President Trump risks alienating young people over comments about keeping housing prices high.

 

President Trump. USA Today/Reuters.

President Trump said that he wants to keep house prices high in remarks today. USA Today. Trump said he wanted to make it easier to buy a home by lowering interest rates, but did not want to lower prices as it would affect current homeowners. Trump has made some efforts to make housing more affordable, such as banning investors from buying family homes and purchasing mortgage backed securities to lower home loan rates. But prices remain high and the median age of a new home owner is now 40. 

My Comment:

I am mostly happy with President Trump. He's done a lot of things I like in foreign policy, immigration and social policy. But every once in awhile he says something ridiculous and this is one of those times. Nobody that doesn't currently own a home wants to hear the words "higher prices" unless it's is followed by "won't be a thing anymore". 

I think it is an example of how Trump's age is a liability to him. He's a member of the Silent Generation, a generation that came up with low housing prices. I am not sure Trump realizes just how desperate it is for people in the Millennial and Zoomer generations. I know as an older millennial myself that still rents, the last thing I ever want to hear is that prices are going to not only remain high, but go up. I saw this headline and rolled my eyes and swore out loud. For me, it really seems like there was a window for me to buy a house and I may have missed it. For the Zoomers, they realize that they are never going to be able to buy one as the window closed years ago for them. 

I do understand that any policy to lower home prices is also a liability for the Republicans and Trump. The Boomers, the remaining Silents and the Gen X and older millennials that got out on the last chopper from Saigon (or Kabul) want these prices to be high. Should prices drop to affordable, many of those people would lose their shirt. 

That's little comfort for people like me though. As someone who has been financially responsible and worked very hard to get a large down payment for a house, it does feel like a slap in the face to say that prices should stay high. I don't really care if the boomers lose their shirt, it's well past time I get some of the prosperity and luxury they took for granted for decades. 

Some of this is just optics though. Folks would absolutely be helped by lower interest rates. Indeed, that's my problem. I have a rather huge down payment secured but with the interest rates the monthly payments (along with insurance, utilities and things like association fees) are well above the amount I am currently paying for rent. Lowering the rates would bring the loan cost down and it would help me afford a home, even in a hot real estate market where prices are likely to increase no matter what Trump does. 

Had Trump waited to mention this after interest rates had been reduced it might not have been so poorly received. But his timing couldn't be worse. Though rates have decreased slightly since their high, he made the announcement right after the Fed said they wouldn't reduce the rates for awhile. Trump's other actions might help but the timing could not have been worse. 

And I do think that both Trump and the Republicans underestimate the anger over this issue. It's one of those things where people might be willing to compromise on what they are willing to tolerate from the Democrats if they just vow to lower home prices. The Democrats are just as out of touch on this issue as Republicans so I don't expect them to pounce, but there is a potential for defection here. If the Democrats would ever get smart and drop their insane opposition to popular things like deportation and social issues like transgenderism, they could actually make gains because of gaffes like this. 

FBI had raided Georgia election office searching for evidence of 2020 vote fraud.

 

FBI agents raid the Fulton Country election office. New York Post/AP.

The FBI has raided the Fulton County election office searching for evidence of 2020 voter fraud. New York Post. The agents were acting on a search warrant but very little else is known about their objectives and discoveries. Fulton County was a firestorm of fraud accusations in 2020 after election monitors were kicked out over a burst pipe claim. Trump lost Georgia by 12,000 votes and Trump has claimed that the irregularities in the country, which covers most of Atlanta, were large enough to change the results of the election. Georgia and national news media have denied that any fraud happened in Atlanta. 

My Comment:

Very interesting. I have always maintained that the powers that be never even attempted to prove that the 2020 election was legitimate because they didn't do things like this. In a sane world, accusations of voter fraud would be taken serious as not doing so will damage the legitimacy of elections. 

Does that mean that fraud is going to be found here? I have no idea. Georgia was an absolute mess in 2020 but that could have been due to incompetence, not malfeasance. The Coronavirus Pandemic screwed everything up and it allowed people to vote in ways they weren't able to before and haven't been able to do since. 

Given the large number of mail in ballots and votes coming in after the election was over, it's very possible that there was fraud in the state. Indeed, fraud happens in every single election. Husbands and wives fill out forms for their spouses, family members fill out ballots for their senile relations and people double register, voting in two states in the same election. All of these things happen fairly frequently, but aren't usually cared about because it's not enough to change the results of an election.

But given the circumstances in 2020 where election laws were changed on the fly and thousands of voter registration forms and ballots were sent out, it is certainly possible that there was more fraud than usual. It is certainly plausible that there were more than 12,000 false votes, but without actually looking at the ballots, it was impossible to prove. By looking at these ballots that should no longer be a problem. 

I don't think the Trump administration has anything to lose by looking into 2020 voter fraud. The worst case scenario is that no fraud is found. That's status quo ante right now and all it wouldn't change much. The powers that be already say that the 2020 election was secure so the only effect would be people trusting elections a little more, an outcome the powers that be should like. 

But if voter fraud is found? It will be an earthshaking revelation that could change how elections are run in the United States. Reform would have to be put into place and things like the SAVE act, that requires voter ID/proof of citizenship in order to vote. Current law has the only requirement for citizenship in most states being a checkbox that can easily be checked fraudulently. 

It would also totally change the context of Trump's four years in the wilderness and the context of the January 6th protest. If it turns out that there was indeed voter fraud in Georgia, even if it wouldn't have been enough to get Trump into office, it would mean that Trump's complaints were indeed valid and that the Biden led government's attempts to imprison him were part of a coverup. 

Of course even if rock solid evidence of voter fraud is found and it is enough to show that Georgia went to Trump in 2020, I think a large portion of the left would reject it out of hand. To them, voter fraud doesn't exist. This isn't just a belief, it's almost a religious belief, and questioning it would bring their whole narrative crashing down... 

Regardless, I don't expect any revelations from this for a long time. Criminal investigations take time and I doubt that Trump and his administration would want to go off half-cocked on a story of this importance. Either we will hear more about this case in a few months or it will quietly be announced that nothing was found. Time will tell. 

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar attacked at a town hall...

 

Bystanders restraining the suspect. AP. 

A man was arrested after spraying Congresswoman Ilhan Omar with an unknown substance at a Minneapolis town hall. AP. The man was tackled by members of the crowd who were watching Omar talk about ICE. The man sprayed something onto her with a syringe. Omar was not injured in the attack and continued her speech. The man was charged with 3rd degree assault. The incident was condemned by politicians of both parties. 

NEW ANGLE: A man sitting in the front row of Rep. Ilhan Omar's town hall was tackled after he appeared to spray her with an unknown substance. pic.twitter.com/rqKbOUp1Do

— Fox News (@FoxNews) January 28, 2026

My Comment:

I obviously condemn this attack. I generally think that Ilhan Omar is the worst member of congress, she's likely corrupt and she has no business being in this country. In a sane world she wouldn't have ever been allowed to visit the country, let alone become a congresswoman. 

Of course that doesn't mean that this should have happened. I don't support violence against elected officials and even though I despise Omar, I do not wish to have any harm to come to her. Attacking anyone for using speech, even if it's speech I find totally reprehensible, is beyond the pale. It was true for Charlie Kirk and it's true for Ilhan Omar. 

I also think that it's going to give Omar some sympathy that she would otherwise not deserve. It's going to be harder to criticize her now because some moron decided to attack her. And it doesn't even matter why she was attacked, people will blame Republicans for it regardless. Not that you are going to find any real Republicans that would support attacking a member of congress, but it won't matter regardless. Even the AP article was attempting to blame Donald Trump for the attack. 

I was also kind of impressed with Omar. She didn't seem afraid of the attack and even walked forward as he was getting tackled. Though I dislike Omar, I can admit that I do think it was admirable that she did not show any fear and that she continued her event. I said when Trump got shot he got up and said "fight" that he showed actual courage and though the situation here is different, I do have to give Omar credit for showing the same virtue. She absolutely should be credited for not backing down during this attack. 

How serious was this incident? I am not sure. We don't know what kind of fluid was actually used by the attacker. She wasn't harmed, just sprayed with a foul-smelling liquid. That does count as assault, but I do wonder if his original plan wasn't to inject her with something. Given the video though, it seems unlikely. Regardless of his intent, this attack is not something to laugh off in any case, even if there was no real threat of harm, it was still assault on a member of congress. 

As for the suspect, reports have him as a local anti-Omar crank. Every political group has it's crazies and this one does seem like he was on the right, ostensibly. Nobody on the right is really going to support this, but you can't control the actions of every crazy out there. I have zero sympathy for this guy and I would not have been upset at all if Omar's team or the police had used lethal force on him. As it stands now, I hope the book is thrown at him and he faces as many charges as possible. Indeed, he seems to have been overcharged as well, this doesn't meet the legal definition of 3rd degree assault, but he got charged with it regardless. 

SIG Sauer faces huge controversy after the Minnesota CPB shooting may have been due to an accidental discharge of Alex Pretti's SIG P320.

 

Alex Pretti's SIG P320. New York Post/Police handout. 

SIG Sauer faces a major controversy after the Minnesota CPB shooting may have been due to an accidental discharge of Alex Pretti's SIG P320. New York Post. Pretti was engaged with a fight with ICE and was shot while being detained, raising questions on why it happened after he was disarmed. However, the weapon he was carrying, the SIG P320 has a long history of accidental discharges (AD), when a gun fires with no input from a human. Frame by frame analysis of videos of the shooting suggest that the P320 was the first shot fired, which lead to the other officers opening fire on Pretti. SIG Sauer has defended the P320 despite losing several lawsuits for AD's, which have let people injured or even killed. Many law enforcement agencies have dropped or moved away from the SIG P320, including ICE. 

My Comment:

I'm not going to post the videos of the Alex Pretti shooting but I have seen them enough times to give a good summary. Pretti and a woman were attempting to block traffic (a violation of 18 USC 111). The officers pushed her away and the woman started fighting with the police, drawing Pretti into the fight. Pretti gets maced and inexplicably starts beating on the woman. Police take him down and a CPB officer disarms him. As he is walking away he says "Gun!" and shortly after that it appears that the gun goes off. It did not look like the officer's finger was on the trigger, but there is a puff of smoke and the slide is racked back as if it was just shot and wasn't able to cycle properly. The other offices then shot Pretti and he dies. 

A lot of nonsense has been said about this case, but that scenario appears to be the fact of this case. It is still possible that this was a negligent discharge, a ND, but it does not look like the officer had his hand on the trigger of the gun. Either way, for the police, they had a guy that was fighting them who was armed, a fellow officer yelling "GUN!" and then a shot rings out. They assumed that the shot had come from Pretti, and they were kind of right, it was his gun that went off. 

Though charges were never likely in this case, they are pretty much impossible now unless some new kind of evidence comes out, like an officer confession or something similarly improbable. Given the scenario as it appears, even if the first shot was a ND, a reasonable officer would assume they were under attack from Pretti and would act to end the threat. Indeed, under this scenario, it's a textbook case of self defense. And the officer that disarmed Pretti? How are you going to prove if this is a ND or AD? With SIG Sauer's pistol having a history of just going off, no prosecutor would place charges given how the officer has a built in defense. 

I have very little sympathy for Pretti, he was a domestic terrorist interfering with a police officer and the fact that he started beating up a woman who was on his own side, even despite any confusion he had after being maced, sapped any sympathy I had for him. But his death was an unfortunate one, not so much because he died, but because he's being painted as a martyr when what really happened was just incredibly bad luck. 

What I do support is if his family were to sue SIG Sauer. This is something that the left and right will probably agree on. If it turns out that there is strong evidence that this was an AD, then not only is Pretti's blood on their hands, anything that happens in Minneapolis in response to his death is on them too. Anti-gun people will be happy to hurt a gun company and pro-gun people will be happy that they don't have to worry about getting AD'd to death by someone who hasn't read up on how bad the P320 is. 

I also have little doubt that the problems with the SIG P320 are real. I know some of the cases that were filed against them were indeed actually ND's, but I think there is enough of a pattern that there is something going on. At this point they need to recall the gun and give people their money back. The P320 is unsafe and more people could get hurt and killed if that doesn't happen. 

As for the greater politics of this incident, I have to say that I am sick to death of them. The facts of this case won't matter and neither will the laws concerning interfering with federal police or self defense/use of force laws. The left just wants chaos because they know the feds sniffing around Minnesota will further expose their immigration/fraud/election manipulation pipeline. They have whipped their base up with lies about ICE being Nazis and have activated their antifa cells to cause chaos. The facts of this case won't matter to them at all as the facts aren't their goal. 

As for SIG Sauer, this is a huge disaster for them. This is hugely bad press for them and the company might not survive it. The company already has a very bad press due to the P320 AD problem and it wouldn't be the first time an arms company was destroyed by a similar defective problem. Just ask Remington what happened with the R-700... 

Ringleaders of anti-ICE attack on church arrested.

 

Nekima Levy Armstrong, the alleged ringleader. New York Post. 

The ringleaders of an anti-ICE attack on a church in Minnesota have been arrested. New York Post. Nekima Levy Armstrong, Chauntyll Louisa Allen, and Willem Kelly were arrested for their role in the incident, which went viral. Don Lemon, who claimed to be covering the incident but appeared to be involved, was not charged. Armstrong and Allen are considered to be the ringleaders of the mob that disrupted a church service. Kelly was a particularly abrasive and aggressive rioter and dared the government to arrest him. All three people have been charged for conspiracy against rights, part of the Klu Klux Klan act. 

My Comment:

The perceived lack of action when it comes to arrests has been a major criticism of the Trump administration's 2nd term. There have been many cases like this where people were acting horribly but never faced any charges. These three arrests will go a ways to quiet some of those voices and nobody on the right is going to be upset that these three people are being charged. 

There is anger that a magistrate would not sign off on charging Don Lemon. Lemon, a former CNN reporter, was deeply involved in this case and is using the 1st amendment as a defense saying he was simply reporting the incident, not participating in it. How true that is would be something for a jury to decide, he was with these protesters as they were planning the incident.

I am conflicted myself. I don't buy Lemon's argument that he was just reporting the news. It seems likely he went beyond that and in a perfect world he would face charges and would go to prison. But I also don't know if charging him is the smart thing to do. A conviction is pretty unlikely, even if they somehow find a favorable jury. And the media will go absolutely nuts trying to defend one of their own. I'd love to see Lemon in prison for this, but I just don't see it happening. 

The other three? They should be convicted easily. They don't really have a defense under the law as it is written. Both the FACE act and the KKK act prevent this kind of behavior. And they all made some pretty damning statements on social media that really void any defenses they might have. Armstrong and Allen freely admitted to planning this while Kelly not only recorded himself harassing people, he then dared the government to arrest or kill him. 

These are really open and shut cases and the only way they don't get convicted is if an activist or a group of activists get on the jury. This is a real concern and I fear that jury nullification in cases like this, where the evidence is rock solid, could happen because people just hate Donald Trump that much. That's assuming it ever goes to trial, a plea deal is possible of course, but the chance of nullification in these cases would be unacceptably high. 

Regardless, I am happy that these people are being charged. Disrupting church services is not something I would ever support, and I would say that even if it was a right wing protester at a Mosque. You can protest whatever you want but by disrupting church while people are worshiping is a crime and is not acceptable, no matter the cause or the religion. 

As for the anti-ICE protesters, it does seem to be sputtering out a bit. The weather absolutely has a major role in this, Minnesota is supposed to be in a deep freeze this weekend. I don't care how angry you are, it is zero fun to be outside when the temperature doesn't even rise above -10 degrees, not even accounting for wind chill. The weather, along with these arrests, will have a literally chilling effect on these protests and people might finally move on to other things. 

President Trump announced a deal has been made over Greenland.

 

President Trump at Davos. Fox News/AP.

President Donald Trump has announced a preliminary deal with NATO and Denmark over Greenland. Fox News. Trump canceled a larger number of tariffs he was going to impose on Europe and said that the deal would respect Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland. He said that the deal accomplished everything the United States wanted, but details still had to be worked out by his foreign policy team, including Marco Rubio. Trump had been threatening to take over Greenland, leading to consternation from Europe, and even minor military deployments, but in the end a deal was made. 

My Comment:

It's amazing, after a decade in politics and almost 40 years after Donald Trump released Art of the Deal, people still don't understand what Donald Trump is about. It was clear that the threats he was issuing to Denmark, NATO and Greenland were a negotiating tactic, one he outlines in his book. Trump even said in the book what you should do is make extreme demands so that when you grant concessions it seems like a win. 

Indeed, the hand wringing and whining about Trump wanting Greenland was always kind of silly. The people that demonize Trump used it to paint him as a madman, which was actually playing right into his hands. What really gets me is that Europe didn't seem to understand it either. There is this idea that Donald Trump isn't predictable, but given how this exact scenario has played out half a dozen times since he started his 2nd term, let alone his 1st term, it's baffling that even governments seem to not understand this is how he works. 

Most news sources have been extremely scant on the details including the Fox News report. From what I understand though, the United States will be granted sovereignty over some territory in order to build military bases. This would be similar to UK's military sovereign territory in Cyprus. Greenland will also be integrated into the "Golden Dome" missile defense system, which is a major reason we wanted the territory in the first place. 

There is also the formalization of previous treaties with Denmark in regards to defense and an agreement over Greenland's vast mineral and oil resources. These resources will likely be critical, if extremely hard to develop. What the agreement would accomplish is making sure that if these resources are extracted, they will go to the United States, not Russia or China. 

There are going to be more than a few people that will whine about this and will be mad about the drama. Those folks are wrong, Greenland was a major issue for the United States and given the current weakness of Europe and the general uselessness of NATO, it was time to excerpt our power to get the Island defended. Now, even if Denmark collapses into economic or social chaos, which is a likely outcome for most of Europe, we will be able to defend Greenland from any threats from China or Russia. 

Gun control lawyers cite racist Black Codes to support gun control argument in Supreme Court case.

 

File photo of a Hawaii gun club. New York Post/AP.

Gun control lawyers cited racist Black Codes to support arguments in arguments before the Supreme Court. New York Post. The Black Codes were a serious of segregationist laws that were designed to relegate African Americans as 2nd class citizens and severely restrict their rights, including the right to bear arms. The Court was reportedly stunned that the lawyers made the argument. The laws were overturned for being unconstitutional. The case is in regards to Hawaii's "vampire rule", which requires people carrying guns to announce themselves and ask for permission before entering a business. The law is a de facto ban on carrying weapons in public places. The 9th Circuit Court affirmed the law but it seems likely it will be overturned by the Supreme Court given the case will likely fail the standard set up in NYSRPA v Bruen, which requires historical precedence for gun laws. 

The name of the case is Wolfrod v Lopez. 

My Comment:

It is crazy to me that Hawaii went through all this just to ban people from carrying weapons in businesses. Because this law does exactly that. The entire point of carrying a weapon concealed is the fact that people don't know you have it. If you have to loudly announce to someone that you have a firearm, then everyone else will know it as well, and if trouble does happen, you will be a target. It wasn't a de jure ban from carrying a firearm, but it was a de jure one and it's clearly unconstitutional. 

Indeed, it's so clearly unconstitutional that making the law seems like a total waste of time. But Hawaii did, largely because they are a one party state that is incredibly hostile to gun rights. Other anti-gun states, like California and New Jersey, have also adapted versions of this law. This is despite the fact that anyone with knowledge of the Supreme Court know that the law does not stand on the standard set in NYSRPA v Bruen. 

And it's just dumb as well. All they had to do is go to the normal standard is that if people want to bar people from carrying on their property they can just put up a sign. I have seen these signs before in my state and I usually take it as a sign to shop somewhere else. It's there right to do so, but the burden is on them to put a sign up, it's not the job of a person carrying a weapon to do so. 

The argument that the Black Codes should be used to support gun control is absolutely absurd. It's the kind of argument that only someone that just hates the right to bear arms would make. The idea that the court should use these laws to satisfy the idea that there is historical precedence for this kind of gun law is disgusting. 

And, given that those laws were blatantly unconstitutional, and racist to boot, they really should not count as an argument in favor of historical precedence. You wouldn't see this kind of argument to restrict free speech rights, but once it's the 2nd amendment, nothing is off the table for the gun control advocates. 

The good news is that the Supreme Court is likely to rule against this law. Indeed, making the argument based on the Black Codes, if anything, makes that outcome a lot more likely. Clarence Thomas is not going to be impressed by the idea that laws that would have discriminated against him because of nothing more than the color of his skin, should be used to violate gun rights. And I am guessing the rest of the conservative justices will vote the same way. 

ISIS fighters escape from Syrian prison due to fighting between the Syrian government and the Kurdish SDF.

 

A Syrian government soldier stands outside the prison. Al Jazeera/AFP.

ISIS fighters escaped from a Syrian prison due to fighting between the Syrian government and the Kurdish Syria Defense Force (SDF). Al Jazeera. An unknown number of fighters escaped the prison and both sides are blaming the other for the release. The Syrian regime says that the prisoners were released on purpose by the Kurds while the Kurds say that the prisoners escaped during fighting. The fighting stopped after a ceasefire deal was reached between the Syrian Government and the SDF, which would require the SDF to pull out from Arab dominated areas, including Raqqa and Dier ez Zor and would integrate their forces into the Syrian military. Thousands of ISIS fighters are still held by the Kurds after the defeat of the terror group in Syria in 2019. 

My Comment:

This is a very concerning situation. These are hardened ISIS fighters and as many as 1500 of them may have escaped. How many of them is unclear at this point, 1500 is the upper limit but the Syrian government says it's fewer than that. Either way, any of these fighters escaping is not a good thing, let alone 1500 of them. 

Given the numbers of terrorists that got out and the fact that other prisons could fall as well, there is a chance that ISIS could have a comeback due to this escape. ISIS fighters have taken advantage of local chaos before and they could do so again. 

My real fear though is that these ISIS fighters could make their way to Europe. ISIS has, of course, used Europe's weak borders as a way to get terrorists into the region and has resulted in several major attacks, most notably the 2015 Paris attacks and the 2016 Brussels bombing. There is a chance, albeit a small one, that this could happen again. 

However, there are some things that make it unlikely. The most obvious is that ISIS is largely a spent force, they control no territory in Syria and have no tax base to fund attacks. That could change if these ISIS fighters were to take some territory, exploiting the instability between the SDF and the government, but right now it's not the case. And Europe has tightened up their border controls a bit so it would be more difficult to infiltrate than it once was. 

The good news is that the fighting in Syria might be dying down. The whole conflict is between the SDF and the Syrian regime and they just announced a fragile cease fire and a plan to integrate the Kurds into the Syrian government. It's unclear if it will hold, the SDF has a lot of PKK communists that don't want peace with the Syrian regime. I would hope that even they would understand that fighting that ends up with released ISIS fighters is a bad thing. 

Anti-ICE rioters storm a church in St. Paul Minnesota...

 

Cities Church in St. Paul Minnesota. Fox News.

Anti-Ice rioters have stormed a church in St. Paul Minnesota. Fox News. The protesters said that a Pastor at the church was actually an acting director of the St. Paul ICE office. However, it is unclear if the David Easterwood of ICE is the same person as the man listed as the Pastor at Cities Church. Regardless, the protesters disrupted the service under the assumption it was the same person. The action appears to be a violation of the FACE Act, which prevents disruption of worship services by protesters and is being investigated as a civil rights crime by the Department of Justice. 

NOW :: ICE protesters storm church service in Minneapolis pic.twitter.com/qC2Eelw50g

— Culture War Report (@CultureWar2020) January 18, 2026

My Comment:

A good way to see if you are in a progressive bubble or not is to see if you are outraged by this case or not. If you aren't, you should wake up because the reaction to this outside of progressive bubbles is universally negative. People may or may not support protests but they aren't going to stand for Church services being disrupted. 

There's a chance that this wasn't even the right place. Nobody seems to know if the ICE David Easterwood is the same person as Pastor David Easterwood. It's pretty likely they are the same person, given that Easterwood isn't that common of a name, but it's very possible that these protesters were going up against someone that had nothing to do with ICE. And even if he is a pastor there, supposedly he wasn't even there. 

Of course, even if it is the same person, there is zero justification for this. You don't harass an ICE officer while he is just living his life. There is also zero reason for a Church to fire a pastor just because some activists, most of which probably aren't even religious, because they disapprove of his day job. Indeed, you would think they would want him to go to Church if they thought he was doing something immoral. Not that the far left's morals match up with anyone else's, but still.  

These protesters should be in some legal trouble. They could absolutely face federal charges but they might be limited to misdemeanors. Violating the FACE act can be a felony, but you usually have to issue threats or conduct violence and I didn't see that. Though they could be charged with depriving rights and that might be what the DOJ wants to do given how dimly the US government takes disrupting church services. 

I would also say that if these kinds of actions continue, people are going to get extremely tired of these activists. This wasn't the only incident of the protesters harassing totally innocent and uninvolved people. There was an incident at a restaurant where a group of engineers were falsely claimed to be ICE agents and were harassed. And I have seen more than a few videos of unhinged protesters harassing people either for wearing "patriotic" clothing or because they had delusional ideas that they were undercover ICE agents. At some point, if you are making life miserable for everyone, then everyone is going to get sick of you. 

What is so frustrating to me is that these people have no real reason to protest. Nobody should care if a bunch of illegal aliens are getting deported, that's a solution, not a problem. And it comes after one of the biggest fraud scams in American history was exposed coming from the community that is being targeted for deportation. How could anyone ever have a problem with that?  

ICE agent suffered internal bleeding after being struck by Renee Good.

 

Renee Good's Honda. Fox News/Getty.

The ICE agent hit by Renee Good with her SUV suffered internal bleeding as a result of the attack. Fox News. The extent of the officers injuries had not been revealed until now, but the injuries were confirmed by multiple sources. The officer was treated in the hospital and may still be recovering from the injury sustained in the incident. Democrats, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, have downplayed the officers injuries with some saying he wasn't injured at all. The injuries support the argument that the officer was acting in self defense when he shot and killed Renee Good. Good had attempted to block ICE operations in Minneapolis and accelerated into the agent with her vehicle. 

My Comment:

In a sane world this would be the end of this story. Internal bleeding is no joke, it's fairly easy to die from and it's a sign that someone has been seriously injured. It's also not something you get if you were grazed or clipped by a car, it means you were absolutely hit on it full on. It makes the case for self defense to the point that any jury would acquit unless there was some kind of reverse jury nullification situation where they refuse to follow the law. 

This hasn't mattered for the Democrats though. They are making all kinds of claims, and it's hard to even know if they are serious. I saw one tweet from one of the Krasserstien brothers (well known trolls on X) which claimed that the officer had hemorrhoids or was injured by the recoil of his gun. 

That's the quality of arguments against this case being self defense. Under federal use of force laws, it was always clear that this was a good shooting, and that would have been true even if Good hadn't hit the agent. She was driving a Honda Pilot, a large three row SUV and had she hit the officer square, he almost certainly would have either been crippled or died. It wouldn't have mattered if she was driving a Nissan Versa or other subcompact car, getting hit by a vehicle is extremely dangerous.

May of the other rumors going around about this case are just false as well. ICE is a federal law enforcement agency and has arrest powers over US civilians if they commit crimes in their view. ICE agents don't need a warrant if you are doing things like blocking traffic. And it's actually a federal felony to use force, like ramming someone with a car, to interfere with an ICE operation. And, somehow, that it's bad police work to walk in front of a car, even though that's totally necessary in many police situations like this one. But you wouldn't know that if you were in a progressive bundle. 

I actually saw a tweet the other day on X that explained part of the problem. It said if you have watched police bodycam footage you think this is a good shoot, and if you don't you think it's a bad one. And I think that is much of the problem. People just don't really understand use of force and self defense at all in this country. 

It's why things like Renee Good's intent don't matter at all. I personally think she was intentionally trying to run down the ICE officer. I don't think she wanted to kill him, just knock him over, and she probably didn't understand this is the legal equivalent of shooting someone and the physical equivalent of a large man hitting someone with a sledgehammer. But it absolutely doesn't matter because intent doesn't matter, it's how the officer perceives the situation. Given that the officer had been run down and injured in a similar incident last year, it's no surprise he understood that he was going to be injured by the car. Any reasonable person would understand that whatever the intent, getting hit by a car is a good way to get injured or killed and you can use force to try and stop that from happening. 

People are also making a big deal about what the officer said after he was hit. He called Renee Good a "fucking bitch" after the incident. Given that it happened right after she rammed him with his car and he had to open fire, I don't even know what they are complaining about here. Again, it's pretty normal to shoot your mouth after a combat situation. It doesn't change a thing about the facts of the case. 

Though I have little sympathy for Renee Good, I do think that her death was preventable. These ICE operations are necessary largely because sanctuary cities don't actually cooperate with ICE. How it's supposed to work is the police are to hold illegal aliens that are picked up under minor crimes, such as OWI, domestic abuse or other crimes. When that happens, the handoff is peaceful and there is no chance for activists to cause problems. But sanctuary cities don't do any of this and it leads to a lot of problems. 

It does sound like this story will be pushed out of the news. I just saw that another ICE related shooting happened in Minneapolis and this one two already appears to be classic self defense. An illegal from Venezuela was running from ICE after crashing his car, and then started to fight with an ICE officer. Two other people came out of an apartment and attacked the ICE officer as well, leading to him defending himself with his firearm. Everyone lived in this case and all three attackers were arrested, but I am sure the left in this country will somehow try gaslight and mislead people again about how self defense works. 

The death toll of the Iran unrest may be as high as 2500 people.

 

A photo of the protests in Iran. AP.

The death toll of Iranian unrest may be as high as 2500 people, a rights group has suggested. AP. The Human Rights Activist News Agency has mad the estimation and if it is true it would be a dramatically higher than in other cases of unrest in Iran. Iranian state TV announced for the first time that the country had a lot of "martyrs". Though the protests started over economic conditions and high inflation, it has moved on to target 86 year old Ayatollah Khamenei, the spiritual leader of Iran's theocracy, a crime punishable by death. President Trump condemned Iran for the deaths, but said he is waiting until numbers are confirmed before he takes any action. The HRANA said that the majority of the deaths were from civilians protesting the government while 147 of them were members of the regime. Iranian civilians have largely been cut off from the outside world, with only the ability to make outside phone calls being preserved. The Iranian regime has been tracking down and arresting people using the Starlink satellite internet service, made free by Elon Musk. 

My Comment:

It's very hard to get good information from the Iran right now, given that foreign contact has largely been shut off. The numbers of deaths is just an estimation, though around 2000 seems to be the consensus. However, the actual numbers could be far above or far below those numbers. Supposedly the regime has acknowledged at least 2000 deaths. 

Regardless, if the 2000-2500 death toll is even close to reality, that means this is the worst round of violence Iran has seen in quite some time. There has been around 20,000 arrests too and it's unclear if the protest movement has broken down yet or not. The regime is cracking down but it's very unclear if it is working or not. 

In the past, the Iranian regime has been able to survive unrest through similar crackdowns. The question now is if things are really difference. Certainly the number of deaths has increased but does that translate to the regime being under threat? 

Given the censorship from the regime, it's very hard to tell. Keep in mind until today we had no real information from the protest movement at all. Today they were able to make some limited calls out to news organizations, but even then I doubt it was universal and it's to the point where even the Trump administration isn't quite sure what is going on. 

But there are a few things that are different this time. The first is that Iran lost a lot of legitimacy domestically when they lost the war against Israel. Though the war ended in a draw, they were unable to do serious damage to Israel, despite taking quite a bit of damage themselves. That's a major loss of face and it's the kind of thing that does damage.

The economy though is the more disastrous problem. A regime that has 40% inflation each month is not likely to survive long term. And I don't think Iran is going to be able to fix the issues, especially because the food and water issues are due to environmental conditions. And all of it could get worse if the United States decides to increase sanctions to the point where the economy breaks entirely. 

Of course the biggest question is what President Trump is going to do. I don't even think he knows at this point, it sounds like he is waiting for a clearer picture for what is happening, just like everyone else. He's been sending pretty strong signals that killing so many protesters is unacceptable to him and his Administration. 

But I am not sure what he can really do. There is no chance of a Iraq-style regime change invasion. Trump doesn't like those and there is zero appetite for that. I also don't think a Venezuela style raid targeting Iran's leadership would happen either. Iran is greatly depleted in terms of military strength, but they still have a large military and some air defenses. I don't know if they could pull that off. 

From a non military standpoint they could increase economic sanctions, a move I expect to happen soon. Sanctions seem to rarely do much though, but given the whole thing is about Iran not being able to manage their economy, it might do something. They could also continue to offer non-military support, like the Starlink satellite dishes that would help the Iranian protesters coordinate. 

If military strikes are on the table, I would assume it would look a lot like the mission to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Such strikes could target regime figures like Khamenei and eliminate them. Doing so would be fairly easy given our tech advantage, but it risks hardening the pro-regime population against the protesters. It would be good if there was some other country that could pull off the strikes, but I don't know that anyone else is capable and willing. 

As for my prediction, I still say the most likely outcome is that Iran's regime survives this. The regime has a lot of problems but they are skilled at putting down riots. There is a chance that the fact that they are letting calls out is showing that they are confident. But am a lot less confident about it then I was when the protests started last month.     

President Trump tells Cuba to make a deal or face consequences.

 

President Donald Trump. BBC/Getty.

President Donald Trump has warned Cuba to make a deal with him or face consequences. BBC. Trump said that the flow of oil and money from Venezuela, which got subsidized oil from the country, is now over after an US operation to topple Nicholas Maduro succeeded. Cuba also supplied Venezuela with military support and said that 32 Cuban citizens died in the raid, presumably on Maduro's security detail. Secretary of State Rubio said that Cuba's government should be concerned. Trump and Rubio even joked that Rubio could serve as the first president of a post-Communism Cuba. President Trump has put Rubio in charge of his Western Hemisphere policy, nicknamed the Donroe Doctrine, after the historical Monroe doctrine, where the United States dominates the Americas. 

My Comment:

Cuba should take this warning seriously. Though this fits the pattern of Trump saber rattling before a deal is made, we also know that he is willing to throw down if a deal isn't made. And the Cubans should also worry about Marco Rubio, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, and a man who has deep ties to the Cuban exile community in Miami Florida. 

Of course, the most likely solution is to make a deal. What that deal would look like is unclear, but that's the whole point of diplomacy. Columbia's left wing President, Gustavo Petro, faced similar threats earlier in the month in the wake of the Venezuela operation. He bent the knee very quickly and had an effective phone call with Trump, to the point that the two men are probably going to meet in Washington. 

Doing so would be the smart move. Trump, contrary to popular depiction, is a reasonable man and wants to make a deal more than anything else. It was the title of his most famous book, The Art of the Deal, and he gets personal satisfaction and enjoyment from doing so. There is an argument that trying to beat him at his own game is a bad idea, but any deal the Communists in Cuba make with Trump is likely to be better than the results of a military operation against them. 

Such a military operation is absolutely possible. Indeed, Cuba's military is more antiquated and smaller than Venezuela's and Venezuela was unable to meaningfully resist the United States military. They do have more competent soldiers and more people dedicated to the cause than Maduro had, but they also lack the more advanced weapons Venezuela had, like S-300 anti-air missiles and F-16 fighter jets. 

They would also have to face the fact that there is an active military base in Cuba itself, which could be used as a staging area for any operation. Guantanamo Bay is leased to the United States and it has about 2000 to 3000 Marines at any given time, and that number could swell if any military operation could happen. It's a double edged sword, those troops could be potentially vulnerable, though the base is extremely well defended and Cuba would have difficulty attacking it with their antiquated equipment and comparatively small number of troops (50,000 total). 

Complicating things is the fact that Trump is also saber rattling against Iran. It would take a second post to go over that, but it's possible that Trump will conduct military operations against Iran. Should that happen, it could result in an emboldened Cuba. That would be a mistake of course, the US military is designed for multiple military operations at once. Though, to be fair, the Venezuela operation was delayed after strikes in Africa. 

I'd also say that the forces that took down Maduro haven't gone anywhere. There's still 15,000 troops in the region and about a dozen ships, including amphibious assault ships. Plus, Cuba is only 90 miles away from Florida, putting US based assets into play as well. The only thing that is restricting an operation against Cuba is the fact that I don't think the United States has had anywhere near the time to pull it off, unless planning has been going on for months without it being leaked. 

I do like that influence that Rubio has had on this situation. Rubio is a Cuban American and has very personal reasons to despise the Communist regime (every American should have this, but very few people feel it more than Cuban Americans). Rubio's influence should inform Cuba's efforts towards diplomacy, they know he would love to see them behind bars. 

The only problem I see is that if a military operation does happen, how do you sell it to the American people. Unlike Venezuela, the drug war casus belli won't really work. Cuba isn't a major source for drugs, and they aren't much of a threat, despite being listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. We absolutely do have Casus Belli when it comes to Cuba, they are a hostile nation near our borders and have human rights abuses, but I don't know how you sell that to the American people. 

Still, all of that is speculative, I still say that even with the influence of Rubio, Trump would greatly prefer if some kind of deal was made. Given that Columbia bent the knee and the fact that Cuba knows that they don't stand a chance against the United States, I would be surprised if a deal is not made. 

Protests continue in Iran as the regime cuts off internet.

 

Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. AP.

Protests have continued in Iran as the regime there has cut off the internet. AP. A very large protest broke out in Tehran after Reza Pahlavi, the son of the deposed Shah of Iran and Crown Prince, made a call to oppose the Islamic regime. Protesters have called for the Shah's return, a crime in Iran punishable by death. Riots and demonstrations have left at least 42 people dead and thousands arrested. Cutting off the internet has happened in Iran in the past and usually happens right before a large crackdown. It is unclear why Iran hasn't cracked down on protesters yet like they have in the past, but it could be due to threats from President Trump to support the protesters if they are attacked. 

My Comment:

It seems as though the protests in Iran are gaining momentum. Having the crown prince encourage things seems to have increased the momentum even further. It would have been unthinkable a few weeks ago for people to be openly demanding a return to the Monarchy just a few weeks ago, but here we are. 

Of course, I don't know if a return to Monarchy is that much better than the Islamic regime in control now. There was a reason why the Shah was overthrown in the first place, it wasn't just the fact that they were motivated by radical Islam, the Shah was a bit of a tyrant. Obviously his son is a different person, but I don't think replacing the Theocracy with a Monarchy is going to magically fix all of the country's problems. 

In the past the Iranian regime has been very efficient in putting down these kinds of protests and riots and the article is right that cutting off the internet is the first thing they would do. Supposedly they are going to use drones to identify the people who are marching, but at this point it would be difficult for them to identify everyone in these marches, which are happening across the country. 

The real question is why they haven't done so by far, and I think the obvious explanation is President Trump. Iran has no choice but to take Trump's threats seriously. Though his critics would never admit it, he is a serious person and has been shown that he can and will take decisive military action. Indeed, in the last year alone he blow up Iran's nuclear program and then captured the President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro. When Trump says that Iran can't shoot their way out of their protester problem, he means it. 

Still, I think it's more likely that they will indeed try to crackdown, regardless of Trump's threats. I do think that Iran knows that there isn't much appetite for military conflict in the United States and they have to hope that Trump is bluffing. Because they are very concerned about being overthrown. 

Keep in mind that the anger in Iran isn't just because people are sick of the Islamic regime. The fact is that they lost a lot of credibility in the war against Israel that they lost. The war also had a unifying effect that is over now that the war is done, along with the war in Gaza. 

But, most importantly, the economy in Iran is in a full on collapse. When inflation is 40% each month for three months, people are going to be furious. They have a major water crisis and food is even more expensive than the inflation rate. Cracking down on protests might shut people up for awhile, but I don't how they fix any of it. If this round of protests is indeed put down, it won't matter if they can't fix their economy...   

Woman shot after hitting an ICE agent with her car in Minnesota.

 

New York Post/X screengrab.

A woman was shot and killed after hitting an ICE agent with her car in Minnesota. New York Post. Video on social media shows the woman blocking ICE agents with her Honda Pilot. Three ICE agents confront her with one stepping in front of the vehicle. The woman advances with her car and is seen hitting the officer and he opens fire, firing three shots, one of which went through the windshield and another hitting her side mirror. The woman has been identified as a 37 year old from Colorado named Renee Nicole Good and was a mother to a six year old. Her wife was on scene and took blame for the incident saying Good would not have been there if it wasn't for her. Local leaders condemned the incident, even after video of the car striking the officer came out, while the Trump administration said it was a case of domestic terrorism.

Pretty clear from this slo-mo.

The suspect actually struck the ICE agent with the vehicle.

pic.twitter.com/317CUSv4c6

— john jackson (@pvtjokerus) January 7, 2026

 

My Comment:

This is probably the most justified shooting I have ever seen in my life, and I have seen a lot of them. The second Good stepped on the gas with an ICE agent in front of her, she forfeited her life. Hitting someone with your car creates a reasonable fear for someone's life and the ICE agent was justified in firing at the woman when she hit him with her car. There is a small chance that some new evidence could show that the ICE agent is in the wrong, but the chances of that are vanishingly small. But unless that evidence is found, this is clearly a good shoot. 

Indeed, the ICE agent is lucky he wasn't hurt worse than he was. He did have to go to the hospital regardless, but in the video it's clear that the Honda Pilot was spinning it's wheels and they were pointed towards the officer. Had the wheels not spun, not only would the shooting officer been injured or killed, the officer that was trying to open the door could have been as well. 

Why Good did this is pretty much irrelevant. Some folks are saying she was panicking and wasn't actually protesting ICE at all. I have no idea if that is true or not, but it's also totally irrelevant. Someone trying to murder you in malice isn't really that different from someone trying to murder you if they are panicking. The fear of death is the same in either case. 

I don't really believe that she wasn't protesting ICE though. In order for that to be true she would have to be blocking the ICE convoy for some other reason? We would have to believe she was just that bad of a driver or something. Blocking ICE officers has been a basic tactic for the far-left and there were witnesses saying that she was the ringleader, creating a strong case for her being a protester. And, she was apparently LGBT given that she was married to a woman, making it even more likely. 

The response from the left on this case has been utterly shameful. If I was a more charitable person I could point out a few things they could be getting wrong here. The most obvious one is that they simply don't understand the laws for Self Defense. Hitting someone with a car is incredibly dangerous and more than justifies lethal force, but many people somehow believe that only being in an actively shot at justifies lethal force. It's the same argument we saw with the Trayvon Martin case, but people still don't know the law. 

They could also be confused as the first video is a lot less clear about what happened. It could be very possible that they are seeing the 2nd ICE agent, the one that goes for the door. It's hard to even see the 1st agent in that video and they are assuming that the 2nd one was the one that fired. To be fair, if the first officer wasn't in front of the car, it probably wouldn't be a good shoot, but that wasn't the case. 

Of course, I have no charity for the Democrats trying to make this into George Floyd 2.0. People like Tim Walz, Jacob Frey and Hakeem Jefferies absolutely know better. They know the law, they know that under the law this is a justifiable homicide and they also know that by saying otherwise they are risking riots and further violence against ICE. They don't care as they want this story to hurt the Trump administration and get the Somali fraud story out of the news. 

I don't think it is going to work. This case is too cut and dry as self defense and everyone that isn't a rabid partisan has seen the video of the agent getting hit by the truck. And you can't bury the Somali fraud story, it's not going away, too much money was stolen and people are far too angry about it. 

My fear though is that reality isn't going to break through to the people it needs to, liberal white women like Good. They are stuck in major bubbles and many of them have nobody in their life that would talk some sense into them. They are going to listen to the evil folks like Walz and Frey who would gladly risk further violence if it keeps them in power and out of prison. 

President Trump still wants Greenland. Can he get it?

 

File photo of Nuuk Greenland. CNBC/Reuters.

President Trump is weighing multiple options for the United States to gain Greenland. CNBC. Trump says that the United States needs Greenland for national security reasons and wants to ensure the island isn't conquered by China or Russia. He has not ruled out military force to take the island from Denmark, who currently controls the country, but Secretary of State Rubio says that Trump would prefer to buy the island. So far Denmark has ruled out giving up the territory. Trump's desire for Greenland is a long standing one but is being taken more serious now after the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. 

My Comment:

I don't really understand why Europe didn't take this seriously until the raid on Venezuela. Trump is known for saber rattling but his arguments for why we need Greenland are strong. Greenland is one of the more strategic islands in the world, it can control ship, air and missile traffic in both the Artic and North Atlantic. It also has a lot of natural resources and it would be a huge deal if America was able to take the island. 

The bigger problem though is that Denmark isn't able to defend the Island at all. Denmark is a tiny country with an irrelevant military. If Trump wants Denmark and is indeed willing to use military force, there isn't a thing Denmark could do about it. 

Of course, this actually strengthens the argument that America should take Greenland. If Denmark can't defend Greenland without the help of the United States, then they can't do so against Russia and/or China. And both countries would love to have control over Greenland for the same reason Trump and the United States wants it. It has resources and would be a boon in any war happening in the Atlantic Ocean.   

The problem is that Denmark doesn't seem to want to play ball. I understand why, like most European countries they want to act like they are a major player, even though that hasn't been true since World War II. They either can't accept or like to pretend that they aren't in a Suzerainty with the United States. 

Trump is showing that isn't the case. No matter how much Europe likes to crow about being independent, they are pretty much totally under the control of the United States when it comes to foreign policy. Why? Because at any moment the United States could withdraw from NATO and if they did Europe would not be in a position to defend themselves. 

The debacle that was Ukraine shows how true that is. Though the United States contributed massively, Ukraine has always been Europe's war. And given that Ukrain was the largest, most professional and most skilled army in Europe and hasn't been able to beat back the Russians even if Europe destroying their economies trying to arm them shows that they are not likely to be able to defend themselves once the Ukraine situation is resolved. That means that Europe is either going to have to arm up and go independent or they are going to have to give Trump what he wants. And giving up Greenland is a small cost to pay to remain under the United States. 

I'd also say that this is another example that Trump gets the fact that Europe doesn't have a long term future. I am guessing that with immigration there completely out of control and it being made up of almost exclusively military aged-males from the Muslim world, the countries of Europe will end up at war with itself before the next couple of decades are out. Indeed, before ISIS got destroyed they were already essentially at war, with terror attacks at the peak happening almost weekly. Denmark specifically seems like it's in a better position than most countries, but Europe as a whole is in deep trouble and if the EU collapses, Greenland would be left defenseless outside of the United States. 

Of course all of this is to show that the United States could take Greenland if they wanted to, not if they will or not. I am guessing that this is just more Trump bluster, we all know his playbook by now. I don't think Trump realistically thinks that using military force would be a good idea, it would blow up NATO and create a domestic backlash, though as we are seeing with Venezuela, the domestic backlash would probably be limited to progressive Democrats. He's keeping the option open as a negotiating tactic. Rubio gave the game away, he admitted that Trump wants to buy the island, not go to war over it. 

Embattled Governor Tim Walz ends his campaign for a third term as Minnesota's Governor.

 

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. New York Post/Reuters/

Embattled Governor Tim Walz has ended his campaign for a third term as Minnesota's Governor in the wake of the Somali fraud scandal. New York Post. Walz said he could win if he could focus on the race, but said he needed to focus on fraud. He also blamed President Trump and "right wing YouTubers", apparently referencing Nick Shirley. Shirley's video went viral, bringing a hard focus onto the fraud from the Somali community that has cost Minnesota taxpayers billions of dollars. Despite most of the fraud coming from Somali immigrants, Walz defended them saying Trump was "demonizing them". 

My Comment:

Looks like I was correct that the Somali fraud scandal was the end of Tim Walz and his political career. He is essentially being pushed out of the race. I can't imagine that he wasn't under extreme pressure from both the Minnesota DFL party and the National Democrats to drop out.

If Walz had won? Then Republicans were almost certain to win the Minnesota Governor's race. Minnesota is seen as a blue state but it's really closer to a purple one and I think a similar dynamic could have come into play here as it did in Virginia when Glenn Youngkin got elected. Youngkin was able to use genuine outrage over the trans bathroom scandal to get elected, and a similar candidate could have done the same thing in Minnesota. 

That narrative isn't completely dead now, but it faces a greater challenge. If the rumors are true and Amy Klobuchar is going to be the candidate for Governor than the Republicans would face an actual battle instead of the landslide they would have gotten with Tim Walz. Amy Klobuchar is fairly popular and the stink of the Somali scandal isn't going to stick to her as much as it would Tim Walz, given he was, at the very least, in power when it happened, assuming he wasn't directly involved. 

Candidate quality is a real problem though for Republicans. Mike Lindell, the My Pillow guy has declared and I can't think of a worse candidate for a state like Minnesota. Though I would prefer Lindell to win given how loyal he is to Trump, I think the GOP would be wise to run someone more like Glenn Youngkin, someone more moderate and in the center. If that happens, I think there is still a real chance of the Republicans winning the state, though probably not keeping it long term. 

As for Tim Walz, he's done. The real questions now are if he finishes his last term or if he avoids criminal charges for his role in the Somali Fraud scandal. I have always said that Walz was just too stupid to actually be involved in fraud or other various crimes but I am starting to wonder if I was wrong about that. The fraud in Minnesota was so widespread that he had to have at least some knowledge of it. And it's also clear that his party was absolutely benefitting from the fraud. 

We also have to consider that Walz was possibly personally benefiting from this fraud. Indeed, we might even have to reexamine the claims from Vance Bolter, the assassin of a couple of Democratic State Senators in the state, that Walz ordered him to do so. That still seems to be the rantings of a madman, but if Walz was involved in the fraud, it's not that much of a leap. I still think he has a strong defense, he's simply too incompetent to order a hit or be involved in fraud. If there were any evidence of him being directly involved in fraud or the assassinations, he would not be able to cover it up, he's just that dumb. 

It also boggles my mind that Tim Walz was chosen for being Kamala Harris' VP candidate. It's like they didn't vet him at all, had they done so they would have realized that Minnesota has huge problems and that he just wasn't a good candidate. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania was right there, but they couldn't pick him because he is Jewish. Walz did nothing to help Harris and may have actually been a downside given how incompetent he comes off as. 

What would be hilarious is the idea that Walz could end up running for President in 2028. I guess it's possible if ends his term without resigning in disgrace, or ending up in prison. He would have no serious chance of being the candidate, even considering the weak field that the Democrats have, but sometimes you run just in increase your public profile so you can get on the speech circuit. But that's the best case scenario for Walz and I think now the most likely scenario is that he is left as a historical footnote as Kamal Harris' VP candidate, which is saying something because she's going to be a footnote as well. 

Ecoterrorists shut down power in Berlin Germany leaving tens of thousands of people without power in winter.

 

Police and workers inspect the site of the attack. BBC/AFP/Getty.

An arson attack on a Berlin gas plant has shut down power for 45,000 homes and 2,200 businesses in Berlin Germany. BBC. The attack was committed by the ecoterrorist group Vulkangruppe (Volcano Group) who said the point wasn't to cut power but to protest the fossil fuel economy. The group apologized to poor people who were affected by the attack, but did not express any sympathy for richer people. The attack came in the middle of winter, forcing evacuations and endangering lives in hospitals which had to run on emergency power. Power won't be restored for all customers until this Thursday. Vulkangruppe has a history of ecoterrorism, with a 2024 attack on a Tesla manufacturing plant. 

My Comment:

I can't think of a worse thing to do than cut power to people in the middle of winter. Dealing with winter is hard enough when you have power and heat but cutting those things off? Just despicable. Folks will be suffering for this and there is a real chance people could die because of this. 

For context, I looked at the forecast for Berlin this week. The highs are going to be around 30, below freezing, and the lows in the mid 20's. That seems pretty warm by my Wisconsin standards, but it's still enough to be absolutely miserable if you have no real way to get out of the cold. I don't think it's so cold that pipes will freeze and houses will be damaged but it is enough that everyone that has to deal with it will be miserable. 

Cutting off power to hospitals is probably the biggest concern. All hospitals have backup generators, at least all first world ones do. But even a temporary disruption can cut off power and potentially kill someone. As it stands now, patients had to be moved to different hospitals. Thankfully, though, I am not aware of any deaths because of this attack. 

As for the group that took credit for this attack, Vulkangruppe, I have nothing but contempt for them. Cutting off power to a bunch of innocent people is not going to help the environment. Shutting down every fossil fuel plant in Germany wouldn't actually change anything. 

And these environmental groups never protest countries like India or China, which cause a massive amount of environment damage, even outside of what fossil fuels may or may not do. They don't care about the rivers both countries are killing or the massive amounts of trash they are dumping everywhere. They don't care about the massive amounts of overfishing that China is doing. They care about one of that. What they actually care about is left wing politics. 

Indeed, their responsibility claim was all about economic class, not environmentalism. They can't really explain why cutting off power for a week in Berlin is going to help anything but they do admit to wanting to cause misery for rich people just because they are rich. That's not environmentalist at all, it's just communism. 

The good news is that this attack appears to be backfiring against the Vulkangruppe. Everyone in Germany is furious with this attack, even other left wing groups. I do think that folks are just sick and tired of these environmental protests. They attempt to be as annoying and disruptive as possible and it's obviously having a bad effect on how many people support these radical causes. Indeed, if I was doing whatever I could to try and get people against a group I was a member of, cutting of power for thousands of people in the middle of winter would be at the top of the list. 

The United States Military has captured the President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, in an incredible early morning raid in Caracas.

 

Smoke rises from the La Carlota airport in Caracas Venezuela. AP. 

The United States Military has captured the President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro in a incredible lightning raid on Caracas. AP. Explosions from airstrikes in Caracas were captured on video along with attacks by US attack helicopters. Maduro was successfully captured along with his wife in the raid. The attack barely lasted 30 minutes and it is unclear if there will be any further action. The operation came a week after President Donald Trump announced an attack on a drug port in Venezuela, the first attack on Venezuelan soil in the low intensity drug conflict. It is unclear who is in control of Venezuela with Maduro in custody. 

The New York Times and CNN have live updates for this story. 

pic.twitter.com/s95IpxZnSH This is an attack helicopter attack on an airbase in Caracas Venezuela. Not sure if it's an Apache or Venom, but either way, crazy video.

— Jeff H (@politicswarblog) January 3, 2026

My Comment:

 I will admit to being caught flat-footed by this operation. I had assumed we would have seen many more months of pressure tactics targeting Venezuela and a few more strikes targeting the country before we went for Maduro himself. I guess the timeline was pushed up quite a bit. 

If I was caught flat-footed, the Venezuelan military was caught totally asleep. The New York Times say that there were zero US casualties in this raid, which is incredible. Indeed, in none of the video I have seen was there any indication of return fire from the Venezuelans. No air defenses were apparently launched against US planes and helicopters, no planes were launched and there were not any real reports of gunfire on the ground. 

This was a special forces operation. Supposedly it was a Delta Force operation, though they obviously had a lot of help. The 160th SOAR "Nightstalkers", the Army Special Forces air unit, have been confirmed to be involved as well. And I would assume that the Navy helped with the bombing campaign. Either way, the rather pathetic military of Venezuela was unable to do anything about this operation. 

I do wonder if someone in Maduro's government cut a deal with the United States. It's possible that in exchange for amnesty someone ordered Venezuela's air defenses to stand down. They have a few SAM's, MANPADS and flack guns and they also have a few F-16's and SU-30 Flankers. But none of those weapons appear to have been used in this raid. Though the raid was a total surprise, it does strike me as a bit suspicious that none of those systems were used at all. It's even possible that Maduro himself was in on the deal, but that seems unlikely at this point. 

What happens next is an open question. Venezuela's Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was not taken in the raid and is presumably in control of the country, but who knows if that will continue. I know that Venezuela also has a major opposition movement and they may be able to take power. And I am guessing they probably will, Rodriguez now understands that what happened to Maduro can and will happen to him as well. 

What I don't expect is the kind of "nation building" mission we got stuck with in Iraq and Afghanistan. We aren't sending in huge divisions of troops, we just bombed a city and took out the leader. There were a few people that were angry that we were supposedly getting into another war, but that obviously isn't going to happen. 

I am not sure how the reaction to this is going to be. I think some of the doves in the Republican Party might be a little upset for awhile, but given the mission was a total success they won't have much of a leg to stand on. Progressive Democrats will wail and gnash their teeth and may make noise about the War Powers Act, but they won't actually be able to do anything. But I think just about everyone else will be on board with this operation. 

As for the justification for this? I guess I don't care. Maduro was a socialist and that's good enough for m. He, along with the late Hugo Chavez, ran Venezuela into the ground. Given how rich in resources Venezuela was it's absurd that they were able to do so. Maduro was involved in the drug trafficking that kills Americans every day and he's generally a bad person. 

Regardless, I have to say that I am incredibly impressed by what our military accomplished here. There were a lot of things that could have gone wrong here and they didn't. Indeed, this should be a pretty big message to both our enemies and allies that America isn't going anywhere and we still have one of the most impressive militaries in the world.