A village in Mexico was left to fend for themselves as the country focused on the World Cup.

 

A local citizen vigilante group in Guajes de Ayala, Mexico. AP.

A village in Mexico was left to fend for themselves from a cartel group as the country focused on the World Cup. AP. The area, Guajes de Ayala, has been under siege from the La Nueva Familia Michoacana cartel. The village, located in Guerro state begged for help from the government as a battle erupted between the Cartel and local anti-Cartel vigilantes. The battle involved heavily armed fighters from both sides and was notable for the extensive use of drones. Mexico denied that there was a battle happening and said they would send troops to investigate. Over 100,000 troops and police were redeployed to World Cup sites for security for the event, which ended it's leg in Mexico on Sunday.

My Comment:

The Mexican Drug War continues, mostly unnoticed by national media. This story though was fairly significant for a couple of reasons. These kinds of battles are fairly frequent but it's the World Cup angle that is getting the attention in this case. 

And I do think that this is a major reason why this battle happened. With 100,000 troops and police deployed for security that means that there wasn't a response force to do anything about this attack. The battle could have been prevented or mitigated if the military had responded, but they didn't and I think the people in this region do have a right to be angry about it. 

It's also pretty important to note that the battle was between the La Nueva Familia Michoacana Cartel and civilians. This wasn't one cartel fighting another, and it wasn't the government fighting the cartels, it was normal folks taking up arms to defend their homes from the Cartel. 

However, it's important to note that some of these vigilante groups end up being proxies for other Cartels. At the very least, I would be surprised if these fighters weren't at least armed by other Cartels that are rivals to La Nueva Familia. I don't think that this group is a true proxy, but there is always a chance that they could fall into service to the Cartels. 

The other notable thing is that both sides in the conflict are using drone warfare, and not just for reconnaissance. These drones are off-the-shelf drones, mostly of Chinese origin, and have been modified to drop IED's, bombs and grenades. 

To clarify, these aren't the dreaded FPV drones that are causing so much carnage on both sides of the Ukraine conflict or the high powered and high tech military drones that America has used for the past 20 years. Instead these are home made jobs, made with off the shelf drones and 3d printed parts. It's low tech, to be sure, but it honestly reminds me of how ISIS used drones during the Syrian Civil War. 

Regardless, it shows how much warfare has changed. If a Mexican Cartel and a Mexican group of civilian vigilantes can get their hands on offensive drones, almost anyone can. This does not bode well for the United States as it's very possible that we could see a major terror attack utilizing drones at some point. Indeed, I am surprised it hasn't happened already. 

As for the Drug War itself, it's clear that nothing much has changed. I don't see any real chance that these Cartels will be defeated by the Government, especially given my low opinion of Claudia Sheinbaum's government. Supposedly violence is going down in Mexico but I also don't believe that her government has the stones to deal with the Cartels properly. But I do think this incident should be considered an embarrassment for her government.   

"Trump Accounts" that provide IRA style accounts for children, go live.

 

CNN/Getty.

The "Trump Accounts" effort has gone live, giving parents the chance to create Investment Retirement Accounts for their children. CNN. The accounts are available for all children under the age of 18. However, the government has decided to give $1000 for infants born between January 1st 2025 and December 31st 2028. In addition to the government money, parents, relatives and friends can contribute to the accounts, along with employers. Private citizens have also given money to the fund to allow even more seed money to certain low or mid income families. Charitable and Government contributions are unlimited, but only $5000 a year can be contributed by others. Returns for the accounts will depend on how the stock market does. Once the child becomes 18, the accounts are treated as IRA accounts, with the appropriate penalties and taxes. However, if the holder of the account uses the money for college, buying a home, birthing or adopting a child, emergency expenses and even medical bills. If no contributions are made beyond the $1000 in government an infant could expect to see $3000 to $5500 depending on the stock market. 

My Comment:

I don't often use CNN as a source, but this was a good summary of how the Trump accounts work. Credit where credit is due. It's a good resource and if you want to know more about how to sign up for these accounts you should take a look. 

I think that these accounts are a good idea and you would have to be crazy to not do this if you have an infant born during the eligibility period. Even if the only money you contribute is the government issued $1000, you would give that child at least a little seed money to start their lives off. I know I would have been happy to have $3000 to $5500 to my name when I graduated high school. 

And there's a good chance that even if you don't contribute any money, you could get more money from the rich donors that are contributing to the fund. If you make too much money you might not get any from the philanthropists, but chances are you would get some money out of it. And any money you would get for your kids would be totally free. 

Plus, you and your friends and family could contribute as well. Employers could as well as an easy benefit they could offer, though I don't know how any contributions have been set up yet. If you were somehow able to max out the contributions at $5000 a year, your kid could end up with as much as $230,000, assuming a 10% return. That might be optimistic but that much money would pay for college or set up a real path to wealth for a child if they just keep that money in their IRA.

Do these accounts make sense for any other kids? Possibly. There are other kids IRA accounts they could use that could avoid some of the penalties or get higher returns. But I think the possibility of the rich donors giving a boost to these accounts is an obvious advantage if you aren't wealthy. If you are wealthy, the other options might be better, but the best solution might be a combination of both. 

I do fear that there are going to be a lot of liberal parents that aren't going to take advantage of these accounts. Part of me thinks this is funny because it's a stupid reason to not take free money. But I do wish that these folks could decide to do what is best for their kids and ignore the fact that President Trump likes to name things after himself. 

Maine Senate Candidate Graham Platner accused of sexual assault, may drop out of race.

 

Graham Platner. Politico.

Main Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner has been accused of rape and may drop out of the race. Politico. Platner was accused of rape by 41 year old Maine resident Jenny Raciot, who had previously accused him of reckless and disturbing behavior, but was uncomfortable with making the accusation. However, she decided to come forward after a New York Times report led to Democrats claiming another accuser, Lyndsey Fifield, was only doing it for political reasons. However, Raciot agrees with Platner politically. 

Raciot said that she had met Platner via the dating site Bumble, and had a consensual relationship with him. However, in 2021, Platner had walked into her house after being told not to come over. He was blackout drunk and raped her despite her saying no. After confirming she hadn't been impregnated due to the attack, she cut off all contact with him. Her story was backed up by statements from her therapists and a male acquaintance who she talked to about the assault. She also produced text messages with a female friend warning her off from contact with Platner due to him being "consensually careless" and that he "doesn't listen to you while drunk". Platner has denied accusations but has said he will pause to evaluate his campaign. 

My Comment:

These accusations seem pretty credible to me. The fact that Raciot was willing to go on the record for this and the fact that she had at least three people that would back up her story who knew about it before Platner was politically relevant means a lot. She also produced some text messages that support her story as well. It's probably not enough to convict Platner in a court of law, but it probably is enough to convict him in public opinion. 

Keep in mind that Platner had serious issues with his behavior. He had a Nazi tattoo, the Totenkopf, and his excuses for it were a joke. He also had a Reddit account where ha acted like an idiot. But he also cheated on his wife and had an account on Kik. 

Kik is, quite frankly, a very bad website. It's known to be a place with little moderation and predators use to not only share illegal content involving children, they also use it to groom and target children. The fact that Platner had an account there was a huge red flag for me and I even said back then that he would eventually be revealed as a sex pest. 

What Platner was accused of is very serious. It wasn't just a rape, he also broke into her house without her permission. This isn't just some sex that was regretted, it was an attack, and it's why I think this case may be legit. And I would not be surprised if more accusations come out. 

As for Platner, I think his political career is over. He was already on life support in his race against Republican Susan Collins. Though Platner had been leading in the polls, he was falling behind in some of the newer ones and keep in mind that Collins very consistently blows out her polls and wins. He was, in my view, very likely to lose regardless. 

But now? I fully expect him to drop out before the end of the week. There is a ticking clock, of course, as long as he is out by July 12th, he can be replaced, and I think that is the most likely outcome. A major sex scandal like this one, especially when the accusation seems credible, is not something you come back from when you are already in jeopardy. 

When that happens, and I think it's a matter of when, not if, he can be replaced, though who will do so is an open question. Some people are convinced that Governor Janet Mills, who dropped out before Platner won the primary, could be the candidate, but right now it's up in the air. Whoever it is is going to be in a major hole even ignoring the strength Collins has as a candidate, given this scandal and the fact that Platner's large war chest cannot be transferred to whoever the candidate is. 

I do think it's kind of BS that Platner can be replaced after the primary. The Democratic electorate in Maine knew that Platner was a toxic candidate and they voted for him over Mills by a huge margin. The red flags were there the whole time, but they ignored it. They should have to live with that decision, though that's not how it works. 

But now? Almost everyone is pulling their endorsements and Platner has almost no defenders, other than Cenk Uyger, who somehow believes this is all about Israel. It's obviously not, people are genuinely outraged by these accusations and at worst I see this as rational pragmatism by the Democrats. They absolutely should have known better...

ICE arrested 10,000 illegal immigrants in five days to close out June, in a major increase.

 

An ICE badge. AP.

ICE closed out June with 10,000 arrests of illegal immigrants in five days to close out June, a major increase. AP. The five day average was 2000 arrests a day, which is higher than any time in President Trump's first term. The closest was in December of last year when they were averaging 1293 a day. The spike in arrests may be due to a change in ICE tactics. Instead of high profile raids on blue cities like Minneapolis, ICE has focused on arrests nationwide. The new path, steered by new Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, has focused on being more efficient while also being less visible. 

My Comment:

ICE efforts have largely fallen out of the news, but it seems as though the efforts to deport illegal aliens have been redoubled, not abandoned. Indeed, these numbers, which have been confirmed by multiple news outlets, shows that the new tactics are working extremely well. 

What are these new tactics? Instead of high profile raids on blue cities that weren't cooperating with ICE, ICE has been focusing on going after convicted criminals. Many of those folks are picked up during routine police work and handed over to ICE by cooperating agencies. Around 70% of the illegals picked up are convicted criminals, and the 30% that aren't are largely getting swept up at the same time as the criminals. 

This is a massive sea change from the major high profile raids we had during the start of the year. Those raids were somewhat effective in removing illegal aliens, but the optics were not good. Antifa and other protest movements attempted to shut it down and there was violence caused by them that ICE was blamed for (even when it was Customs and Border Patrol that were the shooters in once of the cases). Though I have zero sympathy for the people caught up in the raids and actually despise the protesters and rioters, even I have to admit that the high profile raids were causing more issues then they were solving. 

At the time I didn't know if there was a better way, but it seems clear that Mullin's less visible actions are more effective now. If we can increase the number of people deported while at the same time cutting off the left's energy going into the midterms, than I am all for it. 

Not all of this is due to tactics. ICE underwent a major increase in hiring of personnel and many of those folks are now out of training and are on the job now. Obviously, with more ICE agents on the streets then more folks are going to get arrested and deported. 

There is an obvious downside for the lower profile deportation efforts. It means that many MAGA supporters aren't aware of what is being accomplished, unlike the major high profile raids earlier in the year. Indeed, I have seen some people on social media saying that the Trump administration "caved" on deportation. 

It's a double edged sword as the high profile raids were working as a rallying cry for the left, but also as one for the right. The optics were bad but at least they were optics. Now, a lot of folks on both sides think nothing is happening at all, when instead we are getting even more effective at removing illegal aliens. 

DOJ launches lawsuits against California and Virginia for unconstitutional gun laws.

 

Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger and a gun shop. Fox News/Getty.

The Department of Justice has launched two lawsuits against California and Virginia for unconstitutional gun laws. Fox News. California passed the Unsafe Handgun Act to ban Glock pistols, an extremely popular brand of firearms. Virginia passed Senate Bill 749 that made it a misdemeanor to possess, manufacture or sell a so-called "assault weapon". Both laws came into effect recently and could be overturned by the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to two other similar cases from Chicago and Connecticut 

My Comment:

More good news for the gun rights community. Both of these laws are plainly unconstitutional and do not reach the standards set by NYSRPA v Bruen and DC vs Heller. These are firearms in common use, AR-15's are the most popular rifles in the country while Glocks are among the most popular handguns and there isn't a historical precedence for banning these weapons under the Bruen test. 

The Glock law in California is probably the more impactful and dangerous one. The ban isn't because the Glocks are dangerous due to malfunctions or because they are a threat, it's because they can be modified to fire in full auto. Glock "switches" are commonly used to do so by criminals, but almost all semi-auto firearms can be modified this way. Indeed, all you need to do so with a lot of AR-15's is a small piece of metal, called a full auto sear. 

The same argument could be used to ban most firearms. Short barrel shotguns and rifles are illegal federally but the argument for the California law would apply here too. Because you can easily use a hacksaw to saw off a barrel on a shotgun or rifle, they could be banned as well. It doesn't matter in either case that would be committing a serious felony by modifying your weapon this way. Simply being modifiable can't be the standard because almost all firearms can be modified in some way. Of course, I don't think full auto or short barreled weapons should be illegal in the first place, but that's neither here nor there. 

I'd also argue that a modified Glock with a Glock switch is actually dramatically less dangerous than a normal Glock. Full auto is for suppression and isn't useful for much else. A full auto pistol, especially one that isn't designed to be one, is hard to control and the vast majority of bullets will not hit there targets. A semi skilled shooter with a semi-auto handgun will always beat out a guy spraying and praying with a Glock switch. 

Regardless, it's clear what the play is here by the DOJ. The general prediction is that SCOTUS will rule in favor or removing these bans and once that happens next year it will be useful to have these cases spun up already. The laws will be overturned a lot quicker that way and I am guessing that is the whole point of these lawsuits. It's even possible that the DOJ will be able to get an injunction to prevent these laws from being enforced. 

It's a pretty good time to be a gun rights supporter. It seems like we are absolutely heading towards a world where gun rights is a settled questions and things like assault weapon bans will be nothing but a memory. A lot can happen, of course, but it really does seem like victory is at hand. For gun control advocates, I would say they are quickly approaching irrelevance. 

SCOTUS says they will review so called "assault weapon" bans that ban America's most popular rifle.

 

A group prays in front of the Surpreme Court. AP.

The Supreme Court says they have granted certiorari for two consolidated cases challenging Illinois and Connecticut bans on so-called "assault weapons" including America's most popular rifle, the AR-15. AP. The case will be the largest gun rights case since 2022's NYSRPA v Bruen, which set the Bruen test for gun laws, which requires there to be a historical precedent for those laws.  The current Court has been highly supportive of the 2nd amendment, with two major rulings on gun rights this year, including striking down Hawaii's de facto ban on concealed carry and federal laws banning marijuana users from purchasing or possessing firearms. 

My Comment:

The big news today is, of course, the birthright citizenship case, that did not go the way many people have wished. But these cases being heard before the Supreme Court is likely to be a more impactful case. Should the AR-15 ban be revoked in these states, it would be close to a final victory for the gun rights movement and the ultimate defeat of gun control in the United States. 

After today's ruling on birthright citizenship and yesterday's ruling on mail in ballots, I would understand if folks were concerned that this ruling could actually uphold the bans. People have been very critical of Roberts and Barrett, given how they ruled today. 

But it's important to note that both of them voted in favor of gun rights this term and in previous cases. Indeed, it would be shocking if they didn't both side with the four justices, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that are chomping at the bit to overturn these gun laws. The most likely outcome here is a 6-3 or 5-4 ruling in favor of overturning the bans. 

Indeed, I think that the fact that the case was granted certiorari at all is a strong signal that one or both of Roberts and Barrett have been brought on board. The four pro-gun justices would not risk losing the case and it's pretty rare for the court to take cases like this if there isn't a strong chance of a favorable outcome. Who knows what will happen during arguments, but it would be shocking to me for this case to fail. 

The legal argument for overturning these bans is extremely strong. There isn't a historical precedence, so the Bruen test is already a failure. But the ruling in DC vs Heller that said that firearms in common use are protected by the 2nd amendment. Given that the AR-15 is America's most popular rifle and these so called "assault weapons" even outside AR variants are extremely popular, it's failing that case as well. 

Should the case rule in favor of overturning the bans, we would likely see the collapse of many attempts by states to attempt to end run the Bruen and Heller rulings. It would be pretty explicit rejection of the modern gun control movement and states that have these kinds of assault weapons bans on the books would either have to repeal them or face court cases they would almost certainly lose. Either way, I'd say within a year or two of the decision, most or even all AR-15 bans will be gone and the lower courts would be a lot more reluctant to try and support more gun control laws. 

The case will be heard during the October SCOTUS session and will likely be decided around this time next year. Indeed, I would expect it to be the last case to be revealed, like the birthright citizenship case was decided today. I'd say there's more than an 80% chance that the case will be overturned and the AR-15 will be protected. 

Europe's heat wave has claimed 1300 lives, so why doesn't Europe embrace air conditioning?

 

People attempt to cool off in Berlin. BBC/Reuters. 

Europe's record breaking heat wave has claimed 1300 lives, according to the World Health Organization. BBC. Temperature records were broken in Poland, Germany and Czechia. France said they had 1000 excess deaths since last week Wednesday. Most of those fatalities were from people over the age of 65. In addition, 74 people have drowned in France as well. The heat wave is being blamed on a "heat dome" effect.

My Comment:

Europe's continuing failure to do anything about heat waves is dominating the discourse on social media and many Americans like me can't believe what we are hearing from our European friends. It's no secret that Europe's general adaptation of air conditioning is extremely low compared to the United States, with only 20% of homes there being equipped with AC while 90% of American homes do. 

But what is shocking is how the European peoples react to this fact and the bizarre reasoning they use to get there. Much of this is due to hysteria over "climate change", indeed, even the BBC was blaming it for it being hot in summer. It's certainly the justification that European governments are using to discourage AC usage, to the point where Germany is releasing statements and the UK is taking down functioning units because they aren't "efficient enough".

The real problem is that the European energy crisis. Demand for energy is already high in Summer and more AC units could cause some serious problems. This was a self inflicted problem for much of Europe as they have moved away from more reliable sources of power, like coal and nuclear, to green energy which is a lot less reliable and often unable to provide during peak times. 

What is even crazier is some of the excuses I have heard from European accounts on social media. Many of them are claiming that AC will make you sick. While there are some cases where that can be true, with poorly maintained HVAC systems, it's extremely rare and the whole thing reminds me of the totally false South Korean belief that sleeping in a bedroom with a fan will kill you dead. It's just a bizarre superstition. 

The sad thing is that this causes so many deaths. Indeed, Europe suffers more deaths from heat than America does from all firearms causes, with Europe suffering between 175,000 and 60,000 deaths each year, depending on how you count it. It's absurd that European countries lecture us on our gun laws when they have a much easier problem to solve but they simply don't. 

As for my personal reaction, it's crazy to me that Europe hasn't figured out heat waves. We are currently suffering our own one here in Wisconsin, and it the heat index was well above 100 degrees today. But I was comfortable all day because I had my AC running. 

The whole thing reminds me of the World Cup. I have zero interest in soccer but it was interesting to see all the Europeans visiting the United States for the first time. The entire thing reminded me of Boris Yeltsin visiting a US grocery store and being shocked at how diverse the food was. A lot of Europeans got a system shock in just how good the United States is and how poor Europe is in comparison. And the lack of air conditioning is a good example of this. 

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin says that Haitians and Syrians here under the TPS program can either go home or apply for permanent residency.

 

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin. The Guardian. 

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said that Haitians and Syrians here under the TPS program can either go home or apply for permanent residency after a SCOTUS ruling. The Guardian. The Temporary Protected Status was put into place for Haitians in 2010 after a major earthquake and for Syrians in 2012 after the country descended into civil war. The Supreme Court said that Trump could revoke TPS for these people and they may face deportation as the decision was not based on race. Mullin said that migrants would be encouraged to leave with a free plane ticket and a $2100 check. They could also apply for permanent residency.  

My Comment:

A few numbers to clarify this story. Around 350,000 Haitians and 6000 Syrians are here under the TPS program, with many of those Haitians concentrated in cities like Springfield Ohio. Many of those people have been here for awhile and there is a possibility for many of them to be deported. 

I do agree that these people should not have TPS. The Haitian earthquake was 16 years ago and even as dysfunctional as Haiti is, they have largely recovered from the earthquake itself. The country is still an absolute mess, but it's no longer in crisis because of the natural disaster. They absolutely do have problems with gang activity, a dysfunctional government and high rates of crime, but it's not like it's a death sentence to be sent back there. 

Syria is in even better shape. The war that blew the country apart in 2012 has been done since 2024. There is still limited amounts of violence, ISIS attacks and unrest, but even during the war there were parts of the country that were comparatively safe. There might be a few Syrians that can't go back because they belong to the wrong religion (Alawites especially), but the majority of Sunni Muslims could return and be fairly safe as long as they stayed out of the worst regions. 

However, I don't think all of these people will end up being deported. Many of them have spouses, children, or family members that are citizens and I am guessing the majority of these people will get their green cards, unfortunately. This is especially true for the Haitians that have been here for a long time. Many others will likely get work visas if they are employed, with Haitians in healthcare having an advantage. 

Asylum is a lot less likely, as if these folks could prove they were under threat in their home countries they would have already applied. The Syrians have a much better chance, as I mentioned before, if they are members of the Alawite community, which isn't very popular under Syria's new Sunni Muslim regime. 

Still, getting rid of any proportion of these people is a win. Returning people to their home countries that were only here because of a long expired crisis will lead to cheaper costs in terms of benefits. Removing them could lower housing costs and open up more jobs for citizens, and even increase wages. I know that there are companies, and the politicians they buy, that are upset by this, but oh well. 

Venezuela hit by two major earthquakes, dealing severe damage to Caracas.

 

Rescue workers save a person in Caracas. The Guardian/AFP/Getty. 

Venezuela has been hit by two major earthquakes that dealt severe damage to the country, including the capitol, Caracas. The Guardian.  The US Geological society said the country was hit by a 7.2 magnitude foreshock and a 7.5 "mainshock" seconds later. The epicenter hit the town of Moron, roughly 100 miles to the west of Caracas. Massive damage was reported, with many buildings collapsing and people being trapped. Venezuela is a tectonically active country, but earthquakes are comparatively rare compared to places like California and Japan.   

Reuters has live updates for this disaster.

My Comment:

This is a fairly extreme natural disaster which will likely result in casualties in the five to six digit range. A 7.5 magnitude earthquake is a fairly large one and having the epicenter be in a populated area near a major city is a major reason why casualties are expected to be very bad. 

Par of this is due to the relative rarity of earthquakes in the area. Earthquakes, even severe ones, are not unheard of in the country, but they are also not unknown. Indeed, they have had several large earthquakes, most notably in 1812 and 1967. 

Venezuela does indeed have regulations to protect from earthquakes but enforcement is a joke due to corruption. And many buildings are older than the regulations to. This means that many buildings collapsed. Given my X feed is full of collapsed buildings it's pretty clear that was extremely common in Caracas, and other cities. Indeed, in one clip I saw, it seemed like almost every building was damaged or collapsed.

🔴 #URGENTE | El terremoto de Venezuela destruyó la ciudad de La Guaira. pic.twitter.com/IeqBCHmKuo

— Mundo en Conflicto 🌎 (@MundoEConflicto) June 25, 2026

The disaster comes at a transitional time for Venezuela. Keep in mind, we removed and arrested Nicolas Maduro earlier this year. The country is essentially now a vassal state of the United States after that raid. The country seems to be fairly stable but this is going to be a huge blow to the country. 

I fully expect that the United States will be helping Venezuela out. America usually does provide disaster aid for countries regardless of the situation, but it's extremely likely to happen in this situation. Though the United States is under no obligation to help, given that they are a de facto, though not de jure, vassal, help will almost certainly be giving. Doing so would strengthen our relationship with Venezuela while not doing anything would probably completely destroy the relationship. 

The good news for Venezuela is that the United States still has major forces in the region. Right now we have a large fleet blockading Cuba and some of those forces could easily be rerouted to Venezuela. Most notably, our Amphibious Assault Ships are well suited for this role. We also are close enough to Venezuela that we should be able to send direct aid flights to them as well. Other countries are likely to send aid as well, with Columbia already committing to doing so. 

Eight Antifa members convicted of terrorism and receive long sentences.

 

The eight people convicted. Fox News/police release. 

Eight members of Antifa were convicted on multiple charges and received long sentences for their role in a 2025 attack on an immigration center in Texas. Fox News. The attackers had several firearms, fireworks, and body armor and conducted sabotage of ICE vehicles (slashing tires). Benjamin Song got the longest sentence at 100 years because he opened fire against a police officer, injuring him, leading to successful attempted murder charges. The rest were convicted on charges ranging from giving support to a terrorist organization, possession of explosives, and rioting. Supporters of the North Texas Antifa cell say the incident was a protest, not an attack and that Song was only using "suppressive fire", even though that would not be a defense for attempted homicide. 

My Comment:

This was as close to an open and shut case as you can get, so it's shocking to me that the media is still defending these people. To review, this was not a protest. It was an effort to try and break out detainees that were being held for deportation at this immigration center. Antifa showed up with weapons, armor, explosives and even med kits and they had a specific plan to break people out. The plan failed and it was only Song's poor marksmanship that prevented any deaths in this case.  

But the media? Even the wire services were framing this as a "protest" and not a riot or terror attack, which is was. They also go with the old standby lie that Antifa does not exist as an organization. This case directly disproves this because group was organized as a terror cell. The entire point of cells is to protect wider organizations and that's what happened in this case. 

I also think the sentences were appropriate. If this was a right wing attack, or even an Islamic terrorism attack, I don't think there would be anyone complaining about a 100 year sentence for the attempted murder of a police officer. But because these attackers were left wing, the left wing media is defending them. It shouldn't be controversial to say that a government should not tolerate people trying to break people out of prison via violence. 

With that being said, I do think this is a major victory against Antifa. These sentences are long and are sending a clear message that if you participate in an attack like this you will go to prison for many years, perhaps even the rest of your life. It is a huge difference to the 2020 peak of Antifa where rioters were given slaps on the wrists at best and got away Scott free at worst. 

There is evidence that the crackdown on Antifa under Trump is working. The last major action the organization was involved in was Minneapolis and even now they are still facing the justice system for that. Indeed, 12 members of Direct Action Minnesota, which has ties to Antifa, were arrested just last week for their actions in Minnesota. 

But we haven't seen the kind of widespread activity we saw back in 2020. Indeed, it seems a lot of these folks have gone underground or even abandoned the movement entirely. The absolutely can tell the tides have shifted and that they no longer have the level of political support they once had and very few of them are willing to risk long prison sentences for their actions.  That doesn't mean that the threat isn't still there, it absolutely is, but it's clear that they are on the defensive. 

British Prime Minster Kier Starmer resigns.

 

Prime Minster Kier Starmer announcing his resignation. AP. 

Embattled British Prime Minster Kier Starmer has announced his resignation. AP. Starmer announced his resignation, but will still serve until a replacement is found. Starmer made his announcement after his rival, former Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, won an election, giving Labor a path to remove him if he didn't stand down. Brunham is considered the frontrunner to replace him. Starmer lead Labor to a landslide victory over the Tories but quickly lost faith with both his party and the British people. Starmer was rocked by scandals, including the Peter Mandelson/Jeffrey Epstein scandal, and was unable to turn the economy around. President Donald Trump scooped Starmer on his own resignation this weekend. 

My Comment:

What is shocking to me is the fact that Starmer isn't resigning because of any of the massive problems the UK has right now, like the military being a joke. He's not resigning because immigration is causing the country to be unstable. And he's not resigning because of the Pakistani grooming gang scandals. He's resigning because his party lost faith in him. And not because of any of those issues! 

So why did Starmer quit? His party lost the local elections last month. There doesn't seem to be any introspection from Labor as to why they did, they are just making Starmer the scapegoat. I think they blame him for their own issues but I do have to say that Starmer has zero in the way of charisma. 

Hilariously, President Trump announced the resignation over the weekend. I think that shows that their relationship has been greatly damaged and I don't think Trump is sad to see him go. Starmer famously did not help with the Iran conflict. Though his supporters say it was a moral stand, the fact was that the UK simply wasn't able to help because their military is just in that sorry of a state. They could have deployed a carrier but they had no destroyers available to escort the ship! The relationship never recovered. 

The problem with this resignation is that I don't think it will change anything. Andy Burnham is even further to the left than Starmer and I doubt that he is going to deal with any of the severe problems that the UK is facing. Indeed, I think he will double down on horrible things like forcing internet ID's, not deporting immigrants and not spending money on their military. 

Given that there isn't a mandatory election until 2029, it's no likely that there is going to be any change until then. Nigel Farage is set to win that election with his Reform Party, but everyone on the right expects him to betray the people that may put him into power and refuse to stop immigration and start deportations. That's the mood of the country from what I can understand, the country has very little in the way of hope. 

As for Starmer, how bad was he compared to other Prime Minsters? I'd say only the fact that he was a leftist made him worse than the ones that proceeded him. None of the Tory Prime Minsters were worth anything at all. I am glad to see him go, but I have zero faith that Andy Burnham is going to be any better? 

UK Grooming gang report ignored by media, estimated 250,000 girls and women were victims.

 

Big Ben at Parliament. Reuters/National Review, 

A new report detailing the grooming gangs in the United Kingdom estimates 250,000 women and girls were victims. National Review. A new, privately funded, report has been released by Reform Party leader Rupert Lowe which contains victim testimony from dozens of victims of the mostly Pakistani gangs. The reports detailed how women were groomed, raped, threatened, assaulted, and even forced to convert to Islam. More damningly, the report details how authorities, at best, ignored the crimes or, at worst, actively facilitated the rapes. In one case a police officer allegedly said "have fun with her" to gangsters after dropping off a victim to her group home. Critics say the UK government was indifferent to the attacks because they were too afraid of being called racist. 

The report can be found here. Be warned, it's a harrowing read. 

My Comment:

I'm obviously late on this story as it broke last week, but I have to say I was frustrated how little impact this report had. There has been very little media reporting covering this story, and what little there is was attempting to debunk the 250,000 number, as if that's the most important thing. Though the number is an estimate, it makes little difference if the number is 250,000, 200,000 or 50,000, the main problem is that there were huge gangs of pedophiles grooming girls. 

I generally think the number is plausible though. Pakistani grooming gangs have been a thing since the 1950's, and they have been active since then. They always had a large group of vulnerable and already abused children they could target and, since nobody was stopping them, they were free to act this way for decades. Indeed, it's very possible the number of victims is higher than the quoted numbers. 

The report is mostly witness and victim testimonials. I know that's not the most reliable thing in the world, but I do think that many of these cases are absolutely real. Certainly, there's enough documented cases of girls and women being abused in the UK by these gangs that all of these cases are plausible at worst. 

All of the stories seem to fall into a similar pattern, a young and vulnerable girl between the ages of 10 and 16 comes from a broken home. A Pakistani or other Muslim man initially takes an interest in the girl and poses as a boyfriend, but it's very quickly found out that he's interested in pimping her out to his friends and family. The girl might try to leave the life but the men threaten and even kidnap her until she eventually "ages out". Some of them were even forced into pregnancies or marriages. 

Another common theme is how utterly useless the UK government was in trying to stop these attacks. Many girls, or their parents or caregivers, reported what was going on only for the UK government to do nothing. In some cases they were even facilitating the attacks, placing young girls into group homes that regularly had men coming to pick up underage girls with nobody doing a thing about it. 

Was this all due to wokeness? I think it had a very big effect. Nobody wanted to be called racist and indeed, some folks literally went to jail for pointing out that these gangs were Muslims, mostly from Pakistan. There certainly were people that wanted to act but didn't want to get called racist or get punished by the government. And people were indeed punished for objecting to this, some of them serving long prison sentences. 

But I think a lot of people are missing a major aspect of this story, and that's the impact of classism in the United Kingdom. The one thing that the Muslim men and the rest of the United Kingdom seemed to agree on is that these lower class white girls were just trash. The Muslims thought they were infidels but the rest of the UK? They thought they were "chavs", useless and trashy white people that were worse than the Muslims that were abusing them. Not only was this classism, it was sexism as well, actual sexism, not complaints about video game tropes. Both the Muslims and the rest of the UK viewed these girls as "easy", even though they were children. 

Of course, the reasons why these girls were so vulnerable is because they were from chaotic and abusive households. It was pretty common for the girls to not have a stable family life and many of them were victims of sexual abuse from their family even before they grooming gangs got a hold of them.  

These girls would have been vulnerable regardless, but they would not have been subjected to an industrial level of grooming had the UK had a sane immigration system. Not only did they have little reason to bring in millions of Muslim migrants, mostly from Pakistan, they did very little vetting of the people they let in. Indeed, though America has their own various problems with immigration, we do a lot better job at making sure the legal ones are vetted and actually attempt to turn them into Americans. The UK doesn't do any of that and I think that's a major reason why this happened. 

Keep in mind that all of this is coming at a time of instability for the UK. Indeed, I am guessing tomorrow's blog post will be about embattled Prime Minster Kier Starmer resigning, but even in the past few months I have written four posts about how the country is falling apart. I do think that the people that are hearing about things like the grooming gangs and various murders caused by immigrants are getting pushed to the limit. If nothing else, the UK's problems make our problems here in the United States not seem so bad. The biggest story here appears to be the Iran peace deal and the nonsense with the reflecting pool... 

Supreme Court narrows Federal law preventing drug users from purchasing and possessing firearms.

 

Firearms and the Supreme Court. Fox News/Getty.

The Supreme Court has narrowed a federal law preventing drug users from purchasing and possessing firearms. Fox News. The law, which was used to prosecute Hunter Biden before he was pardoned by Joe Biden, said that anyone who uses illegal drugs was unable to posses firearms legally. The case was based on a Texas man who was arrested for admitting he smoked pot "every other day" while in possession of a firearm. The man was not intoxicated during his arrest, posed no threats to others and was not judged as an addict, it was only his statement that he was a drug user that got him in trouble. 

The Court said this was not sufficient under the standard set by NYSRPA v Bruen which said that gun laws needed a historical precedent, and that wasn't present in this case. However, the ruling was narrow, stating that old habitual drunkard laws would be a sufficient historical precedent to ban addicts, presently intoxicated people and people that have previously proven to be dangerous on drugs. It also does not seem to cover harder drugs, like cocaine and heroin. 

My Comment:

This is a strange ruling and kind of a hard one to explain. The ruling was very narrow, only saying the law was unconstitutional under very specific situations. The ruling is narrowed to marijuana and other similar drugs and probably won't help you if you are a user of hard drugs. If I understand the ruling correctly, it means that if you are a casual user of marijuana and you own a firearm, that no longer is enough for you to get charged with a violation of this law. 

A pair of examples would be useful here. The case at hand would have been good to go under this charge because he would have passed the test now set by this ruling. He was not carrying a gun while using drugs. He did not use hard drugs. He was not addicted to drugs. He simply smoked pot a couple of times a week. Under this ruling he would not be charged. 

But the Hunter Biden case? He would not have been helped due to this ruling. To review, Biden was charged with four crimes, lying on ATF form 4473, two counts of lying to a gun dealer and one count of possession a gun while being a user or addict of dangerous drugs. None of this would be changed by this ruling. Hunter Biden was in fact an addict of crack cocaine while he purchased a firearm, and crack cocaine is a dangerous drug. From what I understand, unless the ATF massively changes their rules or the law in question is massively changed as well, he would still be charged with all four crimes if he was arrested today. It fits well with the historical public drunkard laws so his charges would remain constitutional, assuming he wasn't pardoned. 

I do think that this is a win for both gun rights and marijuana supporters. It was always silly that someone could get charged with a felony for using a drug that was legal in the state they used. Indeed, it's a major reason why I have never used marijuana. I understood that doing so would potentially ruin my gun rights and I could get charged for lying on form 4473 if I ever purchased another gun. I have no plans to smoke pot now, it's still illegal in my state and I have zero interest in getting high, but it is nice that if I ever choose to if I travel or the law changes here, I won't have to sacrifice my gun rights to do so.  

Marijuana supporters will be happy as well. It's very clear that they seem to be winning the argument. I have never been a fan of pot and I think there have been real downsides for decriminalization of pot, but it's also clear that they have a ton of momentum. I would prefer if potheads all switched to alcohol given it's value as a social lubricant, despite it being a much more harmful drug, but that isn't in the cards. Either way, with pot being legal in some form in the majority of states and the drug being reclassified to a lower schedule, it's clear that marijuana supporters have been extremely effective in getting their goals accomplished. 

Deal to end Iran war signed early in diplomatic breakthrough.

 

President Trump signs the deal as French President Emmanuel Macron watches. New York Post.

The deal to end the Iran War has been signed early in a diplomatic breakthrough. New York Post. President Trump signed the deal at the Palace of Versailles in France as he was dining with French President Emmanuel Macron. President Pezeshkian of Iran also signed the document today, bringing an official end to the war. It is unclear why the deal was signed early as there had been plans to sign the document on Friday. The document lifts sanctions against Iran and opens the strait in exchange for Iran giving up its nuclear weapons program and enriched Uranium. 

NBC News has more information on what the deal contains. Both sides have agreed to meet diplomatically over the next 60 days to hammer out the details and sign a 2nd, more detailed document. The Strait of Hormuz will open immediately (after mine clearing operations finish) and there will be no fees charged for the next 60 days. Iran will surrender their enriched uranium and allow inspectors but details still have to be worked out. A $300 billion investment fund has been authorized though the United States will not contribute to it and the fund would take the form of sanctions relief for development projects. The one sticking point remains Lebanon, given that Israel was not a party to the negotiations and may continue their attacks on the country. 

My Comment:

Everyone expected a deal to be signed but I don't think too many people were expecting the deal to be signed today instead of Friday. They had even scheduled a ceremony and everything. All of that is canceled now and folks are wondering why. 

Some of this is due to just wanting this thing done with. Opening the Strait of Hormuz will lower gas prices along with fertilizer. Doing it now instead of Friday makes it that much quicker to clear the mines and open the Strait for the roughly 2500 ships that are trapped trying to get in and out of the area. Getting commerce going to will help the world economy a great deal and should lower gas prices dramatically in the United States. 

I think it also had a little to do with where Trump was today. He was in France for the G7 meeting and doing it in front of French President Emmanuel Macron shows respect to our French allies and will likely have an effect on the G7 members getting on board with the peace deal. Plus, President Trump is known for his sense of pageantry and signing it at Versailles is absolutely that. 

But I think this was primarily about Israel. Israel was not a party to these talks and this is almost a separate peace. Indeed the Israelis are furious, mostly because Lebanon was included in the deal. They also wanted regime change, and didn't think that killing two sets of leaders of Iran really counts. Netanyahu almost derailed the whole thing before the first memo was signed and it was only President Trump yelling at Netanyahu that righted the ship. 

By signing the deal now Israel risks losing their last and best ally if they decide to continue to bomb Lebanon or Iran. There may have even been plans in place for strikes before Friday's signing and by signing it today, Trump may have prevented Israeli interference in the deal. Launching strikes now aren't entirely impossible for Israel, but doing so would have much more severe consequences now. 

As for the deal itself, it's fine. America got it's main war goal. Iran will give up their nuclear material and their program along with ensuring inspections so it won't come back. Iran is getting some stuff too, but the most criticized portion, the $300 billion development fund, is not being paid by the United States. Other local states are paying for it, and that will given them even more leverage over Iran to play ball. 

FBI disrupts terror plot targeting UFC event on White House lawn.

 

Two rifles found by the FBI. Fox News/DOJ.

The FBI has disrupted a major terror plot that was targeting the UFC event held at the White House over the weekend. Fox News. The plot was complex and had multiple participants. It would have involved drone attacks on the event and then rifle attacks on survivors. The suspects had gathered weapons but had not secured the drones or explosives. However, the plot fell apart after one of the suspects mothers became concerned about her 19 year old son's behavior. She contacted the FBI who arrested her son and four other conspirators for the plot. 

My Comment:

It's unclear how far along this plot was. I think the portion about the drone attack is oversold. From what I understand they were unable to get the explosives. However, five guys armed with rifles could have done a lot of damage, even given the extreme security. They would likely have been shot and killed by Secret Service snipers, or even Capital Police, but they could have killed and wounded some people. 

Though the plot wouldn't have been as bad as the attackers wanted, it was a hugely dangerous plot. Had Tycen Proper's mother not turned him in, there was a very good chance this plot would have gone forward in some fashion. It might not have targeted the UFC event, the plot seemed like it was rushed, but I am guessing there would have been bloodshed. 

Keep in mind that President Trump was in attendance of this event and it might have been yet another assassination attempt. It would not have succeeded without the drones, but it was a genuine threat. I've lost track of how many attacks Trump has faced now but this is yet another one. 

The politics of this situation doesn't really match up with the right wing or left wing. These folks were accelerationists. They want America to fall and for it to be replaced with something else. It's a naive and stupid worldview as it would involve a whole lot of deaths of innocent people. And there was no guarantee that whatever comes next would be any better than what we have now. 

It's also clear that they were pretty deep in the conspiracy theory weeds. They seemed to be motivated by whatever popular conspiracy theory of the day was, in this case, data centers, Jeffrey Epstein and Israel. None of those neatly map onto the right or left, so this seems like something different.

It's not the first accelerationist attack either. There's a disturbing number of people that think we can't really vote our way out of our problems anymore. I'd even say they have a point if they are talking about Europe, but in the United States it's fairly baffling. In my view, things are absolutely changing for the better, not only by my standards, but by the standards of the accelerationists as well. It's an ideology that doesn't make much in the way of sense. 

President Trump announces a deal to end the Iran War.

 

President Donald Trump. New York Post/AP.

President Trump has announced a deal to end the Iran War. New York Post. Iran has confirmed the deal. Both sides are planning on signing a deal on Friday in Switzerland. The breakthrough was brokered by Pakistan. Though details are scarce, Iran has agreed to get rid of their enriched Uranium in exchange for opening the Strait of Hormuz, which has been blockaded by both sides of the conflict. The deal was briefly put into jeopardy after Israel bombed targets in Lebanon, but Trump was able to keep the peace process going in spite of the attack. Trump was reportedly furious with Israel for the attack. 

My Comment:

How optimistic should we be that this deal will actually end the war? The ceasefire already fell apart once so it's very possible that it could happen again. However, this is as close as we have gotten and there is a lot of reason for optimism too. 

The biggest problem is Israel. They weren't really consulted on this and the whole thing is dependent on them not attacking Lebanon. The bombing before this deal was made almost derailed the whole thing and I would not be surprised if it wasn't deliberate to derail things. 

Israel has different interests in Iran than the United States. The US wants to end the nuclear threat but Israel wants to go beyond that and go full regime change. That's despite the fact that Iran kind had a regime change. Certainly much of their leadership died in the initial strikes and even more died in the 2nd round last week. But I am not sure that Israel will accept the terms of this deal if it leaves Iran's Islamic government in power. 

The other factor that could derail it is Iran's IRCG. They have derailed it in the past and it's clear that the secular Iranian government does not have full control of their IRCG counterparts. The government is trying to frame this as a victory for them, so the IRCG might accept the deal. But if it does fall apart, they are the most likely reason why. 

However, things might actually work out. The war has to end at some point and it's clear that Iran's probably not going to get a better deal than they are getting now. This deal isn't one sided, they get an end to the war and some financial assistance as well.    

And it has to be noted that Iran's military has largely been destroyed. Iran's Navy is nothing but a bad memory and all they really have left for a surface fleet is a bunch of powerboats. The rest of their military is in somewhat better shape but they have lost most of their offensive and defense capabilities. They could continue the conflict, in theory, but they would not last long before a collapse. 

It really was one of the most one-sided military conflicts in American history. Iran was mostly unable to do much to the United States. We only took light casualties, and though we lost some equipment, it was nowhere near what the Iranians lost. 

So do I think this deal will work out? I think it's about a 75% chance of doing so. I think there is about a 15% chance of Israel screwing everything up for us and a 5% chance of the IRGC doing so as well, along with a 5% of chance of something else happening. Fingers crossed that it works out. 

UK Defense Secretary resigns due to lack of funding for the military

 

UK Defense Secretary John Healey. NBC News/Getty.

The Secretary of Defense of the United Kingdom, John Healy, has resigned, citing a lack of funding for the military. NBC News. Healey was followed by Al Carns, another senior figure in the Defense Department. Both men complained that Keir Starmer's plan to fund the military fell well short of what the United Kingdom needs, citing international threats. Starmer had said he would increase funding to 2.5% of GDP by next year and 3% by 2035. Healey was considered a strong and competent minster and his resignation is a serious blow to Kier Starmer's leadership. 

My Comment:

The resignation of Healey, and to a lesser extent, Carns and other figures in the Starmer government is a very bad sign for Keir Starmer. Starmer was already in trouble for many other reasons, but having to deal with his defense minster essentially calling his plans unworkable is a very bad sign for him. 

Indeed, it's like the rats are fleeing a sinking ship. Starmer has been in trouble for awhile now, especially after last months local elections ended with Labor taking massive damage. He is one of the least popular world leaders in Europe and that's really saying something. 

Even Labor says that it's very likely that Starmer's government will face a vote of no confidence fairly soon, in a few months at most. There's a very good chance that Starmer will be unable to right the ship and I would be very surprised if he was still in power by the end of the year, perhaps even the end of Summer. 

As for Healey's complaints, they are correct. The UK's military is a joke. Their Navy was unable to send their carrier to the Strait of Hormuz because they simply didn't have any escorts. They still have the carriers and a nuclear submarine fleet, but the rest of their surface fleet is a joke. And it damaged their relationship with the United States, I don't think President Trump forgave them for not helping in Iran. 

But it's not just the Royal Navy that has problem, the Army isn't much better. They only have 75,000 regular troops, which is basically nothing, and around 150 tanks. In a hypothetical war with Russia, for example, that would be a drop in the bucket compared to Russia's military, or even Ukraine's for that matter. It's a far cry from what they had during World War II, and even the ad-hoc fleet that won the Falklands Islands war would be more formidable than what they have now. 

All of this is in the context of yesterday's post where Northern Ireland is burning because the immigration problem. I don't think Healey resigned because of the unrest, but it shows another reason why funding for the military is so important. Indeed, if a new round of The Troubles happens again, this time focused on immigration, the UK is entirely unprepared for it. 

Chaos in Belfast after the attempted decapitation of a deaf special needs man.

 

A burnt out car in Belfast. Fox News/Getty.

Chaos has erupted in Belfast Northern Ireland after the attempted decapitation of a deaf special needs man by a Sudanese immigrant. Fox News. The attacker, Hadi Alodid, attacked the victim, a 40 year old man, with a knife. Shocking video showed the man repeatedly stabbing his victim, who lost at least one eye in the attack. The video went viral and spread outrage and two nights of protests, arson and chaos have resulted from the attack. The suspect crossed the border with Ireland and was granted a five year asylum. Attackers burned homes that they believed were occupied by immigrants and clashed with cops. The incident comes on the heels of another major immigration related outrage in the UK, where an immigrant falsely claimed that his murder victim was a racist and the police believed it. 

My Comment:

Some context is probably necessary. This attack occurred in one of the roughest areas in Northern Belfast in the Catholic New Lodge neighborhood and the Protestant Tiger's Bay neighborhood. During The Troubles it was one of the areas with the heaviest casualties. Though the conflict is over, the neighborhoods are still divided and there are a lot of young men on both sides in paramilitary organizations. It's a major reason why this blew up so badly. 

These areas have been hit hard by immigration. Like I said, it was a rough neighborhood to begin with and that means that it was cheap to live there so a lot of immigrants did. They brought crime, higher prices and competition for jobs that hurt a neighborhood that was already in trouble. There was widespread, and justified, anger over immigration even before this attack. 

But the brutal and senseless nature of this attack was a major factor as well. The victim in this case was a 40 year old man who was already either deaf or mostly deaf and he had some other issues as well. He was described as special needs, a nice man that had some problems and had even tried to help Alodid when he moved in. 

Alodid returned his kindness with one of the more brutal attacks caught on video. I won't post it here but he is shown stabbing his victim in the neck, face and eyes and showing no remorse of it. If it wasn't for the heroic actions of bystanders, his victim would be dead. But even now, his quality of life won't be much, he lost at least one eye and it's still an open question if he will ever see again with his 2nd eye. Unless he recovers his sight, what kind of life can he even lead after this as a deaf and blind man? Attacking him and leaving him in this state was an act of unimaginable cruelty.  

As for the riots and attacks, it seems like they are very targeted. This isn't the chaos we saw in 2020's George Floyd riots, which targeted basically everyone. These attacks are specifically targeting the folks they are angry at, the immigrants and the police, rather than the general public. 

There is also quite a bit of support for the actions of the rioters. The usual voices are obviously condemning it, but a lot of folks are to the point where they think the UK can't fix things through voting anymore. More folks don't support the arson and violence, but are sympathetic to the cause and angry about immigration. 

My guess is that this will fizzle out, probably in a couple of days. I could see it lasting through the weekend though. But will the anger last longer than that? I am not sure. 

What I am sure is that the UK is heading to a very dark place. Voters no longer feel they can get what they want, less immigration, through voting. There has been some change, the rate of immigration is slowing down under labor, but it doesn't help with the millions of immigrants already there. Immigration has slowed, not stopped and the people in the UK aren't getting what they really want, deportation and remigration. 

Could we see some kind of civil conflict? It's certainly possible in Northern Ireland. The Loyalists and Nationalists still have some organizations, though finding weapons would be difficult. We could certainly see some kind of 2nd troubles, though this time with both sides now allied against the migrants and the government. 

But things could conceivably get even worse. Conflict outside of Northern Ireland is possible as well. Folks are absolutely tired of these kinds of murders, the grooming gangs and the endless stream of migrants, legal and otherwise. And there is even a small chance of an actual civil war. The next elections will be critical, hopefully Nigel Farage and his Reform Party will sweep and they will bring real change...  

Karmelo Anthony convicted of murder and sentenced to 35 years for the killing of Austin Metcalf

 

Karmelo Anthony. ABC News/Frisco PD.

Karmelo Anthony has been convicted of murder and sentenced to 35 years in prison for the killing of Austin Metcalf. ABC News. Anthony stabbed Metcalf after being confronted for trespassing in a tent at a track meet. Anthony argued that the stabbing was justified self defense as Metcalf had shoved Anthony, but they jury did not agree. The trial did not go well for the defense with many students testifying that Anthony had been asked to leave and that he had threatened Metcalf before the murder. Another witness said that Metcalf had specifically told Anthony that he didn't want to fight him. The jury found Anthony guilty in just three hours and were able to sentence him the same day. 

My Comment:

The jury reached the right verdict as the evidence against Karmelo Anthony was extreme and incontrovertible. He entered a tent he had no right to be in and he refused to leave when asked. He made a threat against Metcalf for no reason and escalated the situation to the point where Metcalf shoved him. Instead of shoving him back or walking away, Anthony stabbed Metcalf and killed him in cold blood. 

Self defense didn't apply in this case. Not only was Anthony the aggressor, he had no valid reason to fear for his life. Metcalf even said that he didn't want to fight! And when Metcalf did shove him, Anthony responded with a massive overreaction in force. Stand your ground didn't apply and even by the rules of regular self defense, you can't stab someone who shoves you when you are in a place that forbids weapons and that you have no right to be in in the first place. 

Despite these being the facts of the case, Anthony somehow has supporters. If you are charitable you could say that they somehow believed that he wasn't the aggressor here, or they simply don't seem to understand the laws of self defense. To be fair, most people don't understand that, how else could people think that Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't justified after being chased, assaulted and having a gun pulled on him? 

But it's pretty obvious that this case was just about racism. Anthony wasn't the victim of racism, I doubt Metcalf would have acted any different if Anthony was White or any other race. But I am guessing most of Anthony's supporters just hate White people and think he should get off because he killed one. 

Indeed, they are complaining about an jury with no Black people on it, but they forget to point out that some of the Black jurors disqualified themselves by saying they wouldn't convict Anthony no matter what the facts of the case were. The three that passed that bar were rejected because they were all educators and the prosecution correctly argued that they couldn't be trusted to be impartial in a case that happened at a high school. 

Regardless, I am happy that justice was served in this case. I do think the sentence was fairly lite given that he killed someone, but it's fair under the laws of Texas. At the very least, he won't be getting out anytime soon. Supposedly, if he behaves, he could be out halfway through his sentence, but I really don't see that happening with the facts of this case.