Donald Trump and Joe Biden both go to the border with Mexico.

 

Donald Trump shakes hands with National Guard members. New York Post/AP.

Donald Trump and Joe Biden both went to the border with Mexico in dueling events. New York Post. Trump gave a speech at Eagle Pass, Texas with Governor Greg Abbott, where Abbott has deployed the National Guard and razor wire to deter illegal immigration. Trump said it was "like a war" and called on Biden to mention Laken Riley, a nursing student murdered by an illegal immigrant that was released before he could be deported. Trump said he would reinstate his border restrictions, including Title 42 and the remain in Mexico policy. 

Joe Biden meets with US Border Patrol agents. New York Post/AP

Joe Biden held his event at Brownsville Texas and called on Trump to work with him to pass the Senate's immigration bill which he claims would solve the issue. He also called for new resources for the Border Patrol and the Asylum system but did not announce any executive actions. Biden was asked about Laken Riley but did not respond to the question. 

My Comment:

The fact that both leading Presidential candidates showed up at the border today shows that the issue is likely to be the defining one for the 2024 election. It is always possible that something else could come up, after all, November is a long ways away yet and the world is a mess right now, but immigration looks to be even more important than it was in 2016. 

This does, of course, favor Donald Trump. Trump rode a wave of disgust on this issue to win in 2016 and he could absolutely do so again. Indeed, if Trump had focused on the border during his 2020 run, the Biden administration probably wouldn't have even happened. 

In 2020 I think Trump was a victim of his own success. Trump's border wall, remain in Mexico policy and Title 42 largely solved the issue of border crossers. We still had problems with illegal immigration, but those were mostly to do with people that were already here or were visa overstays. People of course remember this and can easily compare the rate of immigration in 2020 to what it is now and think that things were obviously better under Trump than Biden. 

As for Laken Riley, I haven't followed the story closely. I know the bare details of the case but I am far from an expert on it. It does reinforce something I have been saying for the last couple of weeks though. All crimes committed by illegal immigrants are preventable ones. Had her attacker been deported, like he should have been as he was a criminal who was in the country illegally, Riley would still be alive today. 

Biden does deserve criticism for her death. If we had a functional immigration system this would not have happened. Biden's immigration policy is his own fault and I don't buy his claims that he needs the Senate bill to do anything about the border. If he had simply left Trump's policies in place none of this would have been happening. 

But the first thing Biden did when he took the oath of office was repeal Trump's border policies. That's on him and him alone. He owns everything that happened because of that and it will absolutely hurt him in 2024. I don't think people will buy that it's Republicans fault for not passing a border bill that wouldn't help things in the first place. 

Regardless, I do think that this will be a major thing that turns out people to vote for Donald Trump. People are sick of illegal immigrants committing crimes, taking jobs and increasing the price of rent and they absolutely remember that this issue was mostly solved under Donald Trump. And Biden isn't going to be able to convince people that he cares about the issue unless he actually takes steps to deal with it beyond whining about Congress. 

Mitch McConnell to step down as Senate Minority leader.

 

Mitch McConnell. Official portrait.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is going to step down this November. BBC. The embattled leader had run afoul with the Trump wing of the party after the two had a falling out over the 2020 election. McConnell had been key is getting Republicans elected and had many accomplishments including many judicial appointments. But his willingness to sell out Republican priorities, including immigration, foreign policy and the 2020 election put him at odds with much of the party. McConnell did not mention why he was resigning his position, and it is not thought to be related to medical scares he has had after a concussion. McConnell said he intended to continue his service as a senator until 2027 when his term ends, just not as a leader. 

My Comment:

I've got mixed feelings about this. Mitch McConnell did have some legitimate accomplishments as Senate Majority Leader, which he was for 20 years. Indeed, the fact that he managed to get so many judicial appointments during Trump's 1st term is a great accomplishment and one that will help Republicans for at least a generation. 

But it was clear it was time for McConnell to go. His age alone was a huge concern. Indeed, last year he had a "Biden" moment of his own where he froze up for an uncomfortably long time. That may have been due to his advanced age or a concussion he had earlier in the year, but it was clear that he was not the same man he once was. There's a very strong argument that the Republicans need fresh leadership but it's very serious that so much of America's leadership is so old. 

Even ignoring the issue of his age, it was clear that McConnell was totally out of touch with his electorate. The fact that he didn't contest an obviously crooked and unfair 2020 election was damning. He absolutely could have fought if he had chosen to do so, but he did not and as far as I am concerned that's when his career ended. 

But it wasn't just the election that Republicans were furious with him about. He also was all too ready to betray his base to work with Democrats. When people talk of the "uniparty" McConnell was the best example. He was far too willing to give Democrats everything they want while getting nothing in return. 

His stupid immigration deal was a good example of that. Instead of simply deporting illegal immigrants, McConnell was willing to sell out his base by allowing a major amnesty and not closing the border. Thankfully the house laughed the supposed compromise right out of their chambers and it will never come up for a vote. 

McConnell was also bad on foreign policy. Indeed, anyone that supports the war in Ukraine at this point should be kicked out of the party. Doing so is just baffling since it's very clear that Russia has won the war and nothing short of nuclear weapons could stop that now. Republicans are no longer a war party and McConnell was one of the last examples of being a warhawk in the party. 

Finally, I think it's also clear that the timing of McConnell's resignation isn't a mistake. He's doing it in November. Why? Because if he does so no new senators elected in 2024 will be able to vote on new leadership. He wants one of his hand picked successors to be the new Senate leader and if the Republicans pick up a lot of new MAGA senators in 2024, which they should, they won't be able to vote. It's just another action that shows that McConnell is not on the same side as his party... 

The good news is that the neocon wing of the Republican Party is dead. The party has moved in a more paleocon/libertarian/populist direction and neocons like McConnell are almost gone. He's the biggest name they have left and he just announced that he is done. 

NATO allies reject French President Macron's suggestion that sending troops to Ukraine is on the table.

 

A howitzer firing in Ukraine. BBC/Getty.

NATO allies have rejected a call from French President Macron's suggestion that sending troops to Ukraine is on the table. BBC. Macron said that "nothing should be rejected" when it comes to Ukraine, including sending troops to Ukraine. Many NATO leaders rejected the idea with the leadership of the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Poland and Czechia clarifying that they were not considering sending troops. Russia said any such deployment would lead to a direct conflict. 

My Comment:

This was one of the most bizarre and stupid things a world leader has ever said. Sending combat or even support troops to Ukraine would be seen as an act of war and would probably world to a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. The implication would be that there would be a third world war and a direct nuclear exchange. 

It's no wonder that the rest of NATO rejected this suggestion. I would hope that the leadership of NATO is less insane than Macron apparently is. Even the bigger warhawks were saying that this was a terrible idea. It's pretty rare that there is disagreement in NATO at all, let alone at this level.

So was this a serious suggestion from France? I doubt it. Macron was apparently speaking off the cuff and may not have realized the implications of what he was saying. He also said that France wasn't going to be the one to deploy troops, just that other countries might. 

Of course it's an open secret that NATO troops are fighting in Ukraine as "volunteers", aka, mercenaries. Indeed, I have seen more than one video of captured "Ukrainian troops" speaking with American or English accents and we all know that Poland has sent many "volunteers" to the fight in Ukraine. 

Ukraine also hires a lot of more traditional mercenaries, mostly from South and Central America. Those folks are treated much the way Moscow treated the Wagner Group, as disposable cannon fodder. This is, of course, illegal but Russia has largely decided to look the other way. And it's not like the US led international community would punish Ukraine for this. 

But the other foreign troops? I think they are mostly in non-combat roles. Ukraine was given a lot of advanced technology that they really didn't know how to operate. The foreign troops are almost certainly operating and maintaining these weapons, such as air defenses and tanks. There are probably a few troops fighting in front line units but they are the minority. 

Of course neither side would admit to this. To do so would give Russia a valid casus belli to attack NATO and it would be one they could not ignore. Neither side really seems to want an actual war between NATO and Russia, even though they are in a de facto one already. And it's not the first time this has happened, Russia and China sent advisors to Vietnam and Russia even flew jets against US forces in the Korean War. Much like Israel's unofficial stance on nuclear weapons which they clearly have, NATO troops participating in the Ukraine war will remain a polite fiction. 

Donald Trump Jr. sent letter with threats and white powder.

 

Donald Trump Jr. NBC News/AP.

Donald Trump Jr. was sent a letter with death threats and a white powder, leading to a response from a hazmat team. NBC News. Tests were made on the powder and it was not believed to be a deadly substance. Trump Jr. opened the letter himself. He says this is the 2nd time this has happened to him. Threats and attacks on political figures have become more common with attacks against Republican candidates being fairly common this election cycle. 

Donald Trump Jr was sent this letter containing white powder.

The left is doing what the regime propagandists and Biden regime is telling them to. pic.twitter.com/muelL4USE3

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) February 27, 2024

My Comment:

Thankfully, this incident appears to have been a minor one. Thankfully the powder appears to have been harmless and Trump Jr. was not injured. Though this case appears to have been harmless, it's very possible that this could have been Ricin or some other chemical or biological threat. They haven't determined what the attacker used but it was certainly scary. 

What does surprise me is that Donald Trump Jr. opens his own mail. He's a rich and successful businessman, you would think he would have someone do that for him? Not that the incident would be any less serious if he did have someone open it for him. 

Looking at the note I would suspect that the person that sent this was mentally ill. The note did not make any sense at all, even though the threats were pretty clear. Whoever wrote it apparently thinks that the Soviet Union exists, which seems to imply that they are pretty deep into far left conspiracy thinking. But the letter was hardly coherent. 

It honestly reminded me a bit of the deranged ravings of James Hodgkinson, the man who attacked the Congressional Baseball game back in 2017. He expressed a massive amount of hatred for right wing people just like this did against Trump and his family. It just seems like a person that has had their entire life devolved into raving about politics. 

I do think that these kinds of attacks are getting more common. There have been a lot of these powder hoaxes against both parties since the Obama years, and some of them have involved legit toxic substances. The attackers usually get caught and prosecuted but not always and I do worry that one of these times someone will actually get hurt. I'm old enough to remember the anthrax attacks back in 2001 and there isn't any reason that couldn't happen again. 

Still, this incident was more of a scare than an actual attack. That doesn't mean we should ignore it, but I do think that if this person sends anymore letters it won't be dangerous. But I do worry that with as crazy as things are this year that a real attack could indeed happen... 

US Airman self-immolates in front of Israeli embassy.

 

Police at the site of the immolation. CBS News/Getty.

An US Airman has self-immolated in front of the Israeli embassy. CBS News. The airman, dressed in his uniform, set up a camera and broadcast the incident on Twitch, a streaming platform. He said that he wouldn't be complicit in "genocide" and screamed "free Palestine" as he was burning. The video was removed from Twitch. The man is now in critical condition and is being treated for burns.

⚡ A US soldier in his uniform set himself on fire outside the Israeli Embassy in Washington to protest against Israel's war in Gaza. pic.twitter.com/JSxiCqwSpu

— War Watch (@WarWatchs) February 25, 2024

My Comment:

Self-immolation has a long history in protest and most of the time it goes ignored. I can only think of two cases of where it actually worked. The most famous is the case of  Thích Quảng Đức, a monk that burned himself to death to protest the government of South Vietnam in 1963. The image of his death was probably one of the best photographs ever taken and was even used as an album cover for a Rage Against the Machine album. 

Malcom Browne/AP.

The other one that hand an impact was the death of Tarek El-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi, a normal man who had had it with the government of Tunisia harassing him and his business. His death inspired both a revolution in Tunisia but was also used as inspiration for the Arab Spring. In retrospect his death caused thousands of deaths and indirectly caused civil wars, terrorism and widespread misery, even if Tunisia ended up better off. 

But those are the only two men that have been notable in terms of self-immolation. Wikipedia has a list of self-immolations and it's depressingly long and if it wasn't for the page I would have never heard of any of them. In the vast majority of cases self-immolation just results in a dead or severely wounded for life protester. 

I am guessing that will be the case here. A man lighting himself on fire is not going to change anyone's mind about the war between Israel and Hamas. Indeed, the sides are so entrenched I don't think there is much that could change anyone's minds. And the pro-Hamas people are pretty fickle, they might support this man for a little while but they will very quickly move on. 

What gets me is that if this guy survives he's going to be scared or even disabled for life. His wounds will probably never fully heal and he will look terrible, assuming he even survives. And for what? A false belief that Hamas isn't getting what it deserves? I mean, I can understand being upset about US foreign policy. But I sure haven't burned myself because I am upset with sending money to Ukraine. 

I would also say that the difference between the Vietnam and Tunisia cases is that people were deeply upset about other actions the government was doing. The people that latched onto the deaths of these two men were inspired because their lives were being negatively affected the same way they were. Plus, the Vietnam photo was memetic. 

That's not the case here. The Israel-Hamas war is just the outrage of the day and the media cycle will move on. Indeed, the focus of the media has switched back to Ukraine, Israel isn't the lead story anymore. And there wasn't an iconic image here compared to the one in Vietnam. 

Much of the commentary about this has been highly critical as well. Many are making fun of the guy for trying to kill himself over Israel, of all things. Indeed, many people think this is a solution, not a problem, given how annoying pro-Hamas people have been since the war broke out... I'm not exactly sure how those folks are reacting to this incident but I am guessing it will be mostly met with indifference. 

Donald Trump blows out Nikki Haley in her home state of South Carolina.

Donald Trump speaks at his victory party. AP. 

Donald Trump has blown out Nikki Haley in her home state of South Carolina. AP. Trump has now won every contest in the 2024 primary race, including Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, the US Virgin Islands and South Carolina. Despite the loss Haley says she will continue the race until Super Tuesday, which is March 5th. The Associated Press called the race almost immediately after polls closed. Though Haley hasn't dropped out, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden are treating each other like they are the nominees. Haley's path to nomination appears even narrower now. The next major race is next Tuesday in Michigan, where Trump is expected to win as well. 

My Comment:

As of this writing, with 84% of polls counted, Trump is leading Haley 60% to 39.4% and will take almost all of the State's delegates, with Haley only getting 3 of 50. This is a better performance for Haley than I was expecting but also close to what the polling was saying. Either way, it's an utter humiliation for a candidate to the point where I don't understand why she is running anymore.  

Indeed, it's not like things get any easier for Haley after South Carolina. In Michigan, the last poll had Trump at 80% support, thought that was probably an outlier. But in many of the Super Tuesday states, Trump does get 80% of support or better and I don't know if Haley can win a single one of those states. Maybe California if there are a ton of Democrats that cross over? Maybe Utah, which has never been a super popular Trump state? Even then, one or two states isn't going to do it and it seems very unlikely that Haley will even do that. 

I already speculated as to what Haley is even doing at this point so I won't belabor the point. But I have to think she is humiliated by these results. She not only lost her home state, she did so in a landslide, and that's with Democrats crossing over to vote for her as South Carolina is an open primary state. This is the kind of defeat that ends political careers, but Haley is apparently still ready for more. 

As for Donald Trump, I think it's safe to say baring something terrible or unprecedented happening, he's the 2024 Republican nominee, for better or worse. Voters clearly want him to have a 2nd term and it's also clear that the neocon wing of the party, which Haley is part of, will not be able to win with him still in control of the party. 

I will say that I think it was Haley's neocon tendencies that killed her in South Carolina. AP exit polls said that 6 of 10 Republicans want to cut off funding for Ukraine, and nobody has been a bigger Ukraine backer than Haley has been. Given that she lost the race by about the same percentage I think that's very relevant. 

2024 appears very likely to be a rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Unlike a lot of people, I am expecting Biden to be the candidate in November. He arrogantly believes that he is the best shot the Democrats have at beating Trump and he is also running to keep his son out of prison. And it's pretty clear that Trump has the nomination locked up. I am guessing most of the legal nonsense he is locked up in will simply go away after Super Tuesday, unless Democrats really double down and try to keep him off the ballot or otherwise deal with him. 

Who will win in 2024? In a sane world it should be a landslide for Trump, Biden has been a terrible president and the polls mostly indicate Trump's in a decent lead. But I fear nothing has been done to secure elections after the 2020 and 2022 debacles. I think Democrats will try and cheat in 2024 as well, but election fraud can only take you so far and I am hoping that the race isn't so close as it was in 2024. 

 

Trump says he supports in vitro fertilization (IVF) after Alabama's Supreme Court ruled embryos are people.

 

Donald Trump in South Carolina. AP. 

Donald Trump says he supports in vitro fertilization after a controversial ruling from Alabama's Supreme Court that put the practice into doubt. AP. Trump made the comments after the court ruled that fertilized embryos are people, which could be interpreted as making IFV illegal. Several clinics in the state have stopped the practice as a result. Trump said that Republicans support people having families and wants to make it easier, not more difficult, to have children. The issue deepens the debate about abortion, which could be a loser for Republicans in 2024. Though many people oppose at-will abortion, most agree there should be exceptions and few believe IFV should be banned. Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr. said that both he and his father had known people that had conceived children via the treatment. 

My Comment:

This was a good move by the Trump campaign and Republicans in general. Very few people support a ban on IVF, at least that is my reckoning. It's actually very hard to find an opinion poll that asked the question, though that could just be the absolute uselessness of modern search engines (I tried to get raw data but all I found on both Google and Bing were links to news articles about the Alabama SCOTUS ruling, which is beyond useless). 

My guess is that people that actually support banning IVF are in the single digits in terms of percentage. The procedure is not uncommon and many people know folks that have had their children this way. I can't say even among pro-life people have I ever met someone who wants the procedure banned. It strikes me as a hugely fringe position, one that almost nobody supports. 

But I will say that I am uncomfortable with the procedure for non-abortion and non-religious reasons. First of all I worry that it could cause genetic problems down the line if people with genes that would otherwise render them infertile are allowed to reproduce this way and it could lead to even more infertile people. This objection does not seem to be discussed at all so I don't know how big of a concern it actually is. I wouldn't support a ban just based on this question, but I would like it answered if possible. 

I also think it encourages people to wait too long to have children. Most of the people that are using IVF are not genetically infertile, they just waited too long to have kids. People should be having children in their 20's and 30's, not their 40's and 50's, and IVF encourages that since it remains an option. Again, that's not to say that I would support a ban on it for a reason, but I do think there are some arguments against IVF that aren't based on objections to abortion or based on religion. 

Regardless, I do think that most people are wishing for a compromise on the issue of when life actually begins. It's a philosophical question but I don't think people are comfortable with either extreme. Though very few people support post-birth abortion, they also don't really support the idea that an embryo is a person either. As someone who views the entire argument as academic, I don't have strong opinions either way, but it is frustrating for everyone in the middle that the only options that people are allowed to consider are the extremes. I think all but the most pro-life and pro-choice people would support a compromise where abortion remains legal in the 1st trimester but after that is illegal except for the big three exceptions, rape, incest, and to protect the mother's life. 

Politically, this issue is absolutely a loser for Republicans. Banning IVF is not something most Republicans support, let alone independent voters. If Republicans had gone all-in on the Alabama Supreme Court ruling it would have absolutely hurt them in 2024. But if they are able to fix this via the Alabama legislature, and I think they will be able to, then the issue should be moot. The fact that Trump made this statement is proof how badly this idea polls and rest of the Republican Party will likely fall in line behind him, as Nikki Haley (ugh) already has.

As for Trump, his own opinions on this issue seem to be in the middle. He did, of course, support the justices that overturned Roe v Wade, but he also seems to get that the extreme pro-life position is not a political winner. He has in the past been critical of states that banned abortions completely without the big three exceptions and now he has come out in favor of IVF. There might be a few pro-life people that will be upset with that but I would say that would be foolish given that Trump gave pro-life people their biggest victory in history. 

Finally, I do think we should be encouraging people to have children. Though unlimited growth isn't possible we are in a major decline of fertility and if it wasn't for immigration, legal or otherwise, the United States would be losing population by 2030 because young people simply aren't having kids anymore. This is a very bad thing as losing population when you have a massive welfare burden and a huge elderly population of Baby Boomers no longer in the workforce is the recipe for economic collapse. 

US estimates that Ukraine will be out of ammo by the end of March.

 

Ukrainian artillery. ABC News/AFP/Getty.

The United States has estimated that Ukraine will be out of ammo by the end of March. ABC News. The US officials quoted said that the Russians won the battle of Avdiivka due to a lack of weaponry. The United States has sent $44 billion in military aid but further aid is hung up in Congress. Anti-air weaponry is a major problem as it has allowed Russia to use their airpower against Ukrainian front lines, including devastating strikes with guided bombs. Ukraine is also largely out of the weapons they had been using against Russia, including rockets for the HIMARS launchers. It is unlikely that new funding for Ukraine will be secured in Congress due to disagreements with the war in general and conflict over funding for closing the US border. 

My Comment:

First of all, I have to point out how ludicrously biased the ABC News report was against Russia. They unironically quoted Ukrainian estimates of Russian combat casualties and that's absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that Russia has lost 2200 tanks and 315,000 casualties. Those numbers are absurd, even if Russia has faced heavy casualties in the war. And Russia has obviously had some major victories since last May, they were able to completely blunt the Ukrainian offensive to the point where they barely breeched the first line of defense. 

But even with the bias, the article does speak to something true. Ukraine is basically out of ammo and that means that they are in very deep trouble. They are right that Ukraine is not going to be able to do much if Russia achieves air dominance. 

I would argue that Russia already has. Ukraine's air force is a joke now and they are essentially out of air defenses. Russia is now able to use their KAB-500SE glide bombs to utterly destroy enemy fortifications. And that is a pattern that is going to continue as I am guessing most of Ukraine's remaining air defenses are going to be arrayed around Kiev. 

I don't think Ukraine is going to get any help either. I have said for awhile that both the Republicans and Democrats know that the gig is up in Ukraine. Both sides will blame each other for the failure to make a deal, Republicans will say it was because Democrats didn't want the border closed and Democrats will say they didn't care if Ukraine lost and both sides kind of have a point. 

I could be wrong and some kind of grand bargain will be made, but I think it's a moot point. The real issue is that even a major funding bill getting passed it's too late. The bill will be to produce more weapons, not send Ukraine stuff that has already been made. It would take years to produce the weapons Ukraine would need to fight off Russia. New funding will do almost nothing. 

And, of course, the ABC News article ignored the elephant in the room. All the weapons in the world are meaningless if you don't have the soldiers to use them. Ukraine does not. They have been so desperate for people they have been sending women, the disabled and the wounded to the front lines. And most soldiers are far too old to actually be soldiers now. Ukraine doesn't have any young people to begin with but Ukraine isn't even drafting them, they are just picking men in their 30's, 40's and even 50's. 

There is a major mobilization coming where they are supposedly going to draft 500,000 people. That will be pretty useless too since those people will not get the training they need to actually fight. From what I understand Ukrainian soldiers only get a few weeks of training and then are thrust onto the front lines. They obviously don't last long there as they don't have the skills they need to survive. 

Either way, it seems clear that the media can no longer deny what has been obvious from the start. Ukraine has no chance to win this war and we are only throwing good money after bad. Indeed, I think the whole issue might be moot as it seems like Russia is advancing all over the front lines. 

News media admits that Russia has regained the initiative in the Ukraine War.

 

Ukraine drone operators practicing with their drones. Reuters.

Ukraine is outnumbered and outgunned by Russia and is being ground down. Reuters. Russia had a major victory in taking the long contested city of Avdiivka, a battle where the Russians outnumbered the Ukrainians 7 to 1. Ukrainians soldiers complain about a lack of weapons and troops, and how much pressure Russia is putting on the front lines. Ukraine does have a good supply of drones, but even those are outnumbered by the drones on the Russian side. But now both sides are using anti-drone electronic warfare as well. 

My Comment:

There were quite a few of these kinds of articles today all with similar themes. Ukrainian soldiers complaining of a lack of supplies. An admission that there are attacks all over the front lines. And finally recognizing the scale of Russia's victory in Avdiivka. It's obviously a trend and it shows that Russia is on the assault. 

I'm on record saying that Russia was always going to win the war in Ukraine. It was obvious given the scale of Russia's military, manpower and production compared to Ukraine's that they had every advantage. They were always going to win short of NATO joining the war directly and even then it wouldn't be a sure thing. 

That isn't to say that Russia hasn't faced setbacks. Ukraine is doing pretty well on the naval side of the battle and Russia had several major setbacks where they lost a lot of the territory they took early in the war. Much of that is because Russia tried to do the war on the cheap during the early days of the war and did not commit much of their forces. That has obviously changed and it's clear that Russia is all in on the war. 

Russia's mistakes were a lot more affordable to them then it was for Ukraine. Unlike Ukraine, Russia was smart to trade territory for the lives of their soldiers. Ukraine did the opposite, fighting to almost the last man in Soledar, Bakhmut and Avdiivka. And they launched an extremely ill advised summer offensive that not only failed in its goals, it lost a huge amount of equipment and lives. 

The situation is a lot more dire than the media is admitting though. Ukraine has largely run out of troops and they don't really have much in the way of reserves. Russia is attacking on basically all fronts. They are attacking in five major areas, Avdiivka, Marinka, Robotyne, Kremmina, and Bakhmut. Ukraine does not have the reserves to cover all of those fronts. And Russia is strong enough that if Ukraine does move forces to plug these holes, they will face new attacks on new fronts. 

It's too the point where I would not be surprised if we see a major collapse of the Ukrainian Army. Not a full collapse, perhaps, but I would not be surprised if the territorial stalemate the war has been stuck in changes. If the front line units break or surrender we could see Russia regain much of the territory they lost. 

Why is Nikki Haley still in the race?

 

Nikki Haley. Gage Skidmore. 

Nikki Haley vows to continue her 2024 Presidential race despite a looming race in her home state of South Carolina that polling says she will lose by 30 points. Politico. Haley says she will continue the race until the "American people close the door". GOP leadership is calling for Haley to drop out after blowout losses in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, with an embarrassing loss expected in South Carolina on Saturday. Haley has been more critical of Trump lately despite being "proud" of the work she did during his administration. Haley has continued to campaign in states voting on Super Tuesday and even has an event planned in Washington State, which is after Super Tuesday. 

My Comment:

It's a slow news day so I thought I would write about the most baffling story in politics today, which is Nikki Haley's presidential campaign. In a sane world Haley would know that her political ambitions are done. She isn't going to win her race against Donald Trump even if Donald Trump drops dead. I know I wouldn't vote for her and if she is the 2024 candidate I would probably vote third party.

Why? Because she's a relic of a party that is long dead. She's a neocon, a warmonger and an example of everything that went wrong with the Republican Party. I have zero interest in voting for someone that has an identical foreign policy as Joe Biden. Gun to my head, I'd vote for her over Biden, but only because Biden is senile, corrupt and probably a sex offender. But that's it. 

So why is Haley still running? I guess it's possible she's just in denial and thinks the polling is off by double digit points. That would make zero sense but perhaps Haley is just really dumb. That's possible, I never found her to be that intelligent. People certainly can believe some strange things, and perhaps Haley genuinely believes she will beat Donald Trump in a fair race. 

It's possible that this is just a graft. There are a lot of fools that are giving Nikki Haley money to run and the RINO wing of the Republican Party along with Democrats that support Haley, have deep pockets. She could also be auditioning for CNN or other anti-Trump outlets for a 2nd Trump term. There is always a demand on those programs for a supposed Republican that only attacks people on her side. 

I do think we can rule out the idea that Nikki Haley was running for Trump's VP slot. She burned her bridges with Trump when she stayed in the race past New Hampshire. Trump and DeSantis have not exactly made up after he dropped out, but I think there is absolutely zero chance of her getting the nod now. 

The most likely reason is that Haley thinks that Trump won't be around as a candidate for some reason. To be fair, Trump is fairly old and there is always a chance he could get sick or die from natural causes. Trump is also in legal jeopardy but if Haley thinks that is a path for her she's nuts. Every time the kangaroo courts go after Trump his popularity increases. And I think it's very unlikely that Trump will go on trial, let alone be convicted, before November. 

What really worries me is the possibility that Haley knows something will happen to Trump. I hesitate to even mention the possibility, but it wouldn't be the first time a popular presidential candidate didn't make it to the election... If something does happen to Trump I would not vote for Haley because I wouldn't be convinced that she wasn't part of the reason it happened. 

Regardless, this is almost certainly the end of Nikki Haley's career as an elected official. Three quarters of the party think she is a traitor and they aren't going to forgive her in not backing Trump when the entire political system is trying to destroy him. Loyalty is an important thing in political parties and it's a reason why the Democrats are more effective at getting their policies passed for the most part. They don't constantly defect to the other side and the Republicans are just sick of Republicans like that. 

Houthi war update: US forces attacked by underwater drone, British flagged cargo ship abandoned after missile strike.

 

File photo of Houthis in Yemen. ABC News/Anadolu/Getty.

US forces have come under attack by sea borne drones both above and below the water. ABC News. The Houthis used an unmanned underwater vessel (UAV) along with a more traditional drone boat along with a missile strike. The drones and missile was intercepted but it does show how advanced the Houthi rebels are getting. Iran is suspected to have provided the drones to the Houthis. The drones are a legitimate threat as they can overwhelm defenses of a ship if they are used in a swarm. The Houthis are probably changing tactics as their aerial drones and missiles have not been successful in destroying a US ship.

Also near Yemen a Belize flagged and British registered cargo ship was abandoned after it was hit by a Houthi missile. BBC. The Rubymar was hit by two missiles and began taking on water. The crew was evacuated but the ship has been abandoned due to damage and the fact that it was carrying dangerous fertilizer as cargo. The attack is the most successful one conducted by the Houthis since the war began. 

My Comment:

Yemen isn't getting the headlines it once did, largely because the Ukraine war has again made headlines, but the war there is actually heating up. There have been many strikes from the Houthis and the response has been air strikes from the United States. So far those strikes appear to not have accomplished their goals as the Houthis are launching even more attacks. 

The use of an underwater drone is a major escalation. Had the drone not been destroyed it could have damaged or destroyed whatever US ship was being targeted (none of the articles I have read mentioned which Navy ship was attacked, perhaps for intelligence reasons). It shows just how advanced the Houthis are now, these weapons are fairly advanced. 

And both underwater and surface drone vessels are a real threat. As critical as I have been of the Ukraine armed forces, their use of drones have largely shut down Russia's Naval operations in the Black Sea. They have damaged and destroyed several vessels, so the threat in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea is absolutely real. 

I do think it's just a matter of time before an US Navy ship is damaged or destroyed by the Houthis. If the Houthis concentrate their drones they could potentially overwhelm the defenses of a ship. Indeed, that might be why they didn't mention the ship, it's possible it exhausted its defenses and could be vulnerable to follow up attacks. 

As for the ship attacked, it seems pretty likely that it will be sunk. Some outlets are claiming it sank already but it's unclear if that actually happened. But given the ship was taking on water when it was abandoned there is a very good chance it will be lost. 

Regardless, this was a very successful attack. The ship was hit by missiles and took a lot of damage. Other ships have been hit but this is the first one that will likely be lost. It's a major escalation in the war and will make it a lot more likely that further shipping will avoid the Red Sea. 

I also don't think that any response will be successful. Previous airstrikes appear to have done little to nothing in preventing these attacks. Indeed, it seems like things are actually escalating. I also don't think anything could prevent these attacks short of putting boots on the ground or intercepting all of the weapons shipments that Iran is sending Yemen. Either of those would be a major escalation and could risk a wider regional war. 

I have to say it does seem like Yemen is winning this war. They are shutting down travel through the Red Sea and could be on the verge of actually damaging or destroying a US ship. And they are damaging both the economies of Israel and Egypt which is putting political pressure on both countries to abandon the war in Gaza. They are also defying the West in fairly convincing fashion as well. 

And the US has no good options. Shutting down the war in Gaza is a political impossibility even if that was what the Biden administration wants. And we can't really stop these attacks, short of invading Yemen or a full blockade. And doing what we are doing now? It's not working... 

Truckers refusing loads in New York City after kangaroo court ruling against Donald Trump.

 

Truckers for Trump "Chicago Ray" next to Donald Trump. Fox News/X@Chicago1Ray

Some truckers are saying that they will no longer haul loads to New York City after Trump was fined an absurd $350 million last week. Fox News. Trump was barred from operating his business for three years and fined $350 million for supposed fraud in a show trial. In response some truckers are saying they will boycott the city. Truckers said that the ruling against Trump is essentially election interference. 

My Comment:

I haven't mentioned the fraud trial against Donald Trump since not only was it a kangaroo court where it would have been impossible for Donald Trump to win. The ruling was insane and made a mockery of justice. Only in New York City can a man be found liable for fraud with now actual victim. 

I also think that the city of New York should be punished for this travesty. They voted for this nonsense and they should suffer the consequences. I would not be upset at all if their economy crashed because of this. 

But will these truckers actually accomplish much? It really depends. There are millions of truckers in this country and if they all refused to haul loads to New York City it would cripple the city. Logistics makes the world go around and truckers actually have a lot of power. 

Just look at what happened in Canada when the protest movement there cut off the capitol and managed to blockade highways. That was the end of the modern Coronavirus restriction movement, and despite the Orwellian reaction by the Canadian government the Canadian Trucker's convoy was a success. 

But will this work in this case? Probably not. If these tuckers were blockading New York City they might accomplish something. As it stands right now all they are doing is refusing loads and there is no actual punishment for New York City. In theory if enough truckers do that then New York will face shortages and higher prices but will enough truckers go along with it? 

 My guess is no. There are a lot of conservative truckers out there, but most of them are middle aged or older. I work with truckers every day and I think there are a lot of old white guys out there that would go with this. Maybe even some of the old school black drivers. But I also know that there are a lot of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants working in trucking today. 

Indeed, there are lot of drivers out there that completely refuse to drive to California due to various draconian restrictions that California has imposed on trucking. But my company sends loads to California every day, using companies that hire Indian and Hispanic immigrants. These folks don't care about Trump, many of them barely speak English, and they aren't going to have a problem delivering to New York City. 

So will this have any impact at all? It's possible. Like I said, there are still a lot of old school drivers that are angry about this ruling. But there are a ton of immigrants and even leftist drivers that can pick up the slack. And they might not always have a real choice about it. Though truckers can refuse loads even if they aren't owner operators, they could possibly be fired for it. 

Ukraine begins to withdraw troops from Avdiivka

 

An Ukrainian serviceman. NBC/AFP/Getty. 

Ukraine has begun to withdraw troops from Avdiivka in a major sign that the battle is not going there way. NBC News. Avdiivka is a critical city that allows Ukraine to shell targets in Donetsk and Russia has been trying to capture it for two years, and it held throughout the civil war. However, the city is now surrounded by three sides and most supply routes are blocked. One of Ukraine's last major units, the 3rd Assault Brigade, created from the notorious neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, has been deployed to the city in an effort to buy time for these redeployments. Troops from that brigade say that the fighting is more fierce than the battle in Bakhmut, a brutal battle under similar circumstances that Ukraine lost last year. Ukraine has been facing major supply and personnel problems for months now. 

My Comment:

I haven't mentioned the battle of Avdiivka on my blog yet but I have been covering it on my social media accounts on X and Gab. In short, the media is finally recognizing that Russia is winning the battle of Avdiivka. 

A quick note. Don't take my spelling the name of the city by the Ukrainian spelling (Avdiivka) instead of the Russian spelling (Avdeevka) as support of Ukraine or their actions. It's more an effort at simplicity. If you don't specifically search out the information, and even if you did it's hard to find, you wouldn't ever know the Russian spelling of the city. It's just another example of how incredibly biased western media in favor of Ukraine. 

They are also downplaying the identify of the 3rd Assault Brigade. They are essentially the Azov Battalion, a notorious neo-Nazi group that was guilty of several atrocities during the civil war. They are, to be frank, very bad people. 

I don't think their deployment to a city that is going to fall is a mistake either. There is a good chance that they will be trapped and destroyed in Avdiivka which probably suits Zelensky just fine. The far right neo-Nazi national faction in Ukraine is extremely dedicated to the war, largely because their punishment would be necessary in any deal with Russia. If the 3rd Assault Brigade is destroyed they are less of a threat to Zelensky and might make a coup against Zelensky less likely. 

As for the battle itself it's not going well for the Ukrainians. They have had a extremely rough time of it and are facing the exact same situations they faced during the battles of Bakhmut and Soledar. Pro-Russian voices have called these battles "cauldrons" and I think that's a good term for it. In all three battles Ukraine kept troops in battles where they were surrounded on three sides and their supply routes were under "control" of Russian artillery, the Russians hadn't blocked the supply routes but they could hit them easily with artillery fire. 

Avdiivka is a lot worse than Bakhmut and Soledar though. Why? Russia has air superiority now, Ukraine is largely out of anti-air defenses. Plus Russia has managed to fully deploy their equivalent of JDAM's, the KAB500S-E. These cheap guided bombs have been used effectively and dozens of them are being used every day. This has been absolutely devastating for the Ukrainians. Plus, the main supply route out of the city has now been cut by the Russians. 

One does wonder why Ukraine has held onto Avdiivka for so long. The correct military thing to have done is to pull out of the city and pull back to a different defensive line. Trade territory for lives. But instead they are fighting almost to the last man and are only withdrawing. Why? I honestly think its because they hate the people of Donetsk and want to continue to shell them. Indeed, even as they run out of shells they have continued to shell the city. 

With the city about to fall I do think that we are entering the end game for the Ukraine war. Even if some version of the $95 billion aid package passes in the House, it won't matter. Ukraine's supply problems are bad but the real problem is the number of troops. They simply don't have the manpower to continue to fight, most of their units are depleted and most of the fighters are men in their 40's and 50's. As someone that hit 40 last year, I can't imagine having to go to war at that age. 

And they don't have much manpower to draw from. Supposedly by April they are going to have a general mobilization but even if that happens, they don't have many young people to send to the front. Ukraine has a major lack of 18 to 25 year old men. Many of them have also fled the country and the ones that stay are absolutely critical for the economy. And even if they do, they would have to train them if they have any chance of surviving, let alone making an impact on the battlefield. By then it's likely to be too late. 

Panic in Washington over possible Russian anti-Satellite weapon...

 

A satellite. Politco/AFP/Getty.

Washington is in a panic over intelligence that suggests Russia has developed a nuclear anti-satellite weapon. Politco. Such a weapon would not be able to be countered by US and NATO. House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Turner called on the Biden Administration to declassify the intelligence about the weapon. It is unclear why he decided to bring up this information now as it has been available for more than a week. It is possible that it was a ploy to secure new funding for the war in Ukraine. 

My Comment:

This is a pretty transparent effort to try and drum up support for the war in Ukraine. The whole "justification" of the war is the idea that it somehow weakens Russia to drag them further into a quagmire in Ukraine. 

The problem is that people aren't buying it anymore. Russia appears to be stronger than ever and their military is advancing in leaps and bounds. Sending more money to Ukraine won't actually help them win the war. All it will do is result in more dead Ukrainians and Russians. With a large number of Republican lawmakers agreeing with that the powers that be needed a new argument. 

Is Russia developing some kind of nuclear anti-satellite weapon? It's possible. Russia has been able to develop new weapons at a fairly impressive pace. They now have an advantage in hypersonic missiles and air defenses. And they certainly have both nuclear weapons and anti-satellite weapons, it would not be hard for them to combine them. 

Does that mean that they did? I have no idea. I absolutely don't trust our intelligence agencies to tell the truth about anything and the timing of this is very obvious since it's pretty clear that the Ukraine aid bill is dead on arrival. It really does seem like they just want to drum up anti-Russian sentiment. 

I also wonder why they would want to develop a nuclear anti-satellite weapon in the first place? They already have anti-satellite weapons and have had them since the 1970's. Why would they not just use those in the event of World War III instead of nuclear weapons that could result in mutually assured destruction. 

The only thing I can think of is that anti-satellite weapons might not be as effective against small satellites like the one Elon Musk has deployed for Starlink. Given those are the size of a table it might be too difficult to target with conventional weapons. In that case an EMP from a nuclear weapon might be the only option. But that is pure speculation on my part. 

Regardless, if a major war erupts our satellites are done regardless. Both Russia and China have anti-satellite conventional weapons and those will be used given how dependent US forces are on our satellite network. And the destruction of those satellites would likely cause Kessler syndrome, which could lock us out of space for generations. 

House impeaches Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

 

Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Fox News/Getty.

The House has impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for the dysfunction on the border. Fox News. Mayorkas barely avoided being impeached in the last vote, but he was impeached in a razor thin 214-213 vote. Three Republicans voted against impeaching Mayorkas. It's likely that the impeachment will not do much as it is likely to die in the Senate. Mayorkas faced two charges, one for breaking federal immigration law and another for breaking the public trust. 

My Comment:

This is a very minor win for Republicans in Congress. It will do nothing to actually get rid of Mayorkas, this is DOA in the Senate, but it will be a very slight morale boost for Republicans across the country. It's more about sending a message than anything else. 

Did Mayorkas deserve this? Absolutely! He's done absolutely nothing to secure the border and has essentially abandoned his duties in terms of immigration. His actions were so over the top that it was of course the right thing to impeach him. 

On the other hand, there was quite a bit of embarrassment with the effort. The first vote failed as there were three Republican defectors and Republican Steve Scalise was too sick from cancer treatment to vote. These constant defections on critical bills like this is absolutely hurting the Republican party. And you never see this from Democrats, they almost always vote in unison on critical votes like this. 

What is shocking to me is that my own congressman, Mike Gallagher, voted against the impeachment. Supposedly he didn't think Mayorkas did not meet the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" despite breaking federal immigration law. Until now I was fairly happy with Gallagher and would have voted for him in 2024 if he was running, but it's an extremely baffling action by him and might be a reason why he's not going to run in 2024. He had already drawn a primary challenger and with his actions on this issue he probably would have lost. 

I also don't think that arguments that this will make things worse are really valid. The Democrats have already proven they will try and impeach Republicans for absolutely nothing, they impeached Trump twice for zero legitimate reason. The cow is out of the barn on that so there really isn't any downside. 

A more valid criticism is that this was pretty pointless. Just like the Democrats impeachments of Trump, there is zero chance that Mayorkas is going to be removed. Though there is little else for Republicans to focus on right now with the Senate being deadlocked, perhaps they could have been working on doing something for American citizens. But given that the Democrats would not pass anything that the House came up with in the Senate I guess they might as well do this. 

Bizarre shooting at Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church

 

Mugshots of the suspect in the attack, Genesse Moreno AKA Jeffrey Escalante. KHOU 11.

A bizarre shooting occurred at Televangelist Joel Osteen's Lakewood church in Houston Texas that left the attacker dead and two people injured, including the attackers 7 year old son. KHOU 11. The attacker, a woman known as Genesse Moreno, but who also went by the name of Jeffrey Escalante, was armed with an AR-15 that had "Free Palestine" written on it. She open fired and injured a man in the leg before being engaged by off duty police officers that were working as security for the megachurch. Moreno was killed by one of the officer but her 7 year old son was shot in the head during the firefight and is not expected to survive. Moreno was involved with a contentious divorce with her Jewish ex-husband and anti-Semitic  writing by Moreno was found by the police. Moreno has a long criminal and mental health history and it is unclear where she was able to purchase her AR-15 and the .22 caliber rifle she was armed with. 

My Comment:

This is a bizarre incident that seems to hit on every large social political issue that is in the news right now. The attacker went by a male name as an alias, though cops claim she was not transgender. She was a Hispanic immigrant who might be in the country illegally. She managed to get her rifle despite a long criminal and mental health history. And she appears to have been motivated in part by anti-Semitism. If you could have designed a more controversial incident I don't know how. 

If there is something we can agree on though, it's the fact that having armed security at this church probably saved a lot of lives. The off-duty police managed to shoot and kill this attacker before she managed to kill anyone. If those cops weren't there who knows how many people would have been killed?

However, there might be room for criticism in this case as well. We don't know how the 7 year old boy that was shot was injured. It's possible that the attacker was the one that shot him, but it's also possible that he was killed in the crossfire. If so that's a horrible thing but one that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Shooting the attacker was the right thing to do, even if someone got caught in the cross fire. 

A real question is why on earth this woman would bring her child to a mass shooting? I don't think I have ever seen that before and it makes me wonder if she did bring the child there just to shoot him? She was involved in a custody battle and it might have been a "if I can't have him no one can" style incident. But if not, it makes zero sense for a mother to bring her child to a mass shooting. 

The suspects gender is in question as well. The police say she never identified as anything but a female but also went by a very male name. There are only a couple of reasons for doing that, the more obvious one being that she was actually transgender or some other member of the LGBT alphabet soup. But I think it's more likely a false identity she used because she was an immigrant, possibly an illegal one. 

The real question is motivation. Was this a simple mass shooting or was it a terror attack? The presence of anti-Semitic writing and "Free Palestine" on her rifle obviously implies that this was politically motivated. But the fact that she was in a custody dispute with her Jewish ex and her Rabbi ex-Mother-in-law I am guessing the motivation was more personal. 

Of course, in either case, why did she attack Joel Osteen's mega church? Supposedly she had some link to the church but if she was motivated by personal hatred of her ex, why not attack him and his family? If she was motivated by anti-Semitism, why did she attack a church and not a synagogue? It just seemed like she was attacking people that had nothing to do with her anger. 

Regardless, this was a very strange case. A female mass shooting is pretty rare in the first place, but this one was even weirder. The facts of the case as we know them now just raise further questions. And like I said, it seemed to involve just about every hot-button social issue that is raging in the country right now. 

86% of voters say that Joe Biden is too old to serve a 2nd term in new poll.

 

Joe Biden. Politico/Getty.

86% of voters say that Joe Biden is too old to serve a 2nd term in a new poll released by ABC News/IPSOS. Politico. 59% said that both Biden and his presumptive opponent Donald Trump are too old. Biden is 81 while Trump is 77. The polling came after a devastating report from the special counsel said that Biden had serious memory issues and wasn't able to even remember when his son died. Biden followed up that report with a terrible press conference where he confused the presidents of Mexico and Egypt. Biden's handlers have pushed back on the report saying that it was politically motivated. However, the new polling shows that more people are concerned about Biden's advanced age as in the last ABC/IPSOS poll to ask the question, only 74% said Biden was too old. 

My Comment:

This is not surprising. Biden is 81 but looks and acts like he's 20 years older than that. He's barely able to speak, let alone run the country. It's very clear that he's not the man he used to be and it's also clear that he should not be running to be president for four more years, years that he probably won't even survive. 

To be fair, Donald Trump is getting up there in years himself. He's only four years younger than Joe Biden. But in Trump's defense, he's a lot more spry and quick than Biden is. He's still the same old Donald Trump that he has been for years now, for better or worse. 

Trump's age is still a concern of course. He could face a major health problem or a mental decline like Joe Biden's during his 2nd term. The difference is that Biden has already had his decline and isn't likely to be capable of much of anything before the end of his 1st term, let alone his 2nd. 

Will it matter? I think it will. People may want younger candidates but those aren't available this year and I think that a lot of moderates will go for the old guy that acts like he can still do the job over the they guy that they pretty clearly think can't. And that would be true if Biden's platform was as popular as Trump, which does not appear to be the case in 2024 at all. 

The real question is if Joe Biden is even the candidate in 2024. There is, of course, a chance that Biden won't even live that long, he's old and his health isn't the greatest. But I am more referring to the theory that Biden will be replaced by another younger and more capable candidate before election day. Is this possible? Sure, but I don't find it likely. 

Why? Because I don't think Biden will step aside willingly. It's personal for him. He hates Donald Trump and also hates his voters. He's also running to keep his son, Hunter Biden, out of prison. He's also a very spiteful and prideful man and will not step aside even if his own party wants him to do so... 

Joe Biden confuses Mexico and Egypt during a press conference after the special counsel questioned his memory

 

Joe Biden.

Joe Biden confused Mexico and Egypt during a press conference trying to downplay his memory issues after a special counsel report. BBC. The inquiry found that Biden had willfully retained classified documents but did not result in charges. However, the report found that Biden had significant memory issues and was not able to recall when he served as Vice President or when his son Beau Biden died. Biden angrily denied that he didn't remember his son's death and claimed he was distracted by the October 7th attacks in Gaza. Biden gave a press conference to try and defend himself and said that President Sisi of Egypt was actually the President of Mexico... 

   

Joe Biden just declared that Mexico is on the border of Gaza pic.twitter.com/RrlAosfQ00

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) February 9, 2024

 

My Comment:

I watched this press conference live since I though after the report there was a real chance of Joe Biden resigning. Instead I watched one of the most shocking speeches I had ever seen. Not only did Biden convince me that he was in no way capable of being president of anything, but he also showed a lot of cowardice trying to blame his own staff over the secret documents scandal. 

Should Biden have faced charges? Probably not. Because every president and VP has some classified materials in their homes. Trump did and so did Mike Pence. And I am sure if Obama, Clinton, Bush and Carter had their homes searched they would have found the same thing. 

Of course with Donald Trump facing ridiculous charges for similar things, there is an obvious double standard here. Trump holding onto secret material is fine because he was President and could declassify anything he wanted. Biden was a Vice President and did not have the authority. But either way Biden should have been charged if Trump was charged. 

None of that matters now because nobody cares about the secret documents story anymore. The real story is that the special counsel basically said that he couldn't get a conviction on Joe Biden because his mental acuity is so low that the jury would feel bad for him and let him off. He said he could remember when he was Vice President or when his son died. Given how angry he was about the latter accusation and how often he misstates the cause of Beau Biden's death (he died of cancer, not in Iraq) I think there is truth to it. 

But Biden's response? It was beyond terrible. Even when he was just reading his prepared statement he got weird as he started to angerly whisper when talking about his son. And his answers to questions were rambling and unclear. He was snarky with a reporter and generally put out a poor performance. 

The real disaster was the last question. Biden had already left the podium and was about to leave when he inexplicably decided to answer a question about Gaza. And then after stuttering for a very uncomfortable amount of time he said that President Sisi of Egypt was the President of Mexico. In any other context it might be a bit more forgivable but in this context? It was about the worst thing he could have done. People make wrong statements all the time but not only did Biden do it during a press conference that was called to try and defend his mental faculties, he also didn't even notice it happened! It was a disaster. 

Far from distancing himself from accusations that Joe Biden is unable to serve as president, those accusations are going to be stronger than ever. Biden simply isn't the man he once was and if anyone actually bothers to watch this speech it's going to hurt him and hurt him bad. 

I do have to wonder how many of Biden's handlers had heart attacks when he went back to the podium to answer an unauthorized question. They had to know that Biden hadn't prepared for it and was speaking of the cuff, which is where things tend to go wrong with them. I am guessing they are the reason that the feed was cut off right after Biden answered the question. 

This story is going to drown out what otherwise would have been a huge news day. Tucker Carlson interviewed Vladimir Putin, Zelensky replaced his war leader, the Supreme Court heard the challenge to Trump's ballot access. And none of those stories matter now. Now everyone will be talking about how senile Biden is and how he had yet another "Biden moment". 

There are, of course, questions about Trump's mental fitness as well, given that he is fairly old too. But even on his worse day Trump is not anywhere near as bad as Biden has been. Trump is still high energy, sharp and able to keep up with reporter questions. Biden is not. So if you care about mental competence at all, you absolutely have to vote against Biden this November. 

Finally, I don't think this was some kind of planned thing by his handlers so that Joe Biden would be replaced. A lot of people are claiming this on social media, but it makes no sense to me. Biden is running to keep what is left of his good name and to keep Hunter Biden out of prison. Indeed, I think his handlers tried to prevent this but he insisted because he was so angry. But I think the calls for him to drop out will grow even more shrill after this...