between Russia and the west is likely going to lead to shortages for fertilizer, resulting in even lower crop yields. And that's hardly the only agricultural related thing that both Russia and Ukraine export. If the war ended today and sanctions were eased we might be able to avert this but I just don't see that happening outside of some kind of miracle peace deal. 

With that being said, I still say that Americans won't go hungry. We are still a wealthy country and we are North America's breadbasket. Nobody here is going to starve anytime soon. The problem is that it will add to our already huge economic problems and contribute highly to inflation. Since inflation is already out of control, everyone in this country should be hoping for rain in our plains states. 

In other countries though, this problem could be huge. It's very possible that in the various war zones or in countries with little native food production, people could starve because of a lack of grain. If that happens it will lead to war and suffering. Nothing good comes from this unless a particularly loathsome government is overthrown. 

If America was invaded would you fight or flee?

 

My AR 556. Own photo.

A new poll suggests that 55% of Americans would stay and fight if invaded by a foreign power while 38% said they would flee the country. Fox News. Republicans were more likely to say they would fight (68%) while only fewer Democrats said they would fight (40%). Democrats were more likely to say that they would become refugees (52%) while only 25% of Republicans said they would flee the country. 

My Comment:

I'm fairly surprised that the numbers are this low. America is a well armed country that likes war. You would think that more people would want to stay and fight, just for the sake of honor. It doesn't surprise me that more Republicans would fight than Democrats but still, it's strange that 38% of the country would flee. 

On the other hand, I think that blind patriotism is on the decline, especially on the right. I don't know about other people but I sure would be reluctant to fight and die to protect Joe Biden, of all people. Indeed, if a foreign power invaded there's a decent chance I would pick up my rifle and join them just to see Biden overthrown. It's very clear that the ruling class of this country thinks of me as less than human at best, why would I fight for them? 

But on the other hand, it would depend on the circumstances of the invasion. If there was a second civil war and foreign troops were helping my side of the war, there would be no chance of me fighting them. If they were on the other side, I'd fight them for sure. If it was an war of choice invasion like what is happening in Ukraine? Then I would probably fight. It would also depend on who was doing the invading and how they were behaving. I can't see any circumstance where China invaded and I wasn't fighting against them for no other reason than they are Communist. 

I don't think that I would ever want to flee the country though. I don't think that at my age and skill level I would be an effective combatant but being a refugee does not appeal to me at all. Fleeing the country seems like a cowardly move. Plus, I don't think I would want to live anywhere besides America given how leftwing almost all other governments are. As bad as things are getting here, I would still rather live in a dangerous and violent America than live in Canada or Europe. 

Still, the argument is mostly hypothetical as the United States is extremely unlikely to be invaded anytime soon. America is protected by oceans and the fact that the only two countries to directly border it are pretty weak and strongly allied to us. Mexico and Canada are not much of a threat to us. Plus any seaborn invasion would have to deal with our US Navy, which is more than powerful enough to destroy any invasion. 

I also think that people don't really understand what fighting in an actual war as an insurgent would be like. Even America's veterans don't really know what it is like to fight against a modern military force. The foreign legion in Ukraine is a good advantage of this, those folks found out real quick that there is a huge difference between fighting insurgents in the desert and going up against a modern military. My guess is that any fight against an invading power would result in horrendous casualties among civilian defenders. 

Still, as the Taliban proved, a large untrained force can outlast a determined modern military. They took terrible casualties but it does show that there is a possibility of fighting off an invasion. And I think any invasion would have huge problems given the huge number of weapons in the United States. It's another reason why an invasion is extremely unlikely. 

Is Russia winning or losing the war in Ukraine?

 

By Viewsridge 

As you are probably aware, today is day 17 of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It has been very difficult to find accurate information about the war. Ukraine has been putting out non-stop propaganda while Russia has taken the opposite path, largely releasing no information at all. This makes it very difficult to determine what exactly is happening. Even the maps that I have been using to track the conflict are hard to trust given the massive difference between pro-Ukraine maps, like the one above, and pro-Russian maps, which are pretty hard to even find.

Another timelapse for you, this time from the Readovka maps. pic.twitter.com/UxvG9HtBeU

— Charles Mayne (@CharlesMayne2) March 11, 2022

With such a massive difference between both sides, it's hard to figure out what is real and what isn't. But I think it is clear that Russia's invasion hasn't gone exactly to plan. From what I understand, they thought the war was going to be basically over by March 11th, but that obviously isn't the case, even using the optimistic pro-Russia maps. 

Why have things slowed down? There are a ton of reasons, some obvious, some not. The most obvious is the fact that they invaded Ukraine during "mud season", late winter/early spring. This had made Russia largely incapable of pulling away from the major highways because every time they do they get bogged down in the mud. This was the main reason I thought for sure that Putin wasn't actually going to invade, the timing was terrible. Much better to invade Ukraine during the early Summer, when the ground is dry and hard. 

Another major problem for the Russians is the fact that they don't have much left in terms of precision weapons. This has had a major impact on both the targets they are attacking and how they are doing it. They are having to ration the few smart bombs they have left for critical targets, like the foreign volunteer training base they hit yesterday. Without smart bombs, Russian forces are dependent on low flying jets for air support, which has lead to heavy casualties due to Ukrainian anti-air weapons. 

The Russians have had absolutely huge problems with logistics. Some of that is due to the aforementioned winter issues, but much of it is because Russia kind of sucks at logistics, especially compared to the United States. They are having a terrible time with getting fuel, food and weapons to the front where they are needed. This is Russia's biggest problem and probably the reason why the advance has slowed. 

Though much has been made about US and EU provided anti-tank weapons, I don't think that they are quite as important as people have made them out to be. They aren't going to win the war for Ukrainians, obviously, despite media claims to the contrary. With that being said, the weapons are causing a lot of attrition for Russian armor units, much more than they expected. 

Ukrainian resistance has been more than expected. I think the Russians expected the Ukrainians to lay down their weapons and perhaps even join the Russians. That hasn't happened, and it shouldn't be too surprising. Though the civil war in Ukraine had bled the Ukrainian military dry, it did mean those that survived are hardened veterans. 

With all that being said, I still believe that the Russians will end up winning in the end. They still massively outnumber the Ukrainians and are more able to sustain the level of casualties that they have taken. The Ukrainians are not so lucky. It's important to note that both the Ukrainian Navy and Air Force have been totally destroyed and they have sustained heavy vehicle losses. They still have a ton of infantry and anti-tank and anti-air weaponry, but that's their only advantage. 

And I think it's clear that the Russians have switched tactics. Instead of a lightening fast blitzkrieg they have settled into siege warfare. The Russians now appear to be trying to cut off and isolate Ukraine's major cities. They are then going to deploy their heavy weapons and artillery to utterly destroy those cities, like they did with Grozny back in the day. This will, of course lead to heavy casualties for all involved.

NATO and other western governments seem to know all of this and are setting the stage for a guerilla campaign. Will that happen? I am not sure. I think the Ukrainians hate the Russians enough now to do so, and they have access to weapons, but I am not sure they will do so. And I am not sure that the Russians will actually stick around long enough to have that take an effect. Time will tell if that is the outcome. 

What are the other outcomes of this war besides an insurgency? I don't think a quick Russian victory (by the end of the month) or a total Ukrainian victory are possible at this point. An eventual total Russian victory seems the most likely military solution. The Russians could also win a pyrrhic victory where they accomplish all of their goals but are bled dry in the process. Or they could win in the end but take a very long time to do it. 

But the most likely outcome? I think it's a peace deal. Both the Russians and Ukrainians should both realize that continuing the war is going to do nothing for both of them but cause a ton of casualties and horror. I have seen what Russia is demanding and I don't think it's too bad, just give up Donbass, Crimea and give up on NATO, Ukraine would be foolish to ignore that. Whatever honor they wanted to save has already been satisfied, they should just give negotiation a chance. 

Ballistic missile strike targeting US base in Iraq came from outside of the country.

 

An aerial view of Irbil Iraq. CNBC/AFP.

12 ballistic missiles were launched at US forces in Irbil, Iraq and it is believed that the launch came from Iran. Reuters. There were no US military casualties in the attack. Irbil airport, in the Kurdish ruled region of Iraq, has come under attack by Iranian forces before. Nobody has taken credit for the current attack, but Iran has used Shiite militias to attack US troops in the past. 

#BREAKING: Reports several ballistic missiles hit the US base in Erbil pic.twitter.com/XMTXHDQs76

— Amichai Stein (@AmichaiStein1) March 12, 2022

My Comment:

Though most sources are being cagy about who is responsible for this attack, it's pretty damn obvious that it's Iran. They area the only power in the region that has these ballistic missiles and the only group that has any reason to use them. I am extremely confident that this was an Iranian attack on US forces that thankfully failed. 

People have pointed out that there is a symbolic meaning behind this attack as well. Qasem Soleimani was born on March 11th and I am guessing that this attack was meant as revenge against his death. It failed, obviously, but Iran is still trying to get payback for that incident. They have tried in the past but have failed and they have failed yet again. 

I don't think there is any other motive. Some people have suggested that the strike may have been in response to the breakdown of talks for a new Iran nuclear deal, but that makes little sense. From what I understand it's the Russians that have torpedoed those talks, not the United States. Indeed, Biden has reached out to Iran lately in an effort to find another source for oil after sanctioning the Russians. 

There isn't any word that I have found that there were any civilian or military casualties, which seems pretty surprising, but remember, these missiles are designed for nuclear or chemical loads where accuracy is not as important. Without those kind of warheads, a conventional attack with ballistic missiles tends to be fairly inaccurate. 

Our policy for Iran didn't make sense before and it really does not make sense now. We shouldn't be making deals with a country that is actively shooting at our troops. As much as people are demonizing the Russians, they aren't launching ballistic missiles at us. And I don't want to hear anything about Russia invading Ukraine when Iran is essentially doing the same thing in Yemen. If it's wrong to buy oil from Russia because of Ukraine than surely it's even worse to do so from Iran. 

I also think that nuclear deal is not something we should do. The Iranians have not earned any kind of concessions and they are actively attacking out troops. And though I never believe the Israeli reports that Iran is six months from getting the bomb (it's been that for about 10 years now) I don't think a deal will actually prevent them from making progress on that goal. We will just be screwing ourselves over. 

Iran does appear to be taking advantage of the obvious weakness of our current president. Biden was always going to be a weak president but when he failed at his withdrawal from Afghanistan he sent a clear message to the world that America wasn't capable anymore. Russia figured it out sooner than the rest but it looks like Iran is testing us now as well. 

As for what Biden is going to do, I have no idea. Biden's been fairly predictably making wrong choices so it's possible he will launch strikes. I think that is unlikely though as Biden seems to be pretty pro-Iran in the first place. But I also know that he doesn't appear to be fully in control of his government, after the asinine "Polish MIGS to Ukraine" scandal where the State Department tried to start a war with Russia. It's just another thing to worry about and for about a billionth time since 2021 I have been wishing Donald Trump was still President. 

Jussie Smollett sentenced to 150 days in jail for faking a hate crime.

 

Jussie Smollett at his sentencing hearing. USA Today/AP.

Jussie Smollett, who was convicted of faking a hate crime, has been sentenced to 150 days in jail. USA Today. Smollett will also face  $120,106 in restitution and ordered to pay a $25,000 fine. Smollett claimed he was innocent and that he wasn't suicidal. The judge also dismissed attempts by the defense to overturn the verdict, stating that Smollett had a fair trial. Smollett was convicted with five accounts of felony disorderly conduct for lying to the police about a fake attack where he claimed two white men attacked him because of his race and sexuality. 

My Comment:

I've got mixed feelings on this outcome. On the one hand I am happy that Smollett is serving any time at all. I was half convinced that the judge would have given Smollett a slap on the wrist and let him go with time served. Thankfully he will at least be serving some time in jail. 

But I do think that this sentence is incredibly weak considering what he actually did. Smollett faked a hate crime, tried to blame random white people for it and made racial tensions even worse. If it were up to me he'd face the maximum sentence possible and then some. 150 days in jail is a weak sentence and Smollett deserves more. 

I do think that Smollett should be put on suicide watch given his comments. Smollett's specific denial of being suicidal makes me think he is actually going to do it. He wants to be a martyr so I wouldn't be surprised if he kills himself. In his mind it would save his reputation as he now has a built in conspiracy theory about what happened to him after his self inflicted death. 

I also think that Smollett continues to not understand that he is not anywhere near as important as he thinks he is. He honestly thought that the average Trump supporter knew who he was and cared about him enough that faking an attack on himself was in anyway plausible. Indeed, I had never heard of Smollett before he faked his attack or of his show, Empire. The idea that someone would think he was important enough to kill him in prison is stupid. 

Of course, I don't think Smollett is very smart at all. After all, he honestly thought that he could claim that a couple of white Trump supporters would be in Chicago in the middle of the night during one of the coldest days of the year without anyone questioning it. He also somehow thinks that people still have any sympathy for him at all. 

Though I am glad that Smollett is going to face some punishment, I am still angry that many of the people that supported him are getting off the hook. People like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris repeated Smollett's lies uncritically. To date these people have not taken back their statements backing Smollett.  

Did America have biowarfare labs in Ukraine?

 

Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. Reuters. 

The United States has rejected claims that they had bioweapons research labs in Ukraine. Reuters. The US government dismissed the claims, which were raised by Russia. Russia claims that they captured documents that showed Ukraine was destroying samples of plague, anthrax, cholera and other pathogens. The US denies these allegations but Ukraine did have biolabs in the country that was receiving assistance from the United States. The US has accused Russia of brining up the issue as a prelude to a chemical weapons attack, despite chemical and biological weapons being two different things. 

My Comment:

The US Government denials here are really a matter of semantics. The truth of the matter is that there is little difference than a biowarfare lab and legitimate research lab if they are working with deadly pathogens. Developing a bioweapon isn't that different than trying to stop a bioweapon. The technology is basically the same. 

That being said, I don't believe that these labs were actually producing bioweapons. My guess is that the labs are for peaceful purposes. Not that bioweapons being illegal stops anything but I doubt any weapons research would be in Ukraine of all places. The country was unstable and had a high chance of this exact scenario happening. 

Besides, if America was going to outsource their bioweapons research, they would just do it with China instead. We already know they did that with Coronavirus research in the Wuhan labs. Those labs have been confirmed to be doing gain of function research and it's likely that the Coronavirus pandemic was caused by a lab leak from one of those labs. 

Of course even peaceful research was a major issue in a war zone. If these labs are damaged or destroyed it could lead to another pandemic. I sincerely hope that all the pathogens in these labs were destroyed before hand. We honestly got lucky with the Coronavirus, there could be much worse viruses in these labs that could escape.

As for the possibility of a chemical attack, it just seems like an obvious case of misdirection. Though I don't think there was any actual bioweapons being developed in these labs, as I have said peaceful research and weapons research isn't that different in the first place. The Russians have a point even if they aren't telling the truth either. And again, chemical and biological weapons are two totally different things so the entire argument is a non-sequitur. 

But an actual chemical weapons attack? I think it's unlikely. I don't think Russia cares about public opinion that much but I don't think anyone would defend them, even their allies in China, Belarus and the Middle East, would still support them if they launched a major chemical weapons attack. Indeed, it could be considered a casus belli for a new war between Russia and NATO. 

And I also don't think that it would actually help them win the war. Keep in mind the Russians are doing a lot better than the Western media is portraying it. They are already winning so why take on the risks of using chemical weapons? 

No CNN, I am not OK with higher gas prices to hold Russia "Accountable".

 

WATCH: CNN reporter says Americans are "OK paying higher [gas] prices if it means holding Russia accountable for what they are doing in Ukraine." pic.twitter.com/INb2ZmbwJD

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) March 9, 2022

This is going to be a short post but I couldn't disagree more strongly. Given, it's CNN, but this is a bad take even for them. I personally am already looking at my budget to see what I can cut if prices get any worse than they already are and not seeing too much I can cut. I filled up my gas tank last night and I spent almost $50, with the caveat that my tank was still 1/4 full. And I know that I am in better position than most since I have been saving for a house and have a decent savings account built up. 

And I have zero interest in bankrupting the Russian people. I'm not happy with Putin's actions and think he made a mistake in invading Ukraine, but that doesn't mean that everyone of Russian descent should suffer. Fuel sanctions won't do a damn thing to Putin but it will damage innocent civilians both here and in Russia. 

I have yet to see much in the way of polling when it comes to this issue. I think I saw that people did support not buying fuel from Russia, but the problem with asking that question is that like most polling regarding the war in Ukraine they leave out the possible consequences for the action. Just like people might support a no-fly zone if they don't know that it could lead to nuclear war, people might support not buying Russian fuel if it probably means $5 a gallon gas, increasing inflation and leading into a 2nd great depression. 

Joe Biden bans oil and gas imports from Russia...

 

Joe Biden makes the announcement. New York Post

Joe Biden has banned oil and gas imports from Russia. New York Post. Biden framed it as an effort to damage the economy of Russia, which is heavily based on energy. Biden had faced bipartisan criticism for continuing to buy Russian oil after the invasion of Ukraine. However, he had been reluctant to do so due to the fact that it will increase gas prices. In 2021 Russia accounted for 8% of America's oil imports, though that number is probably smaller now as firms have been avoiding using Russian oil due to fears of a ban. The ban will cause oil and gasoline prices with conservative estimates being oil at $150 a barrel with Russia saying oil prices could raise to $300 or more. 

My Comment:

This is a terrible move from Joe Biden's White House. I admit that it was hypocritical to keep buying oil from Russia but at the same time, it makes zero economic sense. It is going to cause massive spikes in oil and gas prices at a time when they are already at a record levels. It's the wrong move. 

Despite that, I don't put this entirely on Biden. There were a lot of people on both the right and left that were calling for this. Those people are fools and in a just world they would be voted out of office as this is going to be devastating to the middle class and rural Americans. 

Why? Because there is only so much driving you can cut. You can skip driving to your buddy's house but you can't stop driving to work or to the grocery store. Americans are dependent on their cars and if you take that away from them with these massive price spikes things start to fall apart.

The other problems is that pretty much every product that people buy is transported by trucks and trucks run on gasoline. Increasing gas prices means that every single physical thing that people buy will go up in price. Given that inflation is already out of control, largely because of Biden's policies, it's going to lead to an economic collapse. People are going to have to change their spending habits and that means that our economy is going to fail. 

What is infuriating about this is there isn't a plan for getting oil from other sources. Biden has been sniffing around other despotic countries, like Venezuela and Iran, but has failed to secure a new source of oil. He's tried talking to Saudi Arabia and the UAE but they won't take his calls, probably because of the aforementioned Iran contacts. 

Worst of all is the fact that Biden absolutely refuses to allow new drilling in the United States. The US has huge energy reserves but we aren't allowed to exploit them, thanks to the left and people like Biden. We were an net energy exporter under President Trump but that's all gone now. 

I also have to say that it's hugely hypocritical to ban imports from Russia when Biden is trying to get gas from other countries that are as bad as Russia or even worse. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran are responsible for Yemen, which is at least as bad as Ukraine and probably worse given how many people have died there. At least Ukraine will likely end eventually, the Yemen conflict has lasted forever and doesn't look like it will end anytime soon. And Venezuela? Even if it was viable (and it's not due to neglect) it's hard to argue that Venezuela's people aren't worse off than Russians. 

The worst part of this is that I doubt it will hurt Russia that much and even if it does they don't care. Putin is not motivated by profit, he's a Russian patriot and wants to secure his country for their future and his own legacy. And it's not like others won't be buying his fuel, Europe pretty much has to unless they want to kill their economy dead even more so than they have already. And China would love to have a nice gas deal with Russia. And given the higher prices they will probably actually make more money because of this, not less. 

So in short, Biden is destroying our economy for little reason. Ukraine won't be helped by higher gas prices in anyway, nothing short of open warfare will help them now and that is thankfully off the table. It makes me wonder if the great reset conspiracy theory is real, tear down the economy and replace it with something else. But the other possibility is that Biden just hates American's middle class and rural citizens and wants to punish them... 

More confirmation of a food crisis? China says winter wheat crop could be the worst in history.

 

File photo of a worker harvesting grain. Reuters. 

China says that their winter wheat crop could be the worst in history, raising fears of a greater food crisis. Reuters. Heavy rainfall caused late planting for up to 1/3rd of normal wheat crops which lead to 20% of the the wheat crops to be of a lower grade. The bad news comes on fears of a global food crisis caused by the war between Russia and Ukraine, which together account for 29% of wheat exports. The prices of wheat has skyrocketed due to the war. China will attempt to fix the problem by trying to get a bumper harvest of summer crops to make up for wheat shortfalls. They will also try to calm pork prices, after their massive herds were damaged due to an African Swine Fever outbreak. 

My Comment:

This is actually terrible news and news that should be getting more coverage than it is. China is a huge country and they will need to feed their people. They also have a long history of starvation and are more sensitive to the issue than most western countries. 

I'm not worried about starvation in China. They have the cash reserves to buy up all the wheat they need. What I am worried about is that the increased demand for wheat caused by this bad harvest will cause prices to get even worse. That could lead to other countries having major problems with being able to afford feeding their people. I wrote last week that Egypt is one of the countries that are especially vulnerable to high food prices. 

This is going to hurt everyone though, regardless of where the crops fail. High food prices are bad for everyone. High prices were a large factor in the Arab Spring and the world is still trying to recover from that. And even if it doesn't lead to more instability, war and violence, the economic damage is going to be huge. 

There are some ways this could be avoided. The most obvious is ending the war in Ukraine and lifting sanctions against Russia. Both things would ensure that exports from both countries aren't disrupted long term. The longer the war goes on the worse the food situation gets. If Russia wins the war quickly or a peace deal is made things should be fine. If the war leads to a stalemate or a long term insurgency happens than food prices are going to explode even worse than it has already. 

I almost wonder if it's time to start asking people in America to start "victory gardens" like they did in World War II. Having people grow some of their own food could reduce the prices by reducing demand. The impact would be small but it would help. And if I was in an especially vulnerable country like Egypt, you bet I would be trying to grow whatever food I could...