US and Europe says no to F-16's for Ukraine.

 

An US Air Force F-16. The Guardian/Reuters. 

The United States and Europe have refused to provide F-16 fighters to Ukraine for use against Russia. The Guardian. Both the United States and the United Kingdom said they would not be providing F-16's to Ukraine. France seemed reluctant to send fighter jets as well, noting that any delivery would have to be defensive in nature and could not weaken France. Ukraine is demanding 200 fighters, along with training for pilots and ground crews. Ukraine supposedly still has some jets operational but they have not made an impact on the war. 

My Comment:

Germany has also refused to send jets to Ukraine, and the rest of Europe is mostly against the idea. The only country that seems warm to the idea is Poland, who has already tried to give fighter jets, in their case MIG-29's, to Ukraine. That was vetoed by NATO for what should be obvious reasons. 

Air power has not made much of an impact during the Ukraine war. Much of Ukraine's air forces were destroyed during the early parts of the war and most of their airfields are out of operation. They still have a few planes and helicopters but they aren't used much for obvious reasons. 

The main problem is that Russia's air defenses are really good. Any use of jets, even F-16's, is not going to go well as they will be shot down quickly. Not to mention, Russia's air forces are mostly intact as they have not been willing to risk their fighters to Ukrainian air defenses. If a force of F-16's were able to be used they would not last long. 

But the other problem is that there simply isn't a way to operate these fighters in Ukraine. Like I said, most airbases are damaged at best and destroyed at worst. There would be nowhere to base these fighters in Ukraine proper, so either the delivery would be a meaningless gesture or the fighters would have to be stationed in Poland. 

That would be a huge escalation and mean that Russia would have every incentive to bomb Poland. And even then the jets would be at the limits of their range and would still face the same issues of air defenses. Poland might be willing to take the risk but I doubt the rest of NATO wants to provoke a war with Russia by deploying fighters in Poland to be used in Ukraine. 

The logistics would be a nightmare as well. Training the pilots alone would take at least six months and building up the infrastructure to support those jets would likely take even longer. And then there is fuel, weapons and spare parts which would be even harder to provide. 

Let's assume though that none of that matters and Ukraine gets these jets and they somehow aren't shot down quickly. How much would they accomplish? Very little. Air power isn't really what Ukraine needs right now as they are having manpower issues on the ground. Sending jets to support dead men isn't at all useful.

The whole question could be moot in the first place. Russia seems to be advancing pretty well now with the Wagner group doing a good job at securing Bakhmut, the key to Ukraine's defenses in the Donbass region. Taking the city, which I think they will do soon, might break the whole war open. And keep in mind that Russia is mostly fighting with mercenaries and Chechens right now. Sooner or later the proper Russian Army will start an offensive and it likely won't go well for Ukraine. In six months, the estimated time to train up the pilots if the fighters are delivered today, the war may be resolved. 

What does worry me though is that most of what I said about fighter jets also applied to heavy tanks and Ukraine was able to get those. That was a huge escalation, and the image of German tanks returning to Ukraine to fight Russia was not a good image for anyone. If anything it strengthened Russian resolve and killed any anti-war movement in Russia. Despite that obvious escalation of the war and the fact that those tanks won't do a damn thing in an artillery war, Ukraine got them anyways. These jets might be the same thing... 

Biden will remove the Coronavirus emergency on May 11th.

 

Joe Biden. Politco/AP.

Joe Biden will remove the Coronavirus emergency order on May 11th. Politico. Republicans have long called for the end of the emergency and Biden released this information to attempt to blunt criticism. Ending the order would also likely bypass the Supreme Court case about Title 42, an emergency order that removes illegal immigrants. The case is not due to be heard until June, so if the emergency is removed it will end up being legally moot. It is unclear how ending the pandemic emergency will work as the emergency has affected great swaths of American governance. The other main effect from ending the emergency would be passing costs of the vaccines and treatments on to consumers and not on the government. 

My Comment:

It's always amazing to me that anything Coronavirus is still going on. For the vast majority of people the virus ended last spring, or summer at the latest. Nobody really cares any more except the few people with bad immune systems or the true blue zero-covid people. Even China has moved on. 

It's clear to me that the emergency order should be removed. For most people now the Coronavirus is either the equivalent of a bad cold or a weak flu. It still kills people, but so does the flu, and we don't have emergency declarations for that. Removing this order is long overdue. 

Of course, you can trust that even when Biden does the right thing, he's doing it for the wrong reasons. This isn't a measure response to a weakening virus, it's pure politics. Biden knew that if he didn't do something enough Democrats would have defected from his party to end the pandemic response anyways. By doing it now he can do an end run around the Republican legislation in the house. 

But, more critically, he is trying to get rid of Title 42. Title 42 remains the only immigration law that is even slightly enforced in the United States. Biden wants to get rid of it for no other reason that potential Democratic voters are being removed. And he is trying to avoid losing in the Supreme Court. Doing so would render the issue moot as well as ensure that the flow of illegal immigrants keeps coming. 

This will probably be hated by the zero-covid people. They will no longer get free vaccines at the cost of the US taxpayer. Given that the vast majority of people no longer want the vaccines due to perceived side effects and a lack of effectiveness, it won't matter much. But for the people that want the vaccines I expect them to see quite a bit of sticker shock for the next round of vaccines. 

The pandemic can be officially considered over now. With even Biden acknowledging that the virus is no longer a big deal the world can finally move on. Of course, most of us moved along a long time ago, but that's neither here nor there. 

Drone strike hits an Iran-backed militia convoy entering Syria from Iraq...

 

A border crossing between Syria and Iraq. Politico/AP.

A drone strike has destroyed a convoy entering Syria from Iraq. AP. Observers on the ground claim that the drones targeted six refrigerated trailers that may have belonged to Iranian backed militias. The observers also claimed that the drones that attacked the convoy appeared to be from the American-led coalition. Strikes targeting Iranian militias are common in Syria but the strike comes after increased tensions in the region after Iran itself was targeted in a drone attack. No one has currently taken credit for either drone attack. 

My Comment:

This would normally be a minor news story. But the context makes it a bit more important than it normally would. After all, Iran came under drone attack yesterday and we still don't know who was responsible for it. It could be part of a wider movement against Iran's proxies in the region. 

The strike itself seems pretty minor. A few trucks and trailer got blown up by a drone. Those trucks likely belonged to an Iranian backed militia and like I said, that happens all the time. Both the Israelis and the American led coalition have targeted these militias many times in the past. The Israelis feel these militias are a threat to their interests and they aren't wrong. Same with the Americans, they have come under attack several times by these militias so they probably didn't want these trucks to deliver whatever they were going to deliver. 

But it's hard not to think that this might be part of an offensive. The biggest suspect now in the Iranian strikes is Israel and they have a major reason to kill as many Iranian proxies as they can because they probably expect blowback. It's very possible that these trucks were involved in a possible attack on Israel. 

With that being said the observers on the ground seem to think it was the coalition that attacked this convoy and not the Israelis. That could just be a case of misidentification, after all Israel uses a lot of the same technology. But if it is true it might be an example of a deal between the US and Israel. If the Israelis carried out the Iranian attacks perhaps they wanted the United States to help deal with the proxy militias in Syria. 

Of course all of this is speculation, it's very possible that this strike was just done for the normal reasons. Both the Israelis and coalition have reasons to want these militias destroyed and the timing could very well be a coincidence. 

If it is not though? Then the proxy war between Iran and Israel might be getting a lot hotter. We are going to have to pay close attention to what is going on in the Middle East now as well as the war in Ukraine. It's very possible that a larger regional war between Israel and Iran could break out... 

Iran claims to have come under attack by drones targeting a weapons facility.

 

Twitter screencap of the attack. Warzone/The Drive.

Iran claims to have come under attack by drones targeting a weapons factory in Isfahan. Warzone. Iran's Ministry of Defense says the factory came under attack by three drones and said that the attack failed with no casualties being inflicted and the only damage being done to the roof the facility. The Iranians claim that one drone was shot down while the other two were caught in "defense traps". Explosions were heard in three other cities along with a report of a huge fire at an oil storage facility, though it is unclear if that fire is related to the attacks. Iran is also believed to have scrambled fighter jets in response to the attack. It is unclear who is responsible for the attack. 

A powerful blast occurred in the city of Isfahan, Iran 🇮🇷, according to IRNA. At this time, no injuries have been reported. Drone attack is reported on the video.#Iran #Israel #iranunderattack #iranexplosions #IranIsraelWar #IsraelUnderAttack #Tehran #Teheran pic.twitter.com/b25dnCWtcV

— 24Talker (@24talker) January 29, 2023

My Comment:

This is a breaking news story from an area of the world with little in the way of trustworthy press so it's unclear exactly how serious this incident is and if it will escalate. The reports of other attacks besides the one that Iran has admitted to are unconfirmed and may not be attacks at all. Oil facilities are known to have fires often enough.  

It's also very unclear where these drones were launched from or if they are even state actors. The video I posted above did not make it seem like these were powerful first world drones but instead weaker ones that did not have much in the way of offensive ability. The explosion was very small compared to what you would expect to see if this was a full on military attack. 

It's very possible that this was not a state actor that pulled this off. Smaller drones like these are easy to use and are commonly available. And it's not like Iran has been the most stable country recently. It is very possible that this attack was conducted by a domestic terror group or insurgents. Indeed, ISIS has a presence in Iran and they helped pioneer these kinds of attacks.

Of course the other usual suspects are Israel and Saudi Arabia. Both of them are engaged with proxy wars with Iran, with Israel regularly bombing Iranian troops in Syria while Saudi Arabia has their mess with Yemen. A strike by either government would be a major escalation though, despite the fact that they have both come under attack by Iranian forces and proxies, they haven't hit back like this before on Iranian soil. Plus, I would expect such an attack to be dramatically bigger in scale if Israel or Saudi Arabia were the ones attacking. 

The wildest theory I heard was that it was the Ukrainians that conducted the attack. The theory is that the factory that got hit was the one that is producing the Shahed drones that have been so effective in the war. The theory is almost certainly false since for one I don't think that is where the drones are being made in the first place and even if it was, the Ukrainians hardly have the ability to launch drones in their own battlefields, let alone in a foreign country hundreds of miles from them.

Of course it could be the United States as well, which would be baffling since though Iran has always been a thorn in our sides, they haven't done much to us lately. America has our hands full with the Ukraine War and tensions with China, so why attack the Iranians? It would be absurd, but then again, everything about the Biden administration has been absurd at best and completely baffling at worst, so I can't completely rule the theory out. 

Regardless though, it seems fairly clear that the drone strikes did not destroy this factory. The Iranians are known to lie but the bombing in the video did not seem very bad at all. Whoever was behind this attack must be disappointed that it didn't destroy this target. Perhaps we will see follow up attacks?  

Donald Trump calls for the end of Ukraine war, warns tank deployment may lead to nuclear war.

 

File photo of a M1A2 Abrams and Donald Trump. Newsweek/AFP/Getty.

Donald Trump blasted the deployment of US M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine saying that it may lead to a nuclear war and called for an end to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Newsweek. Trump said that "first come the tanks, then come the nukes" and said "get this crazy war ended, NOW". The deployment of tanks is not expected to change the outcome of the war but has raised fears that a red line for Russia has been crossed. Such a red line could lead to a nuclear war. Russian politicians blasted the decision to deploy tanks. 

My Comment:

Once again, Donald Trump is the only sane man. He's the only one trying to end the war and seems to actually be serious about it. He's also accurately portraying the very real risks of this idiotic tank deployment, which will not help the Ukrainians win the war (nothing will at this point other then World War III) but will infuriate the Russians. 

Trump's claim that he could end the war in 24 hours is very optimistic though. Both Russia and Ukraine have lost too many people to simply end the war that quickly. It would take a massive amount of work to find any common ground between the two parties. I think it is very possible that the war could end through negotiation but it would require quite a bit effort. 

I think Trump could do it. He was a very good diplomat. He was able to neuter North Korea as a threat, forged closer relationship between the Arabs and Israelis in the Middle East and solved a crisis between Kosovo and Serbia. Biden messed most of these things up but the fact remains that Trump has solved crisis' in the past. 

And Trump is also right in that this war would have never happened if it hadn't been for Joe Biden. Trump and Putin had a good working relationship and though Trump did do a few things that angered Putin, I don't think that he ever lost the respect of Putin. Unlike Biden, who is a senile fool beholden to the defense industry and intelligence agencies, Putin respected Trump as a man who was doing the best thing for his country and as a serious person. Putin was also somewhat afraid of Trump as he never quite got a handle on the man, since he wasn't the same as the 50 years of politicians we had before him, Trump was not someone Putin wanted to anger because he couldn't predict his behavior. 

I wish that Trump could actually be allowed to negotiate right now. He can't really do that as a private citizen and Biden would never allow it to happen. But I think that he's about the only person that could actually pull it off. And if he did he would finally get that Nobel peace prize he deserves. 

But that's not the world we live in. Instead Joe Biden insists on making everything about this war even worse. I don't think tanks will be the last thing that Biden sends into the war and I honestly think that a nuclear war is very possible. If it happens then we can say with absolute certainty that Joe Biden was the worst decision America ever made... 

US and Germany will send limited numbers of main battle tanks to Ukraine in a major escalation of the war.

 

M1 Abrams infographic. BBC/Getty.

The United States and Germany will send limited numbers of main battle tanks to Ukraine in a major escalation of the war with Russia. BBC. The United States will send 31 M1 Abrams to Ukraine while Germany will send 14 Leopard 2 tanks. Ukraine claims that the tanks would help blunt Russian offensives and that it would enable them to launch their own offensives. The decision was a reversal as the United States had long argued the tanks would be useless in Ukraine due to the high fuel and maintenance costs and would be difficult for Ukrainians to actually operate. The M1 Abrams will come at extreme cost as they are not coming from US stockpiles and will have to be bought from private contractors at a cost of $400 million. No delivery date has been announced for the tanks but it is expected to take a very long time to deliver the M1 Abrams and a couple of months to do so for the Leopards. 

My Comment:

Yet another utterly idiotic and pointlessly evil escalation of the war in Ukraine by the Biden administration. Sending a small number of main battle tanks will obviously not win the war for Ukraine. It will however anger Russia for almost zero reason. 

What is funny to me is that every excuse the United States gave to keep these weapons out of Ukraine is still completely valid. The Ukrainians are not likely to be able to use these tanks in any meaningful way. The Abrams are maintenance intensive and absolutely chug fuel. And they, along with the Leopards, are so heavy that they will damage Ukrainian roads and get bogged down during the mud season (which is lasting most of the winter this year).

There is also the fact that modern tanks need combined arms tactics to be effective. That isn't possible for either side in the Ukraine conflict due to the development of extremely effective anti-air weapons. Ukraine would also need infantry and artillery support for these tanks to work and though they have plenty of conscripts and mercenaries to throw into the meat grinder, they do not have an advantage in artillery. Indeed, Russia's massive advantage in artillery means that even infantry support would not be that effective in defending these tanks. 

Getting the tanks to the front lines is going to be a huge problem as well as Russia advances. Just getting the tanks into Ukraine will probably take months. Supposedly the Leopards won't take to long but the Abrams is going to take so long to deliver it's very possible the war will be decided by then. Russia does seem to be drawing out the war quite a bit on purpose at this point. They have been mostly using mercenaries, Chechens and prison battalions to fight and haven't really fully deployed the army at this point. 

Main battle tanks are not anywhere near as invincible as they once were, and the M1's are 40 years old. Both the Leopards and the Abrams have suffered major loses in recent wars. In Iraq, ISIS was able to counter both tanks and they were just insurgents, not a modern army. The Kurds were also able to destroy many Turkish Leopards as well. The idea that main battle tanks would be able to end the war in Ukraine's favor is not based on reality. 

What is the real question is how Russia will react to this. They would be totally justified in using nuclear weapons at this point, but I don't think it will happen, at least not yet. I don't think Russia is afraid of these tanks at all due to the fact that they know how effective their weapons are and how limited these tanks would be in Ukraine.

But doing so is another example of Biden escalating for no reason. Biden seems to think that the war is winnable and keeps sending aid. That doesn't seem to bear any relation to reality at all. Putin knows that his enemies are not rational actors and that is obviously dangerous for everyone. We are already unofficially at war with Russia and if Biden keeps doing stuff like this it might just turn into World War III... 

Secret documents found at Mike Pence's home.

 

Mike Pence. Fox News/Getty/New York Times.

Secret documents have been found at Mike Pence's Indiana home. Fox News. Pence's team found the documents themselves on January 16th. Pence informed the National Archives about two boxes full of documents that were potentially classified, along with two boxes full of Vice Presidential documents. The documents were secured and then picked up by the FBI. No documents were found at Pence's think tank offices. Pence is said to be cooperating with the FBI and National Archives. 

My Comment:

I have said in the past that both the Trump and Biden scandals were fairly minor as every President and Vice President likely had secret documents in their homes. This discovery seems to confirm that pretty clearly. I am sure that if former surviving presidents and vice presidents were searched along with Biden, Trump and Pence, the same thing would have happened. 

Pence seems to be handling the situation fairly well. He's the one that discovered the documents (or at least his staff) and sent the documents to the FBI as soon as possible. Taking the documents in the first place was obviously a mistake but Pence seems to be trying to nip any scandal in the bud. 

However, Pence has the same problem Joe Biden has and one that Donald Trump did not. Vice Presidents do not have declassification ability so he can't claim that these documents were unclassified unless he can prove that Trump (or current day Biden) did so for him. That seems very unlikely to say the least. 

The other issue is that these secret documents have all been found in confirmed or potential 2024 presidential candidates. Given the fact that Pence and his staff found these documents I don't think this was a plot against him, while the cases against Biden and Trump seem to have been crafted to keep them from running in 2024. Still, it's strange that it only seems to be happening to people that could be running in 2024. 

I don't think this will hurt Pence's political ambitions. For one thing, I don't think Pence has a realistic chance of being elected in a national race. Pence burned his bridges with the MAGA community after January 6th. And the RINO's and moderates aren't going to vote a guy that was Donald Trump's #2. And given the reaction to the troll post that falsely announced that he was running in 2024 I don't think he has a realistic chance of being president, or even the candidate in 2024. 

Even with that though, this scandal seems incredibly minor, but I said that about the Trump and Biden document issues as well. At least with Biden the issue has legs because some of the documents were from his Senate days. But given the minor nature of the issue and the fact that Pence did everything he could to correct the issue I don't see this being a major problem for him. 

US air strike kills 30 al-Shabaab fighters in Somalia

 

File photo of al-Shabaab fighters. BBC/AFP.

An airstrike targeting the al-Shabaab terror group in Somalia has left thirty of their fighters dead. BBC. The attack occurred in the town of Galcad, which has been the sight of a battle between the terror group and Somali forces. The air strike turned the tide of the battle where the Somali army was battling over 100 al-Shabaab fighters. Earlier in the battle the militants had killed seven Somali soldiers. Three al-Shabaab vehicles were also destroyed in the air raid. 

My Comment:

I occasionally like to post about Somalia because America is fairly involved in the war there. It gets almost zero attention due to the Ukraine war sucking up almost all media attention. But the conflict is fairly important because al-Shabaab is one of the last remaining terror groups that regularly launches major attacks. 

Al-Shabaab is one of the largest and last remaining major affiliates of al-Qaeda and is one of the last ones that can actually pull off major attacks. They aren't a global threat like ISIS and core al-Qaeda were back in the day but they are a regional as their have hit targets outside of Somali, including Kenya.  

This incident looks like we bailed out a group of Somali soldiers that had bit off more than they could chew. The terrorists were counter-attacking them as they were trying to take the down from al-Shabaab. They had to be helped by our airstrikes because it seems like they were outgunned and outnumbered. It seems like the airstrikes were able to break the back of the al-Shabaab militants and won the war for the Somali soldiers.

Of course, one does wonder why we are involved in Somalia. Al-Shabaab is a regional threat but they aren't a threat to our allies in Europe and are certainly not a threat to the United States at this point. They could be some day but I don't see that happening anytime soon. The conditions that made al-Qaeda and ISIS such big threats aren't there in Somalia. There isn't a huge tax base to gain funds and there aren't huge stockpiles of weapons just lying around in Somalia, at least compared to Iraq and Syria. 

Islamic terrorism is not anywhere near as relevant as it used to be. ISIS peaked in 2015 and was largely destroyed since then and al-Qaeda hasn't been relevant for a long time outside of their affiliates. The defeat of ISIS demoralized Islamic militants everywhere and without successful attacks there isn't really any good way for them to recruit new fighters. Al-Shabaab is one of the last groups that are doing much of anything these days. 

Russia has started a new offensive in southern Ukraine

 

Rubble in the Zaporizhahia region. AFP/New York Times.

Russia has started a new offensive in southern Ukraine after the front there has stagnated for months. AFP. The Russians have advanced in the Zaporizhahia region, taking the village of Lobkove. Ukraine reports more than 20 of their towns have come under attack. The front has been quite for a long time with the vast majority of fighting has occurred in Bakhmut region, where Russia has also seen some successes in that region, including taking the critical town of Soledar. Both Zaporizhahia and Donetsk, where Bakhmut is, are stated to be war goals. 

My Comment:

I don't know if this is Russia's famed winter offensive of not? I had expected attacks from Belarus or from the north, not the south. But on the other hand, attacking here makes sense. The bulk of Ukraine's forces are deployed in a losing effort in Bakhmut, with many others still deployed near the border with Belarus. That probably means they don't have the troops to protect this region. 

Still, Bakhmut remains the main show. Russia has been surprisingly effective there, mostly fighting with Wagner mercenaries/prison battalions. They have been inflicting massive casualties on the Ukrainians due to their major advantage with artillery. This has been so effective that they were able to take Soledar. 

Keep in mind at least half of Ukraine's forces were deployed near Bakhmut and they still lost Soledar. And they will likely lose more of what they have as Russia advances. Ukraine just doesn't seem to have enough in the tank to defend Bakhmut and Zaporizhahia at the same time.

The problem for Ukraine is that they need the perception of victories (even meaningless ones) to keep the flow of western aid flowing. Nobody will want to pay for their weapons and budget if they know that Ukraine is losing the war. That's why I am expecting some kind offensive in an area where Russia is weak. 

If we don't see that then we know Ukraine is really in trouble. If they can't muster enough forces to execute an offensive, even a meaningless one, it means that they are on the brink of collapse. I don't know how likely it is but if we do see it we should have pretty good proof that the war is not going Ukraine's war at all. 

I know most of the news about Ukraine is about western aid, but it's pretty laughable. A few Bradly Fighting Vehicles aren't going to help and even the vaunted Leopard tanks are not going to help much. The Leopards aren't even coming from Germany and given Turkey's experience with the tanks, I don't see them making much of an impact. The Turkish Leopard were taken out by ISIS and the Kurds, which don't have anywhere near the technology and expertise that Russia has.   

The real elephant in the room is that the west is running out of supplies while Russia's factories are pumping out weapons 24/7. Back when I was in college my history professor told my class about his World War II class where he said he only taught about the actual combat of the war for about a week. The entire rest of the class was about how the allies beat the axis because of the dramatic advantage in military production. 

That stuck with me for years and I think it remains true in the Ukraine conflict. Russia has a major industrial advantage over the west, who has drawn down production on weapons dramatically. Russia on the other hand is on a war footing and they have the weapons to keep the war going for a long time, even as they deplete some of their pre-war stocks. 

The Ukrainians? They can't produce their own weapons for the most parts and their weapons from before the war are almost completely gone. So are many of the weapons they have received from the west in the first wave of aid. They essentially have lost two entire armies worth of equipment and are begging for a third. I can't imagine they will have a fourth... 

Massive strikes and protests erupt in France after Macron proposes raising the retirement age.

 

Protesters in France. BBC/EPA.

Massive strikes and protests have erupted in France after French President Emmanuel Macron has proposed raising the retirement age from 62 to 64. BBC. Between 1.2 and 2 million people turned out for protests in 200 cities. Because many of the union workers went on strikes, schools closed and most public transportation was shut down. The effort to raise the retirement age is deeply unpopular among the French with 68% of people disagreeing with the idea. It has also united both the far right and far left in the national assembly and even some more moderate conservatives are against the idea, leaving Macron's Renaissance party scrambling for allies. If the measure fails, there may be extreme problems with France's pension system, which is how the majority of French people are able to retire. Like many countries, France has a demographic problem where not enough workers are paying into the system. 

My Comment:

It is somewhat funny to see this happen in France while here in the United States you aren't fully eligible for retirement until the age of 65 and that number will be 67 pretty soon for full benefits. And I don't know if I have ever talked to anyone in my generation (early millennial/late gen x border) that actually expects retirement to even be available in the 30 or so years that we have until we reach retirement age. 

Regardless though, I think the French people are right to be upset about this. Macron is proposing changing the rules of the game after people have paid into the system for years. And now, all of a sudden, they are getting their benefits yanked? I would be furious and I am not surprised that much of France is protesting against this. 

It's hard to tell with France though. I remember the yellow vest movement awhile back and that movement fizzled out in the end. France seems to protest at the drop of a hat and usually it's a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. This could be the case here but I am not sure. 

The difference might be the fact that both the unions and the far right and far left are all in agreement here. There is a wide group of people opposed to this and the only ones really pushing for it are Macron's party and a few of the more moderate conservatives. If the strikes become more widespread than they currently are I think Macron will have to back down. 

I don't think it would go beyond that though. I can't see Macron being deposed or forced to step down. Like I said, I don't expect too much from protests in France, it's like their national sport. Macron has proven resilient in the past and I don't see him being vulnerable. 

I do think there is a case to be made that France will have to make changes with their pension system eventually. Like most western countries France has the same demographic problems that mean there are less people paying into the system then drawing out from it. And like most western countries France has foolishly decided to try and solve that problem by bringing in immigrants instead of encouraging people to have children. Unfortunately, many if not most of these immigrants are more of a drain on the system, due to high crime rates and low employments, than contributors. 

Are Democrats trying to get rid of Joe Biden?

 

Joe Biden official portrait. 

As you are probably aware, Joe Biden's document scandal has proven to have legs. Top Secret documents have been found in three locations and we now know that Hunter Biden was paying Joe Biden for rent that doesn't appear to be reported in his taxes or something. 

I personally didn't think this story would go anywhere at all. After all, the FBI raid on Donald Trump was an absolute joke and is even less of a scandal now. You can't go after Trump for keeping secret documents (in a safe no less) when Biden had them in his garage next to his corvette. 

But the story is still going on and even the mainstream media is covering it. This is not what I was expecting since until now the media has carried Biden's water for him, despite his terrible performance as President. How else can you explain the fact that losing Afghanistan wasn't a major story? 

So what is going on here? I think there is a decent chance that this is an effort to prevent Biden from running in 2024. Biden has been insistent that he is running in 2024 despite poor polling numbers and even many members of his own party wanting him gone. And there are serious questions about Biden's health and mental stability with most people believing he is at least a little senile, if not totally incapable. 

Would it be any wonder that the Democrats would want to dump Biden? They probably want someone younger, more popular and healthier, such as Gavin Newsome from California. But they can't do that if Biden is in the way, so I am guessing that this is an effort to get rid of him. 

Others have speculated that the venue of attack against Biden might be coming from another direction. I have heard some theories where it wasn't the Democrats trying to get rid of Biden but the deep state. Supposedly they are upset that Biden isn't hawkish enough on Ukraine and is refusing to deploy troops there. 

I find this implausible as I find it hard to believe that there is anyone more hawkish than Biden. The man pretty much single handedly started the war with Russia and seems incapable of admitting that the war is not going well at all. Sure, he hasn't deployed US troops, officially at least, but other than that he's been insane about the war. 

In either scenario though, getting rid of Biden has a very obvious and disqualifying factor and that is the fact that if Biden is removed or resigned Kamala Harris would become president. That would be a disaster for not only the Democrats but the country in general. Harris is deeply unpopular and if she became president she would almost certainly run in 2024, thus ensuring that the Republicans would win without a truly heroic amount of voter fraud. 

So if there is a plot move on Biden, it has to account for Harris first. They could try and get her out of the VP position, but unlike Biden, Harris has been fairly scandal free, despite her obvious incompetence and unlikability. My guess is that instead Biden will remain as a lame duck President as a placeholder.

To be clear though, I do think that Biden deserves this. He has been a terrible president and I don't blame the Democrats or whoever wants him gone for doing this. If he had a clean record he would not have been vulnerable to this attack. If he had been smart he never would have run in the first place as it was always clear he was nothing more than a placeholder. 

China's population drops for the first time since 1961

 

A woman with a child in China. BBC/Getty.

China's population has dropped for the first time since 1961. BBC. China still has 1.4 billion people, but that number dropped by 850,000 since 2022. China for a long time had a once child policy that reduced the birth rate. But the rate is still declining in spite of that policy being removed in 2015. China's lack of young people could have major effects on China's economy. The one child policy also damaged the countries demographics with boys being favored over girls. Efforts to raise the birth rate in China have failed so far. 

My Comment:

China is reaping what they had sewn with their idiotic one child policy. To be fair, China was and is drastically overpopulated, but not having children has huge problems that greatly damage the country. And China has not done well at reversing the trend. 

Why is this a problem? In most societies the young pay for the elderly and help them in their old age. When there aren't enough young people you end up with cashflow problems. It's a great way to bankrupt the country.

To be fair, China is far from the only country that has this exact problem. Birthrates have been falling across the world and nobody seems to understand why. What the BBC article fails to mention is that in America and Europe population is only growing due to third world immigration, legal and otherwise. Otherwise we would be in the same situation of China, though I would prefer their problem here than all the horrible problems that these immigrants are causing. 

China made things a lot worse with their one child policy. The policy itself was bad enough but it utterly destroyed China's demographics. In the younger generations they have 120 men for every 100 women, which means they have a huge number of men that simply can't get married or have children. And having huge numbers of unmarried childless men has historically been a recipe for disaster. 

This makes me think that this problem is going to get much worse before it gets better. There won't be any way to fix the gender imbalance and whatever is reducing birth rates globally will be added on top of it. China just doesn't seem to have a way out of their demographics. 

There is one thing that will likely change things up for China, if you believe the media. Supposedly the Coronavirus pandemic is going to kill a lot of people. I don't know if that is very likely though. I do think that China's vaccine probably doesn't work but given the weakened state of the virus, I don't think that many people will actually die. Much like the earlier stages of the pandemic most of the people that will die are ones that will die anyways, so it won't change China's aging problem. It might slow population growth even more though. 

Should Russia buy back an aircraft carrier from China?

 

Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. Business Insider/Getty.

Russia has proposed buying back the Liaong aircraft carrier from China to replace the long suffering Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. Business Insider. The Admiral Kuznetsov is Russia's only carrier but it has been plagued with mechanical problems and other disaster, including a series of fires as well as having a crane collapse on it. The carrier might not be able to return to service. A Russian lawmaker proposed a solution, buying the former Soviet Carrier Varyag from China. China bought the ship from Ukraine after the collapse of communism in the Soivet Union and developed into their first aircraft carrier. The ship is now called Liaong and is used as a training ship. 

My Comment:

I ignored the obvious Ukrainian propaganda in the Business Insider piece. I have no idea why they would quote an Ukrainian outlet about the Admiral Kuznetsov, they have every motivation to lie about anything related to Russia. Unfortunately, I was not able to find a less biased source for this post.

I do believe that the Admiral Kuznetov is mostly useless now. The ship had a successful deployment in the Syrian Civil War, but the ship was plagued by mechanical problems. It needed a major refit and repairs after that deployment but instead it got a crane dropped on it and it burned down several times. It's being repaired but who knows when or if it would be finished. 

Buying the Liaong might be a better idea than trying to rebuild the Kuznetsov. China has taken good care of the ship and it would a good addition to Russia's fleet. It wouldn't be that hard to convert it to Russian standards because the ship was originally Soviet in the first place. They have the planes to use on it and they would be able to use it to project force. 

Of course, the elephant in the room is that China seems extremely unlikely to sell the Liaong. China only has three carriers and the third, the Fujian, has not even gone through sea trials now. And though the Liaong has been relegated to a training ship, the Chinese obviously need one. China is building more carriers but at this point I can't see them selling the Liaong at any price until their carrier program is a lot more developed. 

The other issue is that I don't think Russia actually needs a new aircraft carrier. Indeed, I think that if they are going to build any ships at all it should be missile frigates and destroyers. Those would be more useful than a highly vulnerable aircraft carrier.

And I don't think having an aircraft carrier would have helped much in the war against Ukraine. Airpower hasn't been relevant in the fight since both sides have anti-air weapons and Russia's use of artillery and missiles have done a much better job. Those weapons are Russia's focus and will continue to be so until the war in Ukraine ends. This plan to buy Liaong will likely amount to nothing.  

Dozens of Illinois sheriffs vow to not enforce unconstitutional ban on "assault weapons" and standard capacity magazines.

 

File photo of an AR rack as an Illinois gun shop. Fox News/Chicago Tribune. 

Dozens of Illinois sheriffs have vowed to not enforced a new unconstitutional ban on "assault weapons" and standard capacity magazines. Fox News. 74 of Illinois 102 sheriffs have released statements saying they support the 2nd amendment and will not enforce the law. The law was signed into law by Illinois governor JD Pritzker. Pritzker threatened the sheriffs if they did not enforce the ban. In addition to the ban on the sale of firearms, owners would have to register their currently owned weapons, despite the fact that efforts to due so in other states have resulted in almost no compliance.  

My Comment:

This law will almost certainly be overturned as soon as it is challenged in court. In NYSRPA vs Bruen the Supreme Court put together a test that this law would very obviously fail. There were no bans on classes of firearms during the early years of the country and by the standard set in Bruen the law would be overturned. The same thing goes for the standard capacity magazine ban. 

Indeed, the law is so obviously unconstitutional it's a wonder why the Illinois government passed it in the first place. They had to have known that the law will be overturned on appeal, so why on earth would they do this?

My guess is that they simply don't care. They hate guns and the people that own them and simply want to punish them. They know that the law will be overturned and they don't care because it will make gun owners lives miserable. 

This won't do a damn thing to deal with crime in Illinois. Indeed, if anything, it will make crime worse. By punishing law abiding gun owners people will be less likely to put down criminals during mass shootings and other crimes. Sure, you can legally carry weapons in Illinois now, thanks to Bruen, but what is the point if you just go to prison for having a gun with too many bullets in it? It just ensures that good people with guns won't be able to stop the next mass shooting in Illinois. 

This is another example of a left wing city completely dominating the good people of the rest of the state. Almost nobody in Illinois wants this but the people in Chicago are pushing it beyond reason. They have no recourse to fight against this outside of the courts. It just shows how democracy in the United States is totally broken. 

The sheriffs are the real heroes here. They are telling where JD Pritzker to shove it. Without the support of the sheriffs this law is mostly unenforceable. Very few people should be punished by the law outside of Chicago and some of its suburbs. Still, even one case of an innocent person going to prison because of this law is one too many. 

I do think that this law will probably drive immigration out of Illinois. Why would you stay in such a state when pretty much every other state surrounding it has better gun laws. My state, Wisconsin, gets a "worse" rate from the brady campaign then Texas does, and from what I understand Missouri, Indiana and Iowa are similar. Why stay in a state that hates you and wants you to be disarmed? 

UFO reports skyrocket in 2022 compared to 2021 with US National Intelligence UAP reporting program.

 

An image of a UAP captured via a night vision device. BBC. 

UFO reports skyrocketed in 2022 compared to 2021 within the US National Intelligence UAP reporting program. BBC. 510 sightings were compiled in 2022 compared to the years first program in 2021 that compiled 144 sightings, meaning 366 reports were new. Of those almost half were explained with 26 sightings being confirmed drones, 163 being balloons and 6 being radar clutter. However, more than 100 remain unexplained. The report was designed to destigmatize UAP reporting as the objects may be a threat to safety and could even be hostile activity. Though no evidence of extraterrestrial life was included in the report, the report did mention that some of the UAP's exhibited unusual flight characteristics. 

My Comment:

It is always amazing to me that the UFO phenomenon went from something that would get you labeled as a tinfoil hat nutter just a few years ago but is now openly acknowledged as something that is absolutely happening. Sure, you can still be a tinfoil hat nutter but you can also be a government agency that can take these kinds of reports and analyze them and report on them. 

What gets me is how little impact this had. If you had told people in the 1990's or even the early 2000's that the government would be openly discussing UFO's (or the new term UAP) people would have been incredulous. But in the past few years the government has openly acknowledged that they have no idea what these things are. That's a fairly huge difference in how things used to be but the impact appears to be minimal. 

It is deeply concerning that the government doesn't know what these things are. None of the options seem very good given the flight characteristics of these things. Credible witnesses say they can defy physics and that means that there is someone out there that has technology far greater than what is publicly known. 

I guess it is possible that all of these sightings are in fact either false or misidentified. Given that some of these sightings, most notably the ones involving the Navy, have multiple forms of confirmation, including radar and other technology along with the good old Mark I eyeball it would be fairly inexplicable if this was some kind of massive computer glitch along with mass hysteria. But I guess it is possible, which means there is a huge problem with both our technology and our fighting men. 

Another possibility is that there is a government or a group on earth that has dramatically better technology than everyone else. The kind of physics breaking stuff that would possibly allow you to take over the world. Some people say that actor is the United States and if that's the case then the entire UAP program is just a soft disclosure of our new technology. 

For their part the government explicitly denies this (which is what you would expect them to do) but I personally don't think that this is the case. If they did have this kind of tech, they would probably be using it in Ukraine. And if it was US tech they probably would want to keep it a secret and not show our national enemies that they have this technology. Plus it would be very hard to keep such a breakthrough secret. 

The inability to keep breakthroughs a secret also makes me suspicious that this is any human group causing these reports. You would really need government level resources to get this technology and even if you could get them otherwise, I doubt you couldn't keep it secret long. This kind of technology would revolutionize all aspects of life on earth and I doubt that it would not have been leaked by now if it was something humans made. 

That doesn't mean that it's aliens though. It is very possible that these reports, even the 2004 USS Nimitz report and the 2014 USS Theodore Roosevelt reports, could be some kind of unknown natural phenomenon. What that could be is beyond my expertise but there are all kinds of weird natural known things, like ball lightning, that could be explanations for most or all of these reports, and it could be something that can be seen physically and with our technology. I think this is probably responsible for at least some of the reports.    

The last option is the most unthinkable one and that UAP's are actually alien to our world. Such a thought would be unmentionable just a few years ago but now it is at least accepted as a possibility. I think it is fairly unlikely due to our understanding of physics and the vast distances in space and the fact there appears to be no other advanced life in our solar system. It's very likely that interstellar travel is mostly impossible.  

But if it's not and these really are aliens? Then the world changes overnight and the questions immediately become are they hostile and what are there intentions regarding both us and our planet? If they are friendly, how do we open relations with them? And if they aren't, can humanity even survive? My guess is if aliens are real and they are here our best hope is that they treat us like equals. If not, then we might simply be screwed, as there is very little we could do to prevent such a race from taking over, or, even worse, exterminating us. 

None of these explanations are good and all of them represent a threat. Even a lack of knowledge on natural phenomenon could be a threat if these sightings are a prelude to some kind of disaster. If it's earth based then there is a group or groups with technology far beyond are understanding. And if it's not from this earth... nothing good happens. 

Regardless, I do find this topic fascinating, if for no other reason it's an example of a conspiracy theory going mainstream. That seems to be happening an awful lot lately and makes me wonder how many conspiracy theories are true, at least in part... 

Justice Department announces an appointment of a special counsel for Joe Biden's document scandal

 

Joe Biden White House Portrait. 

The Justice Department has announced the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Joe Biden's document scandal. Politico. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed US attorney Robert Hur to investigate classified documents found in two locations. The scandal erupted after documents were found at a Biden think tank, but exploded after documents were also found at his residence in Delaware. Biden says he is cooperating with the investigation. Since Biden is a sitting President, it is unlikely that he will be charged with any crimes. 

Biden said the documents at his residence were located in his "locked garage" next to his corvette. 

My Comment:

Wow, this scandal is blowing up. I personally don't think this is that big of a deal. Pretty much all Presidents and Vice President keep classified documents and it's only because the Justice Department is persecuting Donald Trump over the issue that Biden's actions are even being covered. But I really don't think this behavior is unusual. 

Unfortunately for Biden he made the mistake of accusing Donald Trump of something he is incredibly guilty of himself. And unlike Donald Trump, Biden was not president at the time and was unable to declassify the items he took with a thought. Biden could actually be in trouble here. 

Part of the reason this story is exploding is the utter hypocrisy on display here. Biden just raided Trump's home, Mar-a-Lago for doing the exact same thing that he is guilty of himself. The media tried to crucify Trump for keeping a letter from Kim Jong Un while Biden was doing the same thing. And unlike Trump, who kept the documents in his vault, Biden kept his in his garage. 

Biden, and the media, had two choices. They could either admit that what Trump did was fine and not a big deal. That would be the sane thing to do, but they can't possible admit that Donald Trump was right about anything ever. That would destroy them. So instead they are saying that both Biden and Trump did things wrong and it's mostly a desperate attempt to get Trump.  

I am starting to wonder if this isn't an effort to take down Biden. Biden has been pretty adamant that he wants to run in 2024, despite poor approval ratings, advanced age and many health problems. Biden was never the Democrats first choice and he was always a place holder for better candidates. Biden's refusal to give up his asperations may have gotten him in trouble with the deep state, who don't want another Trump presidency. This might be their way of getting Biden out of the picture. 

Still, I have to be a bit incredulous that this could be the scandal that brings down Biden. It's not his failure in Afghanistan. It's not his complete failure on the economy. It's not the various other more serious scandals that Biden has had. It's not the fact that he's a creepy hair sniffer who was credibly accused of rape. It's none of that. It's because he had a couple documents at his office and garage. 

 

Suicide bombing in Kabul has killed between five and twenty people.

 

Taliban fighters near the site of the bombing. BBC/Getty.

ISIS has taken credit for a suicide bombing that killed between five and twenty people. BBC. Taliban sources disagree on how many deaths have happened with some saying only five died while others saying twenty did. The attack occurred outside of Afghanistan's Foreign Ministry in Kabul. The bomber had tried to enter the building but was unable to get inside. No foreign government officials were in the Ministry during the attack. ISIS has conducted a string of attacks in Kabul with foreign governments being a major target. 

My Comment:

Though I am of course disturbed by this attack, I do have to say that it somewhat satisfying to see the Taliban on the other side of a violent insurgency. The Taliban used to use the same tactics against US forces in Afghanistan and now ISIS is giving them a taste of their own medicine. It's unfortunate though that the primary targets appear to be random civilians. 

The casualty rate is probably higher than the upper estimate that the Taliban has given. This bombing was in a populated area and many of the injured could die due to the poor medical care available in Afghanistan after the fall of the former government. 

This attack may have been targeting foreign governments as well. There was a rumor that China had sent delegates to the foreign ministry at the time of the attack. Those rumors turned out to be false, but perhaps that explains the timing of the attacks? Killing a bunch of Chinese diplomats would be a coup for the Taliban. 

Still, this attack seems like a partial failure to me. They were not able to get into the building and were turned away at the door. They only killed civilians and were not able to kill any diplomats. They did cause quite a few deaths but not any military officials or diplomats. 

As for ISIS they seem to be picking up the pace of attacks in Afghanistan. ISIS has been able to launch quite a few attacks recently, mostly in Kabul. They are making a comeback there and it's pretty easy to see why. The Taliban is not as effective at fighting them as the United States was. The Afghans no longer have America's intelligence assets or the ability to launch airstrikes. They can still fight and kill ISIS but they don't have the tech advantage the US had. 

Still, I am not too worried about ISIS taking over the country or using it as a base to attack western countries. The Taliban has a pretty strong grip on Afghanistan and though ISIS will be hard to route out I don't think they are strong enough to beat the Taliban. They are powerful enough to make things miserable for the Taliban but that's about it. 

Haiti is a failed state, not a single elected official is still in office.

 

A street vendor in Haiti. The Guardian/EPA.

Haiti is becoming a failed state with the last elected officials leaving office as their term expires. The Guardian. The last 10 Senators left the government at their term ended. There is no representation for Haitian citizens at any level of government. The government is not able to combat a growing gang crisis along with many other terrible problems. Haiti has not held elections since 2019 and the President was assassinated in 2021. The current President, Ariel Henry, is not seen as legitimate after taking over for Jovenel Moise without being ratified by law. With the legislature completely out of office and the Supreme Court down to five justices, all the power is now in the hands of Henry. With Haiti falling apart there are rumors that an international force could be deployed to restore order. 

My Comment:

Haiti is a good example of what happens when the government fails completely. The country has no real government now other than Ariel Henry and has been completely unable to solve any of its very serious problems. 

Haiti has never been much of a functioning country but the assassination of Jovenel Moise brought it to a level they have never seen before. And that killing has not yet been solved and it's unclear if things will get back to normal anytime soon. 

Things are complicated by a major gang war. With no government there doesn't seem to be much in the way of fighting the gangs that have taken over much of the country. Those gangs are mostly fighting each other which is causing a huge level of violence in an already violent country. 

I don't know how Haiti actually fixes any of this. I think if they did want to have elections it might help things as at least then they might be able do something but I don't think Henry will allow that. He wants to keep the power for himself and as long as that is the case nothing will change, at least not change for the better. 

There is an effort to deploy an US led force to try and restore order. I can tell you that I am opposed to this for pretty obvious reasons. America has a bad record with trying to nation build and Haiti is even worse than our previous experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, we don't have major terror groups in Haiti but the country is pretty much completely dysfunctional to a level that we didn't even see in Afghanistan. 

Would it help Haiti? I doubt it. In order to try and fix the country they would have to do something about the gangs and I don't see how you do that without heavy combat. Not only would we lose quite a few troops, a lot of Haitian civilians would die as well. 

Plus, there is essentially zero desire for Americans to get into another war. We are already bagged down in the Ukraine mess, a war we will probably lose, and we face threats from China and North Korea as well. Americans have war fatigue after our adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria and the last thing we need is another war in a country that is not a threat or a strategic asset. 

Secret documents found at Biden think tank

 

The documents were found at the Penn Biden Center. Politico

Secret documents from the Obama administration was found at the Penn Biden Center, a Biden think tank. Politico. The documents were found November 2nd, prior to the midterms, and was only revealed today. The documents were handed over to the US Attorney. Biden claims that he had no knowledge of the classified documents. The reaction to the discovery has drawn criticism from Republicans as the announcement was delayed until after the midterms and that the documents were collected without an FBI raid, unlike President Trump. 

My Comment:

I'm going to be consistent and say that this probably isn't a big deal. At least it shouldn't be since the Mar-A-Lago case was an absolute nothingburger. From what I understand it's pretty standard to have secret and top secret documents among presidential collections. Indeed, if you investigated Obama, Bush, Clinton and Carter, I bet you would find the same things. 

Indeed, the only reason this is a problem for the Biden administration at all is the utter hypocrisy of it. The FBI and the media said Donald Trump keeping a few letters from Kim Jong Un (with the improved relations with North Korea being a major success) was the biggest thing in the world for a couple of weeks until everyone forgot about it. Well, everyone remembers the unprecedented raid on Mar-A-Lago and what is good for the goose is good for the gander. 

What the documents are could be important and change how I think about the issue. Trump kept memorabilia from his administration, but as of this writing we have no idea what Biden kept. It could be something small and meaningless like Trump's letters from Kim Jong Un. Or it could be something Biden used for blackmail or corruption. Right now I don't know either way, but my guess is that it's probably nothing important.  

Biden still looks like an absolute hypocrite though. He's trying to downplay it by saying he didn't do it on purpose and that he's cooperating but I don't believe either. Biden can't claim the high ground on this issue and it's pathetic that the media is tryin to do so. 

I do think that this was delayed to affect the midterms. Though I don't think what normally would have been a very minor scandal would have done much, the fact that it wasn't released before the midterms does strike me as election interference. Though everyone already knows that Biden is a terrible president, perhaps this scandal would have changed a few votes. Given how close some elections were in 2022 it might have changed some races. It's just another example of the government siding with Democrats over all things. 

Regardless, I think Republicans will hit Biden hard on this issue. I think they are probably right to do so due to the utter hypocrisy, but I don't think that there will be much mileage on this issue unless something big shows up in those documents. 

Protesters storm Brazil's capitol against far-left President Lula

 

Protesters clash with police. Fox News/AP.

Protesters have stormed Brazil's capitol Brasilia against far-left President Lula. Fox News. Protesters broke into the capitol, congressional building and the presidential palace. Lula was not present during the protests. Lula was elected last year but many Brazilians believe that the election was stolen from Jair Bolsanaro, who also not in Brasilia right now. Bolsanaro supporters have been protesting since the election on October 30th 2022. Local police and other security forces appear to have taken back the occupied buildings. 

My Comment:

It was very hard to find a news report that's even close to being neutral about this incident. Not even the Fox News/AP report mentioned that the protesters may have legitimate concerns. It just goes to show how utterly biased American media is against anything they consider anti-mainstream. 

I personally think that the Brazilians are right to protest against Lula. The election was very close and if there was even a little voter fraud it's very possible that he wasn't elected legitimately. South American elections are even worse than North American ones and I wouldn't be surprised if there was widespread voter fraud on both sides. 

Furthermore Lula is acting like he has a mandate but he obviously does not if he barely won the election. Given that he is far left compared to Bolsanaro that's a very good reason to protest against him. I personally think all leftist governments should fall and their leaders should be imprisoned at least. He has no reason to be taking the actions he is taking right now. 

With that being said, this protest didn't seem to accomplish much. It happened on a Sunday and basically nobody was in town that day. All they did was trash some buildings which isn't how you get a new government. And it sounds like they have already been cleared out with many people being arrested. Much better to storm the buildings when Lula was there and keep him hostage until he resigns. 

Of course there are people already calling this a false flag, brining reminders of Ray Epps and the January 6th protests. I personally think if that's the case it's a lot more like the coup in Turkey where Tayyip Erdogan used it as an excuse to purge his political enemies. I am sure that Lula, far from being threatened by these protests, is salivating at the thought at throwing Bolsanaro and his supporters into prison for the rest of their lives. 

For the protesters all I can say is that they should double down. If they have any hope at all they have to commit. If they drop the protests now Lula will use it as an excuse to crack down on all resistance and it's very likely they will never win an election again. Indeed, if the choices are continuing to protest or spending the rest of their lives in prison, I know what I would choose. They have everything to gain by continuing and everything to lose by giving up. 

As for Bolsanaro himself, he's in trouble. I don't expect the American government to protect him as he is in the country right now for some reason. Indeed, he's probably more at risk here in Florida than he is in Brazil. At least in Brazil he has supporters that can protect him, not so much in Florida. He should go home and lead these protests if he wants to survive. Keep in mind it doesn't appear that Bolsanaro has nothing to do with these protests in the first place.  

Police search for man who shot armed robber in restaurant in Houston Texas. Was the shooting justified?

 

Police are looking for the man who shot the armed robber. Fox News. 

Houston Police are searching for a man who shot and killed an armed robber in Texas. Fox News. A man with a gun came into the Ranchito #4 Taqueria and pointed a gun at customers demanding money. One of the customers and shot the man nine times. Police have not filed charges so far and say they want to talk to the man, who left the scene after the shooting, but not before giving back the victims their money. The shooter was scene on video firing one more shot into the criminals head after he was down on the ground.

Warning: the video below shows the shooting. 

Cont. pic.twitter.com/cIEynn2cyg

— Gage ♊️ (@Mr12G) January 7, 2023

My Comment: 

There is not question in my mind that morally this shooting was justified. The criminal pointed his gun at people and robbed them and was a threat to everyone in that restaurant. I have no problem with him getting shot and killed, that's a solution, not a problem. The criminal put everyone's live at risk and was stealing from regular working folks who probably needed their money. I'm not sad that he's dead. 

But I think this shooter might end up in legal trouble for what he did. First of all, he left the scene which is never a good idea in a self defense situation. You don't need to talk to the cops, indeed, I'd recommend invoking your right to remain silent in this kind of situation, but fleeing the scene is not a good move. A jury could see that as evidence of guilt and neither the police or the prosecutors are going to be impressed by it. 

Texas has very strong self defense laws. There is no duty to retreat there, but I don't think it would be that relevant regardless since the shooter had nowhere to go. The shooter could easily argue that he felt threatened by the robber and could also argue that he was defending not only his life but the life of others. Indeed, if that is all that happened I think this would have been an obviously justified shooting legally. 

The problem is that last shot. That sure looked like a coup de grâce, a finishing blow to kill an injured man. That obviously causes some problems for the shooter. The criminal no longer had the gun and didn't seem like he was a threat anymore. It's possible he was reaching for the gun but the shooter had already grabbed it away from him. 

It's possible the criminal was already dead at that point (and it sure looked like he either was or was close to it to me) and that raises interesting legal questions. Is it a crime to kill someone who is already dead? I am not sure. It reminds me of the old scenario in my criminal justice classes, is it a crime to shoot someone who just jumped off a 10 story building? The answer was yes, but does it change if the guy was already dead? That's for a lawyer to answer I guess. 

My gut tells me this guy gets charged. This was Houston after all, and even in Texas I don't think you can kill someone who isn't a threat. That last shot doesn't seem justified legally in my mind, though I certainly don't mind it from a moral sense. He made some serious mistakes and leaving the scene will not help him either.