The Democrats and powers that be have gone utterly insane...

 

Joe Biden.

Today has been one of the most absurd days in political history and that is really saying something. Merely days after the murder of six people, including three nine year old children, Joe Biden's administration decided that the right move would be to make March 31st the "Trans Day of Visibility". This is the same day that trans activists have declared the "Trans Day of Vengeance", which is considered so violent that it has been banned from Twitter. 

It's hard to overstate the absurdity of this. Imagine if in the aftermath of the Elliot Rodger shooting the President of the United States declared "Incel Visibility Day". Imagine after the congressional baseball shooting the President of the United States declared "Shoot a Congressman Day". Imagine after any of the ISIS attacks the President of the United States declared "Worship Muhammad" Day. None of those things would have ever happened, even during the most absurd days of ISIS apology we had. Because to do so would be insane. 

But that's what the Biden White House did. Instead of reassuring young families that their kids were safe from those who would cause them harm, instead Biden took the side of the killer. Instead of even mildly criticizing the trans activism that we are all pretty sure was the primary motivation for this attack, he doubled down on criticizing the people that were killed. Because, in his world, Christians are to blame when someone targets a religious school/church and kills six people.

It doesn't matter that three of the people killed were children. It doesn't even matter that one of the adults was a black man. Nope, all that matters is that Transgender people, even though one of their own committed this horrible crime. It also doesn't matter that trans activists are getting more and more shrill and deranged to the point where I'm half convinced there will be violence on Saturday at this stupid Trans Day of Vengeance protest. 

This is the first time I’ve ever seen the media take the side of a mass shooter.

— Joel Berry (@JoelWBerry) March 28, 2023

Of course since this is clown world, this entire story is getting buried because of an even stupider move, the indictment of Donald Trump. I had convinced myself that no prosecutor would be so idiotic to charge a former President on such shaky legal ground under such unstable political conditions. But it happened and now we all have to pay the price. 

I don't think there is a person alive that doesn't think that these charges are politically motivated. Democrats don't think they can beat Trump again, even with their "enhanced" and "secure" elections so they are trying to take him down now.

What is truly shocking about this is that it's so obviously an own-goal, charging President Trump won't work, it will only make him dramatically more popular. The other candidates in the GOP race might as well drop out now (or refuse to run in the case of Ron DeSantis) because so many people will be voting for Trump in principal alone now. 

Which makes me wonder if something else is going on here. One thought is that the Nashville shooting was so damaging to their agenda that they needed something, anything, to distract from it. The Trump indictment fits that role nicely and given that every indication was that the Democrats had backed off from this idiocy last week. Doing so seems absurd but so does risking a war with Russia over Ukraine and that happened too. 

What I am really worried about is that the Democrats seem to be trying to provoke some kind of reaction from the right. It's like they want a terror attack to occur, and it's very possible. After all, the massive wave terrorism from ISIS inspired the deadly New Zealand Mosque attack. Brenton Tarrant committed that attack after the vehicle ramming death of a young girl, Ebba Akerlund. It wasn't just her death but the western world's apparent refusal to do anything about it. Now we have another terror attack where the powers that be are making excuses for while at the same time focusing more on trying to persecute a former President and his supporters. It's a recipe for disaster and I can't imagine that the Democrats don't know what they are doing here. 

Of course, much of this is a moot point, America is in a steep decline regardless. Forget about our cultural problems and our out of control political deep state, the US government badly miscalculated on Ukraine. Right now the only thing holding up the economy is duct tape and the remaining confidence the American people have in it. Without a major change in course, I don't see how the economy survives. And when that happens a lot of this is going to be irrelevant  

Press secretary for Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs resigns after posting violent meme.

 

Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs. NBC News/AP.

Press secretary for Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs has resigned after posting a violent meme on Twitter in the wake of the Nashville shooting. NBC News. Josselyn Barry posted an image from the movie Gloria with a woman holding two revolvers with the caption "us when we see transphobes". The tweet was posted just hours after Audrey Hale, a female to male transgender person, shot and killed six people including three children. The post was removed from Twitter as it violated twitter rules against violence. Governor Hobbs accepted Barry's resignation and said she did not support violence. 

Fox News had a screenshot of the tweet in an earlier article. 

My Comment:

I've got mixed feelings on this one. On the one hand it's pretty clear that this was going to go against the Twitter terms of service and was posted at the absolute worst possible time. On the other, I think it's a pretty big over reaction and the same over reaction could be used to target conservatives and gun rights supporters. 

Obviously, I can't think of worse optics of posting an image that appears to threaten violence right after a major act of terrorism in the name of the same cause. To me it seems like a very clear threat to people that were understandably upset about a mass shooting that targeted people because of their political and religious beliefs. Given how the transgender community labels anyone who is even mildly critical of them, or even not critical of people who are mildly critical of them, as transphobes, there were a lot of people that got threatened here. 

After all we are only a few weeks removed from the Hogwarts legacy fiasco where transgender activists sent threats to anyone that was trying to play the game. Popular V-tuber Pikamee ended up retiring due to the harassment she suffered merely for playing a video game the trans community didn't like. And not only has J.K. Rowling been attacked for some mild criticism for the transgender community, actress Evanna Lynch was threatened for defending Rowling. It was all insane and just goes to show that anyone can be labeled a transphobe by these people. 

This particular incident is another example of an obvious threat coming from these people and it's something a lot of people are not aware of. As someone who has spent a lot of time on social media for the past few years I have been aware of it, but a lot of other people are not. 

Part of me has to have a little schadenfreude over this incident. The left has long accused the right of stochastic terrorism, a largely meaningless accusation that says criticism of people can cause dehumanization and leads to violence. I find such accusations to be ridiculous but under that definition, this post was clearly an example of it. Barry appeared to be saying that it was ok to shoot people she politically disagreed with and under there standards she's just as guilty as the the woman that killed those kids. 

Despite that, I do think that this is not something to celebrate. I think the entire concept of stochastic terrorism is a joke and isn't an actual thing that happens. I understand why she was fired and I am not surprised that she was, given the bad publicity she brought to the Hobbs administration. But I do fear that the rules suddenly imposed on the left here will be used on the right and come on, we are talking about posting a gif on Twitter.

After all, a lot of people are posting against gun control right now (largely because the left is in a panic about what happened and are trying to do anything to distract from the gender identity issue). Couldn't they use the same standard to ban and cancel people saying that a war could erupt if a major gun control push actually happened? After all, Molon Labe is an implied threat right? 

Indeed, a few conservatives did get caught up in the ban wave after the Nashville shooting. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who I am not a fan of due to what she did to Kiwi Farms, had her account suspended for reposting information about a supposed "Trans day of Vengeance" rally supposedly happening at the US Capitol on Saturday. Obviously she didn't support the rally and it's obvious threat of violence but she still got suspended. 

It makes me nervous to even post this post to social media as I did decide to include the post that cost Barry her job. I am hoping that if Fox News can get away with it, I can too, but I am still worried I could catch a suspension or something. That is not at all helpful as it's not like you can really discuss what happened without any real context of what happened. 

Regardless, I think that the backlash has begun against trans activism. In the past it would be unthinkable that someone like Barry would have a post removed like this. There had been some pushback against things like drag queen story hour and puberty blockers but this is the first time the transgender community has been so directly linked to violence. Violence against children. And violence that I do fully expect to continue... 

Rand Paul staffer attacked by man let out of prison early.

 

The US Capitol. AP.

A staffer for Rand Paul was attacked by a 42 year old man a day after being released from federal prison. AP. The attacker, Glynn Neal, stabbed the staffer, Philip Todd, causing a punctured lung and brain bleeding. Todd had no interaction with Neal and the attack is believed to be random and not specifically targeting the staffer. Neal reportedly was hearing voices and claimed that people were going to come and get him. Neal had been sent to federal prison for trafficking and kidnapping women but was released on "good time credit". 

My Comment:

This story kind of got buried due to the Nashville shooting yesterday, which has dominated the news cycle since it happened, but I figured that the story was important enough to cover it today. It shows a lot of problems that our criminal justice system has right now, as well as our mental health care. 

It seems very clear that Mr Neal never should have been let out. He committed a fairly horrible crime even before he tried to murder Philip Todd. He was convicted of kidnapping and trafficking women into prostitution but was somehow let out early. And he immediately tried to murder a random person and almost succeeded after being let out. 

It is also clear that Neal did not have the mental health help he needed. If he was hearing voices he was likely schizophrenic and he was obviously untreated. In a sane world he probably would have been institutionalized but instead he was set free to attack someone. 

It's also clear that the federal parole system is not working. Neal was clearly a threat to himself and others but he was somehow let out. Even though he was pretty clearly schizophrenia and dangerous. But the push has been for letting out more people from prison, not keeping them in there. 

Thankfully this wasn't a targeted attack. Rand Paul has been attacked multiple times and was almost killed by his neighbor. When I heard about this attack I thought it was another example of deranged people attacking the Senator, this time by proxy. Of course, it doesn't say much for Washington DC when it's a place where a Senate Staffer can get brutally attacked and almost killed. 

Transgender shooter killed three children and three adults in shooting in Nashville.

 

Police responding the the site of the shooting. Fox News/Nashville Metro Police Department. 

A female-to-male transgender person named Audrey Hale shot and killed six people, including three children, in an attack on a church and Christian school in Nashville Tennessee. Fox News. The shooter was armed with two rifles and a handgun and had apparently surveilled the school and church before the attack. Police shot and killed Hale before she could continue the attack. Police said that Hale identified as a transgender person and had released a manifesto detailing the motivation for the attack, which has not been released. 

My Comment:

There is an absurd amount of confusion about this attack and the attacker. When the media says someone is a "transgender woman" they assume they are talking about a biological male. However, in this case, as far as I have been able to determine, Audrey Hale was a biological woman who identified as a male. Many media reports have been absurdly unclear about this and it's all due to tip-toeing around the preferred pronouns of a mass murderer. 

This event will likely be memory holed soon. Indeed, many media outlets, including MSNBC, cut to other news as soon as it was reveled that the attacker was transgender. There was a short push for gun control, but that will be out of the news until a media-approved shooter commits a crime. 

Female-to-male transgender people tend to get little press. Much of this is due to how loud and obnoxious the male-to-female activist community is, FTM's get pushed out. But there has been a massive increase of women identifying as men and it is an aspect of this new world we are all living in that gets ignored. I personally am quiet disturbed by it as it seems to be driven much by peer pressure and propaganda and not much else. 

Normally I don't speculate too much on what a mass shooters motivations are but in this case it seems pretty clear. Tennessee just passed a bill that bans hormone replacement and transgender surgery for minors earlier this month, so it would be extremely surprising if the motivation was anything other than that. It would be the same as finding out that a cartoonist that had drawn Muhammad was killed by a Muslim but because he was cheating with the Muslim guy's wife. I guess it's possible that the motivation was something other than trans politics but I find it extremely unlikely. 

Much is being made about the idea that HRT could have been a cause of this shooting. That seems like rank speculation at this point because we don't know if Hale was actually taking hormones or not. But I do know that testosterone is linked to violence. With that being said, I've always been under the impression that the testosterone-violence link had more to do with impulse control over anything else. That doesn't play well with the well planned attack that happened here. 

I do think that the backlash against the transgender community is going to continue and this attack will contribute to that. We have seen the activist community suffer major setbacks, including these bills that ban hormones and surgeries for minors. And, though it may seem a bit inappropriate to mention this, they weren't able to cancel the game Hogwarts Legacy, which is the first time I can remember where they didn't get their way in recent years. 

I am reminded of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville Virginia that totally destroyed the alt-right as a political force. Because one semi-sympathetic person died, the whole movement was destroyed. Will that happen now that we have a probable transgender terrorist that killed three children? Possibly. It depends on what the media does. So far it looks like they are going to memory-hole this shooting and fast. 

Mass protests in Israel after Defense Minister is sacked over judicial system changes

 

Protesters in Israel. ABC News/AP.

Mass protests have intensified in Israel after Defense Minister Yoav Gallant was sacked by Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu after Gallant criticized proposed changes to the judicial system. ABC News/AP. The law would give the ruling Likud party control over judicial appointments, allow the parliament to overturn Supreme Court rulings and limit judicial review. This has caused massive protests with many in the military threatening to essentially go on strike to protest the law. Minister Gallant said that the law should be tabled due to the deep divisions it was causing. The firing of Gallant has caused even more unrest. The State Department of the United States has denied accusations form Netanyahu's son that the CIA has been involved in the protests. 

My Comment:

Much like the protests in France (and previous protests in Canada and the United States), the people of Israel are revolting against government overreach. Unlike France though, Israel doesn't have a long history of rioting and it's happening at an extremely vulnerable time for Israel.

After all, their efforts to ally with the gulf states against Iran have totally fallen apart. Thanks to China the Saudis are warming their relations with Iran and are no longer going to be interested in fighting a war against Iran. 

And they no longer have a friend in the United States. Biden hates Netanyahu for some reason, probably because he is conservative and has been extremely critical of him. To the point that I don't think Netanyahu's son is wrong that the US government is funding and supporting the protests. 

Keep in mind that Israel's Likud party hardly has a mandate. Their has been five elections in four years in Israel and they have had an absurd time getting a ruling coalition together. The country has had a hugely difficult time getting a government together so it's fairly surprising that Likud would be pushing for this so hard. 

As for the law itself, I have mixed feelings. I know that the judiciary can get out of control and I can see why you would want to do this. 

But the problems far out way the benefits as far as I am concerned. Even ignoring the widespread public outrage for a bit, the problem seems obvious. Don't call up what you can't put down. There is always a risk that by eroding norms like this you will be punished by your own actions once you are out of power. The Democrats here learned this by getting rid of the filibuster and Republicans and Trump pushed through a huge number of judges. The same thing could happen here. 

 
As for the outrage, it makes sense. Much like France outraged everyone by bypassing the legislature, Israel is doing the same thing with the judiciary.  People don't like it when the government rams stuff through without any consent from the governed. 

What will happen? Who knows. Like I said, these protests are the largest Israel has had already and firing the Defense Minster is a major escalation. I don't even think he said anything unreasonable either, he's right that this is dividing the country. It's very possible that Benjamin Netanyahu could be out of power soon... 

Donald Trump is defended by an unlikely source, Mexican President AMLO

 

Mexican President Amlo (left) and Donald Trump (right). Newsweek/AFP/Getty.

Donald Trump was defended by an unlikely source, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, (AMLO). Newsweek. AMLO said the New York case against Donald Trump was a fabrication and was there to keep him off the ballot. The comments are somewhat surprising given that AMLO has clashed with other Republican figures after the kidnapping and murder of several American citizens. AMLO said that he too had been the victim of fabricated charges. AMLO was also extremely critical of Joe Biden during the same press conference blaming him for the Nord Stream pipeline attack. 

My Comment:

I haven't talked to much about the bogus charges against Donald Trump, largely because I didn't believe for a second that he was going to be arrested. The Democrats are many things but they aren't that stupid and I can't believe that the would want to make Donald Trump into a martyr. 

Plus, from what I understand the case against Trump, which was already on tenuous legal grounds, fell apart after one of the witnesses accused Prosecutor Bragg of withholding evidence that would exonerate Donald Trump. Given that Trump was not indicted today my guess is the whole case is pretty much done. 

Regardless, the Mexican president's comments are a lot more important than a ridiculous case that had no chance of ever happening anyways. AMLO and Trump actually had a pretty good relationship when they were in office together. Despite AMLO being a leftist and Trump being Trump, they actually had a lot in common. Like the Newsweek article said, AMLO knows how it feels to get attacked by people making stuff up. 

This, of course, hurts a lot of the narratives against Donald Trump. If he's the deranged racist that the media says he is, why is the President of Mexico defending him? Why did they have a good working relationship? Well, it's because they are talking nonsense again. 

You know who doesn't have a good relationship with AMLO? Joe Biden. No that any country appears to have a good relationship with Biden besides Ukraine, but Mexico is moving away from the United States. Indeed, they appear to be likely to join the BRICS economic alliance, which is about as big of a rejection of America as they could do. 

I also think it's pretty funny that AMLO called out Biden directly on the Nord Stream pipeline attack. He knows as well as I do that it was the United States that pulled that attack off. I know that the "official version" is that a bunch of Ukrainians somehow pulled off he attack, but apparently AMLO doesn't believe that either. 

Regardless, I think that if Trump was president right now our relationship with Mexico would be a lot better. Having Mexico showing interest in joining BRICS is probably not something that would have happened under Trump. It's going to be difficult to impossible for Joe Biden to fix relations with Mexico anytime soon, especially if he keeps being critical of ALMO. 

Uganda passes one of the most extreme anti-gay laws that bans even identifying as LGBT

 

Two gay men from Uganda after fleeing to Kenya. NBC News/AP.

Uganda has passed one of the most extreme anti-gay laws in the world which bans even identifying as LGBT. NBC News. Uganda is one of many African nations that already banned homosexual activity, but the new law goes beyond that. It is the first known law that criminalizes even identifying as homosexual. The law also mandates life in prison for gay sex and the death penalty for gay sex while HIV positive as well as having gay sex with a minor. The law is likely to be signed by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. The law is being condemned by the UN and other governments. 

My Comments:

This law seems like an overreaction to what is happening in the west. The Ugandans probably see how our country has drag queen story hours and active grooming in media and government and, quite reasonably, think "let's make sure that doesn't happen here".

Of course the opposite of a bad idea is often a bad idea itself and this law goes far beyond anything else that has been passed. It's fairly absurd to ban even identifying as being LGBT and so is life in prison for gay sex. It's completely ridiculous. 

With that being said, the death penalty conditions aren't quite as absurd as people are saying. Having sex with someone while HIV positive is something that I believe should be criminalized, but only if done without informing the partner. But the death penalty for having sex with an underaged child? That's not that unreasonable, even if I wouldn't advocate itself. A lot of people think that should be the punishment for child molestation in the first place, which is why a lot of articles are not reporting on what the actual conditions are. 

Uganda will probably pay a price for this. They have angered both the United Nations and the United States with this law. I've got mixed feelings on that. I don't think this law is at all justified but I also think that it's wrong for other countries to punish all of Uganda because of one law. On the other hand, I would support cutting off support from Uganda regardless since I'm opposed to foreign aid in the first place. It's a complicated situation. 

I do know that LGBT activists will have a field day with this. They now have a strawman they can use to attack anyone who is at all critical of their behavior. Don't agree with drag queen story hours or pornographic books in schools? Don't think people should be canceled for being mildly critical of transgender people or because you played a game that was somewhat connected to someone who did? Don't want to wear the pride flag? You are just like the people in Uganda passing this law (which will be exaggerated into Uganda killing all of the gays or something).

I know the golden mean fallacy is a thing, but I really do think that both sides here are way too extreme. I do believe that LGBT people should be left alone as long as they are leaving everyone else alone. Criminalizing this behavior isn't going to solve anything and it's stupid to do so for things that aren't harmful. But that doesn't mean we have to go full clown world degeneracy either. We can criticize things like grooming and turning six year old children into opposite genders without going full Uganda. 

US provided intel that helped India win a border clash with China...

 

A convoy of Indian troops near Tawang. US News & World Report/AFP.

The United States provided intel that helped India win a border clash in China back in 2022. US News & World Report. The United States provided real time intelligence to India for the first time ever including live satellite information. This allowed India respond to the incursion and push back the Chinese without any deaths. The border clashes between China and India usually involve clubs and Tasers and not firearms. China was aware of the assistance and was supposedly furious about the help India got. India and the United States relationship has improved  but the relationship is not that close, with China being one of the issues they agree on. 

My Comment:

India's place in the new global structure is still in flux. On the one hand they are regularly having border disputes with China and now we know they are getting active support from the United States. On the other, their relationship with Russia is quite good and it will be interesting which side India ends up going with. 

China was probably very upset about this. The hilariously low grade warfare that happens on the border of India and China was mostly a distraction, but I can't see how China won't see this as a major escalation. Drawing in another country to the border disputes does not seem like a thing that will calm things down. 

It could also lead to major escalations. If China realizes that their units armed with clubs and tasers are going to be intercepted by Indians with satellite support, they may decide they need a better advantage and the gentleman's agreement they have to leave the firearms at home might end up by the wayside. This could lead to actual battles instead of the beatdowns they have now. 

Still, I think that is probably unlikely. China has a lot else going on right now, including their own ambitions in Taiwan. They do want these disputed territories from India but I don't think they are willing to risk a nuclear war with India over it. These border clashes are mostly saber rattling to keep India on their toes, not a serious attempt at taking the territory away from India. 

As for India, I think they are pretty foolish for accepting US help. Right now the United States is in a decline and led by a senile fool and India is not really on their radar. India would have to compete with Ukraine for assistance and there is no guarantee they would get the assistance again...  

Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping meet in Russia

 

Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. The Guardian/AP.

Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have had a historic meeting over Ukraine. The Guardian. Xi and Putin said they were ready to stand guard over the world order. President Xi is expected to try to play the role of peacekeeper and attempt to end the war in Ukraine. Putin said he was ready to discuss the 12 point peace plan that China put forth recently. The talks were informal today but will be formal talks tomorrow. The United States predictably blasted the meeting saying they oppose a peace deal that doesn't end with a total Russian withdrawal. 

My Comment:

If President Xi can pull this off it will be one of the biggest diplomatic coups China has ever done. Ending the war would be undoubtedly be a major win for China and would position them as a peacemaker. It would give them a large amount of power and shake up the world order. 

And it's not like Xi and his team can't pull it off. He recently warmed relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran and did it in a way that surprised everyone. Indeed, I didn't think there was anything that could get them back on speaking terms. 

After all Saudi Arabia and Iran were basically at war already. The proxy war in Yemen was an extreme fight and one that involved massive drone strikes and ballistic missiles. China somehow managed to get these two sides to talk again despite the huge casualties they had in the Yemen conflict. And now the chances of a major Middle East war are dramatically lower. 

I think both Russia and Ukraine have a major reason to consider peace. Both sides have lost huge numbers of troops and have suffered major economic damage due to the war. Russia has gotten considerably less damage than Ukraine, but it's still no small thing. 

Ukraine should consider peace because of the obvious, they are losing the war. The only reason they are able to continue the fight is because of foreign aid, which could be cut off at anytime. They have had almost three entire armies worth of equipment destroyed and they are down to unwilling draftees and old men on the front lines. They aren't going to be in a better position then they are now. 

As for Russia, it's clear that there won't be a quick solution to this war. Ukraine is losing but they will be doing it for a long time. It's possible there will be a quick collapse but I don't think it is something they can count on. Ending the war now would stop them from losing more troops and weapons. 

Both Russia and China would get a bonus out of a peace settlement. They would utterly humiliate the Biden administration, who has made Ukraine its defining issue. It would probably disrupt the dominance that the United States has enjoyed since World War II and would make us look incompetent at best and utterly deranged at worse. Imagine people having problems with peace talks, it's absurd. 

The worst part is that Biden's wounds here are entirely self inflicted. America could have played the role of peacekeeper from the start and done everything they could to reach a negotiated settlement. Instead they torpedoed the peace process and made the war last a lot longer then it had too. 

My fear is that they will do the same thing again. Even if Zelenskyy is interested in a peace deal it would be trivial for the powers that be to remove him. Though I certainly wouldn't mourn his death, he would likely be replaced by someone even more resolved to continue the war. Given that Biden's administration has said Russia losing in Ukraine was an existential interest, I could see this happening...  

Report says nearly 200 US banks could fail if another bank run happens.

 

A SVB bank. New York Post/Reuters. 

A new report says that nearly 200 US banks could fail if another bank run happens. New York Post. 186 banks could fail if half of their customers withdraw their funds in another bank run. Even insured depositors would have trouble getting their money if such a run were to happen. The concern is that these banks are overleveraged in treasury bonds. Treasury bonds are considered an extremely safe investment but rising interest rates have damaged the value of these bonds. This could lead to another bank collapse as with SVB. In SVB's case, selling those bonds to raise capital cost them billions of dollars and led to a bank run, causing the bank to collapse totally. 

My Comment:

Keep in mind that these banks would only collapse if a bank run happened and that depends on how people perceive the economy is doing. Right now I don't think people have much confidence in the banks or the economy. I know I personally have zero faith in Joe Biden to handle this crisis. 

There aren't any good solutions of this problem. These bonds are losing value due to high interest rates, which was an effort to reduce inflation. If you lower those interest rates you end up causing more inflation. That's a bad thing because inflation is already crushing the economy and is totally out of control. 

But the other solution seems just as bad. People are asking for all bank deposits to be guaranteed, not just ones up to $250,000. If that happens and a major bank run happens the government could be liable for billions or even trillions of dollars with no way to pay for it. Other than printing money that is and the problem with that is obvious. Printing all that money would cause even more inflation. 

Of course there is the option of raising taxes to pay for it but that is a political impossibility. Biden and the Democrats know if they raise taxes they would be screwed if they tried and even if they did it wouldn't happen because Republicans would block it. 

The final option is to just let the banks fail. I personally think that's probably what should be done, though I also think it's a political impossibility. Doing so would have a negative effect on the economy and a lot of people could lose their jobs. But I personally think it would be better than a massive inflation causing bailout. 

Still, there are no good choices here and I think whatever happens the economy is going to be in rough shape. I don't see how you prevent another bank run in a country with free speech. People will want to avoid risk and if they sense weakness they will try and get their money out. When that happens were are looking at a dire situation no matter what the solution ends up being. 

With all that being said, it's very possible that nothing happens with the banks. It's possible that there will be enough other distractions that people won't be trying to pull their money out of the bank. But I just don't have much faith in our government and our financial institutions. 

Emmanuel Macron of France faces vote of no-confidence after ramming through retirement bill without a vote

 

French protesters in Paris. CNBC/Getty.

President Emmanuel Macron of France faces a vote of no-confidence after ramming through an unpopular retirement bill without a vote. CNBC. Marcon has long wanted to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 for most workers, but calculated he did not have the support to pass the measure in the National Assembly. Instead he used a special constitutional power to ram through the change without a vote. Even members of his own party opposed Macron's action and it resulted in votes of no-confidence being called from both right and left wing parties opposed to Macron's centrist Renaissance party. If the no-confidence motions pass then Macron will be forced to dissolve the government and appoint a new Prime Minster or call for new elections. However, it seems unlikely that Macron will fail in a vote. Widespread protests have broken out across France against Macron and the measure. 

My Comment:

This strikes me as an incredibly foolish move by Macron and one that will essentially finish his political career regardless of the outcome of the no-confidence vote. Either way he will remain a lame duck President for the remainder of his term and an extremely unpopular one at that. 

The measure was always going to be unpopular as raising the retirement age is always going to be. Of course as an American I have to say it's fairly crazy to have the retirement age be 62, since in my case I will be 65 before I can retire with younger people having to retire at 66 or 67 depending on when they were born. Regardless, I certainly understand why people are so upset, nobody wants to keep working even as they age out of the workforce. 

Still, this action is going to cause dramatically more anger than the policy at hand due to the way it was passed. Instead of bringing the measure to a vote Macron passed it through article 49.3, which allows the executive to circumvent the legislature. It's fairly amazing that such a mechanism exists in France, a country that is supposed to be Democratic, but I guess it's not that different than American executive orders. 

Regardless, Macron didn't have the votes to pass this through normal means and pushed it through these special constitutional powers. The people that are opposed to the bill are furious and everyone else seems to feel that Macron greatly exceeded his powers and mandate here. Doing an end run around a legislative body for an unpopular policy is not the kind of thing a mature and respectful government does. 

As is tradition in France, the news was met with widespread protests and rioting. I also expect nothing to come of these protests as, again, France always protests so there is little pressure to be put on Macron. The anger here is real, but I sincerely doubt that the French government will be overthrown or anything, though, considering the circumstances, I would not be upset if it happened. 

I don't expect the government to fall to the vote of no-confidence either. The media is saying it's very unlikely to happen so, not being an expert on France, I have to defer to their judgement. It would be surprising if this was finally the thing that brought down Macron, even if his political fortunes are likely to change dramatically after this. I think his party, Renaissance, is probably screwed in the next election with both liberals and conservatives fleeing away from his party over this issue. 

Ukrainian commander reports 100% casualties for his battalion since the start of the war...

 

A duel funeral for a Ukrainian father and son killed in Bakhmut. Business Insider/Getty. 

A Ukrainian commander reports that of the 500 men in his battalion 100% have been casualties since the start of the war with Russia. Business Insider. The commander, a Lieutenant Colonel only identified by his callsign, Kupol, said of the original troops in his battalion 100 have been killed and 400 have been wounded. His troops have been replaced by new recruits without the experience and capabilities of the lost troops. Kupol also said that the troops he has now simply don't have the experience to survive in combat and many of them panic under fire. Kupol's unit, the 46th Air Assaults' brigade, is currently stationed in Bakhmut. 

The original Washington Post article can be found here. 

My Comment:

The original Washington Post article was released on Monday but this has been a fairly slow news week otherwise and I think it's important to mention the change in tone in western media articles. Since the start of the war Western Media has done nothing but cheerlead the Ukrainian government. But now we have been seeing articles showing how badly things are going for them in the war.  

Of course the original Washington Post article still put some very obvious propaganda, like the obviously false casualty figures for the Russians. There is no way they have suffered 200,000 casualties, since that is about the same number of troops they invaded with in the first place. Even if you include the Wagner Group mercenaries, the Chechens and the militia from the Donbas republics casualties aren't that high for the Russians. They have certainly had heavy casualties, but not anywhere near the ones claimed by western media.

Regardless, I don't know how the Ukrainian military continues to operate. They have lost the majority of their trained and experienced troops and are down to old men and draftees. But the biggest loss has to be of NCO's and lower ranked officers. It takes a long time to train up NCO's and once they are gone it's very hard to train them up. And given that the Ukrainian commander is complaining about his troops panicking under fire that's a good example of why leadership is so important. 

I also thought it was pretty important that they said a counter-offensive is pretty unlikely. Ukraine just doesn't have the people to launch an offensive, even if they do get their fourth army worth of equipment. Kupol pointed out that attacking causes a lot more casualties then defending (at least when you aren't using artillery attrition like the Russians) and that Ukraine just can't sustain the casualties anymore. 

The battle of Bakhmut has been a disaster for Ukraine. Though they have managed to hold the city for a long time, they have taken tremendous casualties at little cost to the Russians. Russia has had casualties of course, but they are mostly Wagner mercenaries and most of those have been prison volunteers. The troops sent there don't last long under withering artillery fire and it's rare for Ukrainians to have any artillery to fight back with. And even if they want to withdraw at this point they would have to do so under fire as all the roads out of the city are now within range of Russian artillery. 

It still makes little sense for Ukraine to hold the city. It is true that the city is one of the biggest defensive positions left in Ukraine, but at this point there is no point in holding the city. By pulling out now they could at least preserve the troops that are stationed there and they could fall back to reserve positions. But why have they not done so? Some say they are trying to buy time with the battle to train up new troops but that makes little sense when they send so many troops to Bakhmut. 

Regardless, I think it's clear that the media is trying to prepare people for not only the loss of Bakhmut, which is going to happen sooner or later, but the fact that there isn't going to be a summer Ukraine offensive, let alone a drive to Crimea. Indeed, it seems a lot more likely that Ukraine's military will collapse now... 

Ron DeSantis becomes the next Republican to criticize unlimited support for Ukraine.

 

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. VOA/AP.

Ron DeSantis becomes the next Republican to criticize unlimited support for the war in Ukraine. Voice of America. Ron DeSantis, who is widely expected to run for President in 2024, was given a questionnaire by Tucker Carlson, along with other declared and undeclared candidates for the Republican nomination. DeSantis said that America had other major foreign policy concerns and declared the conflict between Ukraine and Russia as a territorial dispute that was not a vital interest for the United States. DeSantis also criticized unlimited funding for the war and denounced any attempts by the Biden administration to attempt regime change in Russia. DeSantis comments mirrors 2024 front runner Donald Trump's comments on the war in Ukraine, though some Republicans, especially in the Senate, disagree. 

My Comment:

For a man that hasn't declared he is running for President, Ron DeSantis is doing a lot to keep his name in the news. Indeed, this story broke on Monday (thanks to Tucker Carlson) but people have been talking about it all week. 

I do think that Tucker Carlson deserves credit for asking the candidates the question. I know that for me personally it moved my ranking of several of the GOP candidates. DeSantis went from "who knows" to someone I could possibly support (though I am obviously supporting Trump at this time). It also moved Mike Pence and Nikki Haley into the hell freezes over candidate with their brain-dead warmonger pro-Ukraine takes. 

I do question DeSantis and his credibility on the issue. For me this seems less like his actual beliefs and more like a focus group kind of thing. I know for a fact that much of the Republican base, notwithstanding the war hawks in the Senate, are either sick spending billions of dollars in Ukraine or never supported the war in the first place. I think it's very possible that DeSantis saw the way the wind was turning and has decided to switch sides. 

To be fair, as much coverage as DeSantis has gotten in the leadup to 2024 it hasn't been for foreign policy. Ron DeSantis is a culture warrior plain and simple, and not much is known about anything else. This is the first thing I have really heard about Ron DeSantis and his foreign policy opinions and I think it's clear that he needs a lot more vetting in the area. I mean, I would be happy with his domestic opinions but given the stakes now for foreign policy, what is the point of winning the culture war if we end up getting nuked? 

As for people souring on the Ukraine War, I think this isn't a top down issue. Instead it's the GOP base that is pissed about the war and want it to end. I know that I personally never supported Ukraine, even before Russia invaded. But I have been tweeting about this particular new story for the past few days and I have to say that the amount of support I have gotten compared to the criticisms. And much of that criticism was from bots or Europeans. Despite what the polling says I think that the majority of Republicans no longer support the war. 

Of course, I think it's very possible that the entire issue might be moot by the time November 2024 rolls around. Even western media is admitting that Ukraine is losing massive amounts of troops left and are throwing barely trained conscripts into the war. Bakhmut is where Ukraine's third army is dying in droves and I'm not sure they will have the time to build up a fourth. I doubt that Ukraine will be able to hang on until November of 2024... 

US MQ-9 Reaper destroyed in encounter with Russian fighter jets.

 

File photo of a MQ-9 Reaper. BBC/Getty. 

An US MQ-9 Reaper has been destroyed in an encounter with Russian fighter jets. BBC. The aircraft was flying over the Black Sea when it was confronted by Two SU-27 Flankers. How the aircraft was destroyed varies depending on what country you listen to. Russia says the drone had its transponder was off and it crashed after making a sharp maneuver. The United States says that the drone was attacked by the Flankers, with them dumping fuel in front of the drone and eventually colliding with the drone. It is unclear if the Russians were attempting to destroy the drone or if they were simply harassing it. 

My Comment:

It's fairly unclear what happened here and I believe parts of both sides story. I also think that both sides are lying about what happened. Not that either side has any reason to even pretend to tell the truth. 

I don't think for a moment that this was an actual collision between an SU-27 Flanker and the Reaper drone. If such a thing were to happen I doubt that the SU-27 would have survived the collision. The MQ-9 Reaper is a large aircraft with a 66 foot wingspan. If the SU-27 had hit it there are only a few rare scenarios where I would see it surviving. 

But I do believe that the Russians were dumping fuel and harassing this drone. They are probably sick of the Americans using these drones to send intelligence to Ukraine. Harassing the drone is probably a good idea on their part though I doubt they were trying to destroy it directly. Of course I doubt they are too upset about it. 

My guess is what happened is that the Russians were harassing the Reaper and it tried to maneuver to avoid the SU-27's. Since the drone is made for reconnaissance and not combat, it crashed. The SU-27's probably got really close to it but didn't actually collide with it. 

So, is this a big deal? Maybe. The Russians have plausible deniability here as they didn't shoot down the drone directly. Did they cause it to crash? Probably, but they can at least claim that it wasn't intentional. Was it unintentional? I think so, but who knows. It's not like we can interview the pilots and see what their orders were. 

But even if it was a deliberate drowning of a drone it doesn't really mean much. Even shooting down manned fighter jets does not necessarily lead to a shooting war. Indeed, Turkey shot down a Russian jet during the Syrian conflict and it mostly lead to nothing. And when Iran shot down one of our drones during Trump's presidency, we basically didn't respond at all. Nobody died in this incident and nobody was in danger of dying in this incident other than the pilots of the SU-27's. 

With that being said, I have given up on trying to predict the actions of the Biden White House. Biden himself is senile and the people that are controlling him are, quite frankly, completely insane. I could see them doing something incredibly stupid about this. What that would involve is beyond me as they are pretty much doing everything but openly attacking Russian forces, but I am sure Biden's team will think of something. 

Taiwan is preparing for a naval blockade from China

 

A Taiwanese F-16. Reuters. 

Taiwan is preparing for a total naval blockade from China. Reuters. Much of Taiwan's military budget will be going towards parts and fuel for their jets and artillery and rockets. Taiwan says that China has been conducting joint military operations that simulate a blockade. Taiwan also says that China has moved from a training regime to actual preparation for war. Taiwan are also trying to purchase US stinger missiles and HIMARS MLRS. 

My Comment:

It seems likely that a conflict between China and Taiwan is growing more likely, which means that a war between the United States and China is more likely as well. That is a conflict that there is a real chance of us losing. 

In the past I have said that conflict with China is unlikely because they do not have the transport capability to ship troops to Taiwan. That is still true and will be true for years to come. But it seems like China is moving away from that and is instead trying to totally blockade Taiwan. 

Can they do that? Not when the US Navy is out there. Which means that in any conflict with Taiwan the main goal for China will to be to destroy the US Navy. Can they do that? I think they have a decent chance of doing it. Unlike the United States China has invested massively into its navy and missiles and might even have a tech advantage. They don't have anywhere near the number of aircraft carriers that the United States has, but other than that they might have an advantage now. 

Of course they would also have to fight the military of Taiwan as well, which is reasonably formidable. And it's also possible that other regional powers, like Japan, South Korea and Australia could join the war as well. In that scenario I don't know if it is possible for China to beat all of those enemies. 

The problem is that I don't think Taiwan can depend on support from anyone. The United States is having major economic problems and is spending billions of dollars on Ukraine. The other regional powers have their own issues as well and might not want to risk a war with China. And the anti-war movement in the United States is getting stronger and I don't think there is any apatite for a war with China even if we have treaties with Taiwan. 

I also don't think Taiwan is going to get the weapons they want from the United States. We have sent so much of our weapons, including anti-air and anti-tank missiles, along with many of our more advanced artillery systems, to Ukraine so there is hardly enough for our own forces in the event of a war, let alone giving them to Taiwan. Production of those weapons is stepping up but by the time we have enough to give to Taiwan the issue is likely to be settled. 

I'm not confident about who would win a war between China and Taiwan, but I am confident that the war would be an utter disaster for everyone involved. Forget about the combat, the economy would take a massive hit as America gets most of our goods from China and Taiwan. All three economies would likely collapse and probably bring the rest of the world down with them. My sincere hope is that war can be avoided, but I also don't think that China is even on the Biden administration's radar...

2nd bank, Signature Bank, collapses after the fall of Silicon Valley Bank.

 

A man withdraws cash from Signature Bank. CNBC/Reuters.

A 2nd bank, the New York based Signature Bank, has collapsed after last Friday's collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank. CNBC. The bank was a large funder of cryptocurrency. Regulators shut down the bank in order to stop the crisis from spreading. The FDIC said that depositors will be made whole and the funds to do so won't come from the taxpayer. The bank is the 2nd major bank to fail recently, as Silicon Valley Bank collapsed on Friday due to a bank run. While depositors at both banks will be getting their money back, bond holders and equity holders are going to be wiped out. 

My Comment:

Before we start I will say that economics are far from my area of expertise. I have a basic understanding of what is going on, which is probably better than a lot of people. But don't take my word on this subject as gospel. 

What is happening is that both banks had runs on their accounts due to bad financial news for both banks. The banks did not have the cash on-hand to cover the wave of withdrawals and that is what caused the collapse. Why they didn't have the cash on-hand to cover the withdrawals is a bit more confusing. From what I understand for SVB was that they had not been getting enough returns from government treasury bills. The rate of return for T-bills had been killed due to extreme inflation. 

Everyone's question on Friday was if this was going to continue. Now that we know it will, the real question is how bad are things going to get. Is this a 2008 style financial collapse or is it a 1930's style depression. Right now it's too early to tell and it will depend on how well the Biden administration, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC handles it. 

The FDIC is trying to stop the bleeding. Though much of the money that was lost here was uninsured, the deposits will be made whole due to their insurance program anyways. The theory is that this will reduce panic and will prevent people from trying to make runs on other banks. Apparently that didn't work because there was a 2nd run, this time on Signature Bank. 

The Biden administration? They are out to lunch, like usual. Biden's off in Delaware this weekend, again. And even if he was here I doubt he would do anything effective. Biden has a long history of doing exactly the wrong thing. In a sane world we would have a president that would get on TV and calm the country and hopefully stop the panic. But instead, he's just as absent as he was during the East Palestine train derailment. 

What happens tomorrow is going to be very important. If the panic continues and there are runs on more banks we could have a major economic collapse on hand. Indeed, the SVB may have wiped out a lot of startups, who might not get their money in time to keep operating. That could happen across the entire economy, which could lead to a lot of businesses either downsizing or going out of business entirely. 

Mass shooting in Hamburg Germany at a Jehovah's Witness temple leaves at least seven dead.

 

Police at the scene of the shooting. AFP. 

A mass shooting in Hamburg Germany at a Jehovah's Witness kingdom hall left at least seven people dead and 25 wounded. The Guardian/AFP. The gunman is believed to be one of the dead and it is unclear what the motive for the attack was. By happenstance a tactical police unit was near the scene of the attack and managed to evacuate many people, including a pregnant woman. Mass shootings are not unheard of in Germany and they have had several in recent years. Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian group that has a small presence in Germany, but it was unclear if they were specifically targeted in the attack. 

My Comment:

Not a lot of details about this attack at this time. Even the number of casualties were not available in most posts. Since that is the case keep in mind that some of the information might end up not being accurate if you are reading this late. 

I always say that it is important to highlight mass shootings that happen in other countries. The American media has done everything they can to make it seem like mass shootings are an American only problem. But Germany has the same problem we have but with all the gun control laws that the American media wants. It's clear that guns aren't the problem. 

As for this attack it's hard to speculate on who is responsible. Germany has radical Muslims, far right and far left groups and even lone nutjobs on the lose so it could be pretty much anything at this point. Without more information about the attacker it's pretty pointless to speculate about the motivations that inspired this attack. 

It is probably relevant that the attack was at a Jehovah's Witness hall. The Jehovah's Witness group has faced quite a bit of prejudice in the past, including during the Holocaust. Their beliefs are a bit outside of the mainstream but I never found anything particularly upsetting about their beliefs. They were often hated for their pacifism but I doubt that is what this attack was about. 

The only thing I can think of for targeting them specifically is that they have had some problems with sexual abuse of children. Much like the Catholic Church, they have been accused of hiding sexual abuse cases. I don't know how relevant that is in Germany but I guess someone could have been upset about it. 

Regardless, the attack itself was pretty devastating despite the presence of police in the area. It sounds like the shooter probably killed himself, so this attack was not very long in duration. However, it's possible that some of the wounded were incidental injuries other than gun shot wounds. Thinks like trips, falls and flying glass shards cold have caused some of the injuries. 

I do wonder if more lives could have been saved if the police had prioritized engaging and killing the shooter instead of evacuating the civilians. Given the circumstances I doubt it. It does not seem like this attack lasted very long at all so I am guessing there was very little the police could do. 

Two Americans killed and two more kidnapped and rescued in Mexico.

 

The Americans car after the attack. ABC News/AP.

Two Americans were killed while two more were kidnapped and subsequently rescued in an attack in Matamoros Mexico. ABC News. The group was in Mexico for a cosmetic procedure for the woman in the group, Latavia McGee. The group was ambushed after cartel members reportedly mistook them for rival human traffickers. The attackers shot and killed two of the men, Zindell Brown and Shaeed Woodward, and wounded the third, Eric Williams. Williams and McGee were captured before being released in a police operation. A 22 year old was captured as the two were released. 

My Comment:

I'm a little late on this story but it seems like it could have bigger repercussions than a simple double murder and kidnapping. There is a lot of anger about this and it even has the attention of the American government and news media. 

I do have to say that going down to Mexico for a cosmetic procedure does not seem like a good idea under the best of circumstances. Much of Mexico is a war zone between the various cartels and thousands of people get murdered every year. Though the Cartels try to avoid attacking American civilians, it's very easy to get caught up in a situation like this. I am honestly surprised it doesn't happen more often. 

This seems like it was just a huge mistake by the Cartel gunmen that pulled this off. They supposedly mistook these folks for a rival Cartel. It's possible they saw the out of country license plates and just assumed that it was another Cartel, possibly involved with drug or people smuggling. They opened fire and only afterwards found out it was a group of four Americans. 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Cartel was the one that threw the gunman that was arrested under the bus. Keeping Williams and McGee would have been a huge liability for them as it would likely draw attention from not only local police, but national police and military as well, not to mention the full force of the United States government. Plus, the Cartel can't tolerate stupidity like this. I fully expect the man arrested who was holding the two will end up dead, one way or the other. 

There has been rumbling in congress about possibly using military force against the Cartels in Mexico. This attack could be used for justification, though you would think that drugs, immigrants and political corruption that the Cartels bring in from Mexico would be reason enough. Like I said, in the big scheme of things a double murder/kidnapping in Mexico would normally not be a big deal but because this was Americans and the current political environment it might end up becoming a clarion call for war. 

I've got mixed feelings about going to war with the drug cartels. On the pro side is the fact that Mexico is at risk of becoming a narco-state and one where the drug cartels rule without resistance. The Cartels kill Americans, directly and indirectly, and are responsible for much of the illegal immigration into the United States. 

The Cartels are also about the most evil people on earth. Only ISIS outdo them in terms of brutality and even then, ISIS isn't in any kind of position to really attack anyone outside of the Muslim world anymore. The Cartels are just across the border and kill each other in new and horrifying ways, and many civilians get caught in the middle. 

Going after the Cartels would be a better use of our defense dollars. We have wasted billions of dollars on an unwinnable war in Ukraine for little results and extreme risk. Funneling that money to fight the Cartels would be, if nothing else, something that wouldn't result in World War III.

Of course the problem is that war against the Cartels has not worked out well for Mexico. The Cartels are just as powerful as they have ever been and thousands of people have died in the process. I struggle to think what our troops could do that the Mexican government has already tried. 

Speaking of the Mexican government, I don't know if they would go along with this at all. Mexican's President Obrador (AMLO) isn't keen on fighting the Cartels in the first place. I can't imagine he would want to have American troops running around shooting up cartel members and calling airstrikes on buildings. If we didn't handle it well we might end up being at war with both the Cartels and the Mexican government at the same time. 

It could honestly end up being like another Afghanistan conflict where we spend billions of dollars over 20 years and have nothing to show for it other than status quo antebellum and thousands of dead people. The best case scenario is something like Somalia where we just train the local troops and randomly blow up militants. Either way, I can't see fighting the Cartels ending with a quick and meaningful victory. 

As for this case, I think it's a very good example of why you should stay out of most of Mexico. There are a few tourist areas that are safe as even the Cartels don't want to disrupt that income stream. But there few places like that and it would be absurdly dangerous to just travel around in Mexico casually. If there is a lesson here it's don't go to Mexico for a cosmetic procedure. It may be cheaper but it's dramatically more dangerous. And you probably don't need it in the first place. 

Ukraine is now being blamed for the Nord Stream attack...

 

The aftermath of the attack. BBC/Reuters. 

Ukraine has denied involvement in the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines after two reports in western media have blamed them for the incident. BBC. A report from the New York Times blamed the attack on a pro-Ukraine group. The report also absolved Ukrainian President Zelenskyy of any knowledge of the attack. A German newspaper, Die Zeit, claimed that it had discovered a boat that was supposedly involved in the attack was hired from Poland by two Ukrainians, though who actually used the boat or ordered the attack was a mystery. The Nord Stream pipelines supplied Russian natural gas to Europe and its destruction has had a major effect on countries like Germany. 

My Comment:

It's not often that I defend Ukraine but I sincerely doubt that they had anything to do with the Nord Stream attack. When the attack happened I largely dismissed the possibility for what should be obvious reasons. Ukraine doesn't have a navy anymore and I doubt they have the kind of experienced divers that could pull this off. 

Is it possible? Sure. The pipelines were not that deep in the water and the idea that Ukraine could subcontract it out isn't impossible. What is unbelievable is that some non-state affiliated group could have done this without approval from Zelenskyy. Since this was an act of war against not only Russia, but also Ukraine's supposed ally, Germany, I can't see them doing this as a rogue action. 

Of course the BBC report ignored the claims made by Seymour Hersh that it was America and Norway that took out the pipeline. I know that Hersh is persona non-grata in the news industry due to relying on anonymous sources (which the national media is just as guilty of) but the report was at least as plausible as the reporting on Ukraine being the one responsible. 

I personally think that the United States was the obvious suspect in this attack because they are one of only a few countries that would gain much from it. Obviously Russia isn't going to blow up their own pipeline and Germany isn't either. Ukraine would gain from it but I just don't see them pulling it off. That leaves the United States as a prime suspect, along with the gas-rich Scandinavian countries, and Poland. 

My guess is these reports are an attempt to distract against the allegations by Hersh and others that the United States was behind the attack. The attack on the Nord Stream pipeline would provide a casus belli for both Russia and Germany against whoever committed the attack. The United States needs plausible deniability for responsibility of the attack and what better fall guy than Ukraine? They are already at war with Russia and they probably hope that Russia will fall for the scheme. That's my take on it anyways. 

SPLC attorney among 23 charged for domestic terrorism in "cop city" attack.

 

Construction equipment burning at the site of the Atlanta police training facility. New York Post/Fox News. 

A lawyer with the Southern Poverty Law Center was among 23 people charged for domestic terrorism for an attack on a police training facility in Atlanta Georgia. New York Post. Thomas Webb Jurgens was one of many attackers that tried to destroy the police training facility, dubbed "cop city" by its detractors. Jurgens is a staff lawyer for the SPLC, a far left group that labels right wing groups as hate groups. The majority of the people charged in the attack were not from Georgia, with only Jurgens and one other man hailing for the state. The attackers used Molotov cocktails and fireworks to attack officers and set construction equipment on fire. The attackers also used green lasers to attempt to blind officers as well. 

My Comment:

I can't even pretend to understand the motivations for this attack. Given all the complaints of untrained officers causing problems you would think that a new training facility would be something these people would support. But instead they tried to destroy the training facility because... actually I don't have any clue. It makes zero sense to me. 

These people just hate police. All police, regardless if their actions are justified or not. Some police are bad and even some organizations, like the FBI and ATF, are fundamentally flawed, but I won't ever understand those that just hate police in general. Indeed, one of these antifa thugs died in the attacks against this facility in January. That makes zero sense, dying for a cause this stupid. 

I am very comfortable calling these people terrorists. They were using arson and violence to advance their political cause, as inexplicable and idiotic as it is. If that isn't terrorism than nothing is. Many of them were also charged with domestic terrorism so it's factually accurate. 

The fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center was involved in this attack is devastating for the organization. The determination of who is a terrorist or hate group has long been delegated to the SPLC by both the media and the government themselves. This has led to the SPLC calling anyone to the right of Bill Clinton as a terrorist or bigot. They have also long avoided calling antifa a terror group despite them being both racist and extremely involved in both riots and terror attacks. 

Having a lawyer for the organization committing terrorism should, in a sane world, ruin whatever credibility the SPLC has left. Indeed, if things were fair, the SPLC would be designated a hate or terror group. You know they would do the same if the political alignment of Mr. Jurgens was reversed. 

It's unclear what Jurgens role was in this attack. I know that left wing groups often have lawyers on call to help bail out their members and that might have been what Jurgens was doing here. But he appears to have gone further than simply advising the attackers and was actively participating in the attack.

My sincere hope is that that these people get the book thrown at them. That appears to be what the Governor of Georgia wants, but it is unclear what will happen. These people have a lot of infrastructure behind them and they tend to get bailed out and have charged dropped, regardless of how egregious their behavior is. It's also people like Jurgens that tend to do this as well... 

BREAKING: MUST SEE FOOTAGE

This was a coordinated Antifa attack on a police facility in Atlanta, with SPLC support pic.twitter.com/WGhdEqyhUC

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) March 6, 2023

Donald Trump proposes "baby bonus" to help improve birthrate.

 

Donald Trump. White House portrait 

Donald Trump has proposed a "baby bonus" to help improve America's lagging birthrate. Politico. The bonus would give money to young couples to encourage them to have children. Trump says that this could lead to a baby boom and reverse America's sagging birthrate, which is well below the replacement rate. The idea might have bipartisan support as it was also used as a plank of Democrat Corey Booker during his 2020 campaign run. 

#AGENDA47: @realDonaldTrump's plan for a QUANTUM LEAP in the American standard of living:

➡️BUILD FREEDOM CITIES
➡️REVOLUTIONIZE AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION
➡️LOWER THE COST OF LIVING
➡️MAKE AMERICA THE WORLD'S MANUFACTURING SUPERPOWER
➡️LAUNCH A GREAT MODERNIZATION CAMPAIGN pic.twitter.com/NTTGfjL9mG

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) March 3, 2023

(Trump makes the comments about baby bonuses at 2:50 in the above video. 

My Comment:

There is very little information about what exactly Trump is proposing here as he only had the short mention in the above video along with a few comments at his speech at CPAC. Mostly he talked about other big shot ideas like building new cities or (finally) making flying cars a reality. Those mostly seem like long shots to me but the baby bonus seems like something that would be fairly easy to pass and possibly even with Democrat support. 

I have written about the birth rate before and it is a major concern of mine. Generally speaking, population loss is never a good thing, especially when it comes to paying for things like social security. You need a larger, younger generation to pay for the older ones after they retire. If you don't have that you have only two options, neither of which are good. You either cut off the old folks, thus breaking the promises you made to them, or bring in a huge number of immigrants, which has its own severe problems. So far the country has appeared to go with #2 and it has not been working out for us to say the least. 

Of course, the question is why people aren't choosing to have children. Part of it is cultural, after all women are putting off marriage until after college and putting their careers ahead of having kids. This dramatically reduces the amount of children that can be had. And there is some feminist hostility to having children period for reasons I don't pretend to understand. 

But I think the major problem is cost. When you look at all the things you need to buy when it comes to having kids it's absurd. Spending thousands of dollars on medical costs, housing, food and everything else it prices a lot of people out of the market. Of course that doesn't stop poor people having kids but a lot of people in the middle class have to choose between having another kid and paying the mortgage and when that happens most people choose the mortgage. 

Reducing that cost might be a good way to encourage people to have children. It's been tried in the past and from what I understand it has mixed results. It really depends on how Trump wants to execute the policy. Tax breaks might not be enough because families with children already get pretty decent tax breaks (I was pretty shocked to learn how much more my married with three kids coworker gets compared to my single unmarried status tax return). Still, I think part of the problem is the huge cost of having kids and anything that reduces that cost might help.

However, I do think that Trump's idea to encourage low cost housing might be even better. As someone that looked for a house for awhile but gave up after realizing that even in a relatively cheap part of the country home ownership was out of my reach, I can tell you the market is insane right now. What houses that do go up now are huge McMansions that are far out of the reach of first time home buyers. Almost no small two bedroom houses, which are perfect for a small family, get built anymore and it's a major factor as to why people are putting off having children. 

Regardless, I am happy to hear Trump talking about this as it is an issue that is largely getting ignored. People need to get together and have kids and I don't think that has ever been more difficult to do in history. And it's not just people deciding that it's too expensive to have kids, it's the fact that a lot of people aren't getting married or even dating at all. That's a subject for another post but it still means there is a lot of work to do on this aspect of American society.