Illegal immigrant gang from Venezuela takes over apartment complexes in Aurora Colorado.

 

Venezuelan gang members taking over an apartment building. Fox News/Edward Romero.

An illegal immigrant gang from Venezuela has taken over apartment complexes in Aurora Colorado. Fox News. They Mayor of the city, Mike Coffman, said that the gang had taken over two apartment complexes, pushing out the owners and collecting rent and "protection" money from the residents. The Tren de Arugua gang had also issued threats to the police, but a gang leader known as "Cookie Monster" was arrested. Coffman blamed the federal government for allowing the people into the country and shipping them to Aurora.

Disturbing new footage from Aurora, Colorado reveals that an illegal immigrant gang has completely seized control of an entire apartment complex.

This gang, originating from Venezuela through the Biden-Harris open border policy, is deeply involved in human smuggling, brutal… pic.twitter.com/ho4G5KqcAZ

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) August 28, 2024

“Those Venezualans are taking over”

Parts of Aurora, CO are now under the control of the migrant gang Tren de Aragua.

They took over apartment buildings, rob stores, shut down streets for protests, and commit violent crime.

Kamala is the border czar pic.twitter.com/lJu8NGuLzP

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) August 29, 2024

 

My Comment:

Well, that's a pretty good argument for the 2nd Amendment. One guy with a rifle could have done something to stop these gang members from taking over these apartments. Of course, knowing the current sad state of criminal justice in blue states you would probably get arrested, but at least you would still be alive. 

This is an extraordinarily dangerous development. The one thing the government should not tolerate is criminal gangs extorting people and that appears to be what is happening here. The victims are probably illegal immigrants or other foreigners but even then there is no excuse for allowing this to happen. The entire reason to have a government and a police force is to stop this kind of thing happening. If they can't do so then we have descended into warlord-ism...

The gang is a major problem. Tren de Aragua started in a Venezuelan prison but has spread through North and South America as the people of Venezuela have fled the socialist government. The gang went with them and are now moving to places where they have moved to to further exploit those people. They are the biggest criminal organization in Venezuela and are a major threat. 

I do think that the Biden/Harris administration is responsible for this. None of the folks coming from Venezuela are being vetted in any way and now a lot of criminals have come into America. Venezuela, as an American adversary, does not give us any information of who is a criminal and who isn't. We have no way to tell who is a criminal and who isn't, not that I would want any of these people coming in regardless. 

If the border was closed and the "remain in Mexico" policy was still in place, none of these people would be in the country. And the Tren de Aragua gang would not be exploiting them. To be fair, the gangs in South and Central America might be, but that would not be our problem at all. It would be there problem. 

I think it's only a matter of time before US citizens are affected by this problem. Indeed, if the third video (the Libs of TikTok link, which I usually wouldn't use but she's the only one that had the video) is true then they already are. Those folks were just normal, African American, citizens of the city and they almost got hit by a car. If the Tren de Aragua gang get more powerful they are the kinds of folks they could be targeting next. 

Will anything be done about this? It sounds like at least the gang leader, the "Cookie Monster" fellow, is under arrest, but both the local, state and federal law enforcement agencies need to tamp down on this as soon as possible. If they don't I think it's only a matter of time before people pick up arms nad start their own gangs to protect themselves and that could lead to out and out warfare between Tren de Aragua and American civilians... 

All of this is entirely predictable. Bringing people in from the third world brings third world problems. Venezuela is a failed state with a large criminal underclass that has a major reason to get out of the country. Allowing them to come here has brought the same problems and the only solution is to get them to stop coming and sending them back home. 

I do think that this is going to be a major campaign issue. This is the kind of thing that nobody wants to see in America and it plays into Trump's major campaign issue of border security. Harris has tried to convince people that she will be tough on the border, but the results of the Biden-Harris policy is clear. People are not going to want to vote for Democrats as long as they understand that this could be a result. 

The UN fears Ukraine could damage or destroy the Kursk nuclear power plant in Russia...

 

The Kursk nuclear power plant in Russia. Politico/Getty.

The UN fears that Ukraine could damage or destroy the Kursk nuclear power plant in Russia. Politico. The head of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi led a mission to the plant and inspected damage caused by a reported Ukrainian attack. He was shown evidence of drone strikes. The Kursk plant is vulnerable to drone and artillery strikes due to not having a protective dome like many nuclear power plants. However, he said that neither side can allow a nuclear "accident" to happen. 

My Comment:

Once again the media is behind the story. The point of the Kursk offensive, possibly the entire point, was the hold the power plant hostage. Doing so would be about the only thing that Ukraine could do to gain leverage against Russia as they are losing the war by conventional means. The attack on the plant was a proof of concept. 

So far though the attack failed and Ukraine really hasn't been able to get close enough to the plant to attack it. America has forbidden Ukraine from using the kinds of long range weapons that could actually hit this power plant. They tried drone strikes but they were not effective enough to actually do much damage.

Of course a successful attack on the Kursk plant would be a massive disaster and one that could utterly change the course of the war. It would probably be Chernobyl style disaster that would leave hundreds or thousands of people dead and would increase cancer rates across the region for decades. It would be horrific. 

And the worst part? It would allow the Russians to return the favor and destroy Ukrainian nuclear power plants, including Chernobyl. Though Russia has mostly destroyed Ukraine's power generation capabilities, they have mostly left the nuclear power plants alone for this very reason. Destroying nuclear power plants would lead for tit-for-tat retaliations that would damage the entire region and kill thousands of people in horrific ways. 

I don't know that Ukraine cares about that though. They know that they are losing the war and their only hope is to somehow bring NATO into the war. Tit-for-tat strikes on nuclear power plants could do that. It  could also finally make NATO wise up and pull out of the war, but  I think Ukraine wants to risk it. 

Indeed, they have done this song and dance before. They tried to attack the  Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant many times. It mostly failed because that plant was shut down and isn't as vulnerable to attacks compared to the one in Kursk. But they have absolutely done this before and if given the chance they will do it again. 

The good news is that their plan appears to have failed and the international community is coming down on Ukraine for trying this. The IAEA is obviously upset about this and it might be part of the reason why Germany cut off aid. And they aren't going to get long range weapons from America if this is what they are going to do with it. 

But there is still a chance of another major attack on the Kursk power plant. Though they are barred from using US long range weapons, it's possible that Britain will allow Ukraine to use theirs. Plus, Ukraine does have some long range drones that could potentially hit the plant. And supposedly Ukraine has developed their own ballistic missiles, the Palianytsia. This new missile could be used to strike the Kursk plant... 

Tulsi Gabbard endorses Donald Trump for president.

 

Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard. Fox News/AP.

Former 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has endorsed Donald Trump for president. Fox News. Gabbard, a former Congresswoman from Hawaii and a veteran who served in Iraq, ran as a presidential candidate in 2020. She endorsed Trump after an event commemorating the victims of the 2021 Afghanistan ISIS attack that killed 13 US troops. Gabbard praised Trump for being an anti-war candidate that cares about the troops and said that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris brought the world closer to World War III. Gabbard is a second notable former Democrat that has endorsed Trump since the DNC convention after RFK Jr. 

My Comment:

Anyone who has been paying attention should not be surprised about this. Gabbard wasn't really recruited by the Republicans, she was pushed into their arms. The powers that be never forgave her for the shellacking she gave Kamala Harris at the Democratic debates in the 2020 election cycle. If it hadn't been for the fact that Joe Biden wanted a DEI candidate for his VP role, Kamala Harris would no longer have a career in politics. It was that much of a domination and is a reason why Harris doesn't seem to want to debate Donald Trump. 

Harris ended her Presidential campaign after that and after that the claws came out for Tulsi Gabbard. She was called a pro-Russia stooge and was made persona non-grata in the Democratic Party. It basically ended her political career, but it was because she hurt one of the "powers that be" golden children. Gabbard rebranded herself after that from being the one Democrat that Republicans like to being basically a Republican. She often appeared on Fox News and was BFF's with Tucker Carlson. So it's no surprise that she's endorsing Donald Trump, it would have been more surprising if she didn't at this point, and there was zero chance that she was ever voting for Harris. 

I personally have mixed feelings about Gabbard. I think she's a decent person but I do have substantial disagreements with her on policy. Though she has moved to the right, I still don't trust her on gun rights. I agree with her on other things, most notably opposition to the Ukraine war, but she's better than most Democrats mostly in comparison. 

Will the endorsement change much? There might be a few people that will change their minds about voting for Trump, but those folks will be a rounding error. What Gabbard will accomplish is similar to what RFK Jr. will accomplish and that's making the Trump campaign look more reasonable and centrist than the Harris campaign. It's an example of Trump trying to widen the base and take a few votes away from Harris from people that feel pushed out by the Democrats and their actions. 

Still, I doubt this will move the needle much. Like I said, Gabbard is a known factor and it would have been surprising if she didn't endorse Trump. It's not like the RFK Jr. endorsement that came out of nowhere and actually did move the needle. 

I think the real asset for Trump is the fact that Gabbard would be a great person for debate prep. Gabbard is smart and knows how to get under the skin of Kamala Harris. And she's be a good person to practice debating against, though it's not like Trump doesn't have experience in debating. He's ended the careers of Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and now Joe Biden during debates and I think he's got a good shot of doing so against Harris, especially if Gabbard helps him. 

The timing of this was pretty good as well. Gabbard is a good person to attack the Harris campaign over the Afghanistan withdrawal. She served in Iraq and, much like JD Vance, she cares about her fellow veterans. And it's a very good thing to remind people of one of the darkest days of the Biden-Harris administration and the failure that was the withdrawal from Afghanistan. 

Will their be more Democrat defectors? It's possible. There has to be some Democrats out there that are upset with the way the party is acting and may decide that Trump is the lesser of two evils. Given how deeply into a purity spiral the Democrats are and how they are self immolating over the Israel-Gaza war, it's possible that Trump could peel off a few more big names before November, though I am also not holding my breath. On the other hand, the Democrats have burned their bridges with a lot of people in their own party and this is part of the consequences. 

Finally, I have to point out that that I am pleased that the Republican party is now an anti-war party. There are a few neocons left but it's clear that most of the big players are now against the war in Ukraine. I am sure a major reason why Gabbard endorsed Trump is because they both agree with each other about the war in Ukraine and how it needs to end. They are putting their differences aside to accomplish more together and that is a positive thing. 

Ukraine raises concerns about build up of troops at border with Belarus. Will Belarus join the war or is it another feint?

 

Ukrainian troops near the border with Belarus. Reuters.

Ukraine has raised concerns about a build up of troops at the border with Belarus. Reuters. Ukraine says that Belarus has concentrated troops including tanks, air defenses, engineering units along with special forces and possible former Wagner Group mercenaries. Ukraine also said they would not take hostile actions against Belarus. However, Belarus pointed out that Ukraine had 120,000 troops on the border with Belarus, 1/3rd of Ukraine's forces.

My Comment:

I'm fairly skeptical that this will amount to much. Belarus has made waves about joining the war before and it has mostly led to absolutely nothing. Russia did us Belarus to threaten Kiev during the early stage of the war but then pulled back when it was clear the force wasn't big enough to actually take the capital. There is no indication that Russia itself is doing so again at this time. 

Belarus does serve a function for Russia though. Ukraine has 120,000 troops on the border with Belarus and those troops have to be there just in case Belarus or Russia decide to invade from that direction. Belarus has to saber rattle for that to continue to be the case. Indeed, if Ukraine were to pull those troops out Belarus probably would invade. 

The problem with the idea that  Belarus is going to attack is the fact that they are pretty outnumbered if the numbers from Ukraine are right. Belarus has a small army, 60,000 regular troops, maybe less if you don't consider border units to be regular troops. And keep in mind they wouldn't be able to deploy all of them due to the fact that they have to keep a large force at their borders with NATO due to fear of an attack from them. Belarus doesn't have a bad army by former Soviet Republic standards, but they are absolutely not up to the standards of Russia or Ukraine. 

Without major backing from Russia I don't see how an attack from Belarus would succeed. Even if they used every single of their regular forces they would still be outnumbered by a 2-1 margin and to be brutally honest, without Russian help, Ukraine would have the superior force in terms of firepower and weapons. I don't know what the quality of the forces on the border are, I am guessing they are reserve units and mauled units rebuilding themselves, but I can't imagine even with that that a force smaller than 60,000 could overcome 120,000.

I actually think that Ukraine attacking Belarus is a lot more likely. Doing so would be a terrible idea as it would turn what is a quiet front into a major conflict and could lead to a general collapse. But you could make the same argument about the Kursk offensive. Ukraine is desperate and if they think attacking Belarus would help things they could do so. Though I don't see what advantage attacking Belarus would give Ukraine in the first place other than preventing Russia from invading in that direction. But again, I haven't seen much in the way to prove that. I guess it's possible that Ukraine could be convinced that Belarus is going to invade but that also seems very unlikely.

My guess is that these troop movements are just yet another feint. The chances of either side invading each other is pretty low but an attack from Belarus is just plausible enough that Ukraine has to react to it. I don't think an attack from Belarus is at all likely until we see actual Russian forces being deployed. And I also don't think Ukraine will do anything either. 

Russia is succeeding in eastern Ukraine despite Kursk incursion.

 

A border post in Russia. New York Times

Russia is succeeding in Eastern Ukraine despite the Kursk incursion into Russia itself. New York Times. Ukraine launched the offensive into Russian territory two weeks ago. Though they had initial success, the offensive has bogged down as Russia has send reinforcements into the area. They have also lost more pieces of valuable military equipment than the Russians. The hope that the offensive would relieve pressure in the Donetsk Front has not materialized. Russia is closing in on the critical transportation hub of Pokrovsk. The Russians have artillery control over the city of 40,000 people and have reached the final defensive line of the city. Northeast of Pokrovsk, Russia has mostly captured the city of Nui York, also known as New York, and have taken Toresk. Those towns are the gateway to Kostiantynivka, another critical hub. 

My Comment:

I haven't said much about the Kursk incursion largely because I couldn't believe how stupid the Ukrainians were to try it. Yes, they did have some success against the Russians in the region, largely because they attacked border conscripts and achieved surprise. But the attack has bogged down and the Ukrainians risk losing their best troops for little gain. 

And now we are seeing the cost. The troops that are in Russia right now would have been much better used as a reserve against the attacks in the Donetsk region, which is in very serious trouble. The situation is worse than the New York Times admits as it's clear that Russia is going to create another major cauldron. Capturing Pokrovsk will cut off one of the major highways in the region and further cut off Kostiantynivka. It could also cut off Ukraine's army in the region and could cause a front line to collapse. 

So why is Russia continuing the offensive? Why didn't they pull troops away from the Donetsk Front to reinforce Kursk? Well, the problem is that Russia does not need to do so. Indeed, the Kursk incursion allows Russia to use their large conscript forces. They had been forbidden to deploy to Ukraine but now that they are defending Russia proper, they can and are being used. And they have given these conscripts a major motivation to actually fight since they are defending Russia itself. 

And it's not like things are going all that well in Kursk either. Russia was caught off guard, mostly because they didn't believe the intelligence they were getting (again, this was a really stupid plan). But the advance mostly stopped once reinforcement arrived and now the Ukrainians risk being caught in another cauldron. And it's not like they actually control all of the territory in Russia that they are claiming. Much of it is still contested and they are not going to be able to hold it long term.  

The real problem is the large number of weapons and troops being lost in the Kursk Front. The New York Times article talked about all the vehicles and weapons being lost, including irreplaceable anti-air batteries, but these were some of the best troops Ukraine had left and they are taking heavy casualties. Russia did at first when the initial conscripts were overrun, but they are now focusing on heavy airstrikes and drone attacks on these troops. 

It's also important to note that the Ukrainians have failed to accomplish their war target in this attack, the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant. They wanted to take the power plant to take it hostage so they could threaten Russia with nuclear disaster. That plan has failed as it seems like the Ukrainians are not going to get anywhere near the power plant. 

A lot of people are making the comparison to the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. Indeed, there are a lot of parallels. Just like the Nazis, the Ukrainians have already lost the war, but they still had enough power left to launch a desperate offensive. They really didn't have all that much to lose but the attack appears to have failed and will likely lead to a similar result as the Nazi offensive in World War II. 

Regardless, the individual battles don't mean much in the end. Ukraine is pretty much completely screwed, which is why they launched the desperate attack in the first place. Ukraine has lost almost all of their power generation and it would be trivial for Russia to end what's remaining. And given that winter is only a few months away, I doubt Ukraine can survive long term. If anything the Kursk losses will probably accelerate things... 

RFK Jr. plans to drop out of presidential race and endorse Donald Trump.

 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The Guardian/Shutterstock.

RFK Jr. plans to drop his longshot independent presidential campaign and endorse Donald Trump. The Guardian. RFK said that he would hold an event about the future of the campaign in Phoenix Arizona, where Trump is also due to speak. Speculation that RFK was going to drop out increased after his VP candidate, Nicole Shanahan, said that the move was being considered because RFK was pulling more support from Donald Trump than Harris and that they didn't want Harris to win. The idea has been around for awhile after a leaked conversation between the two men floated the idea and a role for RFK Jr. in the Trump administration. Kennedy was one of the more relevant third party candidates in recent history but his campaign had several mistakes and missteps, most notably a bizarre story about him placing a dead bear cub in Central Park. 

My Comment:

Hilariously, Alex Jones scooped the mainstream media on this story. I saw this tweet yesterday and though it's Alex Jones he ended up being correct. What a world. 

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Sources Inside RFK Jr. Presidential Campaign Confirm He Will Drop Out Of Race Friday And Endorse Trump At An Event In Los Angeles That Same Day

Also— Alex Jones reveals RFK Jr. is in consideration for Attorney General and other Cabinet positions. pic.twitter.com/Pdjx9u7MUK

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) August 21, 2024

With that nonsense out of the way, this is a coup for Donald Trump and his campaign. RFK Jr. was not as popular as he was earlier in the race, he was still drawing between 2 and 10% of the electorate in recent polls. Him dropping out and endorsing Trump should mean that most of those voters, not all, go to Trump, which would probably seal the race for Donald Trump. It's absolutely worth it for Trump to get this endorsement no matter what the cost was. 

I am guessing the cost was a place for both RFK Jr. and his running mate, Nicole Shanahan, in the Trump administration. I have heard that they are considering him as his CIA director, which would be interesting to say the least. As someone that thinks that the CIA is out of control having someone that blames the CIA for his father's assassination, it's actually a brilliant idea. That's a low cost for the votes that RFK Jr. can bring in. 

I think this is mostly about revenge for RFK Jr. The Trump campaign occasionally clashed with RFK but the real combat for him was with the Biden and Harris campaigns. RFK is still bitter that he wasn't even given a chance to run in the race for the Democratic nomination despite being essentially royalty in the party. And they fought his independent campaign the entire way even after it was clear that he was hurting Trump more than Harris. If they had been smart the Democrats would have done whatever they could to get him on their side. They didn't and now it will cost them.

Why was RFK Jr. taking more votes away from Trump than Harris? Much of RFK's support was coming from "double haters", people that disliked both Trump and Biden. When Biden was forced out of the race in a palace coup, a decent number of double haters left. The ones that remains are probably people that can be convinced to vote for Trump as if they were willing to support Harris they would already be doing so. Some of those folks will indeed stay home or vote for a different third party candidate but I am guessing most of them will go for Trump. 

The timing of this is not a coincidence either. It's going to erase any bump from the DNC, which ends tomorrow, for Kamala Harris. The announcement will be on Friday and it will overshadow news from the DNC. Indeed, it's what's everyone is talking about now even though the DNC is happening right now. Of course, given how badly the DNC appears to be going for Harris, perhaps that isn't the best thing either, but either way, I don't see there being a convention bump for Harris this year, even ignoring that. 

Of course, I still say that Trump would beat Harris even without the endorsement of RFK Jr, which is good as it's not set in stone yet. Harris is a bad candidate and outside of a few outlying polls, she isn't anywhere near where she needs to be to beat Trump. An one or two point lead in the national polls is not going to be enough, Hillary was up by five points and lost while Biden was up by six and had to use every dirty trick in the book to get over the edge. The RFK Jr. endorsement should seal things up for Trump unless something extraordinary, diabolical or ridiculous happens...  

Biden administration orders the US to prepare for nuclear conflict with China...

 

Joe Biden. New York Post/Reuters

Joe Biden has secretly ordered the United States to prepare for a nuclear threat from China. New York Post. Biden made the shift in March because they believed that China's nuclear arsenal would soon rival the United States and Russia. They also fear that China, Russia and North Korea could combine forces for a nuclear threat. Russia should have 1000 nuclear weapons by 2030 and 1500 by 2035. Those numbers are far below the 5200 weapons America has and the 5800 Russia has. In the past Russia and China balanced each other out, but the two countries are now de facto allies, which is another reason why the policy has been changed. The document outlying this policy is updated about every four years and is beyond top secret to the point where no electronic versions exist and only a few top officials have access to hard  copies. 

My Comment:

It sounds like this document is updated every four  years and it's unclear if the document was scheduled to be updated or if it did because of a rapidly changing threat environment. It's possible it is both. It is clear that the threat of nuclear war is higher than it has ever been before. 

This is also an entirely predictable result of the Biden administration's foreign policy. It's been American policy since the 1950's to pit Russia and China against each other. They are obviously a bigger threat to each other than we are and the only way that would change is if we became such a dangerous enemy that they had to team up against it, which is exactly what Joe Biden has done. 

Starting the war in Ukraine has been an absolute disaster but pushing China and Russia into each other's arms was a massive mistake. It's to the point where China and Russia are de facto allies and both North Korea and Iran are teaming up with them as well. 

This would obviously change the threat environment even if China wasn't increasing their nuclear forces at a staggering rate. Mutually assured destruction does not work if one side has a major advantage over the other. Russia, China and North Korea may believe that the United States no longer has enough nukes to destroy all three countries and might be willing to risk a conflict if they can get a first strike off. And since Russia has the advantage in hypersonic weapons, they might have a chance. 

Is China the bigger threat? I am not sure. Russia has the obvious advantage of having a lot more nukes, China currently does not even have 1000 warheads. I think it's clear that it would be a lot better to get into a war with China alone than a war with Russia. 

But I think it's also clear that Russia doesn't seem to care all that much about red lines. They absolutely should have used nuclear weapons during the Ukraine War, even before Ukraine did their failure invasion into the Kursk area. China though? I think they would be a lot more willing to use nukes than Putin is. I think that if Taiwan kicks off we would be a lot closer to a nuclear war than the current situation in Ukraine. 

Either way, it's disgusting that I even have to write about this. Biden's foreign policy was just terrible and his failures were predictable. And it wasn't just him, the main reason I voted for Trump back in 2016 was because I knew that she would have started the Ukraine war much earlier. 

US intel community confirms that Iran has hacked the Trump campaign and targeted the Biden/Harris campaigns as well.

 

Donald Trump behind the American flag. NBC News/AP.

The US intel community has confirmed that Iran was responsible for the hack that targeted the Trump campaign and also targeted the Biden and Harris campaigns. NBC News. Iran was said to have targeted both campaigns with social engineering to breech their security in an effort to influence the election. They were successful in doing so with the Trump campaign but no damaging information was found and media companies did not publish the materials, which mostly related to vetting material to VP candidate JD Vance. It is unclear if they were able to breach the Biden and Harris campaigns though both campaigns denied Iran had. Iran says they had nothing to do with the hacks and say that they have no intent to interfere with the 2024 election. However, Iran has been blamed for election interference before, most notably in 2020 when they launched a false flag operation threatening Democrats while blaming the Proud Boys. 

I originally wrote about the Trump campaign blaming Iran for the hack here. 

My Comment:

This is a fairly disturbing development from the intel community but I would be remiss to not point out that the IC has falsely accused countries of interfering with elections before. They said that Russia colluded with Donald Trump to win in 2016 and that was false, all Russia did was make a few spam profiles on social media. To say that I don't trust them is an understatement. 

But I am leaning on this being real. Certainly, both campaigns are acting like it is and so is the media, so it's not like it's just the intel community. And Iran has the motive, means and opportunity to do so. It's possible that it was not a state actor but it sure seems like it is. 

What is surprising that the Harris campaign was targeted as well. It's very clear that Iran prefers her to Donald Trump, but I think it makes sense that they would want any advantage they can over any of the candidates. And they want to cause chaos in the United States. Hacking damaging information from either campaign and releasing it would do so. 

I was surprised that Iran was responsible for a false-flag attack against the Proud Boys and Donald Trump. They threatened Democrats and then tried to blame it on the Proud Boys and link it to Trump. It didn't work because I don't even remember hearing about it in 2020, but it was clear that they were trying to get Biden into office. 

This operation appears to have failed as well. They were able to breach the Trump campaign with a spearfishing campaign (supposedly it was Rodger Stone, but that isn't confirmed) so this wasn't very complex stuff. But they found nothing even remotely intresting. It was just public info about JD Vance that was already out there. 

I think that's why the US Media skipped out on publishing this hacked material. It wasn't about doing the "right thing" it was about looking like they were doing so. I have no doubt that if there had been damaging things in these e-mails they would have been released but since those e-mails were a nothingburger and, if anything, shows that there isn't much dirt in the Trump campaign, they didn't bother. 

So will Iran affect the election? It depends. I wouldn't doubt that Iran has links to the antifa/pro-Hamas types currently rioting at the DNC convention, they want to cause chaos and the best thing that could happen for Iran is a civil conflict in the United States. Iran probably wants to deal with Israel without the United States interfering and if the US falls into chaos that would be a win.

But the big problem is that they probably can't do much to actually affect the election. Indeed, the one thing they could do, a major strike on Israel, might not be on the table anymore. But these two bit hacking attempts? It's only going to affect things if they actually get something damaging and so far they have failed. 

Iran may declare themselves a nuclear power before the end of the year.

 

Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Fox News/Getty. 

Iran may declare themselves a nuclear power before the end of the year. Fox News. Experts say that Iran may take advantage of US weakness due to an uncertain election and the "lame duck" status of Joe Biden. The Biden administration said that Iran is on the brink of having enough material to make a nuclear weapon. They blamed the end of the controversial nuclear deal with Iran for the issue but  clarified that they have  not seen evidence that Iran has made a nuclear weapon yet. Iran could gain benefits from making a nuclear weapon even if they don't have an effective delivery system yet and it could act as a deterrence. 

My Comment:

Iran has been "two weeks" away from having a nuclear weapon for pretty much my entire life. In the past you could largely dismiss those accusations as it was clear that Iran was not close to having nukes and wouldn't be for some time. Have things changed now?

I am not sure. Part of me thinks that this is the same old neocon warmongering we have seen for years now. If you want a war with Iran, and you know many of the neocons do, the best way to do so is to say that Iran is weeks away from being a nuclear power. Given that it appears that a pro-war Biden but pro-Iran is going to be replaced by a pro-peace Trump but anti-Iran, I would not be surprised if they try and start a war to punish Biden for being pro-Iran while getting the war they want at the same time without Trump in the way to stop it.

On the other time, nuclear weapons aren't actually that hard to make. If the North Koreans can do it, as impoverished and isolated they are, Iran certainly can. From what I understand the real issue isn't the design of the weapon itself, it's gathering the nuclear materials. And Iran could indeed be getting close to doing so. 

It could also explain why Iran hasn't retaliated yet against Israel for the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on Iranian soil. Everyone was expecting another massive missile/drone strike but what if their response is to test a nuclear weapon instead? Doing so would certainly infuriate the Israelis and would be an appropriate revenge. 

And there isn't going to be a better time to do it. Iran's enemies are not in a good position right now. Israel is bogged down in Gaza and has to contend with Hezbollah and the Houthis attacking them as well. Israel might not be able to respond like they could have in the past if Iran tests a nuke. 

And America? Forget it. Joe Biden is president right now and he's also been confirmed to be senile. He also has to consider that any response to Iran would alienate his far left Hamas supporters that are absolutely needed if Kamala Harris is going to have a chance. He might do that anyways, something tells me Biden is still bitter about being forced out of the race, but Iran might be willing to take the chance. And it's not like a war would be justified by Iran simply making, not using, a nuclear weapon. 

With all that  being said, even if Iran does get nukes it's not like they have a delivery system or the ability to mount a nuke on a warhead. The first part is easily fixed, but the 2nd requires trial and error and some nuclear testing. If Iran does declare themselves a nuclear power they will require time to be able to figure out how to use them, even if they get help from the Russians. That means that if Iran does get a nuke it will still be status quo ante for awhile while they work out the kinks. 

Still, it's hard to predict what Iran will do. Like I said it's very possible that this is just the neocons getting frisky again. I have also found that Iran is pretty hard to predict. I didn't think that Iran would launch their massive drone attack this April and I also thought that Iran would attack Israel for sure after the assassination of Haniyeh and so far they haven't. I honestly don't know what they are going to do next. 

Kamala Harris suggests price controls for groceries...

 

Joe Biden (left) and Kamala Harris (right). New York Post/Shutterstock. 

Kamala Harris has suggested price controls for groceries raising major concerns. New York Post. The plan would ban what the Harris campaign describes as "price gouging" though price gouging is already illegal and is not the cause of higher grocery prices, according to Senator Tim Scott. Grocery stores generally have low profit margins anyways and price controls would hurt them. Government policy is responsible for much of the prices increase. An economist Samuel Gregg said  price controls were "economic lunacy" and only cause "shortages and misery".

Republican Candidate Donald Trump blasted the policy. 

My Comment:

As a full disclosure I do currently work in the food industry and as such I am not unbiased on this issue. Kamala Harris and the Democrats are currently very hostile to my industry, despite the support they get from our unions and this action would hurt me directly besides the obvious economic problems it could cause. I could lose my job because of the actions of a potential Harris presidency. I am considering donated to both Donald Trump's candidacy and my company's SuperPAC just because of this policy. 

I am not an expert on economics but I do understand that price controls are absolutely terrible. Price controls often cause shortages as they increase demand for products beyond what can be produced. This is what happened during the 1973 oil shock. Prices were kept artificially low and it lead to long lines and empty gas stations. It was a disaster and not something we should ever try again. 

They also lead to black markets. Indeed, I would suggest buying a large amount of food if such a policy is ever created as you could easily turn a major profit by selling your food under the table. When prices are low and demand is insane, anyone that owns the commodity in question can make a mint buy charging what the market demand can handle. That would be fine but black markets always lead to violence and danger. 

What is crazy about this is how unnecessary this is. Prices are not high due to price gouging. They are high due to economic policy, inflation and, in some cases, environmental conditions. Indeed, egg and chicken prices spiked for awhile due to bird flu and beef prices are a product of a smaller herd and the impact of droughts a couple years ago. 

But the main cause is the inflation caused by government policies. When you print billions of dollars it causes the value of the dollar to plummet and that's the main reason why grocery prices are high. It's not price gouging, it's because the dollar is worthless now because they printed so much of it. Price controls are a solution for a problem that the government caused themselves and will only make the problem worse. 

They are picking the absolute worst commodity to do this with. When they tried to do it with oil back in the 1970's it caused shortages but people were able to survive. If they do that with food? My suggestion again, is to buy food. Because otherwise there is a chance you will starve. It's that bad. 

I understand why Harris is doing this. She understands that inflation is the biggest problem for her and she really can't avoid blame for it. So she wants to distract against it by blaming grocery stores and proposing this horrible policy. It's all terribly cynical. 

The good news is that anyone with an even basic knowledge of economics will now no longer be voting for Kamala Harris. The bad news is that most people don't actually have any knowledge of economics at all. But I do think this will damage her. There are going to be a lot of corporate interests that will be opposed to this and they will do what they can to defeat Harris now.  

Taliban celebrates third year in power with parade showing captured US equipment.

 

Taliban fighters at the parade on a captured US vehicle. Fox News/AP.

The Taliban has celebrated their third year in power with a parade showing captured US equipment. Fox News. The parade happened at Bagram Airfield, which was a major base for the US during the 20 year war with the Taliban. The parade showed captured US vehicles, weapons and even helicopters. The Taliban has not been recognized as a legitimate government but they are attempting to reach out to other countries including the United States for diplomatic relations. The parade probably was made to shore up domestic stability, though it may also be a message towards the United States. 

My Comment:

It's amazing that we essentially don't talk about how the Taliban took over the entirely of the Afghanistan and led America to an embarrassing defeat. The failure is laid at the feet of Joe Biden and his Vice President Kamala Harris and that failure is a huge deal. But nobody talks about it anymore, even when the Democrats were trying to push out Joe Biden for being senile. 

Why did Afghanistan fail? Much of it has to deal with the incompetence of the Afghan government itself. But I put a lot of blame on Joe Biden as well. Donald Trump had negotiated a deal to leave Afghanistan but Biden broke the deal and that encouraged Afghanistan to attack earlier than we were prepared for. Had Biden simply kept to the schedule the Taliban probably would have won eventually but I doubt they would have been able to capture all of this equipment. 

These weapons were left behind during the evacuation of the country. The US government focused on evacuating people instead of weapons and that was probably the right thing to do, despite the failures in that area as well. But doing so left the Taliban all the weapons and vehicles they need to keep control of the country. 

This isn't entirely a bad thing. Though the weapons being in the Taliban hands has made resistance to their rule more difficult, it also means they are a formidable threat to ISIS in Afghanistan. ISIS-K is the largest and most dangerous remaining faction of the terror group and has been responsible to some of the larger more recent terror attacks, including the massive one in Moscow. Hopefully the Taliban uses these weapons to fight ISIS. 

The Taliban is sending mixed messages here. They are trying to get better relations with other countries including the United States, but it's hard not to see this parade as a pretty explicit middle finger to the United States. I doubt the Biden administration is happy to see voters reminded of one of their most massive and embarrassing diplomatic failures. Perhaps the Taliban know that Kamala Harris is going to lose and want to curry favor with Donald Trump? 

Regardless, it's important to not read too much into a single parade. This was mostly for domestic use as it shows the Taliban as being powerful and in charge. All those weapons and vehicles will deter any uprising and shows that the Taliban is still fully in charge of Afghanistan. 

US approves $20 billion weapons sale to Israel.

 

American F-15 fighter jets. Times of Israel/AP.

The United States has approved $20 billion in weapons sales to Israel, over the objections of progressives. Times of Israel. The majority of the sales are $18.82 billion for F-15 fighter jets, which had been objected to by the leading Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Gregory Meeks, who eventually dropped his objection. The sale will also include $774 million for tank shells, $103 million for air to air missiles, $61 million for 120mm mortar shells and $583 million for tactical vehicles. Congress could still put a hold on the sale but have given no indication that they will do so after the Biden administration promised the weapons would not be used on civilians in Gaza. 

The fighter jet sales will be for the new F-15EX version of the Strike Eagle platform. The Aviationist. The Israeli versions would be called the F-15IA (Israeli Advance). In addition to the 50 new fighter jets, upgrade kits for Israeli F-15I's would be sold to upgrade them into F-15IA's. However, it will take years to complete the fighter jets and most of the package won't be complete until 2029, with the first deliveries happening in 2026. 

My Comment:

It's important to note that this sale is so far into the future that it's not likely to have much of an immediate impact on the military situation in Israel. The Israelis will likely breath a sigh of relief that they haven't been completely cut off from the American arms market and will be happy to eventually receive these weapons. 

So why even talk about it? Because it has fairly large implications for both the conflict with Iran and the election in 2024. Normally a weapons sale would not have that kind of impact in either case but 2024 is nothing but a strange year. 

Iran first, this sale could be a major message to the Iranian government. Don't attack Israel. We are committed to defending them, to the point where even progressive in Congress didn't make up much of a stink and approved the weapons sale. Those weapons won't arrive anywhere near in time to affect any conflict against Iran, but it does show that the commitment is there. 

And given that Iran has not yet struck Israel as of this writing, it may have an effect. Iran has already missed several supposed dates of the attack including the Jewish Tisha B'Av holiday, which has already passed in Israel. It's very possible that they will still launch a strike but the question now is what are they waiting for and it could be they are afraid of the United States entering the war. Time will tell if that is right now and I have to admit that I don't fully understand Iranian thinking. 

The 2nd issue is probably the more relevant one as this should hurt Kamala Harris and the Democrats in 2024. Pro-Hamas Democrats are already starting to turn on Harris for comments she made to protesters at one of her events. But this sale? I think they are going to fully turn on "Holocaust" Harris because of this sale. 

Why? Because they believe that these weapons will be used on "innocent" "civilians" in Gaza. This is not something that bothers me at all, but I do agree that it's pretty dumb to expect that the Israelis will avoid using these weapons how they see fit just because they made an unenforceable promise to not do so. There is no enforcement mechanism for the Israelis here that they will do what is asked of them and though I obviously disagree with the pro-Hamas camp, it's not like they don't have a point here. All of the weapons, except the air to air missiles, would be useful in the Gaza war. 

Of course this could be an effort to get Jewish voters back on board, but it might be too late for that. After all Harris picked Tim Walz instead of Josh Shapiro pretty much only because Shapiro is Jewish. Will a major arms sale to Israel bring some of those folks back on board? Maybe but given that the pro-Hamas camp is not going to be happy, any gained voters will be again lost with progressives abandoning her. 

EU threatens Elon Musk for allowing X/Twitter users to say what they want.

 

Elon Musk. CNBC/Getty.

The EU has threatened Elon Musk for allowing users of the X social media platform (aka Twitter) to say what they want. CNBC. The CEO of the European Commission, Linda Yaccarino, said that Musk and X might face penalties and restrictions for "illegal content" and "hate speech". The EU has a Digital Services Act that restrict what people say online. Musk made headlines for being critical of the British Government during civil unrest caused by the reaction to immigration. It is unclear how the EU would enforce any judgement against X. 

For his part Elon Musk was critical of Yaccarino's comments, to say the least. 

To be honest, I really wanted to respond with this Tropic Thunder meme, but I would NEVER do something so rude & irresponsible! https://t.co/jL0GDW5QUx pic.twitter.com/XhUxCSGFNP

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 12, 2024

My Comment:

This story broke on the same day that Elon Musk had his "conversation" with Donald Trump, which I did listen to for a bit. I don't think that is a coincidence. The powers that be in Europe don't want a 2nd Trump term and they don't want their people getting any ideas of how much better things could be for them if they were just allowed free speech. It's no surprise they are moving against X. 

The reaction to this on X seems to be almost universally negative, at least in my feed. The common thread is "who do these EU officials think they are?" After all, X is an American website and they are trying to regulate our speech. No American company should have to curtail their operations in America to satisfy some useless bureaucrat. 

It is also pretty audacious for the junior partner in an alliance, which is what the EU is, trying to dictate what America can and cannot do in terms of free speech. In a sane world we would be the one pressuring them to respect free speech rights and making threats to them if they don't get on board. 

The fun thing is while the Biden administration does not care, Donald Trump absolutely will. Not only was his event threatened by this, he has his own interest in social media freedom since he's a major partner in the Truth Social platform. Trump is also a man that is known to hold a grudge and I think the EU is probably going to regret this if/when Trump wins the election.  

I also don't buy the arguments that it was misinformation that caused the riots in the UK. Sure, the attacker at the Taylor Swift party stabbing spree was not a Muslim immigrant, but that is a strawman of the protesters position. He was in fact the children of immigrants and it made very little sense for the UK to bring them in. And it was the absolute total lack of compassion from the Kier Starmer regime, along with siding with violent Muslim counter-protesters that really caused the problems. 

As for X, I do have to say that I enjoy it a lot more than I did before. I usually don't have to be worried about posting my opinions and it has thankfully not devolved into a echo chamber. Indeed, I still see a lot of left-wing and/or pro-Democrat positions on there, but it's balanced out by things like community notes and the fact that people are allowed to say what they want. I think it's a lot healthier than it used to be and I would hate to see some losers in Europe ruining it. 

Trump campaign e-mails hacked and Iran is accused of doing it.

 

Donald Trump at a campaign event in Michigan. BBC/Reuters. 

The Trump campaign says some of their e-mails were hacked and have accused Iran of being responsible. BBC. The news outlook Politico was emailed hundreds of pages of documents, mostly concerning vetting material for Trump's VP pick, JD Vance, as well as pages related to another VP candidate, Marco Rubio. The materials were largely based on publicly available information, though the statements that Vance made before he supported Trump were labeled as potential problems. The Trump campaign confirmed that the documents were legitimate and said that it was Iran that was responsible for the hack. Microsoft confirmed that Iran was conducting "spear-phishing" attacks on a presidential campaign. Trump is unpopular in Iran and there have been suggestions that Iran may want to assassinate the presidential candidate, with a Pakistani man with ties to Iran for a plot to assassinate US officials. Iran has denied responsibility for the hack. 

My Comment:

It does not appear that these leaks are particularly damaging, unlike the Podesta e-mails that were devastating to Clinton campaign in 2016. It sounds like it is all stuff we know about JD Vance in the first place. Everyone knows that he started out as being anti-Trump and then came on board later on. That's not a huge revelation and I doubt there was much in these e-mails that is a real problem for anyone. 

Still, it shows that the Trump campaign is absolutely being targeted. It does seem like they are running a clean game as I don't doubt that if there was something damaging in these e-mails it would be the biggest story in the world right now. Politico might have thought that publishing Clinton's e-mails were off limits, but I doubt that they would have the same thoughts about Trump. 

The real question is who did it and why. The Trump campaign says it is Iran and that is very likely. But I should say that it's very possible that this was some kind of leak from the campaign itself. It's also possible that another of Trump's enemies ordered the attack. 

But I think Iran is really the most likely candidate. They really do hate Donald Trump, to the point where most Democrats would be like "not cool". Much of it stems from the fact that Trump had their popular commander of the Quds force, Qasem Soleimani, killed. Soleimani was a one of a kind commander and not someone that was easily replaced and the Iranians are still feeling his absence. 

There is also the idea that a Harris administration would be less tough on Iran than a Trump one. Given that Biden has essentially rolled over for Iran and gave them billions of dollars they aren't wrong. Of course there is a real possibility that Iran could bush even Biden/Harris too far and force them to respond so this probably isn't the greatest idea. 

Regardless though, I think we can safely conclude that Iran is going to do whatever they can to keep Donald Trump out of office. And given that there are rumors that they are trying to assassinate him, I think that we should take it seriously. I doubt that this is the end of their campaign to attack Trump.

I also think that the Trump campaign needs to take some efforts to train their people on internet security. Spear-phishing is a common hacking attack and one that has happened to a lot of different companies before, and it usually works if people don't understand when an e-mail is legitimate or not. This happens all the time and even happened at my company, so it's not like the Trump campaign is especially vulnerable or something.

Finally, I do have to point out that all the hysteria over Russia supposedly interfering with the 2016 election isn't special anymore. Even if you believe that Russia was responsible for the Podesta emails being leaked (which I don't believe, it was likely Seth Rich), now Iran is doing the same thing to the Trump campaign. Doesn't that mean now that Harris is coordinating with Iran and if she wins in 2024 it's because she cheated? Somehow I think the media will attempt to downplay this if it comes to it. 

US Navy admits that firepower alone won't stop the Red Sea conflict against the Houthis in Yemen.

 

An F-18 Super Hornet being launched from the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. Business Insider/US Navy Photo.

The US Navy has admitted that firepower alone won't stop the Red Seal conflict in Yemen with the Houthis. Business Insider. Vice Admiral George Wikoff, who commands the US Navy in CENTCOM, said that the solution for the conflict is not going to "come at the end of a weapons system", adding that the solution needed to be diplomatic. The Navy has been involved in heavy combat with the Houthis in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden for the past eight months, since the Israel-Gaza war broke out and Yemen started attacking shipping. The US has used up a large amount of weapons in the battle, but have not been able to stop Houthi attacks on shipping. The Houthis are well supplied and able to build their own weapons along with the weapons they receive from Iran. 

My Comment:

This is a fairly stunning admission from the US Navy and a good example as to why our Yemen policy appears to be failing. I think the Vice Admiral is right, the end to the war in the Red Sea isn't going to come from us bombing Yemen. Short of a massive invasion, which might not even work, I don't see how you get the Houthis to stop just by bombing them. 

The problem is that there isn't really a diplomatic solution to this crisis either. The Houthis are not going to give up this war until the war in Gaza ends and not even then. And the Biden administration was powerless in the region even before Biden himself was confirmed to be senile. Very few countries joined the coalition to protect shipping and though they are losing money due to the conflict, they aren't willing to risk their own ships to do so. 

Iran is another problem. Though Yemen is able to create their own weapons, much of their more advanced tech comes from Iran. Again, the Biden administration has very little in the way of  influence in Iran, due to burning what little leverage they had by giving them back billions of dollars. If they still had that carrot hanging over Iran they might be able to have them rein in the Houthis and maybe stop the war. But that ship has long sailed. 

The situation in the Red Sea does not bode well for any US led war against Iran. It appears that we would be able to intercept most of the attacks against Israel or our forces in the region, but it looks like we would not be strong enough to prevent those attacks in the first place. It would turn into another grind like the conflict in Yemen... 

And I don't think we can use  an invasion to do anything about the Houthis either. There is zero will for another major war in the United States and I don't think that Biden would be able to sell a war there to the US people. Maybe if we lost a bunch of ships?

But even if it were to happen, I don't know that the war would go that well for us. The  Houthis essentially defeated the Saudi Arabians in their war and though our military is better and more advanced than the Saudis, it would be extremely difficult to win against them, even if Iran didn't help. And Iran would help. The Houthis pretty consistently fight above their weight class and though we would probably prevail in the end, at least to the point of ending the attacks in the Red Sea, we would pay a price for it... 

Taylor Swift cancels concerts in Austria after ISIS terrorism arrest.

 

Taylor Swift. Fox News/Getty.

Taylor Swift has canceled three concerts in Austria after an ISIS terror plot targeting the events was foiled. Fox News. Two men were arrested for a plot to attack Ernst Happel Stadium in Vienna. One of the arrested was a 19 year old "Austrian National". Police found chemicals in his home that they are currently analyzing. Both suspects were found to have pledged their lives to ISIS. The plot was disrupted but it is unclear if all members of the ISIS cell were captured, which lead to the cancelation of the Taylor Swift concert. Swift will closeout her European tour in London. 

My Comment:

This was an extremely serious situation and it was good that it was disrupted. The whole thing is giving me flashbacks of the Ariana Grande concert bombing back in 2017 in Manchester. That attack was specifically aiming for the little girls that were attending that concert and though Taylor Swift fans tend to be a little older, there still would have been a lot of children at this concert. 

It's unclear what kind of plot this is. The mention of "chemicals" being found has lead to some people suggesting that it was going to be a chemical weapons attack, but I find that unlikely, I doubt a couple of teenagers had that much sophistication to launch a chemical attack. My guess is the chemicals were precursor explosives. 

I am guessing the attack would have been a lot like the Manchester bombing. Instead of attacking the concert directly they would have attacked the concert goers as they come or go from the event. Swift herself would have been fine but I am guessing that the attackers would have blown themselves up as the crows were leaving. 

It is still concerning that police aren't sure if this cell has been disrupted or not. These two young men could have been the pawns and the mastermind could still be out there and could still attack other targets in Austria. Though their biggest target is now gone they could still hit other targets, even if it's something as small as a government building or a nightclub. Until they are caught terrorism is going to be on everyone's mind in Europe. 

This also doesn't seem like a "lone wolf" attack either. It seems likely that these guys had some support. They were making a bomb and, again, they were teenagers. I doubt they were doing that without some kind of assistance from a bombmaker. Making bombs is a specialized skill and it takes funding and support to do it, so this seems like a major plot from ISIS itself. 

Why did they target Taylor Swift? Probably just because she is popular. I doubt they like her Western music but the real point is that there were a lot of vulnerable people all in the same place. It probably has very little to do with her specifically but more to do with her being able to draw huge, vulnerable, crowds. 

I do think that there is a rather extreme risk of terrorism right now. The world is on fire and there are a lot of people extremely angry of all political stripes. ISIS is obviously making a comeback since they weren't a priority under the Biden administration after Trump largely defeated them during his term. And the specter of an attack involving Iran or Hezbollah is rather extreme as well. I would be surprised if there isn't at least one major terror attack before the end of the year in Europe or the United States. 

My take on Kamala Harris picking Tim Walz as her running mate...

 

Governor Tim Walz and Kamala Harris. New York Post. 

As you are certainly aware Kamala Harris has picked Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate. The pick is rather  baffling to me, there seems to be little advantage of picking Walz. Indeed, the smart money was on Josh Shapiro, the popular governor of critical swing state Pennsylvania. Instead, they have gone with Walz and it seems like an obvious an massive mistake. 

Governor Shapiro is a big part of it. The fate of the election may well depend on Pennsylvania. Given the pre-Harris polling numbers, which didn't have the kind of push polls that are propping up Harris, she would need to win that state for sure to even have a chance, along with Michigan and Wisconsin. Shapiro would have helped a lot to the point where I would think that Harris might even have a decent chance of winning the state. She's probably still lose, but it would be a lot closer. 

But they went with Walz instead, a man that has a lot of serious downsides and doesn't help win any state other than Minnesota. We will talk more about that in a bit, but the question remains, why not pick Shapiro? Well, it's pretty clear that it's because of antisemitism. The far left, pro-Hamas people absolutely hate Walz because he is a Jew and volunteered to work with the IDF. The fact that the pro-Hamas people are ecstatic with this pick proves that they have a lot of sway and the Democrats are dramatically more afraid of them then they are losing to Donald Trump. 

This will absolutely hurt their level of support from pro-Israel people and Jews themselves if the Trump campaign can make it stick. Given how all-in they are on the attack I am guessing it will hit and might even keep states with large numbers of Jewish people, like New York and New Jersey in play. Sure, some Muslims in Minnesota and Michigan might come on board but I think the Democrats obviously lose more than they gain here. 

Walz himself is an incredibly damaged candidate. He started as a fairly moderate congressman but went all-in on the far left after he got elected. There are some huge controversies with Walz. The New York Post summarizes how far left he is and many of his major controversies as Governor of Minnesota. In short, he's far to the left of most Americans on transgender issues, immigration, crime and, in a major blow to the Midwesterners he is supposed to appeal to, gun rights. The Trump campaign is already declaring this the most far-left ticket in the history of the Democratic Party and it's pretty impossible to argue it. 

Walz is also extremely vulnerable due to his absolutely shameful response to the George Floyd riots. Walz did almost nothing to stop the riots that started in the Twin Cities after Floyd died and it's fair to give him a major amount of blame for the ensuring chaos that not only destroyed the Twin Cities, but caused massive damage across the country in 2020. 

Finally, Walz is going to be despised by a lot of veterans due to the fact that he shirked his duty to deploy to Iraq. Walz was a Sergeant Major that was going to be deployed to Iraq in 2005 but he resigned to run for congress instead. A lot of the people that served with him back then never forgave him for that, including the Sergeant Major that replaced him, Thomas Behrends. The issue was relevant back when Walz ran for Governor and it is going to be a lot more relevant now, especially in the swing states in the South where military tradition is huge. 

Walz also had a DWI when he was younger. This, somewhat surprisingly, will probably not hurt him in the Midwest. I live in Wisconsin and if I judged everyone that got a drunk driving charge I'd have to give up on the state. And to be fair, he turned his life around afterwards. But I do think there is going to be a large number of voters that are going to be disgusted with his conviction as many people have lost family members and loved ones to drunk drivers. 

So why pick Walz, other than the Josh Shapiro anti-Semitism issue? It's generally accepted that the VP pick is largely there to try secure the home state of the pick. If that's the case here, this is terrible news for the Democrats as Minnesota has gone blue since Richard Nixon won the state in 1972. Given that polling for Minnesota was often in favor of Trump, I am guessing they are trying to avoid a bloodbath in 2024 and know they are going to lose in 2024. 

As for the election, I think this will absolutely hurt the Democrats in 2024, once the attacks on Walz intensify. Indeed, the Republicans have already used Walz and his "weird" attack as a useful attack line on him and Kamal Harris. Given how trans ideology is so unpopular, it allowed a Republican to win in Virginia and destroyed Bud Light completely, I think this will hit and hit hard. 

Tim Walz is a weird radical liberal.

What could be weirder than signing a bill requiring schools to stock tampons in boys' bathrooms?

Or weirder than signing legislation allowing minors to receive sex change operations? pic.twitter.com/2kqTQ9CzfT

— MAGA War Room (@MAGAIncWarRoom) August 6, 2024

I still think that the election is almost certainly going to go for Trump. Even before Biden beclowned himself at the debate and then dropped out, Donald Trump was beating him on policy alone. Harris has even more unpopular policies than Biden and has doubled down on it with this pick. And she has zero charisma herself and will sooner or later put her foot in her mouth. And that's ignoring the fact of the developing stories of the crashing economy and potential war with Iran over Israel (which will burn the bridges with the pro-Hamas faction she just tried to mend). Ignore the push polling, that's more to convince Democrats themselves that they have a chance than an actual chance of victory. Trump will win unless there is some kind of major black swan event, like an assassination or something, that goes the way of the Democrats. And even that seems unlikely.  

US troops hurt in rocket attack on US Air Base in Iraq.

 

File photo of an F-16 at al-Asad air base in Iraq. BBC Getty.

US Troops at al-Asad air base in Western Iraq were injured in a rocket attack. BBC. It is unclear how many troops were injured or what branch they were from, but nobody was killed or faced critical injuries. Two rockets were fired at the base and one landed inside of it. Nobody has taken credit for the attack, but it comes at a time of extreme tensions between Iran and Israel, with US troops potentially being in the middle. The al-Asad Air Base has been in use since 2004 and has come under attack by Iran backed militias before, including an incident this January where at least one solider was injured. 

My Comment:

I know the big story is the stock market crash on Wall Street, but I have to admit not being an expert on the economy at all. And I don't know how much I could add, so I decided to write about the Middle East instead. 

This was a fairly minor attack that is only notable because US troops got injured and the context of when the attacked happened. It's always notable when US troops get injured and it also brings up the question why those troops are still even in Iraq. 

And it's clear that those troops are there to participate in whatever conflict breaks out between Israel and Iraq. The fighter jets there could be used to intercept Iranian missiles, drones and even potentially jets. 

I don't think it's a coincidence that this base came under attack for those reasons. I am guessing the attackers were Iranian backed militants who decided or were ordered to cause a little chaos in anticipating to the upcoming war. They didn't accomplish much, but given that a few troops were injured they did accomplish something. 

This was also probably an attempt to get intelligence about the defenses of this base and it is notable that these rockets weren't shot down. It could be that anti-air defenses are a bit exhausted given the recent conflicts in Israel and Ukraine. These were fairly small rockets though, so they might not have been all that intercept-able in the first place. 

It's unclear when exactly the conflict between Israel and Iran will happen. I thought it was going to happen sooner, but given that Russia is now coordinating with Iran it's possible it might be delayed a bit. Either way, it's unclear how much involvement there will be with the United States. We will clearly be knee deep in the war but until now I wasn't sure if our own troops in the Middle East would come under attack. With this attack though, it seems a lot more likely, if not inevitable. 

I should point out that it could be ISIS or al-Qaeda or some other Sunni militant group that isn't backed by Iran. That seems pretty unlikely given how little strength either group has in Iraq now but I should mention it for the sake of completion. 

But if it is Iran? We could see some major attacks on our troops in Iraq and Syria as they represent a problem for Iranian forces targeting Israel. There is a strong argument for the Iranians not wanting to drag the US into the war but I think the Iranians are confident that the United States is weak, and that is reinforced by the stock market crash today. And the US is likely to be dragged into the war regardless, so why not make sure that those troops are neutralized? This is not good news for our troops stationed in the Middle East...