Russia is about to take the critical Ukrainian city of Severodonetsk

 

A destroyed building in Ukraine. AP.

Russia is about to take the critical Ukrainian city of Servodonetsk, with the mayor of the city saying at least half has already fallen. AP. Russia has switched tactics from the initial stages of the war and has focused more on devastating artillery strikes. This has allowed them advance quickly in the city, which is one of the last remaining Ukrainian outposts in Luhansk province. The Russians are trying to take the area before more US weapons arrive, including a medium range rocket system that Biden had initially refused to send. Most civilians have evacuated Servodonestk and their remain routes out of the city for Ukrainian forces. When Russia takes Servodonetsk they will likely target the sister city of Lysychansk, which lies to the west of the city. 

My Comment:

The writing is on the wall for Servodonestk, the Russians are very close to taking the city entirely. This will be a major victory for them as if they take this city as well as Lysychansk, which is already being destroyed by artillery, they will have captured all of Luhansk province, which is a major war goal for them. 

It's not all good news for Russia though. They had an opportunity to cut off both cities by surrounding them from the west. That offensive has largely sputtered out with the danger of all those Ukrainian forces being cut off mostly passed. 

I don't think Russia is under too much pressure from US weapons. They have had some success in destroying weapons shipments and it's largely status quo ante. Their tactics have changed quite a bit to better counter US anti-tank weapons. The Russians took massive tank losses to US Javelins which were launched from the tops of high rises during the early stage of the war. Those anti-tank launchers are not very relevant when their users are destroyed by artillery and tanks are being used at much.  

I do have to say that I am sick of Biden's flip flopping on Ukraine. First he said he won't be giving Ukraine any MLRS systems but today he said he will. To be fair it's not a long range system but it could potentially be used to strike targets in Russia, which the Russians will obviously have a problem with. I also don't think that these weapons will do much to help Ukraine as they likely be in too small numbers to make a difference and will be a priority target for Russian airstrikes. 

Plus, it certainly won't matter for Servodonetsk and it probably won't matter for Lysychansk either. Russia has found tactics that work for them now and their advances have been quicker. Servodonetsk has basically fallen already while Lysychansk will be the next to fall. These launchers won't be there for weeks and even then the Ukrainians will have to be trained on the weapons. 

As for the greater war itself I do think that the war has progressed from the stalemate and Russian retreat that defined the early stage of the war. The Russians have found tactics that work and have managed to largely accomplish their goal in taking Donbass. The real question will be what happens afterwards. I don't think it's likely or even possible that Russia will take the entire country but I hope that both sides will realize that at that point the war should just end.  

Canada will attempt to ban sales of all handguns.

 

Justin Trudeau makes the announcement. Reuters. 

Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has proposed a bill that would ban the sale of all handguns in his country. Reuters. The bill, if passed, would take effect immediately and the Canadian government has already bypassed regulatory amendments. The bill would also ban standard capacity magazine, limiting them to five rounds, and would ban anyone with a domestic abuse charge or stalking charge from owning a firearm. Trudeau also falsely claimed that there was no reason for anyone in Canada to own a firearm outside of hunting and sport shooting. 

My Comment:

In a sane world the US president would be sanctioning the hell out of Canada for this and other abuses of their citizens. It was not long ago that they were freezing the bank accounts of peaceful protesters and now they are banning handguns. Instead we have a president that looks to our evil foes to the north and thinks that they are a good example to follow. 

As you can see I am totally opposed to this bill, which would eliminate the right to self defense in Canada, as tenuous as that is already. Trudeau didn't even mention the act that guns are used for self defense and I can only conclude that he believes that the average Canadian life is totally worthless. He would have his people suffer under criminals that won't follow his stupid laws in the first place with no recourse to defend themselves. 

I think this bill will pass, the Canadian government has proven once and again that they have zero regard for the rights of people there. Even the opposition party has zero backbone and will roll over for Trudeau just like when they did when the assault weapon ban happened or Trudeau went after the trucker protest. 

I do think it is telling that the Canadians have not said they will confiscate handguns. They probably realize that doing so is totally impossible. But by banning further sales they think they can lower the number of handguns. This is incredibly foolish because they have a huge undefended border with the United States. It will be trivial for people to smuggle in firearms and personally I would consider it a moral thing to do. 

What is shocking to me is that this evil legislation was proposed in response to an American shooting. Texas is thousands of miles away from Canada and what happens there is totally irrelevant to most Canadians. Indeed, it's largely irrelevant to me in Wisconsin. Why should Canadians lose their rights because someone in Texas did something evil? It makes zero sense. 

Canada does not have the crime and violence problem that the United States has and that has nothing to do with their gun laws. The people there are less violent period.  Their last major mass shooting, to put it into internet terms, glows, but other than that they are mostly peaceful. It makes no sense to crack down on guns, other than the fact that Trudeau will allow no possibility of dissent against him...

Joe Biden suggests banning 9mm firearms, which are the most common defensive firearms in the country.

 

Joe Biden made the remarks after returning to the White House. Fox News/AP.

Joe Biden suggested banning 9mm firearms, which are the most common defensive firearms in the United States. Fox News. Biden falsely claimed that 9mm bullets would blow a person's lungs outside of the body and said that "high caliber" weapons have no purpose. He also repeated a false claim that people could not buy cannons during the time of the founding fathers. Biden did say that he did not have the power to ban 9mm on his own.

"The 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body." - President Joe Biden

Will the fact checkers be flagging his comment as misinformation? pic.twitter.com/fFPPf7Cv44

— David Hookstead (@dhookstead) May 30, 2022

 

My Comment:

Time will tell if this was another senior moment for Biden or an actual demonstration of how ignorant Biden is when it comes to firearms. The 9mm round is not anywhere near as powerful as Joe Biden describes here, and even .223/5.56 does not have the power to "blow someone's lung outside of their bodies". 

You know what can do that? My .30 caliber rifles. My .308 Remington is a deer rife and it totally could blow someone's lung outside of their body. So can my World War II era Lee Enfield. But Biden thinks 9mm can do the same thing? The same 9mm that cops in the 90's thought was underpowered so they switched to .40 caliber (which had its own problems to be sure)? Does this mean that Biden wants to ban hunting rifles as well? 

Generally speaking people think that the 9mm round is underpowered for self defense. Unless you hit the head, lungs, heart or spine the person is probably not going to die and could continue to attack you. And generally speaking if you are hit by a 9mm round anywhere but those places, and sometimes even then, you will survive if you get medical treatment. Generally speaking most gun people say that you need hollowpoint ammo in order for 9mm to be an effective defensive round. 

But in Biden's eyes he thinks that 9mm is blowing huge chunks out of people like it was .50 BMG. You could chalk this up to utter ignorance on Biden's part. After all he has demonstrated that he doesn't even have the least bit of knowledge about firearms. Some if it is mostly harmless, like claiming that a deer rifle is less powerful than a AR-15 or saying that you couldn't buy a cannon back in the day (you can buy one now if you are rich enough). But some of it is outright dangerous like when he said you should blindly shoot a double barrel shotgun into the air if you are confronted by a home intruder, a move that would end with you in prison at best and dead at worst. 

What is insane to me is that someone so ignorant is commenting on guns at all. There is a real chance that Biden thinks my 9mm pistol is more powerful than my AR-15 and has the same power as my deer rifle and will propose legislation regarding it. It makes no sense and you would have at least thought that in the mans lifetime political career, where guns have come up multiple times, that he would have at least some knowledge of firearms. 

With that being said, even if Biden does want a 9mm ban it's not going to happen. Indeed, I don't see an AR-15 ban or any other ban happening with this current congress and with the Supreme Court ready to swoop in even if it did happen. There is no way that Congress would ever ban the most popular pistol round in the country and if they did the consequences would be to dire to even consider. 

It's just extremely frustrating to have to continuously debate gun rights with people who don't even have the most basic knowledge of firearms. These people want to regulate something they haven't bothered to understand and it shows. And it's not like the information isn't out there, there are hundreds of websites that explain firearms and every gun owner is more than willing to explain every aspect of firearms. It is how I learned and it was not difficult at all. 

Border patrol agents that put down Uvalde shooter entered the school against local police orders.

 

The National Review. 

The Border Patrol agents that put down the Uvalde shooter entered the school against local police orders. National Review. The Border Patrol's tactical team, BORTAC, and the US Customs and Immigration HSI team arrived and were ordered to stand down. The HSI agents helped evacuate children from the school while the BORTAC agents waited for 30 minutes. At that point they entered the school and were able to engage and kill the shooter. Police have come under intense criticism for their response to the shooting that left 21 people dead. 

Meanwhile, the US Justice Department has announced that they will investigate the police response to the killing. Politico. The review will force an accounting for the major delay in police response and why it fell to the Border Patrol to end the shooting. 

My Comment:

I don't have too much to say here other than the scale of incompetence here is baffling. Why would the local cops force the BORTAC unit to wait for 30 minutes. Why didn't they go in before hand? Why did they use the HSI tactical team as glorified babysitters instead of using them to take down the shooter? I am thankful that the BORTAC guys eventually said "screw this" and went in and ended this situation. 

The level of incompetence here is almost beyond comprehension to the point where people are reasonably questioning if it was incompetence at all. At some point the question has to be asked was this allowed to happen on purpose? I don't think that is what happened here but it is an explanation that makes more sense than the incompetence. 

I am glad that the Justice Department is investigating this, though I doubt that they will have much of an effect. The Justice Department doesn't have too much in the way of credibility these days and I don't know if they find anything out they will share it with the general public. 

I do know that the Uvalde Police didn't follow even the most basic rules for stopping a mass shooting. The most important thing is to confront the shooter as soon as possible. Even worse they lied about doing so, saying the community police officer was there and engaged the shooter, even though that never happened. 

The Democrats are still trying to push gun control, but this appears to have been a failure of everything but gun laws. The attacker followed gun laws and was able to purchase his weapons legally (though I do wonder how he afforded it). But the most basic anti-shooter rules were not followed. The attacker was able to enter the school because someone left open a door that should have been secured, especially after the shooting started. And then the cops totally failed. Had both of those things not been true instead of 21 people being dead, perhaps nobody would have been. 

Woman armed with a legal handgun put down a potential mass shooter who was shooting an AR-15 into a crowd in West Virginia.

 

The scene of the incident. ABC6/WCHS.

A woman armed with a legal handgun shot and killed a man armed with a AR-15 who was shooting into a crowd at a party in West Virginia. ABC6. A 37 year old man named Dennis Butler was the man who was killed. Police say that someone had confronted Butler about speeding in an area where children are present and then he returned with the AR-15 and opened fire, putting dozens of people at risk. But a legal gun owner returned fire and shot and killed Butler. Butler had an extensive criminal history and it is not known how he obtained his rifle. No charges will be filed against the woman. 

My Comment:

This story is largely being ignored by the mainstream media. There is an Associated Press piece that a few outlets have picked up, but the article is fairly barebones. I had to go to local media to get a more in depth view of the story. 

It's another example of a good guy (or gal in this case) with a gun putting down a potential mass shooter. It's also an example of how badly mass shootings are covered. This will never be recorded as one as the shooter was shot and killed before he even injured someone.

 Incidents like this rarely get the media coverage they deserve and it's a shame. Why? Because knowing that they could be popped before they even injure someone could function as a good deterrence to mass shooters. Most mass shooters want fame and infamy but don't want to be made a fool off and even by their standards there is nothing more pathetic than a person who planned a mass casualty event but gets wasted by someone with a CCW.  

It also puts the actions of the police in the Uvalde shooting in perspective. They appeared to be unable to confront a mass shooter armed with an AR while they had AR's and shotguns themselves. However, this woman was armed with nothing more than a pistol and was able to put this shooter down. Had she waited for police a lot of people could have been killed. 

It seems the attacker in this case was a total scumbag that was willing to kill people just because someone told him off for reckless driving. It does not sound at all like this was a planned mass shooting, just a spur of a moment thing. I also don't know if Butler had his weapon illegally or legally, but it sounds like he had an extensive criminal record. I am guessing he had it illegally because if he was convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors, he would not have been able to purchase a rifle legally. 

Regardless, the woman who shot this man was a hero and should be praised for her actions. Her bravery is a good example for the rest of us and a strong argument of why people should carry a concealed weapon. Even something as simple as a graduation party can turn dangerous if there isn't anyone there willing to stop a potential killer. 

Why did it take so long for police to engage the Uvalde school shooter?

 

A mourner at a memorial for the victims in the attack. AP. 

Police took 90 minutes to put down the attacker in the Uvalde school shooting, raising questions about the response. AP. Disturbing video showed parents begging police to engage the shooter. The shooter had crashed his truck and was shooting outside the school for 12 minutes before entering the school. Early reports said that school police officer engaged the attacker but those reports were false. Police arrived about when the attacker entered the school but did not engage him for 4 additional minutes and then fled when the shooter opened fire on them. No other officers attempted to engage the shooter until a Border Patrol SWAT team arrived nearly an hour later. The Border Patrol team was delayed due to a locked door and had to wait until someone brought a key. 

My Comment:

I know I am breaking my long standing personal rule to not cover mass shootings on this blog unless there is something very important to discuss. The police response to this shooting is that exception. I still don't like covering this incident as I have long believed that the main reason that these shootings cluster up the way they do is because of media coverage. This post is not about the shooter and I have no desire to name him or speculate on his motives. 

But the police response here seems baffling. Even ignoring the rest of the coverage I have seen and relying only on the AP article, the attack here was preventable. First of all, how on earth did the attacker manage to get into the school in the first place? He was outside shooting for 12 minutes and nobody thought to lock the doors? Why was the door open in the first place?

The video is damning. The police are spending more time with the parents than they are confronting the shooter. Indeed, they cuff one of them for simply wanting to rescue their child. I can understand regrouping and maybe even waiting for tactical equipment, but in the video I saw the cops were well armed and should have been prepared to enter the building. 

I don't understand why they would wait for an entire hour. The suspect was contained for the moment but there were still kids in that school that could have been rescued. Taking him out should have been the number one priority but instead the cops were dealing with the crowd. 

This goes against everything we know about mass shooters. The most important thing is to confront the shooter as fast as possible. Many times when you do so the shooter will flee or kill himself. That didn't happen this time, but if the police had been more aggressive they could have put the shooter down and saved some lives. 

They failed to do so and because of that 21 people died, 19 of them children. At least some of those people would have been saved if they police had been more aggressive. If the shooter was busy shooting it out with the police he wouldn't have been able to shoot children. And if he was killed quicker it's possible that some of the wounded victims could have been saved instead of bleeding out for 90 minutes. 

The sad thing is that we know that rushing the attacker is the right thing to do because the last major school shooting, the Parkland Shooting, was made way worse by the fact that the police failed to confront the shooter. This was hard earned experience and it is insane to me that the police in Uvalde did not learn the lesson from that and other shootings. 

This is going to of course lead to conspiracy theories that this shooting was allowed to happen on purpose. I don't know if I buy that but there needs to be an explanation here why the response time was so bad. Incompetence is a much better explanation over some dark plot, but considering the fact that the shooter was supposedly known to law enforcement and the massive gun control push that happened right after, it's not surprising that people think that this was allowed to happen on purpose. 

I do think that this does hurt the gun control case that we should rely on police to protect ourselves and our children. Police don't always respond well to these kinds of attacks and if the teachers had been armed they might have had a better outcome. And had the parents of these children been armed they might have been able to rush the attacker a lot quicker. It might not have worked but at the very least they would have distracted the shooter, perhaps saving lives of children. 

We absolutely need to figure out why the police failed here. I know bashing the police is a major problem right now, but even defenders of cops are scratching their heads at this one. Mass shootings and other high casualty attacks are not going away any time soon and the only thing we can really do about it is deal with it when it happens. If police aren't up to that task we need to start looking at better alternatives. 

Russia is close to a breakthrough in Donbass.

 

Pro-Russian militia drive a tank in Donetsk. Reuters. 

Russia is close to a breakthrough in Donbass and is close to encircling the cities of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk. Reuters. If Russia manages to take the cities they will control the entire Luhansk region. The Russians taking all of Luhansk would be a major war goal accomplished. The Ukrainians have admitted Russian success in the region and fear they will take heavy casualties. A Russian success in the region could possibly increase pressure on Ukraine for a diplomatic solution to the war. 

A map showing the current situation. Red is Russia while Yellow is Ukraine. 

My Comment:

I haven't been following the Ukraine war that closely but this looks like a major change in status quo. If the Russians win here they will have accomplished a major war goal. All of Luhansk would be under their control and they probably wouldn't lose it again. 

The breakout might be the easy part though. Taking the major cities will not be an easy task. It took Russia weeks to take Mariupol proper and then even longer to take the steal plant in the outskirts of the town. It would be brutal urban fighting and could cause quite a few casualties. 

Either way though cutting off those two cities would be a major blow to the Ukrainian forces, who are already reeling from the loss of Mariupol. They lost a huge number of their best fighters in the battle there and they can't afford to lose even more. 

If I were the Ukrainians I would be pulling troops out of those two cities and evacuating the civilians. I don't think they can hold onto the cities, let alone keep it from being enveloped. If they pull troops out now they will be able keep most of those troops intact, but I don't know if they will do so. The Ukrainians have not been too keen on pulling back from their territory even when it makes sense to do so. 

It's unclear if the Russians are winning the war. They do appear to have some success in the south, including the major victory in Mariupol. But it's also clear that they have had to pull back quite a bit in the north. They failed to take Kiev and have largely pulled out of most of Ukraine outside of Donbass and the coast. 

I do think that the Russians are doing well in the economic war with the west though. The Ruble has largely recovered and they are surviving western sanctions. Indeed, those sanctions appear to be doing more harm to the west then it is doing to Russia. 

The Russians have totally lost the propaganda war outside of their borders though. It's pretty much impossible to find a pro-Russia perspective while it's also hard to find a anti-Ukraine perspective in the west. Indeed, it's risky for me to write this neutral perspective where I am analyzing the facts on the ground instead of condemning Russia. I'm on the record of not being a fan of either side, but that might not be good enough. 

Still, I think there is going to be more pressure on Ukraine to try and make some deal. If they give the Russians what they want they can save some face and military units. I don't think anyone would argue that they didn't fight hard enough. I sincerely don't think they will win at this point unless this offensive stalls out, and even then I don't see them taking back what they lost. Their best case appears to be a stalemate and that won't accomplish anything. 

I think other people are realizing that. Zelenskyy said the other day that the war will probably end with a negotiated settlement. And Henry Kissinger (how is he still alive?) said that Ukraine would probably have to give up territory. I think people are starting to realize that ending the war might be a good thing for everyone involved. 

    

ISIS terror plot targeting former President George Bush foiled.

 

Former President George Bush. NBC News/AFP.

An ISIS terror plot targeting former President George Bush has been foiled, according to the FBI. NBC News. An Iraqi citizen named Shihab Ahmed Shihab was arrested for a plot that would have illegally brought in ISIS terrorists' to attempt to assassinate the former President. The FBI had been alerted to Shihab during an immigration investigation where they suspected Shihab was committing immigration fraud. Shihab claimed to have links to ISIS and wanted $5000 to bring in four terrorists originally from Iraq from an FBI informant. He also went as far to surveil Bush. 

My Comment:

I've got mixed feelings about this. I do think that Shihab was serious about his attempt to assassinate George Bush and could have actually posed a threat to him if he had been even a little bit competent about this. The direct links to ISIS and their financial minister is very concerning. 

On the other hand, this seems like another case of the FBI taking advantage of an idiot to entrap him into committing a crime. Would this man have actually tried to do anything if the FBI wasn't goading him on? I don't know. I know in many cases the FBI really does get people that would otherwise never be criminals to attempt terror attacks. 

Of course, I don't think this man should have been in the country in the first place. We have no reason to bring Iraqis into this country and we obviously aren't vetting them well enough. At the very least he should have been deported when he was suspected of immigration fraud. 

Keep in mind Shihab was trying to use our porous border and generous refugee system to bring terrorists into the country. He failed, but largely because he was too stupid to keep his mouth shut. If he had been smarter about it he probably could have accomplished his goal. 

However, I am not sure if his attack would have worked in the first place. Former presidents have strong amounts of security from the Secret Service and I am guessing any attack on George Bush would have ended with the attackers dead and Bush being fine. I know there have been major attacks on politicians before but Bush knows that he is a major target and has good security. 

ISIS has largely faded from the news but I do think that they are making a bit of a comeback. The fact that they have had any involvement in this plot at all means that their reach is bigger than they were since they lost most of their territory. They haven't done much lately but I do think that they could have a resurgence, given how distracted the military and intelligence communities are right now. 

If they had managed to assassinate George Bush it would have been a coup for them. Islamic terrorists hate Bush and killing him would bring them a huge amount of credibility, funding and recruits. Though I don't think the plot had much of a chance to succeed I am glad that it failed.

Joe Biden claims, again, that he would go to war with China over Taiwan, White House walks back remarks, again.

 

Joe Biden in Japan. New York Post/AP.

Joe Biden claims that he would go to war with China over Taiwan, though the White House walked back his remarks. New York Post. Biden was at a press conference in Japan when he made the remarks after being asked if he would defend Taiwan if they were attacked by China. The White House then walked back the remarks saying that US policy towards Taiwan had not changed. The United States is not obligated to defend Taiwan by treat but it is obligated to allow Taiwan to defend itself. This is the third time that Biden has made similar comments and the third time the White House has walked back the remarks. China was predictably furious with the remarks since they consider Taiwan to be a breakaway province. 

My Comment:
One time is a mistake, twice is suspicious and three times is enemy action. At least that is what the Chinese are thinking here. They don't have a choice, they have to take the president's words seriously, even if they are immediately walked back. 

Do I think that this was a serious statement or Biden just putting his foot in his mouth again? It's hard to tell. If it was anyone else I would say that this for sure is a change in US policy. But Biden always had trouble with putting his feet in his mouth and that was even before his encroaching senility. 

But honestly? It doesn't matter. China has to take this seriously either way. They will have to respond now as I can't see them writing this off. They are planning on taking back Taiwan and now they will simply have to have plans to destroy our fleets or even consider launching a preemptive nuclear strike. They probably consider Taiwan to be worth it. 

I do think there is a case to be made for defending Taiwan. Unlike Ukraine, for example, Taiwan is a decent ally and are a critical strategic asset. They are a major trade partner and manufacture a lot of components for our defense weapons. Plus, China is our biggest geopolitical ally. 

However this is a decision that needs to be discussed, not just blurted out at a press conference. There are huge downsides to pledging to defend Taiwan, the most obvious being that China can punish us for even thinking about that. They our are biggest trade partner and what they produce is not easily replaced. Plus they are a major military threat at a time when our weapons stockpiles have been foolishly expended in Ukraine. 

And a war with China is probably even more risky than a war with Russia. Though Russia has more nukes they do not have anywhere near the economic power that China does. And any war between the United States and China would cripple both countries economically, even if the war remains conventional. 

A major problem with Joe Biden is we never know where we stand with him. I honestly don't know what his Taiwan policy is because he has contradicted himself three times now. If the man had been vetted in anyway and foreign policy had come up once during the 2020 election we would know better if this was a serious change in US policy or another example of Biden having a senior moment. Of course if he had been vetted in anyway he would not be in the White House today... 

The next medical panic? Joe Biden says monkeypox is concerning...

 

Joe Biden made the comments in South Korea. New York Post/AP.

Joe Biden has said that the spread of monkeypox, a disease related to smallpox, is something to be concerned about. New York Post. Biden said he hadn't been told the level of exposure of the disease. He also did not seem to realize that we had effective vaccines against monkeypox, including the original smallpox vaccine. There have only been 92 cases of the disease globally since the outbreak started. The virus is related to smallpox but is dramatically less dangerous, though people can occasionally die from it. 

My Comment:

I've been rolling my eyes at this outbreak since it began. I am not scared of monkeypox. Original smallpox? Sure, that was a scary disease. But monkeypox is for the most part not. There is a more dangerous strain that kills up to 10% of infected, but this strain is not the same one. It appears to be the dramatically less virulent strain which kills less than 1% of infected. 

Monkeypox also does not spread anywhere near as much as the Coronavirus, though it can spread if someone sneezes in your face or something. Most of the time the virus spreads through contact with body fluids, so unless you are in close contact with someone who is infected you are not likely to catch the virus. 

In short, this virus is something that spreads closer to the Ebola virus but without anywhere near the lethality. And there are other factors against the virus as well. As I mentioned before the smallpox vaccine offers quite a bit of protection from this closely related virus. Given that most older adults and anyone who has been in the military have been vaccinated for smallpox, there is not a huge number of people that are even vulnerable to the virus. Plus, a specific monkeypox vaccine is in development. 

So why the big hype for this disease? I think the media is looking for something to get people to panic about. Obviously, nobody cares about the coronavirus anymore and even the Ukraine war is fading into the background. Elon Musk buying twitter didn't work and neither did Roe vs Wade. If people aren't distracted they will be paying more attention to how horrible everything is going now. 

With that being said, I don't believe many of the conspiracy theories about the virus. I don't think, for example, that this is just people reacting to the coronavirus vaccines (as it would be dramatically more widespread if the case). I also don't know if this is a lab leak or not, though it is certainly possible. I do think that the virus may be used to justify vote by mail. 

Is Joe Biden really worried about this? I am not even sure that he's that aware that it is going on. His words contradicted his own National Security Advisor about vaccine availability. Plus we all know that Biden is mostly a puppet. 

I do think that Biden's health team is worried about this. But these are the same people that said that we all had to wear masks and that the coronavirus was going to kill us all. They are prone to thinking the absolute worst case scenario is bound to happen even when it almost never does. 

But for me personally, I think this story is mostly a joke. Monkeypox is not a virus I want to get, but I am not afraid of it, just like I am not afraid of coronavirus. It's not even as dangerous as the coronavirus because it doesn't spread as easily. The chances of it becoming a global pandemic the way the coronavirus did are basically nil.   

Russia claims to have destroyed a shipment of US and European arms in Ukraine.

 

Damage done by the missile strikes. Newsweek. 

Russia has claimed that a US and European supplied shipment of weapons has been destroyed in missile strikes in Ukraine. Newsweek. The Russians say they launched ship-based Kaliber missiles to destroy the shipment which was located at a train station in the Zhytomyr region. The Russians also claimed that airstrikes hit fuel storage facilities and command posts near Odessa. Though the claims have not been verified, it comes as Russia has stepped up efforts to destroy western weapon shipments before they can be deployed. It also comes after the US Congress authorized another $40 billion in aid to Ukraine. 

My Comment:

As with all claims in this war, the damage assessment from this strike should be taken with a huge grain of salt. To be fair, any Ukrainian or Western counterclaims should be treated with at least, if not more, skepticism. However, the argument over if this particular shipment of weapons was destroyed or not is less important than the implications of the story. 

In short, this is a pretty obvious move by the Russians and I am surprised it hasn't come sooner. These weapons shipments should have been priority targets from the start. The stinger and javelin missiles have done massive damage to the Russians air and tank forces. And if Ukraine wasn't getting these supplies the war probably would have been over by now with a major Russian victory. 

If the Russians can destroy many of these shipments before they reach the front lines then they can greatly reduce casualties. Ukraine is burning through their supplies at an unbelievable and unsustainable rate and if the Russians can keep them from being resupplied they will regain the advantage. 

It would also cause the United States and Europe to lose a large amount of face. After all, we just sent $40 billion is support to Ukraine, on top of all the massive support we have given them in the first place. If this happens enough times it might get more people to question why on earth we are even giving the Ukrainians these weapons in the first place. After all, what is the point if they can't even reach the front lines?

Russia's in a fairly strange position. The facts on the ground do not seem to be that good for them. They had to retreat in the north and their major Donbass advance hasn't done too much. I wouldn't say they are losing the war, but they certainly aren't winning it either. 

But outside of the battlefield they appear to be winning. Outside of the propaganda war of course, which they didn't even show up for. Economically they are doing better now than the war started with the Ruble surging in value and oil sales skyrocketing. They are also in a very good position due to the failures of wheat crops globally and the fact that countries are limiting export, including Ukraine. Western sanctions appear to be doing much more damage to their own people than to Russia itself. 

Regardless though, the war has not gone the way Russia has wanted it to go. Their failure at the beginning of the campaign to knock Ukraine's government out of the war hurt them badly, and so have anti-tank and anti-air missiles. I still don't see them losing but the war is going to be a slog for them and slog for the people supporting Ukraine. 

I am not too worried about this new strategy of bombing weapons shipments spiraling out into a wider war. The Russians are not going to be targeting the assembly points in Poland anytime soon. It will lead to a lot more American and European money being wasted and may have an effect on the battlefield but that's about it... 

Joe Biden's Hispanic approval rating has cratered according to a new poll.

 

Joe Biden. Fox News/AP. 

Joe Biden's approval rating among Hispanic Americans has cratered in a new poll from Quinnipiac. Fox News. Biden only reached 26% approval in the poll, which is major drop from 55% approval in the same poll one year ago. Young Americans and White males also had Biden approval very low with 27% and 29% respectively. Biden's best numbers were among Americans over the age of 65 (45%) and Blacks (63%). Black Americans were the only group that Biden is not underwater with. Biden's overall approval rating was a tepid 35% with 57% disapproving of the job Biden is doing.

The Quinnipiac poll can be found here. 

My Comment:

Though I am not Hispanic myself I do work with many of them and I have heard them talking about Biden, either directly or indirectly. They never seemed to have strong opinions on other candidates but now it's all about how terrible Biden is doing and how bad things are going. This is a huge difference between how things used to be where I never heard much political discussion going on regardless. 

I do think that this poll is probably an outlier. I find it hard to believe that Biden's approval is lower among Hispanics than it is among white males or the young. I do think that the phenomenon is real but is the situation this bad for Biden? I guess it's possible but I want to see more polls to confirm it. 

Why would Biden's poll numbers among Hispanics be cratering? I think the most obvious reasons is the main reason everyone hates Biden right now. It's the economy. Hispanics have to get gas, buy groceries and rent/buy homes just like everyone else and they know that things have gone haywire. When gas is $4.25 and rising it doesn't matter too much what your race is. 

I think another major reason is that the Democrats have doubled down on social justice issues. Hispanics tend to be more conservative on social issues and more liberal on economic issues and right now the Democrats are focusing on the first while ignoring the later. Abortion is a good example of this, it's not popular among Catholics and many Hispanics agree that it's a bad thing. Many of them don't believe in abortion and aren't comfortable with the way pro-life people are being treated by the Democrats and Biden in particular. 

Hispanics seem to be largely immune to woke nonsense, at least the blue collar ones that I work with. They want nothing to do with transgender grooming or blaming every single thing on race. There are some woke Hispanics but they appear to be the minority. 

Immigration is another issue that I think is a factor here. A surprising number of Hispanics do agree that illegal immigration is a huge problem, but the general perception is that immigration is a major issue for Hispanics. However, immigration is not in the national narrative right now, which means that Biden doesn't get the advantage from the issue. 

This is really bad news for the Democrats in 2022 if the trend holds. If Republicans were to peel off every single Hispanic voter that disapproves of Joe Biden they would be pretty much totally wiped out. If the Republicans simply turn a few voters away from the Democrats they will lose and lose hard. And if this is long term trend, the Democrats will have a hard time winning elections in general unless they change course and do it soon. 

Time will tell if this is a long term trend or if just an effect of Joe Biden being a uniquely bad president. Biden is a Jimmy Carter type president with an added problem of senility and general abrasiveness. Hispanics don't like him because nobody does outside of the media and Washington bubbles. It's possible that many of these Hispanics will go back to the Democrats once Biden is gone, but that won't happen for a while now. 

Biden's Disinformation board canned and head Nina Jankowicz resigns.

 

The White House. Reuters. 

Joe Biden's extremely controversial Disinformation Governance Board has been paused with its head, Nina Jankowicz, resigning. Reuters. The creation of the board prompted fierce criticism with many comparing it to the Ministry of Truth from the novel, 1984. Jankowicz cited her family as a reason to resign as she is expecting a baby. It is unclear what, if any, capacity she will continue to serve in the Department of Homeland Security. 

My Comment:

Part of me wants to celebrate this as a major victory for free speech but I don't buy it for a second. I am guessing Jankowicz will be shuffled around to some other department that will be the Disinformation Governance Board in all but name. It will probably be a black project with little to no oversite and their efforts to censor free speech will continue. 

The Reuters piece seems to suggest that the story was all about Jankowicz but I strongly disagree. She was a pretty big embarrassment with her lying about the Hunter Biden laptop story, lying about Biden winning the election and her cringe inducing musical abilities, but the story was never about her. She was a big symbol of everything that is wrong with Washington DC at the moment, but that's not the big takeaway from this story. 

The real problem is that the government has no right to decide what is real or what is not real. They blasted Russian and Chinese propaganda but often those sources are more truthful than what we are getting from our own media. If I want to get my information from RT.com or the Global Times, that is nobodies business but my own. Trying to prevent Americans from getting those news sources or doing everything they can to discredit them is censorship, obviously. 

Does that mean people should trust those news outlets? Of course not. I view foreign news sites with the same skepticism I do domestic ones, they all lie all the time about all things. Indeed, the Reuters article said that Biden winning the election fair and square was a fact when it's not anywhere close to being so. That kind of opinion posing as news is just as common in western sources as it is in foreign ones but we don't have a board in the Defense Department countering their lies. And we obviously shouldn't even though I think our media is doing a terrible disservice to our country. 

I do think that the Biden administration didn't really understand the kind of visceral disgust people would have with this idea. Even under circumstances with a competent government that wasn't out to get their own people, such a board would raise eyebrows. But now, when the Biden White House is pretty much openly trying to destroy their opposition, why would anyone not see this as an obvious attempt at censorship?

Which is why I don't think we have heard the last of Jankowicz and her ilk. Like I said she will probably get some office somewhere in the basement of the Pentagon with no oversite and an unlimited budget to do exactly what she was going to do at the Disinformation Governance Board. 

The truth of the matter is that the Biden White House is desperate. Despite their constant spin, despite the media covering for them and despite big tech censoring everyone to the right of Biden, they can't keep control of the narrative. People aren't stupid and they know that they are paying way more for gas, rent and food. And they know that things like the baby formula shortage don't happen to competent governments. 

So Biden's only real option is to try and discredit the critics and censor them. They failed this time but they will continue to do so. Indeed, their insane attempt to link Tucker Carlson to the Buffalo shooter is a good example of this (I read the shooter's manifesto and there was no link there). They seem to only be able in imply that you are a bad person if you notice what they are doing. You are either a Russian disinformation agent or a racist if you access public information that shows their plans and agenda.

Will it work? I am guessing no. It's a desperate move and one that is counterproductive in the end. The Democrats will lose power and soon, failing a level of voter fraud that can hardly be comprehended in 2022 and 2024. Democrats should realize that all the weapons they have pointed at their enemies can be used against them if they lose power... 

Biden sends troops into Somalia...

 

File photo of Somali al-Shabaab fighters. Fox News/AP.

Joe Biden has approved sending troops to Somalia, reversing a Trump era withdrawal. Fox News. Hundreds of US special forces are being sent to the country to hunt al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda affiliate. The Pentagon had requested the ability to target the leadership of the organization. Donald Trump had pulled these troops out of Somalia, though they remained in the region. Al-Shabaab is a major regional threat and has as many as 10,000 fighters now. 

My Comment:

In the big scheme of things this is a pretty minor news story. A few hundred troops in Somalia is a rounding error in the United States. These will be a special forces deployment, but even then it's not like this is going to cripple our ability to deploy troops to other countries should the need arise. 

So why cover it? Because it's incredibly disappointing. One of Donald Trump's greatest triumphs was his foreign policy. Instead of keeping troops overseas forever he actually pulled our troops back home. It was a major part of his America First foreign policy and it was a good thing.

Biden has completely abandoned that. He did pull out of Afghanistan, and flubbed it horribly, but other than that he has greatly escalated our foreign policy on all levels. Ukraine is the biggest example but here comes Somalia, a country we had withdrawn from. It's like the bad old days under Obama and Bush where we constantly sent troops into new countries. 

To be fair, al-Shabaab is a regional threat. They are a danger in Somalia and have launched attacks across northeastern Africa. Some of these attacks have been extremely brutal. I don't have a problem with attacking these people as they do deserve a hellfire missile to the face. 

But do we really need to deploy special forces to Somalia? I don't think so. I am not sure if these are going to be people like Delta Force or the Navy Seals, going on hunter killer missions against al-Shabaab's leadership, or simply the Green Berets training local militias. Either way, I think most of what they want to accomplish in Somalia could be done via airstrikes and drones. I don't think we need troops on the ground. 

And I do have to point out that al-Shabaab is not really that much of a threat to us. I do think that we don't want them to take over Somalia so they can fund wider operations, but I don't think that is likely under current circumstances. With that being the case I think that al-Shabaab would have remained a regional threat. It's not like ISIS where they actually could and did launch attacks across the world, including in the United States. Al-Shabaab is a minor player at best, even though they are one of the larger terror groups that remain at this point. 

Ongoing food crisis: India bans exports of wheat...

 

Wheat exports in India. CNBC/Bloomberg/Getty.

In another blow to global grain supplies, India has banned exports of wheat. CNBC. India cited out of control inflation along with a massive heat wave that damaged crops for the decision. Global buyers were counting on India, which is the world's second largest produce or wheat, to make up for shortfalls from eastern Europe, where the Ukraine war has caused massive problems in production and logistics. India was expected to ship out a record 10 million tons this year. India will honor current orders and will try to help with countries that are dealing with food insecurity. With Indian wheat no longer on the market, prices will rise and there is no credible country to make up the difference...

My Comment:

This is a huge story that isn't getting anywhere near the amount of coverage it deserves. Keep in mind that India's export ban comes on the heels of several other disasters. The war between Russia and Ukraine is the big obvious problem since Ukraine is Europe's breadbasket, but that is not the only problem. China's winter wheat crop failed due to torrential rains. And America's winter wheat crop was heavily damaged by droughts. 

All of this is going to add up and countries like Egypt that import most of their foods are going to have a huge problem trying to get wheat. And poor countries are not going to be able to deal with the high price inflation that this is going to cause. 

Food insecurity is a huge threat, not just because it can cause widespread misery and death through starvation. It's also a major cause for political instability and civil war. Like I said in the baby formula post I wrote earlier in the month, a person that can't feed their family or themselves have almost nothing to lose. Why not go all in and try to make a better life for yourself? 

It's widely thought that the huge spike in food prices that caused the Arab Spring. If you may remember, that lead to several revolutions and a lot of political instability. It also led to two of the worst wars in recent history, the Syrian and Libyan civil wars. I think it is very possible we might see the same thing this time around. 

With that being said, I am not worried about food supplies in the United States. We produce massive amounts of food and most people have problems with having too much food as opposed to not enough. Though we have had problems with our winter wheat, there isn't really any evidence that our other crops are going to fail. And we are a net food exporter, not an importer. We should be fine here, at least in terms of people not starving to death. 

But I do worry about the high food prices adding to our already unstable system. High food prices are hardly the only problem our country is dealing with and it will contribute to our most pressing issue, inflation. When everything else is getting massively more expensive it will not help us when even bread costs more. 

Though we should hardly complain when the real victims of this are going to be people starving to death in the third world. I am glad that India said they will continue to help out in that area but I worry that supplies won't be enough. Like the article said, we don't have anyone to pick up the slack, Ukraine is a mess and Russia is under sanctions. America can help, but only so much. I don't know what else can be done... 

Editor's Note: Vacation

 I'm officially on vacation next week so posting may be infrequent or at odd times. It's time for my usual spring vacation and I plan to do a lot of fishing! I had thought about traveling but by the time the courts got rid of the mask mandate on flights it would have been kinda rushed to get a plan together. Given the perilous state of the economy right now I wasn't sure if I wanted to spend the money either way. 

With that being said, I do expect to keep posting while I am off. If I catch any interesting fish I might post about it here, but otherwise expect the normal posts you are all used to by now!

Senator Rand Paul single handedly holds up $40 billion in aid to Ukraine.

 

Senator Rand Paul. Politico/AP.

Senator Rand Paul has single handedly held up the bill that would provide $40 billion in aid for Ukraine. Politico. The bill flew through the house with only 57 Republicans voting against it, but Paul blocked the bill from being fast tracked. Paul wants a federal watchdog assigned to monitor where the money is going. Ukraine has already blew through $14 billion in aid and the money will run out next week if the bill does not pass. The bill will likely still pass, with or without Paul's amendment, but the passage will not happen this week. Paul called the bill "fiscal insanity" and questioned why we would be giving money to Ukraine when our own economy is tanking due to inflation caused by these huge spending bills. 

My Comment:

It appears that Rand Paul is the only one in the Senate who isn't completely insane. I had little respect for our elected leaders before the Ukraine war broke out but now? I can't imagine that anything good will come from giving even more money to Ukraine, a country that is of zero strategic interest to America at all. Paul can do little but delay the inevitable but I am glad he is at least doing that. 

As someone who doesn't support Ukraine it's also extremely frustrating to me. I don't support Russia either, for me the war is like the Iran-Iraq war back in the day where both sides are pretty bad. If it were up to me we wouldn't have offered a single thin dime of military support to either side in the conflict, let alone the $54 billion in support we are giving Ukraine.

And the timing for this couldn't be worse. At a time when people are losing their shirt to inflation, losing their future from the stock market crashing, being completely unable to afford housing to not even being able to feed their babies, this is what the government is focusing on? I'm not saying that the money we are going to spend on this has to be spent but if it did there are many more worthy causes here in the United States. It really puts things in perspective, our government is more concerned with killing Russians than helping Americans. 

The worst thing is that the money will be wasted. Ukraine can't win the war, even with all of our help. The government knows this and has admitted that their goal is a stalemate, and if that means tens of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians die in the next few years that's just fine. In the end Russia will likely win just through attrition, eventually Ukraine will run out of fighting age men, while Russia will not. 

Of course I doubt the main goal for this is to actually help Ukraine. It's to line the pockets of defense contractors and probably 10% to the "Big Guy" himself. We have depleted huge stockpiles of our weapons and all that is going to be made up with lucrative defense contracts worth billions of dollars. 

These people are the only people that are going to benefit from this war. The Ukrainians will see their people killed and their country destroyed. Russia will see thousands of their soldiers killed. And the American people will have their economy crash even harder than it is already. But the politicians and defense companies? Laughing all the way to the bank... 

California's ban on adults under 21 buying semiauto firearms struck down by the 9th Circuit Court.

 

A man purchases a handgun in California. NPR/AP.

California's ban on adults under the age of 21 buying semi automatic firearms has been struck down by the 9th Circuit Court. AP. The law said that 18-21 year olds were not able to purchase centerfire rifles unless they were a member of the military or law enforcement. In a 2-1 ruling the court said that the ban violated the 2nd Amendment. Handgun sales will not be affected by the ruling. The ruling was not a total victory as the court said a requirement for a hunting license in order to own a rifle or shot gun for 18-21 aged adults was not a violation. 

My Comment:

Though this is still a victory for gun rights, the ruling is nonsensical. The idea that you would need a hunting license to purchase a firearm is ridiculous and even more so if it's only for people that are between 18 and 21 years old. Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment and there is no reason for these people to be discriminated against. 

For example, if you are in that age group and you want to purchase a firearm for self defense or target shooting, you have to go through all kinds of hoops to get your gun. A hunting license costs around $50 and you also have to take a safety class before you can even get it. Some of the hunter safety stuff might be relevant and even good to teach, but it's insane that it would be a requirement to own a firearm. 

With that being said, it is a good thing that the age ban was in place. I have never supported the idea that an adult can join the military and be assigned a rifle but can't purchase their own firearm. I think the logic applies to handgun bans for 18-21 year olds but for rifles it's even more silly. If an 18 year old can carry a gun for his country why can't he in any other situation? If he's old enough to die for his country he's certainly old enough to buy a gun. 

In addition to the violation of gun rights, I think it's a pretty obvious case of age discrimination. Almost all other rights are given to children once they turn 18, but for some reason owning a firearm is not one of them? If an 18 year old isn't mature enough to carry a gun (or drink a beer for that matter) what business does he have voting? Or driving car or having children or any of the other things you can do as an adult? 

What is frustrating about this is it's insane that the issue of gun rights even comes up anymore. After 2020, with the Coronavirus pandemic and the riots, the issue of gun control died fairly spectacularly. Gun and ammo sales went through the roof and only recently have leveled off. The idea that the government should restrict gun rights no longer holds water when it has been proven what happens when the government can't or won't deal with a crisis. 

Will this ruling survive further appeals? I have no idea. I have learned awhile ago that predicting what the courts are going to do is hard to do. Many courts have simply ignored Supreme Court rulings guaranteeing gun rights and even SOCTUS has not been all that proactive in defending gun rights. It's very possible that this ruling could be overturned on appeal, even though that would make no legal sense whatsoever.  

Elon Musk says he would reverse Donald Trump's ban on Twitter.

 

Elon Musk. Debbie Rowe. 

Elon Musk has said that he would reverse Donald Trump's ban on Twitter. Fox Business. Musk said that he did not support permanent bans in the vast majority of cases, reserving the punishment for bots, scam or span accounts. He pointed out that he could not do so at the moment as the Twitter deal he made to purchase the company had not gone through, but could do so in as little as two months. Musk said that former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey agreed with his argument, though Dorsey has not said anything publicly as of this writing. Donald Trump for his part has said he would not return to Twitter, preferring to stay on his own social network, Truth Social. 

Elon Musk: “I would reverse” President Trump’s ban from Twitter
pic.twitter.com/9UxpfLf15j

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) May 10, 2022

My Comment:

I personally think that Elon Musk should have kept this to himself for the moment. He just gave the far left an even bigger reason to assassinate him, a possibility Musk himself seems to acknowledge. I would have greatly preferred he would have not commented on this until the Twitter deal went through. 

 

If I die under mysterious circumstances, it’s been nice knowin ya

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 9, 2022

To the left this is a huge threat to them. Donald Trump was very good at using social media and it helped him win in 2016. And they know if Trump comes back a lot of other people they can't stand who have been banned will come back too. Their ideas can't stand unless they are in a vacuum so if they have their enemies on social media they will be in big trouble, bigger trouble then they already are in. 

I do think that Musk is right, letting everyone post on Twitter is the best thing for the platform and the best thing for the country. The thing with Twitter is that if you don't want to see certain content you can easily block it. Indeed, if you aren't making widespread use of the block and mute buttons you are doing Twitter wrong. But that is up to the user, not the company, to decide. 

I do think that there are some people that deserve a perma-ban but those folks are few and far between. If I was in charge the only people I would perma-ban would be scammers, spammers and bots. I'd also ban people who posted illegal content but, to be fair, I wouldn't have any choice about that. Musk seems to agree with that and I can only hope that he keeps his word here. 

And I don't think people who aren't on Twitter understand how much you have to censor yourself on there if you have any opinions that aren't far left woke in nature. Even being the wrong kind of leftist can get you in trouble. I know I personally ate a 24 hour ban for calling Kyle Rittenhouse a hero, just weeks before the opinion became a lot more acceptable to the mainstream after he was acquitted. That's a good example of what I was talking about because I was right and the people that censored me were wrong and obviously so. But even to this day there are people that believe that Rittenhouse was not acting in self defense.

As for Donald Trump, he would be wise to rejoin Twitter as soon as possible. I know he has a personal investment in Truth Social, but from what I understand it has not been doing that well. The money he invested in the company is nothing compared to the money and influence he can get on Twitter. Trump was one of the biggest draws on Twitter and if he goes back onto it he can greatly expand his influence. 

The thing with Twitter is that despite how terrible it is for conservatives, it is still the most used social network for us. Why? Largely because of network effects. Twitter is where almost everyone is so moving has a major cost. Though I have accounts on both Gab and Parler, I have never considered getting rid of my Twitter account. Doing so would greatly reduce my reach for this blog. 

Biden White House claims 100 million (!) coronavirus cases in the fall and winter of 2022...

 

People wearing masks in the DC Metro. ABC News. 

The Biden White House claims that 100 million people could be infected with the Coronavirus this fall and winter. ABC News. That claim is despite the fact that 70% of Americans over the age of five have been fully vaccinated and 60% of Americans have natural antibodies against the Coronavirus. If the claim happens that would mean 30% of all Americans could be infected. Why would this happen? Scientists claim that both the vaccines and natural antibodies are not effective against new strains of the virus. There would also be more infections as people move inside. 

My Comment:

My gut tells me that this a cynical attempt at the Biden White House to justify mail in voting, which allows for easy voter fraud and it about the only hope for the Democrats in the fall. I don't think they believe that this will happen but will act like they will regardless. 

It's amazing that even with the obvious electoral advantage the Democrats will gain from this, that they are still pushing the Coronavirus. Nobody in the real world cares anymore. For most Americans the Coronavirus pandemic died after the Omicron variant became dominant.  I know for me personally, I haven't even thought of the Coronavirus outside of work, where some restrictions remain beyond all logic. 

I do like that the media finally admitted that the vaccines are not effective against the current strains of the virus. The vaccines were made for the original Wuhan strain of the virus which has been extinct in the wild for years now. Even the Omicron variant has faded into the background as no longer that relevant as most people are immunized to it. The big vaccine companies are trying to develop new vaccines but the development cycle is too long, by the time they release anything the strain will no longer be around. 

Plus, people are no longer interested in getting vaccinated. When the original strains were around that actually occasionally killed people there was a motivation to actually get vaccinated, despite the risks posed by these vaccines. It's a deal I took at the time, but not one I would take now.

Why? The new variants of the virus are nowhere near as dangerous as the Wuhan strain. Very few people die from it and those that do are usually extremely ill or old. As I predicted when the outbreak started the virus has transformed to a virus that spreads more easily but is a lot less deadly. This is what happened with the Russian Flu back in the day, a Coronavirus that eventually evolved into a common cold virus. Right now the dominant strains of the virus are somewhere between a bad cold and a weak flu in terms of severity. 

With the virus well on its way to becoming a common cold virus, will we see a wave of infections in the fall? Probably. Will it be 100 million people? I doubt it. We never got that in any of our previous waves so it would be unprecedented. 

Even then why should we even care at this point? We don't shut down the world for the seasonal flu and at this point the flu is probably the more dangerous virus. Most people have some degree of protection against the virus and if they get infected they won't show any symptoms at all. Why should we deal with any of these restrictions? It makes no sense. 

But again, I think this has way more to do with the ambitions of the Biden administration. They loved the restrictions, not so much because they help people but because they humiliate them and help in the elections. Biden never would have had any chance at the White House at all if it wasn't for mail in voting and they know that 2022 is almost a lost cause. Expect more of this hysteria from the White House as the 2022 midterms near.  

Molotov cocktail arson attack targets a Wisconsin pro-life organization...

 

Damage at the Wisconsin Family Action offices in Madison Wisconsin. New York Post/AP.

A Molotov cocktail arson attack has targeted a pro-life organization in Madison Wisconsin. New York Post. The attack targeted the Wisconsin Family Action offices, which is a pro-life political action committee. In addition to the arson attack, the building was spray-painted with a message that said “if abortions aren’t safe, then you aren’t either,” and pro-antifa messages. A 2nd Molotov cocktail was found on the scene of the crime. 

New York Post/AP

Pro-Anarchist and anti-police messages. 1312 stands for ACAB, all cops are bad. New York Post. 

My Comment:

It's not often that I cover state stories but this happened in my state so in this case I have to. I am not at all surprised that this arson attack happened in Madison. Madison is a wretched hive of leftist types like antifa and black lives matter and I'm honestly surprised this kind of attack hasn't happened more often there. 

In a sane world this would be classified as a far-left terror attack. If a right winger had thrown a Molotov cocktail at a Planned Parenthood clinic they would be rightly called a terrorist. Indeed, in 2012, a right winger did attack Planned Parenthood clinic in Appleton and the man who did it got convicted and is in prison now after an 11 year sentence. 

It doesn't surprise me that this would happen in Wisconsin. The state is the very definition of a purple states. Madison and Milwaukee are huge left wing enclaves in what is otherwise a very right wing state. Indeed, I live in northeast Wisconsin and I have been seeing anti-abortion billboards and protesters all of my life. With both present in the state I am not surprised that there is conflict. A pro-life organization in Madison was always going to be a target. 

Abortion is technically a felony in Wisconsin, but the courts have said that the rule is unenforceable because of Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey. Does that mean if Roe v Wade is overturned that abortion will suddenly become unobtainable in Wisconsin? No, because the law does have an exception for the saving of the mothers life, so in that limited circumstances abortion would be legal. But I also question if the law would even be enforced state wide. I can't see a Milwaukee or Madison prosecutor bringing charges up on abortion, even though I could see that happening in the rest of the state. 

I don't really think that this attack has too much to do with abortion in the first place. It seems clear that these attackers are antifa-aligned. Given that antifa is more about mindlessly opposing whatever the outrage of the day and all about owning the cons, my guess is that this attack was more abut those things than abortion per-say. That doesn't mean that these people were pro-choice of course, but it does mean that you shouldn't read too much into the attack. 

Still, this is fairly disappointing. Abortion has always been a baffling issue to me since I don't have strong feelings either way. I lean pro-life largely because pro-choice people have worse arguments and tend to be associated with people like antifa, which I can't tolerate. The idea of committing a terror attack over it makes zero sense. 

With that being said, I do expect this to be the first in a series of terror attacks targeting pro-life organizations. Antifa has zero scruples about political violence and the pro-choice people are getting totally unhinged. And I do think that the Democrats are doing everything they can to stir up the crazies. Indeed, that was the point in releasing the draft decision in the first place. They want these people to be violent in order to influence the justices and the 2022 midterms... 

Supply chain disruption hits baby formula...

 

Empty baby formula shelves in Columbus Ohio. Fox Business. 

Supply chain disruptions have hit a critical product, baby formula. Fox Business. The shortages have gone beyond simply finding baby formula that specific babies tolerate as some parents report not being able to find baby formula at all. The shortage is especially critical for mothers who do not produce enough milk, babies with specific nutritional needs and single fathers. The shortage began due to supply chain disruptions but has been made much worse by a major formula recall. Four deaths were blamed on formula from Abbot Laboratories. In response to the shortage many stores are putting limits on how much formula can be bought. 

My Comment:

This is a massive problem that needs to be dealt with quickly. This is the first media coverage I have seen for this though I have heard some rumblings about it on social media. But given the dire circumstances it should be the #1 story right now over everything else. 

Why? Because if something isn't done babies can die. Not every baby can be breastfed, not every mother can breastfeed and single fathers are totally dependent on formula to feed their children. Plus there are many babies with nutritional problems that can only tolerate specific kinds of formula. If something isn't done the outlook for these children is not good to say the least. 

This is something that does not seem like it should happen in a first world country like the United States. In North Korea or Somalia, sure. But the United States? It's not something I would have ever thought I would live to see. It's just another example of how far and how fast America is declining... 

I don't think the recall is the main reason for this crisis. It certainly did not help things and the people in charge of Abbot Laboratories should be in serious trouble. But the crisis would still be there if they hadn't screwed up. The fact is that the Biden administration has not effectively dealt with the supply chain disruptions. There are still ships stacked up at our ports and nothing much seems to being done to deal with it. 

China is also a large part of the problem as they are greatly contributing to the supply chain disruptions with their asinine Coronavirus restrictions. At this point the pandemic is over and the various strains of Coronavirus are somewhere between the cold and the flu in terms of severity. It still kills some people but shutting down the economy to deal with it is a good way to kill a lot more. And the formula shortage is just one example. 

There are ways for you to help though. If you are a woman who is still lactating you can donate your breast milk to mothers, either directly or through various milk banks. We might even see the old "wet nurse" career make a comeback. And if your children still have formula left over that you don't need you can donate it as well. 

The political implications of this are severe. A person watching their baby starve is at the verge of loosing everything and will not tolerate failure here. If the Biden administration and various state governments aren't able to deal with it they may end up being overthrown. That might seem to be hyperbolic, but a food crisis of any type are a good cause for war.