Could ISIS infiltrate the US via our open border and conduct a Moscow-style attack?

 

Crocus City Hall, the site of the Moscow terror attack. New York Post/Reuters.

Officials are warning that ISIS-K could infiltrate the open US border and conduct a Moscow-style terror attack. New York Post. An official said that ISIS is getting bolder and is looking for bigger targets to strike in the United States. 260,000 people were caught illegally crossing the border last year and that does not include ones that were not caught. Concerns are high that groups like ISIS could smuggle people in as the FBI has seen an increase in people on their watchlists entering the country illegally. 169 terror suspects were caught at the border last year. However, ISIS-K has mostly been active in Asia and would be more likely to strike Europe before the United States. 

My Comment:

I think it's very possible that a Moscow style terror attack could happen here in the United States. The attack was not that complex or expensive. I am guessing the whole thing cost less than $100,000 and ISIS-K certainly has that kind of money to throw around, considering they control part of Afghanistan. 

And they could absolutely get through the open borders either through Mexico or Canada. There is a very good chance that they wouldn't even get caught until they carry out their attack. With so many people crossing the border right now it would be trivial to blend in with the crowds, especially if you toss your ID's before you even get there. 

But I don't really see ISIS-K being the one that does this. Why? Because they have a lot of targets a lot closer to home that are a lot easier to hit. Indeed, their attack in Moscow is probably the furthest away from Afghanistan they have gotten. Most of their other attacks have been in Afghanistan proper or in neighboring countries like the attack on Iran in January. 

And if our borders are open, certainly things are even worse in Europe right now. I don't think anyone from ISIS-K would have a problem crossing over their borders. Europe is wide open to a major terror attack and I would not be surprised if the next major attack happens somewhere in Europe proper. And it would be extremely easy for terrorists to get armed up given the huge number of weapons flowing into Europe from Ukraine. 

ISIS-K would have bigger problems here in the United States. Getting guns and explosives is a lot more difficult if you are in the country illegally, or just in general. The full-auto rifles terrorists prefer are simply not available here unless you are incredibly wealthy and sometimes not even then. And both our police and civilians are well armed, it would be a lot more difficult for a small team of terrorists to kill triple digit people without getting armed resistance. 

The Post piece mentioned though that bombing and shooting aren't the only way ISIS-K could strike though. They mentioned car-ramming attacks, which have been used by terrorists in the past. Those are very easy to pull off as all you need is a heavier vehicle and a place where there is a crowd. I think that is more likely to happen than the other options. 

I also think that ISIS-K isn't the terror group we should be worried about. All kinds of bad actors are crossing the border right now, including state backed groups. I am sure we have people from Hamas and Hezbollah, along with state actors from China and Iran. I'm even worried about the Banderites in Ukraine which might want to take revenge after Ukraine loses the war against Russia. As long as the border is completely open, these folks will continue to arrive here and it's likely that they will carry out attacks at some point if the politics allow it. 

Regardless, though I think the threat of terrorism inspired by ISIS is high, I am not really expecting a major terror attack by them in the United States funded and carried out by the group directly. What I am expecting is a wave of "lone wolf" terrorists carrying out their attacks in the name of ISIS. We had seen that before in the wake of major terror attacks and I think that is the most likely fallout of the Moscow attack. 

Vladimir Putin says that Russia will not go to war with NATO but would shoot down donated F-16 fighter jets.

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin. Reuters.

Vladimir Putin says that Russia will not go to war with NATO but would shoot down donated F-16 fighter jets. Reuters. Putin said that he had no designs on Poland, the Baltic States or Czechia, calling the idea "nonsense" and "drivel". However, he did not that his forces would destroy F-16 fighter jets, noting the jets would not change anything on the ground. But the fighters are capable of using nuclear weapons and would mean that Russia could target any bases launching them from outside of Ukraine. Ukraine claims it will receive the fighter jets in the next few months but it is unclear how F-16's, which require heavy maintenance, long airstrips and armored hangers, will operate from Ukraine. 

My Comment:

 Putin appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth here. First he is saying that he won't attack NATO countries but at the same time he says that he would destroy airbases if they are being used to host F-16's, since they can use nuclear weapons. So he's promising not to strike at the same time threatening to strike? 

So what does this mean? I think this whole thing is a fairly obvious message to the west. Keep the F-16's in Ukraine and don't use NATO bases to launch attacks on Russian troops. If they do then the consequences are that those bases will be attacked and destroyed. It's a pretty clear message. But will NATO even listen?

I have expressed skepticism that F-16 will ever actually receive F-16's and this is a major reason why. It would be difficult to operate these jets out of Ukrainian airbases and there is an open question if any of Ukraine's air bases are even operational at this point. They have been launching Storm Shadow missiles at Russian targets, so they have some air forces left, so they must have some bases still operational.

But can they handle F-16's? From what I understand F-16's are rather picky about what kind of air bases they can be operated. They have low tolerance for debris and need a lot of maintenance. And they would need armored hangers to protect them from Russian air and missile strikes. These air bases would be priority targets for Russia so would they even last after the fighters have been delivered? 

Of course, like the other wunderwaffen deployed in this war, I doubt the F-16's would do much, especially at the low numbers being offered. 1000 of them might make a difference but we are talking about a squadron or two, not enough to actually do much. And Russia now has the advantage in airpower, air defenses and military power in general. My guess is that if these fighters try to engage with Russian fighter jets, they would be destroyed easily. And if they target ground forces they would probably get shot down by Russia's air defenses. About the only use they could be for is being launchers for Storm Shadows and equivalent long range missiles, and that would have a negligible effect at best. 

Given the negligible effect F-16's and the fact that Putin gave a pretty direct warning, will NATO use bases in their territory to launch these fighters? I would certainly hope not, it would be an absolutely idiotic move in a war that is already lost. In a sane world they wouldn't even consider it. But this is not a sane world and NATO has done nothing but double down and throw good money after bad in this war. I think we might see Russian airstrikes on NATO airbases... 

New polling says Americans no longer support Israel in the war against Hamas.

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. New York Post/AP.

New polling says Americans no longer support Israel in their war against Hamas. New York Post. Polling from Gallup says that 55% of Americans now disapprove of Israel's actions in the war with only 36% approving. This is a dramatic chance as in November, 50% approved of the war with 45% disapproving. The polling comes as relations between Israel and the United States is under pressure due to Israel planning an offensive in the dense urban city of Rafah. Biden's approval for handling of the war was only at 27%. Republicans remain more supportive of the war than Democrats but support has fallen there as well. 

My Comment:

I will never understand the pro-Hamas position on this war. It makes zero sense to me and even if you discount the actions of Hamas on October 7th, I still can't understand why anyone would ever support Palestinians. They have been murdering people and being incredibly violent despite losing every war they have fought with Israel. 

I think a large part of the problem is that Hamas is losing and losing hard. They haven't accomplished much of anything since October 7th. There have been no follow up attacks and they have not threatened Israel in a major way since the attack. And they have been largely unable to do much to prevent the invasion by the Israelis. 

The true atrocities that Hamas committed have also fallen out of the public consciousness. They raped, murdered and destroyed across Israel but they haven't done a thing since then since they are losing the war. In a way, Israel is a victim of its own success. 

Hamas has the advantage of having a major amount of propaganda in their favor. Indeed, TikTok is utterly infested with pro-Hamas shills. What is amazing to me is that a lot of people fall for it, Hamas propaganda is even more unbelievable and obvious than pro-Ukraine propaganda, and that is really saying something. But given how effective Ukraine's propaganda it's not surprising that Hamas is succeeding here as well. People just don't think anymore. 

Part of it too, is that people expect every war to be Desert Storm. They assume that because a war lasts more than a couple of months without a resolution that instead of being how war works, they assume that Israel is committing a "genocide". I haven't seen anything of the sort, if anything Israel is handling Hamas with kid gloves. I would have carpet bombed the whole country to the point not a single building was standing. 

Regardless, this is very bad news for Biden, who has failed to balance the pro-Israel and pro-Hamas factions of his party. He has also lost influence with Israel. Netanyahu obviously doesn't respect Biden and Biden will not be able to get him to back down. If Biden decided to end support for Israel, his pro-Israel supporters will abandon him, but his pro-Hamas people already have.  

I don't see the war ending anytime soon. Hamas still holds Israeli civilians as hostages and as long as that is the case there can be no end to the war. And Israel has absolutely no reason to back down, they are winning the war. Only in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, where the US Navy is finding out the limits of their abilities, has there been any success on the pro-Hamas military side. 

The entire situation reminds me of the Vietnam war. In that war America won basically every major battle against the North Vietnamese but still lost the war because all of the propaganda is the other way.  Israel is doing the same thing here, they are winning the battle but losing the war, at least in terms of support here in the United States. 

RFK Jr. picks Nicole Shanahan as his VP pick. Who is she?

 

Nicole Shanahan. ABC News/Getty.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has picked Nicole Shanahan as his VP pick. ABC News. Shanahan is the former wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who she divorced last year. She is also an activist who has worked mostly with medical charities and environmentalism. Shanahan describes herself as a lifelong Democrat and was upset with the way the DNC was failing to live up to its values. Kennedy had previously said he would pick Shanahan as a VP if she wasn't rich, but it is speculated that is a reason why she was picked as gaining ballot access in many states is an expensive process. Kennedy also had to pick a VP early in order to gain ballot access in some states. 

My Comment:

I was fairly critical of the rumors that RFK Jr. was considering some VP picks. I didn't think Aaron Rodgers or Jesse Ventura would be good candidates. But compared to Nicole Shanahan, they would be dramatically better. I am not a fan of this pick at all. 

First of all, Shanahan is almost totally unknown by the wider public. I guess if you were active in the healthcare or environmental activism communities you might have heard of her. And if you were very interested in the personal lives of Google co-founders you might have as well. But I would guess that Shanahan has almost zero name recognition. Indeed, the first time I had ever heard of her is when she was mentioned as a VP candidate for RFK a few days ago.  

She also is going to turn a lot of people off. With this VP pick the idea that RFK is going to draw votes from Donald Trump is pretty laughable. I can't see anyone on the GOP side that would want to vote for a woman that describes herself as a "lifelong Democrat". And has spent much of her life as an activist for healthcare and the environment, things that most Republicans don't have as a priority. 

I also don't get the idea of picking a VP candidate from a solid blue state in California. Traditionally your VP pick would be someone from a swing state so people would vote for their hometown person. It's why the Kamala Harris pick in 2020 for Biden was so head-scratching, California was always going to go for Biden regardless, it should have been someone from a swing state. Perhaps 2024 is different with RFK mostly drawing from liberals, but it's still an odd pick. 

About the only positive I can think of for RFK Jr. is that Nicole Shanahan is an attractive woman. That probably shouldn't matter but people do vote for candidates they are attracted too, and she is reasonably attractive for a politician. I certainly wouldn't vote for someone based on that, but some people might?

But I think there might be some truth to why RFK Jr. picked Shanahan, she's got deep pockets and that is an advantage. It's unclear how much money she got from her divorce, but we know she sought $1 billion. It's doubtful she got that much, but I am guessing she got quite a bit. She is independently wealthy and can help fund RFK Jr's campaign. She funded RFK's Super Bowl add, which cost $7 million, and she put up more than half. 

Will her pick move the polls at all? Probably not. A few of RFK's right wing backers might balk at voting for a lifelong Democrat, but there aren't that many of them in the first place. A few Biden voters might go with RFK Jr. now because they personally like Shanahan or her activism, but I don't see much movement in the polls from this. 

The real winner is Donald Trump. With a VP pick, RFK Jr will have ballot access in most or even all states. And this VP pick will probably convince a few of RFK Jr's supporters to come back into the Trump camp, while at the same time drawing a few more voters from Joe Biden...  

Russia is mistreating the suspects in the Moscow terror attack. Should we care?

 

The four suspects in the Moscow terror attack case. The Independent. 

The suspects in the Moscow terror attack that left at least 137 people dead have been mistreated. The Independent. Graphic video has shown the suspects being tortured by Russian authorities. One suspect had his ear cut off and was almost forced to eat it. Another suspect had a car battery hooked up to his genitals and another was beaten so badly his eye was destroyed. At a hearing the men showed obvious signs of beatings with one suspect wheeled in a wheelchair. Calls are being made for the men to face the death penalty, which Russia has had a moratorium on since the 1990's, though the law is still on the books. 

My Comment:

I've got mixed feelings on the treatment of these men. On the one hand I have very little sympathy for the men themselves given their actions. They killed more than 100 people and injured even more and they didn't really do it for ideological reasons, they did it for money. They absolutely deserve to die because of what they have done. 

But their treatment is pretty bad. Torturing these men is a bit over the top. It's pretty beyond the pale to cut someone's ear off or shocking their genitals. Especially since they don't seem to be doing it for intelligence gathering purposes. The men have cooperated and likely told the Russians everything they know, which probably isn't much.

I have argued in the past that torture could be justified to prevent a serious terror attack, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Instead it's torture for the sake of punishment, which is not something I support. It's not something we should be doing at this point in history. Even if these terrorists probably do deserve it, I don't like the idea of a government deciding that they should punish people extrajudicially. Especially if they are currently involved in a war, I would hate to see Ukrainian POW's treated this way when they are following the rules of war. 

To be fair, these men aren't protected by the rules of war like Ukrainian POW's. Terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva convention so this wasn't a war crime. Indeed, it was probably legal under Russia's laws, and even if it wasn't, no prosecutor was going to charge anyone for this. 

There is the idea that Russia is doing this to deter further attacks, but I don't know if it would even matter. A guy that will help kill 137 people for $5000 is not going to be deterred from a terror attack because Russia cut someone's ear off, let alone a true ISIS believer. At most it might affect the targeting as a terror cell might be more willing to attack a country that doesn't do these things. But the true ISIS believers are not going to care at all, and given that ISIS hates Russia I don't see this deterring them at all.  

As for the death penalty, I would be in support of it in this case. Surprisingly Russia has had a moratorium on the death penalty but they could absolutely bring it back for these men. And given their actions I have zero problem with them being put to death. And I think even most anti-death penalty activists would give pause in this case. Still, I don't think these men will have much of a fair trial, which is important even if the guilt of these men isn't really in doubt. 

It does seem that Russia has had enough, both with terrorism and the Ukraine war in general. Their treatment of these men is sending a clear message, don't mess with Russia. And they have absolutely stepped up their attacks in Ukraine. I'm afraid that the bear has absolutely come out of its cave and is angry as hell. 

Finally, I do think that this story is going to be about as consequential as the October 7th attacks in Israel. That attack started a huge war that is still ongoing. Though the repercussions for this attack isn't clear it does seem very likely that we will see a major wave of terrorism again. And Russia is blaming Ukraine, regardless if they have any guilt in the plot or not. I'm not sure either way, I don't trust either side to tell the truth. But I do think that things are not going to calm down for awhile.. 

France raises its terror alert level to the highest level in the wake of the Moscow attack.

 

French soldiers on patrol. France24.

France has raised its terror alert level to the highest level in the wake of the deadly ISIS terror attack in Moscow. France24. France has three terror alert levels and the highest level allows for the deployment of armed soldiers and patrols in public areas. ISIS took credit for the deadly attack in Moscow that left at least 137 people. France has a long history of jihadist terror attacks, with the 2015 Paris attacks being the most notable. France only moves their terror level in the wake of an attack in France or in anticipation of one. 

My Comment:

This is a wise move by the French. There is a major risk of terrorism in the wake of the Moscow attack and there is a good chance that it could happen in France. ISIS has a long history of attacking France and some of their most notable attacks have occurred in the country. 

The threat is two-fold. The actual handlers in the Moscow attacks have not been tracked down and they could be funding further attacks. It's very possible that the cell responsible for funding and supplying the attack could be plotting further attacks and some of them could be in France. The Moscow attack wasn't particularly difficult to pull off, the attackers were hired for a ridiculously small amount, probably less than the firearms and Molotov's they were armed with. And they never even had to make the 2nd payment since they got caught right away!

The other threat is that this attack in Moscow is going to inspire new attacks. This has happened in the wake of other major attacks where some lone wolf attacker decides to try their own attack because they were inspired by the larger attack. These attacks will likely be incompetent, like the lone guy with a knife that tries to attack armed soldiers or police, but they could still end up killing or injuring them. Again, France, with their large and radicalized Muslim population, could be extremely vulnerable to this as well. 

Will raising the terror level help things? Probably. Unlike most countries, France puts soldiers on the streets when they have a terror alert. Those soldiers are well armed and can and have responded to terror attacks. 

I do think that the threat is well beyond just France though. ISIS has reformed in Afghanistan and are using it as a base to attack other countries and if they can hire people in Russia they can also do so in Europe. There is a real chance of a follow up attack in the next few days or weeks. 

I also think that the threat is high in the United States. Our border is completely open and I am sure that there are radicals that made it in during the massive wave of illegal immigrants. I do wonder if there are links between ISIS-K and American radicals, it's unclear how big ISIS-K is in terms of organization and funds. But we also have the aforementioned threat of home grown lone wolfs to worry about as well...  

Major terrorist attack hits music theater in Moscow.

 

Crocus City Hall burns in Moscow. CBS News/AP.

A major terror attack has occurred in a music theater in Moscow. CBS News. At least 40 people are dead and more than 100 are wounded in one of the worst recent terror attacks. At least four gunmen attacked the Crocus City Hall, shooting civilians with rifles and setting the building on fire. Though Russia is engaged with a war with Ukraine, ISIS is suspected to have carried out the attack, with a claim of responsibility being posted on social media. The US government says those claims are correct and said they warned Russia of a presumptive attack due to their "duty to warn" policy. 

My Comment:

This is a developing story and the casualty figures are already probably out of date. I have seen unconfirmed reports that at least 60 people have died, but who knows what the final number will be. As always with these kinds of attacks, initial reports are often wrong and I would caution against taking information at face value. 

Regardless, this is one of the worst terror attacks to occur since core ISIS was defeated in Syria and Iraq. Indeed, it wasn't core ISIS that took credit for this attack, but ISIS-K, the Afghanistan branch. If they are truly the ones that are responsible then that is a concern as it had long been argued that after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, ISIS could stage a resurgence there and use it as a base to launch attacks globally. That might have just happened. 

However, there is a lot of doubt about if ISIS was actually the one to do this. And with good reason, Russia is at war with both Ukraine (de jure) and NATO (de facto) and it's not like there hasn't been terrorist attacks inspired by that conflict in Russia before. I tend to disagree with that theory as those terror attacks have exclusively happened at border towns near Ukraine, not deep in the heart of Russia. It's possible, but unlikely. 

Other candidates raised for this attack are varied and range from "maybe possible" to "yeah right". I have seen people blaming the CIA, France, Russia itself, Armenia and even Israel, which makes little sense. None of those outcomes are likely and I still think the most likely culprit is ISIS itself, given their long history of terror attacks abroad and in Russia specifically. 

What is clear is that Russia needs to beef up their internal security. Supposedly this venue had guards but the guards were unarmed and could do nothing to stop the slaughter. Given the fact that Russia is in a war with Ukraine and has a long history Islamic terrorism, I think it would be wise of them to loosen up their gun laws and allow civilians to get CCW permits. It might not have stopped this attack but it would have at least slowed these attackers down and bought time for Russian police and security forces to respond. 

It's also rather rich seeing Western world leaders condemn this attack despite being in a de facto war with Russia. It's incredibly hypocritical to condemn when civilians are killed in a terrorist raid but not when civilians are killed by Ukrainian shelling, especially when we are the ones that give them the weapons. Either Russia is our enemy or not, so either condemn both or neither. 

Houthis make a deal with Russia and China for transit in the Red Sea.

 

Houthis in Yemen. Politico/AFP. 

The Houthis of Yemen have made a deal with Russia and China for safe transit in the Red Sea. Politico. In return, China and Russia will provide diplomatic support for the de facto leaders of Yemen. This presumably includes providing veto cover against UN resolutions against the Houthis. Negotiations between the Houthis and China and Russia have been ongoing since last year. The Houthis have largely closed the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden to shipping and US efforts to stop missile and drone attacks on shipping has not succeeded. Airstrikes against the Houthis have been attempted but have so far failed to stop the attacks on shipping. 

My Comment:

This is a diplomatic coup for Russia and China. Not only are they going to be able to get an economic advantage over everyone else in the region, they are also strengthening ties to the de facto government of Yemen, the Houthis, who could prove useful allies to them in the future. 

Who would have thought diplomacy could be useful? The US certainly doesn't think so. Instead we have tried to bomb the Houthis into submission, and it hasn't seemed to have accomplished anything. The Houthis are still launching drones and missiles and they have hit even more ships. It's only a matter of time before another one sinks or someone else gets killed. 

And it doesn't seem like China or Russia had to pay much for this deal. Indeed, they were probably inclined to block any UN resolution against the Houthis anyways, mostly just to spite the Biden administration. As it stands now they won quite a bit with this deal. 

Does that mean that Russian and Chinese flagged ships are totally safe in the Red Sea or Gulf of Aden? Probably not. From what I understand the Houthis attack based on publicly available information and signals intelligence. I am sure that Russia and China will have transponders on their ship to inform the Houthis that their ships are there, but there is always a chance that the Houthis will make a mistake and hit the wrong ship. It has happened before. 

Regardless, Russia and China will have a major advantage over Europe and the United States. They will be able to ship their goods through the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden saving weeks of travel and millions in costs. Their insurance rates will likely go down as well. 

As for the United States, I still think that our options are essentially nil. In order to prevent these attacks we would either have to invade Yemen or actually attempt diplomacy. The 1st isn't viable, there is no desire in the United States for a major war with Yemen and the 2nd option isn't on the table either, since Biden doesn't appear to believe in it at all. So as long as both of those things are true I think this war will continue.  

Ron DeSantis says he will send any Haitian illegal immigrants to Martha's Vineyard.

 

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. The Hill/AP.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis says he will send any Haitian illegal immigrants to Martha's Vineyard. The Hill. Haiti has descended into chaos with gangs taking over the capitol and the Prime Minster resigning, leading to fears that Haitians could come to the United States. In response DeSantis has deployed police and National Guard units to the Florida Keys to turn away boats carrying Haitians before they enter US territory. Doing so allows Florida to deport the illegals without having to go through the federal government. If any Haitians do make it to Florida, DeSantis said they will be sent to other states. 

My Comment:

Looks like another red state governor is again doing what the federal government refuses to do, and that is deal with our illegal immigrant problem. Preventing Haitians from entering the country in the first place, and then sending them to the blue states that voted for the problem in the first place when they do show up is another solution to this problem. Much like Texas and their SB4 law, which has had a whirlwind 24 hours with SCOTUS supporting it but an appeals court halting it, it's GOP governors actually doing something about this problem. 

I do think that the strategy of sending illegals to blue states has been effective. It has brought the problem to the blue states and is increasing pressure on state, local and federal governments to actually do something on the problem. Continuing to do so will likely force the Biden administration to do something and, failing that, make illegal immigration an even bigger election issue than it already is. 

Of course, intercepting the illegals before they even enter the United States is an even better solution because you don't have to deal with the nonsense coming from the federal government. It also serves as a deterrence to anyone coming here if they know they will be turned away. It could also save their lives as it would make the dangerous sea voyage a lot less likely to succeed and they would perhaps reconsider it. 

I personally don't think we should accept any Haitians at all. The country has never been functional and given the behavior of the gang members I don't think we should risk letting these folks in. I think they would be very unlikely to contribute anything and would almost certainly commit a lot of crime. 

Of course the entire issue would be moot if the Biden Administration would just do the sane thing and deport illegal immigrants. But Biden refuses to do anything, he's just trying to blame the failure of the border bill, which was a poisoning pill which allowed huge numbers of illegals in. And the goal of the Democrats is to import millions of new voters as a last ditch effort to win in 2024... 

The Supreme Court says Texas can arrest illegal immigrants.

 

A suspect being arrested in Texas. BBC/Getty.

The Supreme Court says a Texas law that allows for the arrest and even deportation of illegal immigrants, can go into effect. BBC. The laws, SB4, allows police to stop and arrest people suspected of entering the country illegally, with penalties including fines, misdemeanors and felonies, with previously deported people being eligible for as much as 20 years in prison. The law was appealed as previous court rulings have said that only the federal government can enforce immigration laws. The case will go back to the 5th circuit for another ruling and both sides of the debate would be able to appeal the results to the Supreme Court again. 

My Comment:

Pretty major news on the immigration front and not the only major story today (a Judge also ruled, controversially, that illegals have gun rights as well). This is a huge victory for opponents of illegal immigration and a loss for the Biden administration. 

The problem is that SB4 might not be long for the world anyways. The 5th circuit court could indeed rule that only the federal government can enforce immigration law. The Supreme Court would probably reverse that, but in the meantime the law might go back to being unenforceable. My guess is that is what will happen and the entire process will likely take months, maybe years. 

In the end SB4 will probably be the law in the State of Texas. I don't think the argument that only the federal government can enforce immigration laws holds water. I understand it could affect foreign policy, but at this point, who cares? Immigration is a crisis and unless the constitution specifically says that states can't do this, it should be assumed that they can. 

Will the law help things? Yes, but it will be a band-aid on a bullet wound. I am guessing Texas will have some of the same problems the federal government has. In order to be deported on SB4 grounds, a judge has to sign off. Does Texas has anywhere near the number of judges to do so? I doubt it. And imprisoning these folks doesn't really fix the problem, it only transfers it to the already overwhelmed prison system. Any help is better than no help at all, and at least some people will be deported in the time it goes into effect. 

The other problem is mostly logistical. How Texas is going to deport people is an open question. Mexico has already said that they won't take these folks back. And though some of these countries might take them back, a lot of them are from Venezuela, which won't. Can Texas solve these problems? I am not sure, but I know they will try. 

Either way, even though this is a major victory for Texas and anyone who wants immigration, it's still frustrating that this came up in the first place. If the federal government was deporting these people it would be a moot point. But the Biden administration won't do a thing about the millions of people in the country illegally. 

Russia will create a "buffer zone" in Ukraine as a war goal.

 

Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Fox News/AP.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin says that they will create a buffer zone in Ukraine to prevent attacks on the Russian homeland. Fox News. Putin said the buffer zone is needed to prevent Ukrainian strikes and cross border raids. Such strikes have increased in pace as Ukraine has suffered defeats on the battlefield. They have launched drone strikes on targets inside of Russia and have attempted to raid across the border. Putin has been vague on his goals on Ukraine but has said that establishing a buffer zone is a war goal now. 

My Comment:

I don't know if this is new information or information that the media is just reporting now. I had known for awhile that Putin wanted a buffer zone in Ukraine but I have no idea where I had heard it. Probably on social media? But it's not surprising. 

Russia's war goals are pretty obvious, as they think that Ukraine represents a major threat to them and could be used to launch attacks against Russia itself. Given the events of the last few weeks, I think it's pretty obvious that they are correct. Given that the Ukrainians keep getting long range weapons, I think the Russians would have to push Ukraine back away from the borders of Russia. 

They would have a long way to go. In order to prevent the kinds of border strikes and cross border raids that the Ukrainians are doing the Russians would have to take the entire border region with Ukraine, up to the Dnieper river. And now they probably have to go past it, as both Kiev and Odessa would be able to threaten the border, with Odessa being a threat to Crimea. 

Can they do it? Yes, but it will probably take some time, unless Ukraine collapses quickly. Though Russia is on the offensive, they are hampered by mud season, which makes large scale offensives difficult at best, impossible at worst. That means that Russia will probably be limited to the smaller scale probing attacks that are showing quite a bit of success, but not the major breakthrough that would threaten these larger cities and take back some of the territory they lost in 2022. 

I do think it's bizarre that the western media acts like Putin's motives are hard to read. It's obvious he views Ukraine as a military threat and is especially sensitive to the threat posed by right wing groups in the country. Given Russia's history with the Nazis, that is not surprising at all. Putin also doesn't want Ukraine to join NATO and does not want it to be able to threaten to restart the war as well. Taking the buffer zone area would help in those goals as well, given the economic importance of the region. 

Finally, I probably should mention that Putin easily won Russia's elections. That is not surprising, though not for the reason that the media claims. They claim that Russia's elections are fixed, but I don't find them any worse than America's. Plus, given Putin's popularity and polling saying most Russians are in favor of the war against Ukraine, it would have been shocking if he didn't get the win at the ratio he did... 

Media takes Donald Trump's words out of context. The bloodbath hoax explained.

 

Donald Trump at the Dayton Ohio rally. Newsweek/Getty.

The Trump campaign and Republicans are blasting the media after they falsely claimed that America would have a bloodbath if he didn't win in 2024. Newsweek. Trump was making the comments at a rally in Ohio. In context, Trump was referring to the auto industry. Trump said that he was going to put an 100% tariff on foreign cars but said if he didn't win it would be a bloodbath for the country, and then continued to talk about cars. But media headlines have removed that context. Republicans, including Senator J.D. Vance who was at the rally, have blasted the reports. 

We are witnessing the invention of the "bloodbath" hoax in real-time

Unfortunately for them, we have 𝕏

Media narrative: Full context: pic.twitter.com/jaYDvtGomn

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 17, 2024

If you can't or won't watch the above video, here is the entire quote in context:

 If you're listening, President Xi—and you and I are friends—but he understands the way I deal. Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you're building in Mexico right now you're going to not hire Americans and you're going to sell the cars to us, no. We're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected, now if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole—that's gonna be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That will be the least of it. But they're not going to sell those cars. They're building massive factories."

My Comment:

This is not the first time the media has completely lied about what Donald Trump has said. After all, Joe Biden based his whole campaign on the Charlottesville hoax, aka the "fine people" hoax. In that case they deliberately lied saying that Trump had called White Nationalists "fine people" when in fact he was condemning them and pointing out there were good people on both sides of the issue of confederate statues controversy (which is dramatically more credit then I would give the iconoclasts that destroy artwork). 

The difference now is this got debunked in real time on X and other social media. There isn't a post pushing the hoax on X right now that doesn't have dozens of comments condemning the articles put out by the media and showing the actual context. X has also added community notes to many of these articles, providing much needed context. And Elon Musk himself has checked in on the controversy. 

This headline is deceptive, as he was referring to the auto industry. Shame on NBC.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 17, 2024

It's also clear that bloodbath is a pretty common term. Indeed, there are a lot of videos out there showing how often the media uses the term. It's not a serious term, in none of those cases was the media saying that there was actual violence, just like Trump obviously wasn't talking about real violence in his speech in Ohio. 

 

The media is so offended by the term “Bloodbath” that they use it all the time.

pic.twitter.com/nKkE1TR9HA

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) March 17, 2024

So why would the media lie like this when it's so easily debunked? Well it's because they know that they won't get challenged about it outside of social media. There are still millions of people that get their news from broadcast and network news and those folks will have no idea that this is an obvious lie. They won't ever get the context to the speech and they will have no idea of the truth. 

That alone explains why Trump was so hated despite the fact that he was a pretty decent president. You would never know it if you only got your news from the media. And they lie so blatantly but how are people supposed to know without an X account, or an account on another alternate social media site? 

Of course the media isn't the only villain here, the Biden campaign is also doubling down on this lie. They put out there own statement condemning Trump's misattributed words and they have absolutely no shame in doing it. Why would they? Their entire 2020 campaign was based on the "fine people" hoax so why not try it again in 2024? 

If there is any good news about this is that at least people who are on social media are able to see through this nonsense. It's possible that it will percolate out beyond that, which is a huge change from 2020 when it was pretty much impossible to see anything critical of the Biden administration percolate out to the greater population. 

French President Emmanuel Macron doubles down on sending troops to Ukraine...

 

French President Emmanuel Macron. Politico/Getty.

French President Emmanuel Macron has doubled down on the idea of sending troops to Ukraine. Politico. The statement occurred during a TV interview where he was asked to explain comments he had made saying he would rule out sending combat troops to the war zone. Macron argued that Ukraine must win the war and it was an existential threat for Europe. Macron argued that everything was on the table with the only exception being France being in the lead of any offensive against Russia. Macron's comments are controversial to say the least, with many of his NATO partners disagreeing with the idea of sending troops to Ukraine. Most of France is against him as well, with 68% of French people surveyed said Macron's words about sending troops a wrong. 

My Comment:

Macron's statement was worse than Politico is reporting as he also said there is no point in negotiating with Russia, despite the fact that a negotiation is the only way this war ends without Ukraine losing. Indeed, the entire speech seems utterly unhinged. 

From what I understand is that the basic plan is that NATO troops would be deployed to the border with Belarus in the and Odessa on the southern coast. Doing so would free up border Ukraine units and would perhaps reconstruct their reserves. It would also supposedly deter the Russians from again opening up a 2nd front on the Belarus border and would keep Belarus from joining the war in the late stages of the war. And they want to keep Odessa because it's the only port that Ukraine has. 

France would likely not be able to accomplish these goals by themselves. They have a small army compared even to Ukraine and though their units are good, they are not large enough to secure the entire border with Belarus. They would need support from other NATO countries and there is zero evidence that most of the alliance would go along with it. 

I also think that it would be insanely optimistic that Russia wouldn't target NATO troops in Ukraine. I think they would and it's pretty obvious that they would. Though Macron says this war is existential, he doesn't actually mean it. Putin and Russia as a whole absolutely know it is for their part and if that means blowing up French troops then that is what will happen. 

France also doesn't have the logistics to actually accomplish this mission in Ukraine. The supply lines aren't really secure due to Polish farmers blockading the roads into Ukraine, meaning they would either have to resolve that situation somehow, which has already completely vexed NATO, or they would have to ship everything through Odessa and that would invite a naval clash with the Russian Black Sea Fleet, a clash they probably wouldn't win, despite Russia's depleted fleet. 

There is also the question of what the French would be fighting with. All of NATO has depleted their weapons stocks and it's not like France is going to go into a full war mobilization. Even if they do it would take a very long time to get French military production up to full speed and they still wouldn't even be able to match, let alone beat Russia's massive weapons production. 

I generally think that this is just a bunch of nonsense from Macron. He's trying to distract against domestic issues and is desperately trying to save face in a very misguided adventure in Ukraine. He's far behind in the polls right now and will likely lose the next election. He wants to drum up support for his unpopular Ukraine policy and by doubling down he is hoping to get some more of the 68% of the French against his comments.

What is bizarre about these statements is that he is making them now. Everyone knows that even with western support Ukraine will lose the war. The real question is how long it will take. I think even if NATO sent troops it wouldn't matter. Russia has the advantage in troops, ammo and technology and is in a war footing. NATO has no advantages and the Ukrainian Army is on the verge of breaking... 

Does Donald Trump have a chance in 2024?

 

Donald Trump. 

As you are probably aware, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden have won their respective primary campaign races and we are looking at a rematch of the 2020 race. This was not at all surprising as the race essentially had two incumbents. Biden may be the one in the White House but there was no question that Trump still controls the Republican Party. 

With the rematch confirmed, the obvious question is if Trump can win the White House in 2024. Trump essentially won in 2020 but was denied the White House due to voter fraud. He absolutely should have been President but will 2020 happen again?

I think there is a strong argument that this election will be different. The threat of voter fraud is still obviously still around, but I don't believe that it will be the deciding factor like it was in 2020. Indeed, I believe there was massive fraud in 2016 but since that race was a lot less close in the swing states, it was impossible to find the votes Hillary Clinton needed to win. 

Plus, the Republican Party seems to be taking things a lot more seriously this time around. They are using some of the same tactics, like ballot harvesting, to make this more equitable. And some of the worst abuses have been corrected or countered. There is also the fact that the Democrats don't have the excuse of the Coronavirus pandemic to change laws at the last minute where there was almost zero time to counter or adjust to the new situation. The GOP had four years and I think they have done something. 

Another factor is that Joe Biden was more of an unknown factor back in 2020. Biden was a non-entity as a VP and a Senator and people mostly voted for him because they didn't think he was Trump. But now we know how absolutely abysmal Biden has been, it's enough to make Trump look really good in comparison. 

This is reflected in the polls that mostly show Trump ahead of Biden, especially in the crucial swing states that handed Biden the election in 2020. Trump is ahead in all of the major swing states in most polls I have seen and there is even a chance that non-traditional swing states could be in play as well. Biden just isn't anywhere near as popular as he once was. 

Biden has also angered many of his own party with his failures. The Gaza issue alone has thousands of his voters turned off. Many of those folks won't forgive him and I think the Democrats have lost many Muslim Americans forever. And more than a few people are angry and various other failures Biden has had. 

I also have seen polling that traditional groups that usually go for Democrats, like young people, minorities and even college educated men are running away from the Party. The Democrats are not in a position to lose any part of their coalition but many minorities are sick of their actions. It was a historical accident due to the civil rights movement that conservative blacks, Hispanics and Asians were on the same side as the Democrats and that appears to be going away. 

There is also the elephant in the room that is the fact that there is an actual third party candidate running, along with a few minor candidates. RFK Jr. is a legit candidate that is taking about 10% to 15% of the vote, and Cornel West and Jill Stein are in the mix as well. And there are rumbles that the No Labels group will be running a candidate as well. Of these only RFK Jr. takes votes from Trump, the rest take from Biden and even RFK Jr's support mostly come from former Democrats. 

 

Another factor is that the legal crusade against Trump has absolutely turned people off from Biden and gained support for Trump. None of the legal cases against him are on solid ground and the lawsuits against him happened in obvious kangaroo courts. Everyone knows what is happening to him could happen to any of us and the only real way to protest against it is to vote. 

A lot could change between now and November. Indeed, it's a real question if the election itself, let alone the Trump vs Biden matchup, will even happen given how much could happen. Biden could mishandle the Ukraine conflict so badly that we all end up getting nuked.

But without something crazy like that happening, I do think that Trump has a good chance of winning. Could Biden turn it around? Possibly, but I honestly don't know how. It would really have to be something amazing at this point or vote fraud at the level where it becomes extremely obvious for Biden to win as thing stand right now. 

RFK Jr is considering Aaron Rodgers and Jesse Ventura as running mates.

 

Aaron Rodgers (right) and Jesse Ventura. NBC News/Getty.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr is said to be considering New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers and former Minnesota Governor, actor and wrestler Jesse Ventura as possible vice presidential candidates. NBC News. Both men were mentioned by his campaign along with other unknown candidates on a "short list". Neither men commented on the story when asked. Ventura was a former Reform Party governor but was only for one term. Rodgers was the Quarterback for the Green Bay Packers and won a Super Bowl before being traded to the New York Jets where he sat out most of the 2023 season due to injuries. Rodgers and RFK Jr bonded over opposition to vaccine mandates and he has endorsed RFK Jr. for president. 

My Comment:

These are... odd choices for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to pick. Jesse Ventura isn't a household name anymore. He hasn't really been in the news since he was Governor and no longer really seems to act. People in Minnesota remember him, and anyone that liked Wrestling in the 80's or the movie Predator, but other than that is he really that relevant? I think RFK Jr. is more famous them him. 

Ventura and RFK Jr. do have similar beliefs though. Ventura was a centrist with the reform party and I think he is skeptical of vaccines like RFK Jr. is. I would think that they are on similar wavelengths. Further more, he has political experience and has his term as governor as an argument to vote for him. 

But my problem is that he just isn't relevant anymore. This is the first time I have thought of Ventura in years. He's just not a known figure in politics anymore. Indeed, he barely counts as a celebrity. I really don't think that anyone who wouldn't already be on board with RFK Jr. is going to be convinced because a one term governor that used to be a wrestler and actor is on the ticket. I don't think he's going to hurt RFK Jr. either, but regardless, it's an odd pick. 

Speaking of odd picks, the Aaron Rodgers one is a lot stranger. Rodgers is known for only a couple of things. First of all, he's a great QB, one that had great success in Green Bay. Second, he's kind of a prima donna that got into trouble with the powers that be over his stance on vaccines. Given that RFK Jr. is mostly known for vaccine skepticism, it's not totally out of left field, but it's an odd choice. 

Indeed, other than him being a vaccine skeptic and being upset with the Democratic Party due to their criticism of that fact, I have no idea what Rodgers political beliefs even are. My guess would be some kind of centrist but if you asked me what he thinks on the economy, foreign policy or gun rights, I would have no idea. 

He also doesn't have any political experience whatsoever. I guess being a QB shows that he could be a decent leader, but that's about it. But he doesn't have any experience with politics and I can see him getting into trouble very quickly. To be fair, just because he has no experience means that he will be bad as a Vice President, but it is an argument against him. 

It also brings up the question of practicality. How is Aaron Rodgers going to run for Vice President if he is an active quarterback for the New York Jets? Though there are questions about Rodgers and his injury, as far as I am aware he will be the starter for the Jets in 2024. I don't see how he could possibly campaign for RFK Jr while being a QB, which means that he would probably either have to retire or refuse to run. 

Does Rodgers bring anything to the campaign at all? I think so. He's a well-spoken man and it's unquestionable that he would get a few votes in Wisconsin and perhaps New York if he ever actually plays for them. But he's also controversial and a lot of people hate him for football and non-football reasons. I don't see him as a serious candidate and if RFK Jr. does pick him I would be surprised. 

Indeed, I would be surprised if either of these men ended up as RFK Jr's pick. The only reason I take it seriously at all is because the campaign mentioned it. But they also mentioned that there were other people under consideration and I think that it's more likely that a third person will be picked over Aaron Rodgers and Jesse Ventura. 

US Navy and other partners defeat largest drone attack yet from Yemeni Houthi rebels in the Red Sea

 

Mockup drones and missiles in Sana'a Yemen. Fox News.

The US Navy and other coalition partners defeated a major mass drone attack from Houthi rebels in the Red Sea. Fox News. At least 28 drones were shot down in one of the largest attacks since the war began. The attack was on Saturday and lasted two and a half hours. The attack was one of the first after last week's attack on shipping killed three people on a freighter. No reports of damage on US Navy or allied ships, or civilian ships, were made. 

My Comment:

This was a fairly significant attack on US vessels in the Red Sea, though the DOD is being rather coy on the exact details, probably for security reasons. No mention of which ships were involved, which of our allies were involved or whether or not the US Navy ships were the targets or if it was the freighters being targeted again. 

Regardless, it appears to have been a failure. 28 drones used and no damaged reported is not a good look for the Houthis. Their entire attack force was either shot down or failed to hit the target, which is a failure in my books. 

About the only thing this accomplished is further depleting the Navy's stock of defensive weapons. Given how intense the fighting has been in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden I would not be surprised if some of the Destroyers deployed there are getting low on weapons. Eventually they are going to run out and when that happens they will be vulnerable to these drones. 

I do think that the Houthis were smart to do this kind of attack. If they had been a little more coordinated in their attack and concentrated on one target they might have had a success. If all 28 drones were arriving at exactly the same time and attacked from different directions they could have damaged or even destroyed whatever ship they were targeting. Unfortunately for them they apparently didn't coordinate that well. 

Regardless, they are learning and I think it's only a matter of time until another freighter gets wrecked or a US Navy ship gets destroyed. The Navy has to be right every single time but the Houthis only need to get lucky once and it's very possible that could happen. 

What is clear is that our airstrikes are doing almost nothing to prevent these drone attacks. The Biden administration has failed in their policy, but like I said, there wasn't much they could do. This is modern warfare and the truth is that it's very hard to disrupt drone and missile attacks with only airstrikes. Short of having troops on the ground I don't see how we could stop these attacks. 

The situation in Haiti is so bad that the US embassy is being evacuated.

 

Haitian police officers. BBC/Reuters. 

The US Embassy in Haiti is evacuating non-essential staff as the situation falls further into chaos. BBC. The Capitol of Port-au-Prince has mostly fallen to gangs with ports being shut down and prisoners released. The gangs want the Prime Minister, Ariel Henry, to be removed but it is unclear what else they want. Henry had left for Africa to try and secure foreign police to fight back against the gangs but was unable to return after the gangs shut down the port. He was also unable to enter the Dominican Republic, which shares the island with Haiti, due to the country refusing him. Henry is unpopular and has been in power since the previous president Jovenel Moise, was assassinated. The head of the gangs, Jimmy "Barbecue" Chérizier, threatened civil war and even genocide if Henry does not step down. 

My Comment:

The BBC article is downplaying how bad things are in Haiti, probably out of embarrassment. During the Trump presidency, Trump famously said that we were taking immigrants from "shithole" countries like Haiti, so it must be hard for the BBC to admit that Haiti is indeed falling into chaos. 

But as bad as things are in the BBC article, things are even worse in reality. I've heard reports of corpses being left on the streets to be eaten by dogs. The morgue workers are so afraid of the gangs that they won't even pick up the corpses killed by the gangs. And there are even credible reports of cannibalism, done as an intimidation tactic from the gangs. 

Things are going to get much worse. Haiti is dependent on foreign aid to survive and now the aid organizations are pulling out. And even if they still want to help, with the ports and airports closed there is no way to do so. If even the Prime Minster can't get into the country, what hope do aid workers have? And even if they could get in they would be at extreme risk from the gangs, who would probably steal their aid anyways. 

I don't think things would be better if Ariel Henry were to step down. I don't think he's a legitimate leader, given the way he came into power after the assassination of the previous President. The fact that no elections have happened since the death of Moise means that he legitimately shouldn't be in power. 

But even if Henry isn't legitimate, that does not excuse the actions of the Haitian gangs. It's clear they want Henry out of the way so they can take over the country and run it as a dictatorship. And they are being as horrible as they can to pull it off. Most of the people affected by this aren't guilty of being anything other than being defenseless civilians and I think the threats of genocide are legitimate. 

With that being said, I don't think we should be accepting people from Haiti as refugees. I am afraid that they could bring the violence we are seeing in Haiti here in America. Given that Haiti has never had a functioning government and the level of violence we are seeing in the country now, it would be nuts to bring these people here. But given who is in charge of the United States right now I would not be surprised if we see a bunch of Haitian illegals crossing over our unsecured southern border... 

New York Governor Kathy Hochul deploys National Guard to New York City subways with mixed reception.

 

Two National Guard members standing guard. BBC/AFP.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul has controversially deployed the National Guard to the New York City subway system. BBC. The deployment is to deter the crime wave that is happening in the subway system, though the soldiers will monitor the entrances to the subway system. Crime has gone up in New York so far this year by 13% and there have been many high profile crimes on the subways in particular. Reception to the deployment has been mixed, with some supporting the deployment as an effort to deal with the crime problem. Others are concerned about civil rights violations or think that the deployment is a cynical attempt to bury the crime issue during an election year. 

My Comment:

I'm not a fan of this deployment for many reasons, but I will say that civil rights violations of people of color is not one of them. From the videos I have seen the checks are truly random and don't seem to be targeting anyone that would actually be likely to committ a crime. It's not a little old Asian woman that's going to push someone in front of a moving subway train. 

I also don't think that it will accomplish anything. The attacks that are happening inside the subway trains, not at the entrance to the subway. Checking random bags isn't going to stop a homeless person from attacking anyone. There isn't really anything that checking bags will do other than possibly detect weapons and drugs, and even then it's unlikely that those folks would be attacking anyone anyways. 

I'm also pretty uncomfortable with the military being used for police functions. There are a lot of reasons why this is a bad idea, but the most obvious is that the military is designed to kill the enemy, not enforce the law. Soldiers don't have the right mindset for this kind of mission. Though I think that the New York National Guard won't turn into jackbooted thugs just because they are being asked to check bags, it's still not something I am comfortable with. 

Also, what happens if a crime does happen in front of them? Do they have arrest power? Can they use lethal force? And if they do are they going to be prosecuted for it like they did to Daniel Penny? There are a lot of unanswered questions here and I don't know if anyone has the answers to them. 

But what really gets me is that none of those questions would be unanswered if the Governor had just sent police to do this instead of the National Guard. Though some were deployed as well, it could have been just police and then there wouldn't be any issue at all. Nobody would have objected except the far left anti-police faction. 

In order to do that though Hochul would have to admit that the right has a point about the function of police and the fact that nobody is actually being discriminated against. That's a political impossibility in today's environment. It's all just a joke and a political ploy. 

Houthi missile attack on ship in the Gulf of Aden leaves three people dead.

 

The True Confidence showing damage. BBC/Centcom. 

A Houthi missile attack on a ship in the Gulf of Aden has left three people dead and four injured. BBC. The deaths are the first ones in a series of attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. The Houthis are trying to blockade the area to support Hamas in their war against Israel. The Barbados flagged freighter True Confidence was hit by a the missile and set on fire. The ship has been abandoned and set adrift. It was carrying a cargo of steel and trucks from China to Saudi Arabia. Airstrikes were launched by the United States in response to the attack but the strikes appear to have had limited effects. The Houthis have been successful at attacking shipping and have managed to sink a ship, the Rubymar. 

My Comment:

Sooner or later the Houthis were going to kill someone in their campaign the shut down shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. They have had close calls already and even managed to sink a ship. But now one of their missiles struck home and three people are dead. 

It does look like the True Confidence was hit at the aft of the ship, near the bridge. It also looks like the missile strike also set the ship on fire, which was probably why it was abandoned. I would not be surprised if the ship sinks, like the Rubymar did, though it might take some time to do so. If the fire is uncontrolled though, it might be quicker. Supposedly they are doing salvage but I don't know if they are going to be able to save the ship. 

As expected the United States launched air strikes in response to this attack. Those airstrikes do not appear to be doing much as the pace of attacks from the Houthis has not decreased at all. Indeed, they are not running out of missiles, drones and other weapons. Plus, these are mobile weapons system that are hard to track and easy to launch. Our airstrikes are not hitting targets that are worth hitting for the most part. 

Indeed, I have said for awhile that Biden had no good options in Yemen. It would be extremely hard to stop these strikes without troops on the ground. Doing so would be starting a brand new war in the Middle East and would be extremely unpopular. And doing so has no guarantee of success. The Houthis are incredible fighters that managed to fight Saudi Arabia, a much more advanced and powerful nation armed with modern US equipment, to a standstill. 

But the status quo isn't working either. Our operations to stop these attacks and defend against them are not working. Our naval vessels have so far managed to survive but they have not managed to protect the ships that are being attacked. Indeed, with this latest attack it is easy to argue that our mission there has been a major failure. 

I think this attack will further limit shipping through the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. Insurance rates are going to go through the roof to the point it will be more profitable to take the extra long journey around the Cape of Good hope. That trip takes a lot longer, four weeks if I recall correctly, but shipping companies are not going to be willing to risk missile attacks after people have died. 

As for the Houthis, it shows how much naval warfare has changed. I mentioned this the other day with my post on the Black Sea war between Russia and Ukraine. Though the Houthis are better armed and led than most people realize, they are armed by Iran and are the de facto government of Yemen, they have still shown that a small, well armed country can counter the Navy of the most powerful country in the world. Just like Ukraine showed that a country with no real navy can stand against the most powerful Navy in the region just because they have missiles and drones. 

Nikki Haley to drop out of 2024 presidential race leaving Donald Trump the presumptive nominee.

 

Nikki Haley. ABC News/Bloomberg/Getty.

Nikki Haley is expected to drop out of the 2024 presidential race leaving Donald Trump the presumptive nominee. ABC News. Haley was one of the first to throw her name into the race and will be the last major candidate to leave after an embarrassing Super Tuesday where she only one one state, the liberal stronghold of Vermont. Haley did outlast other major candidates, most notably Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, but was ultimately unable to gain much momentum, with the only other race she won being Washington DC. Haley isn't expected to endorse Trump despite saying she would support the eventual nominee. 

My Comment:

It's been obvious since at least New Hampshire that Nikki Haley had zero chance of being the candidate, at least through non-extraordinary or tragic means. It was an open question as to why she was still in the race, especially both before and after her extremely embarrassing defeat in South Carolina. But she continued through Super Tuesday and just embarrassed herself further.  

Haley was not a good fit for the current Republican Party. Indeed, she was a good example of the old guard Republicans that were largely kicked out of the party after Trump took over. Going up against the man himself was a good indication of that, as far as the majority of Republicans are convinced Trump's the head of the party and going after him is an act of disloyalty. This is also why Ron DeSantis was so loathed for much of the electorate. Since she was getting funding from the anti-Trump remnants of the GOP funding machine it was clear where her loyalties lay. 

But I thought it was mostly a matter of policy. Haley was either squishy or actively opposed to much of the Republican base's desires on what they want in 2024. She wasn't going to do much for the border, she wasn't interested in reigning in the excesses of the woke left, she wasn't at all concerned with keeping America out of foreign wars and she simply did not have any views that really coincided with what the people wanted out of their candidate. 

It was the foreign policy that turned me off, along with many others. Haley cared more about Ukraine's borders than the United States and was one of the biggest Ukraine warhawks running in this cycle. And that was at a time when most of the party had turned on the Ukraine war. I have always been against it, even before the war erupted, but the rest of the party either views it as Biden's mistake, or a lost cause that we shouldn't throw good money after bad over. But Haley was so upset that people were opposed to her on this issue she proposed getting rid of anonymity on the internet, something even a legit tyrant like Joe Biden hadn't even suggested. 

It was that point where I resolved to never vote for Nikki Haley, even after she walked it back. To vote for someone that would screw over her own party so badly, after all internet anonymity is about the only thing that kept the GOP alive the past three years, was so beyond the pale that I couldn't pull the trigger for her. She is still better than Biden, if only slightly, but only because she wasn't senile and isn't a sex offender. But her foreign policy was indistinguishable and she crossed some lines that even Biden wouldn't cross.  

Most of the Republican Party felt the same way as Haley never really had much support. Much of her support was imaginary since many of the early races, and most notably Vermont, were open primary states which meant that Democrats could vote in Republican races. And with the Democratic Primary being de facto uncontested and many people not wanting to vote for Biden regardless, many of them did. Indeed, I saw that in one of the exit polls, from Virginia I think, said that 3/4ths of her voters didn't plan on voting for her during the general election. I'd guess the only reason she got about 10 to 20 percent of the vote was because of these Democratic cross-over voters. 

Haley did have a few genuine supporters, but they were not very numerous. They mostly consisted of warhawks, neocons, people that just hated Trump for whatever reason, a few centrists and, of course, upper class business Republicans. None of those groups are critical and I am guessing most of them will fall in line in November.

 I don't buy the media narrative that Haley's support was dangerous to Trump in the general election. First of all, Biden is absolutely hated and I think most people would have voted for anyone just to get rid of him. Indeed, as much as I dislike Haley I'd have been less upset if she won over Joe Biden, though I would be certainly voting third party in that scenario. I'd even give Hillary Clinton or Chris Christie a fair shake over Joe Biden. Second is the aforementioned crossover Democrats that never actually supported her in the first place. They were never going to vote for the Republican candidate regardless. 

Finally, I think most of her actual supporters will end up voting for Trump anyways. They may not like the guy but better him than Biden. Plus they realize that if they want any say on Trump's 2nd term, they have to play nice. I'm inclined to tell them to hit the curb, but I do acknowledge we have a common enemy in Joe Biden and we need all the help we can get. If the vast majority of DeSantis shills have managed to get back onto the Trump train, the Haley voters will as well. 

As for Haley, I think this is the end of her political career. The Republican base wants nothing to do with her, that much is clear. Perhaps she could run as a congresswoman or governor somewhere but I don't see her ever having a chance to be President again, even if she runs in the wide open 2028 field. People aren't going to forget how badly she was defeated and how baffling it was for her to continue to run even after it was clear America didn't want her.