Trump has confirmed that he warned Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu against striking Iran.

 

File photo of Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump meeting in the White House. Fox News/Getty.

Donald Trump has confirmed that he requested Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu to not strike Iran. Fox News. Trump said, "It's not a warning. I said I don't think it's appropriate." Trump has been attempting to reach a deal with Iran over it's nuclear program in an effort to avoid a war. However, there are reports that Israel is considering striking their nuclear facilities, which would obviously derail any talks and could lead to a major war. Israel denied reports of preparations for strikes as "fake news" though Trump's comments give reports credence. 

My Comment:

This is kind of crazy. Israel striking Iran would lead to a major regional war and no good would come for it. The United States would likely be dragged into the war even if they don't want too and it would be a very bad thing for just about everything involved. 

The question is why on earth would Israel want to do this now. They are not in a great position to start another war. They are still dealing with Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis are still launching attacks against them as well. Not to mention the obvious tensions in Syria. Piling a major conflict with Iran on top of that seems insane to me. 

It's even more crazy that Israel was planning on doing this as Trump was having, apparently successful, talks with Iran. Trump seems pretty confident that he will be able to cut a deal with Iran and if he does then there would be no reason for strikes in the first place. 

It really does seem that there is a gap between the United States and Israel at this point. Keep in mind that Trump made a separate peace with the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Now Netanyahu appears to have tried to derail the peace process with Iran. Things do not seem to be going well. 

The only thing I  can think of is that Netanyahu thinks that the deal Trump will make won't be strong enough against Iran. He might be worried about Iran getting nukes, though Iran has been "six months" from getting nukes for as long as I can remember. He might think it is worth it to anger Trump with these strikes, or at least he did before Trump warned him off. 

As for Trump, I think he knows that America does not want another war right now. Indeed, he ran as a peace candidate and peace seems to be a real goal for him personally. No good could come from a major war with Iran and that is what would happen if Israel strikes Iran. 

There are a few people on the right saying that Israel should just launch strikes regardless of what Trump does. Remember who these folks are as they are obviously putting Israel ahead of the United States. 

Democrats are making plans to win back young male voters...

 

The 2024 Presidential Candidates: Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Fox News/AP.

The Democrats are making plans to win back young male voters, starting with a $20 million study examining "how to talk" to men. Fox News. The so called SAM plan would "study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces" for male voters. The Democrats lost male voters in 2024 in the Presidential race. Trump won majorities of young White and Hispanic male voters and got 1/3rd of Black male voters as well. The numbers jumped by 20% for Hispanic and Black male voters compared to 2020. The study also advises Democrats should start advertising to men on video games. Republicans took the study in stride, pointing out that they had to commission a study in order to try and attempt to understand male voters, instead appealing to them naturally. 

My Comment:

This is one of those things that everyone on the right just understands, while the left seems to have massive problems. A party that has branded themselves as the party for young unmarried women and LGBT voters is not going to appeal to anyone else. The only way to change that is to change the branding.

Indeed, the general feeling I get when I see Democrats speak, as a White male, is that these people not only hate me, they hate everything I stand for. The contempt that they have for male voters who would dare to vote in their own interests is extremely palpable. They are actually defending things like affirmative action and illegal immigration, things that absolutely hurt young male voters, none more than White males. 

The problem is how on earth do you sell that to a male voter? I don't really think you can. It's very hard to get people to vote for folks that hate them and I think the only thing they really could do would to absolutely destroy everyone in their party that believes that women and LGBT folks should come before anyone else. But if you do that as a Democrat you lose 25% of your part at least, and many of your most motivated voters. 

I know personally, the Republicans message was all in on things I care about. I want less immigration, legal and otherwise, better wages for workers, cheaper housing, a more sane foreign policy and an end to the cultural excesses we are seeing on the left, especially when it comes to the "T" portion of LGBT. The Democrats message, outside of "Orange Man Bad" appeared to be entirely based around Woman's issues. A good example is abortion, something I am mostly ambivalent about. A total ban vs abortion all the way up to birth on demand, would not affect me or my life at all, other than the whining I would have to endure from people that care about the issue, and I think that's true for most men (and many women too!) 

Doubling down on female candidates made this even worse. Both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris are women and they had an appeal to a certain group of female voters. But neither of them had any real appeal to male voters. Female candidates can win, if they are either attractive or have policies that men like, but Clinton and Harris are not either of those things. I think switching out Biden for Harris compounded this as the more "macho" male cultures for Black and Hispanic voters were not going to tolerate "girl boss" candidates, and that is what Harris was. 

Could the Democrats right the ship? I really don't see how. Like I said, in order to appeal to male voters they have to alienate their base of young unmarried women. You can't really sideline those folks if you want to even have a chance as a Democrat. 

There is, of course, ample opportunity for the Republicans to screw it up. I think they have been pretty good at keeping the cats herded, but there are rumblings of things that I don't particularly care for. There is an undercurrent of right wing political correctness that has been bubbling up that I don't like, most notably the bans on deepfakes, "revenge porn" and even regular pornography. As a free-speech defender, I certainly didn't vote for Republicans to team up with the Democrats to further curtail speech. And the focus on those issues is absolutely baffling as only women care about this stuff. 

The problem again is the Democrats can't really take advantage of that as they are half of the unholy alliance between the feminist left and the religious right. They can't really reframe themselves as the "cool" party that won't ban what you like when you have thousands of screeching feminists that want even more control over speech as the religious right does. 

Of course the most important factor is the "mandate of heaven" a Chinese concept that seems extremely valid here in the United States. Trump "lost" in 2020 due in part to voters blaming him (unfairly) for the Coronavirus pandemic. Regardless of the fact that Trump mostly handled it well, having a horrible thing happen to the country was blamed on him. And Biden lost in 2024 (well Harris, but she shared the blame) because of all the horrible things that happened during his term. Many of those things were indeed his fault, but not all of them, and the general feeling was that the country was headed in the wrong direction. 

So what the Democrats actually need is for folks to feel that way again under Donald Trump. And I just don't see that happening right now. Trump is more popular than he was during his first term and though his haters still hate him, there is the feeling that folks are happy with what he is doing, or, at the very least, are tired of fighting him. Of course, it's always possible that some kind of black swan event happens, maybe a new war breaks out, maybe a huge series of terror attacks, maybe the economy crashes (though that seems unlikely now). If that happens I think the Democrats could have a chance, but it's going to be based almost entirely on luck. 

The FBI reopens three major investigations into Biden era scandals.

 

File photo of the FBI. ABC/EPA.

The FBI has reopened three major investigations into Biden era scandals. ABC. The first of these cases was the so called January 6th bomber, who left two pipe bombs in front of the Democrats and Republicans national headquarters in DC. The second case was the leak of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v Wade. 100 Supreme Court employees were interviewed but none of the Justices were and the case remains unsolved. Finally, the 2023 cocaine at the White House case will be reexamined as well. The cocaine was found on the July 4th weekend but the case was closed very soon afterwards due to a claimed lack of evidence. All three cases will have additional resources dedicated to them. 

My Comment:

Very interesting. This seems to be a reaction to the general perception that FBI has not been all that effective since Donald Trump started his 2nd term. There have been many questions as to why they haven't moved on these kinds of cases. Though some folks wouldn't be satisfied unless every single Democrat was led away in handcuffs, this might go a ways to tamping down on the criticism. 

All three of these case are disturbing. The January 6th pipe bombs were never explained and had all the red flags as being a false flag operation that failed. There are fears that the reason the case was never solved was because the whole thing was caused by the government in the first place. And even if it wasn't the case, it was a terrorist operation that never got exposed. The FBI should be extremely motivated to solve the case, if for no other reason to prevent another attack, but there was little progress at all with the investigation. It could be the bomber simply covered their tracks too well, but I got the feeling that it was never a priority. 

As for the Dobbs leak case, it was absurd that the Justices themselves were never interviewed. Though I don't think that they are legit suspects, every single one of their staffers and even friends and family are suspects in the leak. Out of the three cases though, I thought this was the most minor as it didn't really affect anything. 

The cocaine case was a pretty obvious cover up, or, even more disturbing, a huge security breach. Everyone suspects the cocaine is Hunter Biden's and while that would be funny, I don't know if it is true or not. Regardless, given the case was closed in less than two weeks, I doubt the case was given a fair shake. It wasn't given the kind of treatment that could have actually solved the case. 

The real question is if any of these cases are solvable. In each case it would either require a lot of luck or someone talking to actually solved the case, and I don't really see that happening. It's possible since the cases weren't really taken seriously in the first place something could be shaken loose in the 2nd attempt, but I am not holding my breath. 

Is this a good use of resources? I am not sure. I think it's worth it to find any evidence of a coverup, which would be far more important than getting the folks involved in each case. The coverup is absolutely worse than the crime, if there is indeed a coverup. Still, there are dozens of other cases that deserve resources as well... 

Man arrested for plot to firebomb the US Embassy in Tel Aviv.

 

File photo of the US Embassy in Tel Aviv. BBC/Getty

An American-German citizen was arrested for a plot to firebomb the US Embassy in Tel Aviv. BBC. The Man, Joseph Neumayer, was arrested after he was deported from Israel. Neumayer got into a confrontation with an embassy guard. He spit on the guard and then fled, leaving his backpack behind. Molotov Cocktail firebombs were found in his backpack. Neumayer has been charged with planning a firebombing of an US government building and making terroristic threat against the President of the United States, Donald Trump. Though a specific motive has not been released, Neumayer said "death to America and death to Americans". The incident occurred after a leftist activist murdered two Israeli staffers that worked for the Israeli embassy in Washington DC. 

My Comment:

As always, thank God for stupid terrorists. This guy's plan was pretty dumb regardless, but he couldn't keep his contempt in line to even pull it off. Instead he got into a fight with a guard and his whole plot fell apart after he spit on them. That lead to his deportation and arrest. His plan failed. 

The man's motive is unclear and may only make sense to him. From what I have been able to gather, his beliefs are strange. He's pro-Israel and pro-Russia, which isn't a common combination (though it is one that I share). Despite that he also seems to hate President Trump, despite him seen to be as pro-Israel and if not pro-Russia, at least more lenient on them than Joe Biden was. I am guessing that this guy's motive was informed by some obvious mental illness. 

His plan could have caused some damage at the very least. Molotov cocktails are damaging when used correctly, though it's unclear if he used the "rag in a bottle" method or the more effective "blasting cap in a bottle" method. Even the less effective types can cause major fires and fires always have a risk of killing people. But I am guessing he would have been stopped by the Embassy guards before he reached that point, and that does appear to be what happened. 

Is this related to the murder of the two Israeli staffers? I am guessing not. That attacker was a far left Hasan Piker type, not whatever Neumayer is. He also seems to be pro-Israel, not pro-Hamas like the murder in Washington was. I doubt the two incidents have anything to do with each other. 

Still, I doubt this incident would have happened if it wasn't for the Israel-Hamas conflict. Though I have almost zero sympathy for the people of Gaza, they voted for Hamas of course, I do wish the conflict would end. Not so much because I have sympathy for Hamas, but more for the fact that I want to get rid of a rallying cry for the far left (and the worst elements of the right). The war is making people go nuts and I wouldn't be surprised if we see more of these kinds of incidents unless the war ends soon. 

Trump administration scraps police reform measures in some US cities.

 

File photo of a Minneapolis police officer. BBC/Getty. 

The Trump administration is scraping police reform measures in several US cities. BBC. Two cities are having oversite agreements nixed, Minneapolis and Louisville, while civil rights investigations six other cities, most notably Phoenix and Memphis, are being dropped. Two lawsuits brought by the Justice Department under Biden targeting Minneapolis and Louisville were dropped as well. The agreements and investigations were launched in response to the Black Lives Matter movement and several prominent cases, including George Floyd in Minneapolis and Beronna Taylor in Louisville. The Trump administration says that the agreements were not needed and would handcuff local police departments from actually fighting crime. They also said that the Biden administrations findings were based on flawed methodologies and incomplete data. 

My Comment:

I think out of all the things the Biden administration screwed up domestically, criminal justice has to be #1. Obviously foreign policy was even worse, but for things that affect the day to day lives of American citizens, criminal justice has to be his biggest failure. 

Crime has exploded since the police reforms that Black Lives Matter and other activist groups demanded were put into place. There are cities now where it's just not safe to live and the murder rate is close to as bad as it was back in the 1990's, but without the drug wars that caused them. 

That was, of course, predictable. Things like ending cash bail and handcuffing police were never about actually solving or stopping crime, they were about making activists happy over perceived, not real, injustices. 

That isn't to say that police are perfect, far from it. But I never bought into the narrative that police were specifically racist. They only look that way to outsiders because they don't actually understand the crime rates. When one community has a crime rate dramatically higher than everyone else, of course there are going to be major problems. And in America that community is largely African American. 

Of course, under Joe Biden's administration the "maybe they commit more crime" argument was called racist and all these steps were taken to try and fix the supposed racism. It obviously backfired as crime went up. Indeed, it probably caused more racism than ever as folks were tired of their being a two tier justice system were time and time again folks were let go after committing horrible crimes, just to commit even more when they get out. 

It makes sense that they would get rid of these programs and investigations under that context. I have seen zero evidence that the Trump administration even gives lip service to the racial justice model of criminal justice and as someone who was educated in the field, it makes me happy to say that. I don't think there is any evidence that racial justice in policing has any positive effect on crime. 

So what does work? I know when I was in College almost two decades ago, the debate wasn't about racial justice, it was between community oriented policing or the old school "broken windows" policing. Community policing was police trying to forge bonds with the community in order to solve crimes. Broken windows was responding heavily to small crimes in the theory that it would prevent the larger crimes. 

Both systems worked a lot better than what we have now! I remember the debates we had back then but under both systems, crime was down compared to now and compared to the 1990's. Why? Because the focus was on policing, not social justice! 

Former President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer...

 

Former President Joe Biden. NBC News. 

Former President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer. NBC News. The cancer has already spread to his bones and is a score of 9 on the Gleason scale, which measures prostate cancer severity. Biden and his family are considering treatments, including hormone therapy. Prostate cancer is common among older men and is the 2nd leading cause of cancer death for American men. Biden was the oldest president to serve and his age and health were major concerns and were a main factor in exiting the race for the 2024 election. 

My Comment:

I have been extremely critical of Joe Biden, both as a person and as a president, but I would not wish cancer on anyone. Even though I considered Biden a political enemy for years, I am sad that he has this cancer and I do worry that he won't make it. 

His prognosis is iffy at best. It absolutely could be worse, from what it sounds the cancer has not spread to any vital organs. But the fact that it's in his bones complicates treatment and makes his chances for survival a lot lower. There are treatments that could help, though I am far from an expert on cancer treatments, so I don't know how effective they will be. 

Complicating things are Joe Biden's advanced age and, quite frankly, frail condition. Biden hasn't looked very good for years and he just came off of the most stressful job in the world. Biden is 82 years old and absolutely looks his age in his last few public appearances. It's very possible that this cancer will be too much for him. 

I do have quite a bit of sympathy for Biden here. For all his faults, the man does indeed hate cancer and he suffered the loss of his son, Beau Biden, due to it. And again, probably the one thing I did admire about Joe Biden is that he loves both his sons and I know that Beau's death hurt him personally.  It's genuinely awful that he has to go through this as well given his background and I can't say that I don't feel for him. 

I am also very glad that Joe Biden is not president right now. Having a president diagnosed with cancer would not be a good thing to say the least, let alone once he starts going through treatment. Biden would almost certainly have to resign and Kamala Harris would end up being president.  And every enemy and competitor in the world would try and take advantage of the chaos. We avoided that nightmare scenario at least. 

I do think this is a warning against electing such elderly presidents. Trump is pretty old too at 79, and though he hasn't lost a step compared to Joe Biden, I do worry that something could happen to him as well. Old men have a lot of health problems and though Trump looks pretty good for his age, you never know what could happen. 

Biden's cancer diagnosis has political implications for both the Democrats and Republicans. For the Democrats, it makes it a lot harder to criticize him for his role in losing the White House in 2024. The party absolutely needed a reckoning over that and that seems even more unlikely now that Biden is ill. 

And the Republicans? It's going to be harder to blame the countries problems on Joe Biden, regardless of the fact that his is indeed a major reason why things are still bad. To blame Biden now might rightly be seen as poor taste. Now the GOP is going to have to stand on their own merits. Trump is personally popular, but what about the do-nothing GOP House and Senate? 

Finally, I have to say that I do hope that Joe Biden beats the cancer. Not so much because I like Joe Biden, far from it. But I absolutely hate cancer and I wish that nobody had to go through it. Even someone I dislike, like Joe Biden. I'm pulling for him for that reason. 

Editor's note: Vacation!

 

Just an update. My annual May vacation starts tomorrow and lasting through next week, so, as always, posting may be infrequent and at unusual times. I am not sure how much posting I will be doing, but given the weather forecast for Northeast Wisconsin, it might not drop that much, or even increase. I wasn't banking on this week having mid-summer temps and next week being cold and rainy, like it was April. Oh well, at least I won't be at work, and maybe I can get some fishing in anyways? 

President Trump to remove sanctions from Syria...

 

A Syrian girl celebrates the announcement. CNBC/Reuters

President Trump has announced that the United States will be removing sanctions from Syria. CNBC. Syria has been listed as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979 and was under severe sanctions that not only punished Syria, but the countries that traded with them. However, Trump said that since the Assad regime was overthrown last year the sanctions no longer served any purpose and America would attempt to normalize relations with the country. Lifting the sanctions would allow Syria to rebuild after more than a dozen years of a brutal civil war. Trump said that the lifting of sanctions was suggested by the leadership of Turkey and Saudi Arabia. 

My Comment:

I have mixed feelings about this decision. To say that I don't trust the current leadership of Syria is an understatement. They are the remains of the al-Qaeda linked group, al-Nusra and though they have claimed they have reformed, I still don't trust anyone that used to be Islamic terrorists. 

I also worry about the treatment of religious minorities in Syria and sanctions could have been a way to ensure that Syria's Sunni Muslims, Alawites, Christians and Druze are treated well by the government. There have already been clashes between the Druze and Islamist militants and I fear that could continue. 

But I also agree that it was time to get rid of the sanctions. I generally think sanctions are worthless. They don't do much other than cause misery for the poorest and most vulnerable people in the countries under them. Indeed, it wasn't sanctions that collapsed the Assad regime, it was military force and the fact that Russia was largely distracted with the Ukraine War. 

And it also makes little sense to continue anti-Assad sanctions when Assad is gone. I absolutely have misgivings against the new government, but I do think they should have at least a chance to govern and the people of Syria absolutely need help. Syria was a fairly decent place to live before the civil war and they could absolutely become that again if they are allowed to trade with other non-Russian countries again. 

I think the real reason for this has little to do with Syria though. The move comes as we are making efforts to restore relations with Saudi Arabia, which were damaged, if not destroyed, under Joe Biden. It was a fairly easy concession to make to the Saudis, who want Syria open for trade. It was a great way to mend relations and it was essentially zero cost. 

This may be an additional message to Israel too. Normalizing relations with Syria might be considered a blow to Israel as they are afraid of Turkey's operations in the country. This may indeed be another attempt to actually end the conflict in Gaza, with a clear message that if the Israelis won't work with us, we will work with the Arab world instead. 

Either way, the obvious real winners are going to be the normal folks of Syria. They were the ones that were damaged by these sanctions in the first place and now they may be able to build new lives in the wake of the war. Even though I have misgivings with the new government of Syria I do hope the people there benefit greatly from this. 

Dozens of Afrikaners accepted into the United States as refugees from the South African government.

 

Afrikaners after leaving South Africa. New York Post/AFP.

49 Afrikaners have been accepted as refugees into the United States from South Africa. New York Post. President Trump said that they were victims of genocide due to racial land laws that could be used to target them and farmers being murdered. Trump ended foreign aid to South Africa in response to the land law being passed, though no land has been seized as of this writing. Critics, including South Africa's government and the Episcopalian church, say that no genocide is happening. 

My Comment:

Whether or not South Africa is committing genocide on white Afrikaners is largely a question of semantics. I don't think there is a de jure genocide, the South African government isn't loading people into trains yet, though they might in the future. But I do think there is a de facto one. 

Why? Well, farm murders are a real thing, and I do think that the primary motive is racial vengeance. Some of these crimes have been horrific and I have seen little evidence that the South African government cares. You could argue that it's just South Africa's horrific crime rate but I would say there's an obvious difference between the victimization rate of the Boer farmers that are now fleeing and the British descended Whites that live in the city. There are plenty of rich whites living in the cities of South Africa but the murder rate for them is a lot lower, which begs the question why the rural crime rate is so high? And why are the number of people imprisoned for these farm attacks so low? 

It's also clear that there are elements of the South African government that truly hate these people, largely because of racial memories of apartheid. Punishing people for the actions of their ancestors is deeply wrong but we are seeing these land confiscation laws and have politicians singing "kill the Boer". Like I said, nobody is getting thrown onto trains yet but it sure sounds like it could happen in the future. And it's clear that there is specific hatred against these Whites particularly, Anglo Whites in South Africa are treated well. 

Even if you were to concede that there is no actual genocide in South Africa, which I don't, these folks can use the same arguments that folks from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala used with their refugee applications. The high crime rates and incompetent governments there were used as justification for having millions of Central Americans enter the country, so why is it any different when the refugees are White? The only conclusion is that the folks objecting to this are racist. 

I would also say that I never really believed the Central American "refugees" are anything other than economic refugees, especially now that El Salvador is a safe country. These South Africans? They are absolutely not economic migrants as they are fairly rich in the first place. 

What about the double standards about not letting in other groups of refugees? The big difference there is that there are hundreds of countries that can take refugees from Iraq or Afghanistan but I doubt there are any that will take these South Africans. These folks have pretty much nowhere else to go and given the direct threat against them, I think it's more than justified to let them come in. 

I also think that there is a pretty obvious double standard here. The left does not like the idea of acknowledging that White people too can be the victims of bias, discrimination and racism, let alone genocide, so there is a real motivation to downplay the threat against these farmers and excuse the actions of both the criminals that are killing people and the government that does little to nothing to stop it. To them it's impossible for a privileged or rich group of whites to be the victim of anything, so the hysteria over this case was sadly predictable. 

As for the folks still in South Africa, I think they should get out as soon as possible. Like I said, I don't know that there is a de jure genocide on the way, but it sure feels like they are moving that way. Getting out now would be extremely advisable and the window for getting out might be limited. It's very possible that somehow a judge will rule that this can't happen and at the very least we have no idea what the policy will be once Trump is out of office in 2029. 

Last living American hostage held by Hamas expected to be released.

 

Edan Alexander's Grandmother holds up pictures of him. AP.

The last living American hostage held by Hamas, Edan Alexander, is expected to be released soon. AP. Hamas decided to release him as a sign of good faith to the Trump administration and as an effort to restart stalled cease fire talks. Alexander is a Israeli-American who was captured on October 7th while serving as a member of the IDF. The release was negotiated directly between the United States and Hamas. The release will require a several hour cease fire and for Israel to agree to that. 59 hostages remain in Israel, though only twenty or so are still alive. 

My Comment:

The American diplomats are certainly busy this weekend. Fresh of the cease fire with the Houthis in Yemen, this past weekend Trump, Rubio and all the other diplomats got a cease fire between India and Pakistan, may have gotten Russia and Ukraine to finally meet and now may have even gotten the one American hostage released. Not to mention trade deals with the United Kingdom and, more critically, China. And we are even talking to Iran too! 

This wide ranging and very active diplomacy has shown a huge difference between Trump and Biden. Under Biden diplomacy had largely been abandoned. There wasn't really much of an effort to end the war in Ukraine, for example, and it was President Elect Trump that negotiated the first cease fire between Israel and Hamas. That deal failed in the end, but it shows that at least Trump tries to end conflicts. 

I do think that this too is a message to Israel. There are rumors that the Trump administration is sick and tired of the way Israel has been acting, in terms of saber rattling and such. They want the wars between Israel and Hamas (and the Houthis in Yemen) to be over, but Israel hasn't been seen to negotiate. Trump has already negotiated a separate peace with Houthis and this could be another example, this time with Hamas. If Israel doesn't start negotiating even after Hamas released Alexander then I think relations might even break. 

It's possible Israel could even torpedo this deal, as it requires a short cease fire of a couple of hours, presumably so Alexander can be released safely. I haven't heard of Israel not wanting this deal, but if they choose to, they absolutely could prevent it from happening. If it does, expect Trump to cut them loose. 

Regardless, I think Israel will get the message. The war in Gaza has gone on too long and I think most people are sick of it. I have almost zero sympathy for Hamas or the people of Gaza that supported them, but even I think the war has gone on long enough. It's time for both sides to come to some kind of agreement and hopefully this release is going to be the first step. 

Of course, it's very possible that Hamas will be the ones that screw things up. They too have kept this war going long after any sane person would have ended it. They may decide to use this release as a stalling tactic and might not be serious about ending the war too. But I sincerely hope that isn't the case. 

As for me, I would be happy if the war finally ended, mostly because it's an animating issue on the left and I'm really sick of having to hear them whine about it. Like I said, I have very little sympathy for Hamas or the pro-Gaza people, so I don't care too much what happens, but I would love for this to be a memory before the 2026 midterms. Or this summer, for that matter... 

Pakistan shoots down at least two Indian fighter jets with their J-10 fighter jets.

 

Chinese J-10 fighter jets. Reuters.

Pakistan has shot down at least two Indian fighter jets with their new J-10 fighters. Reuters. Pakistan claimed five air-to-air kills but US officials that at least two of those fighters were shot down by the J-10's. At least one of those fighter jets was a French origin Dassault Rafale. Both the J-10 and the Rafale are 4.5 generation fighter jets, at the leading edge of fighter jet technology but not at the level of the top of the line jets. It is believed that the J-10's used a Chinese missile, the PL-15, to shoot down the planes. Pakistan claims no losses among their own forces and that three Indian Rafales were destroyed. 

My Comment:

There are winners and losers in the India-Pakistan conflict and it's seems clear that is very true in the aerospace industry. This result should increase the respect of the Chinese designed J-10's and their new missiles while it's a pretty big blow to the French.

Neither India or Pakistan have large numbers of these fighter jets. Pakistan has about 20 J-10's and India had 36. They are pretty new fighter jets for each country and I believe it's the first time they have been used in combat. Certainly it was the first time they fought each other. 

It's unclear how many of these jets were actually brought down. The Pakistan claims is five jets total, three of which are Rafales. If that is true it's a huge blow to India's Air Force. Like I said, they only have 36 of these fighter jets and losing three of them in their first battle is not good news for them. The Rafales are not cheap, India bought them for $200 million a piece, and to lose such a huge investment so early in a conflict is not a good look for them. 

So why did this happen? I am guessing it was a combination of things. Pakistan's new PL-15 missiles are very long range and there is a possibility that India's threat detecting radar was being jammed. If that was the case then it would have been impossible to avoid these missiles as they were coming in, the planes were doomed before they even knew they were being engaged. 

In that it seems like this conflict will be similar to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Most of the time, Russian and Ukrainian bombers launch well within their borders because the air defenses were that good. If Pakistan really was able to jam the threat detector radar, then India will have to be sure to pull back their jets even further. 

Of course, it's possible that this wasn't really a Pakistani accomplishment or a condemnation of the Rafale as a type. It's very possible that the Indians screwed up. I don't have a very high opinion of their military and I could easily see that the jets were destroyed through incompetence as well. To be fair, we only have confirmation that one Rafale and two planes total were shot down, so perhaps things aren't quite as bad as the Pakistanis are saying. 

As for the war itself, I am still predicting that this will all blow over in a few weeks. I doubt that India and Pakistan are ready for a real war and I think we will continue to see the air, artillery and drone strikes we are seeing now. Indeed, I think things might be close to over already. I could be wrong of course, but I'd be shocked if this is still going on a month or even a week from now. Time will tell. 

A cease-fire has been called between the United States and the Houthis of Yemen, but Israel was not included.

 

File photo of the aftermath of a US airstrike in Saana. Reuters. 

A cease-fire has been called between the United States and the Houthis of Yemen, but Israel was not included. Reuters. The deal would end any attacks on the Houthis by the United States in exchange for no longer targeting US flagged shipping and warships. However, Israel was not included in the deal, raising questions on if shipping attacks could continue. There have not been any attacks on shipping since January though the Houthis have targeted Israel directly since then. The deal was mediated by Oman and the cease-fire was praised by Iran. 

My Comment:

This deal actually happened yesterday but it obviously got lost in the India-Pakistan news. And it was also unclear if Israel was included in the deal yesterday. That's clearly not the case today and it is pretty big news in itself. Of course, if it wasn't for the airstrikes yesterday, the Yemen cease-fire would have been the biggest story of the day regardless. 

This is a pretty good deal for both sides. Yemen was obviously suffering under the increased pace of airstrikes against the Houthis. I don't think the Houthis were in any danger of collapse but they were taking quite a bit of damage with very little to show for it. 

However, the extreme pace and intensity of the combat was taking a toll on the US forces as well. We lost three F-18 Super Hornets, which are not cheap aircraft. One was from friendly fire, one was from an accident and the third may have been due to combat conditions (the plane fell into the ocean while the USS Harry Truman was taking evasive actions, or so it has been reported). It was the most intense naval combat for the US Navy since World War II and they were on the verge of running out of equipment. 

Europe is a big winner for this as well as it was on their behalf that the US Navy was even fighting in the first place. The Signal leak wasn't much of a scandal but it did show that the US had no faith in Europe keeping the sea lanes open themselves. Now they are reaping the reward, their shipping should be able to move through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden now, as long as they aren't Israeli flagged, and maybe even then. 

But this isn't a win for Israel, that's for sure. American airstrikes were helping their fight against the Houthis, who are still regularly attacking them with drones and missiles. This will allow the Houthis to launch more strikes against Israel, even though I doubt the Houthis will attack Israeli shipping anymore. 

So why did Trump make a separate peace with the Houthis without including Israel? I actually think this is an effort in increase pressure on Israel, believe it or not. They are sending them a message that they need to make peace and not only with the Houthis but with Hamas as well. 

It also might be an effort to forestall any war with Iran. Trump is sending a message to them as well, it's a show of good faith that he is serious about peace. Israel will also see that if they go to war with Iran it might be alone. 

Will the cease-fire hold? I think it should. Trump got what he wants, which is open seas in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden and the Houthis get to stop being bombed. It's win-win for both of them, and unless something serious happens I doubt it will stop. I guess the Houthis could start attacking shipping again, but doing so would be pretty pointless now. 

India launches airstrikes against targets in Pakistan. Will there be a war?

 

Ambulances deliver wounded people injured in the attack. Politico/AP.

India has launched a series of airstrikes against targets in Pakistan, in a long awaited response to the Kashmir terrorist attack. Politico. India launched the missiles from their territory and hit six targets it claims are base camps for the terrorists that launched the attack in Kashmir last month. At least 8 people have been killed in the strikes, including a child, according to Pakistan. Pakistan said the attacks were targeting civilians and that the incident was an act of war that would be responded to. Unconfirmed reports detail artillery exchanges between the two countries and there are even reports of planes being shot down. 

Live updates:

AP

BBC

My Comment:

As expected India has launched attacks against targets in Pakistan. This was not at all a surprise as I was saying for a couple days now that I expected India had to make strikes. They lost a lot of face from the terror attack that targeted civilians and were under a lot of pressure from their hardliners. An attack was inevitable. 

There is not a lot of detail as to what is going on. I would caution against paying attention to early reports and official statements from both sides. We won't know what really happened in this battle for a couple of days at least. 

I will address one rumor I have been seeing about planes being shot down. I think that is very possible. India used stand off weapons but it's possible that Pakistani jets or anti-air weapons were able to engage the Indian bombers and I would not be surprised if at least one of those fighter jets were shot down. It's also possible that Pakistan suffered air losses as well, but right now it's not easy to tell. For what it is worth though, the AP is reporting a plane crash on the Indian side of the border so it's very possible they did lose a plane. 

Of course what is happening now is a lot less important than what happens next. Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers and there is a fear that this could somehow spiral out into a major conflict. I think that is possible, but extremely unlikely. It would take a lot of stupidity and hubris for this skirmish to turn into a major conflict. To be fair, those things are absolutely common in the Indian subcontinent, but I still think a war is unlikely. 

Why? Well for one, this feels like the 2019 skirmish, that saw some bombings and planes being shot down but in the end absolutely nothing happened. Neither side seems like they want to fight a real war and I have seen zero evidence that they are even preparing for such a thing. Like I said, this was a face saving thing for India and that will also be true with Pakistan's response. 

I would also say that it's meaningful that India didn't target Pakistani military targets. These attacks were centered on supposed terror camps but I am guessing that this was all figured out before hand. India knew that attacking military targets would be too much of an escalation so they avoided it. 

Despite all that, the world is more dangerous when India and Pakistan are fighting, even if it's in a very limited and controlled way. I don't know that there is anyone that wants a serious escalation, including Pakistan and India. Indeed, even folks that hate India and Pakistan don't want to see a major war because of the obvious refugee problem that would create. And that's another reason why I think there won't be a war. Both India and Pakistan will be under extreme diplomatic pressure to end this conflict as soon as possible. I am guessing things will calm down sooner rather than later... 

Israel will launch plan to take all of Gaza if a peace deal isn't made.

 

Israeli tanks at the border. NBC News/AFP/Getty.

Israel will launch a plan to take all of Gaza if a peace deal is not made. NBC News. Israel controls roughly 1/3rd of Gaza and would take the rest if the plan, which was approved today. Israel would also remove civilians from the northern part of the Gaza Strip. They also say they will not allow humanitarian aid to be delivered until the operational phase of the attack was completed and the relocation is completed. Israel said they would call up reserves to compete the mission. The operation will also try to recover the 59 remaining hostages, 24 of which are still believed to be alive. However, the operation will not be launched until after President Donald Trump's visit to the region next week. 

My Comment:

This is going to make a lot of people mad. The temper tantrums this will cause if it goes into effect are going to be epic, to say the least. The pro-Hamas protesters are already apoplectic about a supposed "genocide" but they will consider this to be ethnic cleansing at best. 

Of course the smart thing for Hamas to do would be to try and get a peace deal again. Trump is going to push for that this week and if the Hamas leadership has any sense at all, they will go along with whatever Trump asks, even if it's something silly like America taking the Gaza Strip. They are not in a position to make demands, that's for sure. 

If a peace deal doesn't happen, and I don't think it will, this will be a major undertaking for Israel, and there is the potential it won't go well. Gaza is a highly urban area and though Hamas is mostly a spent force, there is the potential for heavy losses. And moving that huge amount of people is going to be a major issue for them. 

It's also going to be a propaganda coup for Hamas. Like I said, their supporters are going to go nuts about this, to the point where it might even end in violence. I have zero sympathy for Hamas or the Palestinian people, but even I think that moving a bunch of people from their homes is probably not going to play well. 

But my real fear is that that Israel is biting off way too much right now. Turkey is being expansionist in Syria and they might face a war with the much larger country in Syria. The Houthis are still launching attacks against them and they have little response, despite the American bombing campaign.  And they are also talking about launching strikes in Iran? Israel can't win four wars at once and that really seems like their plan here? It doesn't make sense to me. Making a peace deal or even a cease fire until the world stabilizes a bit, seems like the smarter thing to do. 

Regardless, the next week or two will be critical. If a deal can be made we might see a ratcheting down of tensions that could lead to a more peaceful region. If a deal isn't made at best we will have status quo ante with a bit more combat in Gaza at best, and a major regional war at worst. I am sure President Trump will try to get a deal made, but I am not sure that either Hamas or Israel are rational actors. 

Examining the Shiloh Hendricks case...

 

Shiloh Hendricks. GiveSendGo. 

A Minnesota woman named Shiloh Hendricks went viral over the weekend after video showing her using the N-word was released. The Independent. Hendricks was accused of using the N-word after a child stole something from her bag. She also used it against the man who was filming her, who had threatened her to expose her language to the internet. The video had the opposite effect as it went viral as she was able to set up a GiveSendGo drive that has raised almost $650,000 as of this writing. Hendricks defended her use of the N-word and said that her family and children had been threatened and that her personal details have been leaked. 

The GiveSendGo campaign can be found here. 

My Comment:

I'm several days late on this story but it keeps getting bigger, to the point where it's on "normie" social media, like Facebook. It had been trending on X all weekend and was also on the usual websites, like 4chan and Kiwi Farms. Normally I don't write about random confrontations like this unless it signals something bigger, which this case certainly does. 

Do I defend Hendricks actions? No. She did a very stupid thing, using the N-word against a child. I have less sympathy for the Somali guy that was filming her, he was trying to cancel someone and there are quite a few rumors that he might be a sexual deviant himself. He's got the same name as someone that was charged with the sexual assault of a 16 year old, though charges were dropped. It's unclear if he is the same guy but either way, he picked a fight. 

Still, though there are questions about the age and status of the child, some outlets are calling him Autistic, though I don't know how they came up with that, it's an absolute overreaction to call a child the N-word if he stole something. Even more so if she just suspected him of stealing. Doing so is both needlessly cruel and also could have had way worse results than just going viral. Hendricks is lucky that the man who confronted her only filmed and harassed her, instead of doing worse. Not that it would be justified mind you, it's just the state of the world today. 

In the past what would happen in one of these cases is that Hendricks would be completely canceled. She would have gotten zero support at all and she would get zero sympathy in this case. She would lose her job, her home and probably her children. People are still trying to destroy her life but it's not working this time. She's got enough money now that she should be set for a long time, assuming that GiveSendGo doesn't pull her campaign (which seems very unlikely at this time). She could still get into trouble with the police or perhaps her banking, but I am guessing that won't happen now given the firestorm of controversy that would cause. Though, this happened in Minnesota and Democrats both control the state and also can't help but to shoot themselves in the foot.

So why the turnaround? Part of this is a reaction to the murder, and subsequent fundraising campaign for the killer of Austin Metcalf. Karmelo Anthony, the accused murderer, got half a million dollars and wide praise among the black community after he was charged with killing Metcalf at a track meet. If that wasn't enough, the comments on the GiveSendGo campaign (now removed) were hugely racist and many of them celebrated the murder. That incident, which went mostly ignored by the media, was hugely viral on the internet and it angered a whole lot of people. Indeed, I was furious about it and it does not surprise me that this fundraiser went viral in response. 

I think a lot of it also is just the fact that people are sick and tired of folks being canceled. Did Hendricks screw up here? Absolutely. But does she deserve to have her life ruined because of it? No, and the vast majority of folks caught up in these viral stupidity campaigns don't either. That and there is now a couple of mainstream websites where you can actually discuss these kins of issue without being insta-banned. GiveSendGo won't delete fundraisers and X won't ban you if you discuss it, pro or con. That could mean the pushback would have been there before, but folks are actually able to do so now. 

Of course much of this is racism, but it's racism that's going both ways. There are a lot of folks out there that hate black people and don't see any problem with this. There are also a lot of folks out there that hate white people (many of them white themselves). In this case it seems like the anti-black racists are trying to defend one of their own from the anti-white ones. In short, this seems like both of those groups clashing with each other, along with the fewer more reasonable people like the ones upset with cancel culture. 

I do think that the powers that be are very upset with this case, despite there not being a huge amount of media coverage. That seems clear from some of the folks on the "far-right" attacking Hendricks for just about everything other than what she did. They hate on her tattoos, they hate that she's a single mother, they say she's on meth, they even say she dated a black man. It seems like a transparent effort to try and tamp down on the viral nature of this campaign. 

A few weeks ago I mentioned on X that it feels like the old days of 90's style race blindness is dead and gone and this might be the final nail in the coffin. Back then it really felt like folks were going to judge each other based on their actions, not their skin color. But it sure feels like that's no longer viable in today's post-Black Lives Matter world. If we are going to be living in a racial spoils system it sure feels like whites are sick of being left out and this is probably a reaction to that. 

Finally, I have to mention that this whole thing feels like enemy action. If I was one of America's enemies and I wanted race relations to collapse this is how I would do it, with the twin viral GiveSendGo campaigns that show how bad race relations actually are. I have no idea if that is the case or not, but it is something to keep in mind... 

President Trump will replace National Security Advisor Michael Walz

 

Michael Walz. ABC News/Getty.

President Donald Trump has announced that his National Security Advisor will be replaced. ABC News. Walz has now been nominated as the ambassador to the United Nations, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been tapped to temporarily take the NSA role. Walz was responsible for the so-called "Signalgate" incident, where he accidently invited The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg to a meeting discussing strikes on Yemen. Walz was still defended by the Administration for that incident but it's possible there were other factors for his change in role. Walz will face Senate confirmation for the UN position. 

My Comment:

It's very unclear if this is a result of the stupid signalgate faux controversy. I never thought that Walz was a good fit for the Trump administration given the fact that he is both a warhawk and a neocon, in an administration that has little use for either of them. It's very possible that is a bigger reason for this move than anything Walz did in terms of the Signal leak. 

I do think it's funny that the media firestorm over the Signal leak was entirely focused on Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, when he had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Hegseth was just in the chat, it was Walz that made the mistake of sending the invite to Goldberg. The media didn't care, they just wanted Hegseth out, mostly because he wasn't a neocon warhawk like Walz is, but partially because he's not one of them in terms of his life experience. This has obviously backfired on him as now one of the guys they liked and who would have pushed for new wars is out on the street. 

The problem is that he is going to have to face Senate confirmation hearings and that is going to be a mess. It's means that this stupid Signal story is going to continue to be a thing much longer than it ever should have been. Nobody outside of the beltway cares about this story at all, but now we are going to be forced to have more media coverage about this story for as long as it takes to confirm or not confirm Walz. 

Will Walz even be confirmed as UN ambassador? I am guessing he will be on party lines. The Democrats won't vote for him because they want Signalgate to be a thing, but I don't really see a reason for Republicans to not vote for him. UN ambassador is kind of a do nothing job but it's one that isn't going to cause any problems for anyone. And there will be enough warhawks in the Senate to vote for him. 

Should Walz have been fired for this? I don't think so. Reassigning him to a new post seems like the right thing to do here. Having him as UN ambassador means he won't be invited to any new discussions but also lets him contribute. And, after he is confirmed or not, the Signalgate story will be well and truly dead. The Democrats will have to find some new way to try and take down Pete Hegseth and I don't see that they will be able to do so. 

As for the post of National Security Advisor, Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, will take the role for now. I have honestly been really pleased with Rubio to the point where I feel I almost owe him an apology. The man was a neocon when he ran in 2016, but his views have either evolved or he is at least following orders despite any reservations. He will be a good fit for the role until someone can be found to replace him.