The Supreme Court has struck down bans on conversion therapy.

 

File photo of the Supreme Court. Politico/AP.

The Supreme Court has struck down a Colorado law banning conversion therapy. Politico. The case, Chiles v Salazar, in an 8-1 ruling found that Colorado's law that banned the practice was a violation of the 1st Amendment. Conversion therapy is a practice that attempts to reduce or remove same sex attraction and transgenderism through talk therapy. The practice has become controversial and 20 states have bans on the practice when used with minors. However, the court ruled that banning the practice was a violation of free speech. 

My Comment:

I have always thought that bans on conversion therapy were a pretty obvious violation of the 1st amendment, both on free speech grounds and religious freedom grounds. The government shouldn't get to have a say if a patient and his or her doctor want to talk out desisting from homosexuality or transgenderism. This wasn't a case where it was doctors prescribing medication or surgery, just talk therapy and the government is always going to get in trouble with the courts when they regulate talk.

The key problem here was that Colorado was pretty obviously and egregiously promoting viewpoint discrimination. Conversion therapy was banned but therapy that promoted or encouraged homosexuality or transgenderism for children was allowed. This is the government promoting one viewpoint and discriminating against another and the politics of it didn't matter to anyone but Ketanji Brown Jackson. 

Justice Kagan did point out that it was the discrimination that was the problem. Theoretically, a ban on the same kind of therapy encouraging homosexuality and transgenderism, would be just as legally suspect as Colorado's law. Outside of cases where people are being prescribed medication or surgery, you could face the same kind of ruling for a ban on that kind of therapy. You either have to allow both, or ban both, but picking and choosing is not going to be allowed anymore. And that means a lot of these conversion therapy bans are going to be removed. 

None of this is a judgement on if conversion therapy works or not. Given how politicized it is, I am guessing there isn't an honest study out there. My gut says that it probably does work when it comes to transgenderism but not so when it comes to homosexuality. I generally see transgenderism as a social contagion, not something that is natural, while homosexuality appears to be something that just happens naturally, though the cause is unknown.   

It also depends on what you mean when you say "works". I don't think homosexual attraction is something that you can talk yourself out off. But I do think that certain behaviors, like promiscuous or dangerous sex, are things you can talk yourself out off and that it could absolutely be helpful to talk those things out with a professional. And I think even from a secular perspective, there are reasons to encourage this, it's generally good to talk people out of their worst instincts. 

And for things like transgenderism? I absolutely think that this kind of therapy could help. I generally view the T portion of LGB to be a social contagion, not something that is real and that if people were allowed to talk it out with a therapist that wasn't trying to encourage it, most if not all transgender people wouldn't be transgender. 

Can I prove any of that? No, and that's the main problem. Studies are going to be so hopelessly politicized that we don't really have science as a tool and it's a real problem with modern science. My feeling is that every study showing conversion therapy doesn't work or does work would only be useful in telling who actually funded the study. 

Regardless, all of that is simple speculation that has little to do with the ruling. This was a very simple legal question, could the State of Colorado discriminate one political/religious point of view while promoting another? Obviously, they could not and that is why the ruling was so one sided. 

US airports return to normal after Trump ordered TSA agents to get paid.

 

Travelers at a TSA checkpoint in Baltimore. Reuters. 

US airports return to normal after President Trump ordered TSA agents to get paid. Reuters. Waits at TSA checkpoints went from hours to minutes after Trump ordered the paychecks to be cut and ordered ICE to help with the lines. TSA Agents received two paychecks worth of backpay and will get the half-paychecks for the first week worked after the government shutdown. The shutdown has caused some TSA agents to quit and thousands of other DHS employees are going without paychecks. Democrats have refused to fund DHS due to funds going to ICE and CBP. 

My Comment:

The Democrats strategy here was to make plane travel as annoying as possible. That was working for a short period but that is no longer in the cards. TSA is back to work and the long lines travelers were facing are now gone, thanks to these paychecks and the assistance of ICE. Almost all of their leverage is now gone. 

I do feel pretty bad for the TSA workers. Missing out on two and a half paychecks because the Democrats are throwing a fit is terrible. Many of those folks had to quit or take temporary jobs just to get by. The TSA isn't a great job to begin with but it's absolutely sad that they have to deal with constant congressional disfunction. Of course there are still thousands of DHS employees that are still out of work and I feel bad for them. 

It is bizarre that the Democrats are still trying to make the ICE issue into something. I don't think people cared that much when ICE was in the news every day and folks realized that Alex Pretti and Rene Goode caused their own deaths and shouldn't be mourned. This seems like another 80/20 issue that the Democrats are on the wrong side of. 

I do wonder when the shutdown is going to end. The Senate had passed a deal that would have funded all of DHS except for ICE and CPB and the House rejected it. I think the Republicans were right to do so. ICE and CPB are critical government functions and it's absurd to think that the Democrats should get there way here. They need to fund both agencies in full. 

Finally, I do have to say that I am glad I didn't have to travel in this mess. The last time I traveled via plane was back in 2017 and then the TSA line was basically empty both from my small local airport as well as the airport in Las Vegas. Had I had to wait an hour I would have been furious. Thankfully, that shouldn't be a problem anymore. 

Of course, there is always a chance that some judge will issue an injunction despite it not being supported by the law at all. That has been the Democrats plan throughout Trump's 2nd term and it would be a real problem in this case. Hopefully the government shutdown will be resolved before that can happen. 

Will the United States take Kharg Island from Iran?

 

Smoke from a missile strike on The UAE on March 14th. CNBC/AFP/Getty.

President Trump hinted that America might "take Iran's oil" and may take over Kharg Island, Iran's main oil hub. CNBC. Trump compared it to the successful action in Venezuela that led to a change of leadership and de facto control over the states oil. The Iran conflict has lasted around five weeks and has caused some disruption to oil markets. The Washington Post says that the Pentagon is preparing for a weeks long ground operation as thousands of troops have entered the region. 

My Comment:

Keep in mind that Trump is pretty good at misdirection when it comes to foreign policy. His words really don't mean that much and we don't actually know what he is thinking. This could be an effort to force Iran to defend Kharg Island while the actual target could be elsewhere. 

Do we have enough troops in the region to take Kharg Island? Yes. We have around 10,000 combat troops there, including two Marine Expeditionary Units aboard our amphibious assault ships, along with a couple thousand paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne. That's more than enough troops to take the island, and hold it, from the Iranians. 

Does that mean it's going to happen? Absolutely not. I see this more of a threat than anything else. Trump usually doesn't telegraph moves so transparently and doing so is not likely in this case. I feel that this is more of a threat than anything serious. 

Trump's main goal here is to get the Iranians to give up there nuclear material and cut a deal with the United States. This is another threat like the previous one to destroy Iran's energy generation. Again, we could have easily done that as well, but we backed off on it, most likely due to humanitarian concerns. It's probably why the threat didn't work, Iran didn't believe that we would do it, but they might believe that we could take Kharg. 

Is it a good idea militarily? You could say so. Iran absolutely needs Kharg Island if they want their oil to be sold, it's their most important hub. Taking it would cripple them. Doing so would not be difficult and neither would be holding it. The Marines and the 82nd would be well suited to take the island and much of the defenses there have already been destroyed, though Iran has made moves to reinforce it. 

Politically though? I am not sure. Such an operation would absolutely lead to US casualties and most Americans are opposed to boots on the ground. The casualties might even be heavy, though not so heavy that the operation wouldn't be sustainable. That too would play extremely poorly politically, folks want to avoid a "quagmire" and any casualties for our ground forces would play into that narrative. 

It's why I think if ground operations do happen, they will be raids, not taking and holding territory. Think the Venezuela raid, not the Iraq War. And I think there would be very different targets than Kharg Island, the main goal would be to fully open the Gulf of Hormuz, so a raid on areas with missile bases or naval docks would be likely goals. 

As for the course of the war itself, I do think that it's likely to not last too much longer. Trump is clearly talking to somebody, though it's also obviously not the IRGC or the Ayatollah. My guess is the actual secular Iranian government, or perhaps the military, wants to make a deal wile the country's religious leadership, including the IRGC, are keeping this from happening. I just don't see how the IRGC can stay in power long term with so much of their leadership dead and eventually a deal will be made. 

President Trump sends Iran 15 point plan to end the Iran conflict.

 

President Donald Trump. CNBC/Getty.

President Trump has sent Iran a 15 point plan to end the conflict. CNBC. President Trump said that Iran was eager to make a deal and that talks were proceeding, though Iran has denied the specifics. The New York Times reported that a 15 point plan had been delivered to Iran via Pakistan. Pakistan has offered to broker an end to the war. Trump also repeated claims that Iran has already lost the war and is willing to give up nuclear ambitions. 

The New York Post detailed the 15 point plan. One of those demands was not revealed but 14 of the points were released. 

Iran would agree to the following:

Iran must dismantle existing nuclear capabilities

Iran must commit never to pursue nuclear weapons.

No uranium enrichment on Iranian territory.

Iran must hand its stockpile of enriched uranium to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 

The Natanz, Isfahan and Fordo nuclear facilities must be dismantled.

The IAEA must be granted full access to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Iran must abandon its “regional proxy paradigm.”

Iran must cease the funding, directing and arming its proxies.

The Strait of Hormuz must remain open. 

Iran’s missile program must be limited in both range and quantity.

Iran must limit its use of missiles to self-defense.

In return Iran would get the following:

The end of sanctions imposed by the international community.

US assistance to advance its civilian nuclear program. 

A “snapback” mechanism allowing for the automatic reimposition of sanctions if Iran fails to comply would be removed.

My Comment:

Like I said yesterday, it's unclear who Trump is negotiating with. Ayatollah Khamenei remains missing in action and nobody appears to be in charge of Iran's religious leadership. My guess is that we are negotiating with Iran's secular leadership. Iran's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, remains alive, probably for this very reason. I am guessing it is his leadership that Trump is negotiating with, not the religious leaders, or, failing that, someone else in his government or the military.  

This plan seems more than fair. Iran would be forced to stop doing all the things that have made every government in the region hate them and made them a threat to most of the hemisphere. Getting rid of their nuclear material was always going to be the biggest issue and without agreement there the war will absolutely continue. 

Iran's missiles are a major threat too and one that probably justified the war. Recently, Iran attempted and failed to target Diego Garcia, our base in the Indian Ocean. The attack failed but it showed that Iran had the missile capability to hit most of the capitals of Europe. They will be forced to give up this capability in any peace deal as well. 

Most notably, Iran would be forced to cut off funding for their armies of proxies in the region. This means that Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen would have to self fund. In all likelihood, this would lead to those groups dissolving, as nobody is going to want to fight for a cause that can't afford to buy weapons or even pay their troops. This would hugely increase the stability of the region and would be a massive win for everyone, outside of those groups of course.  

Iran would get a lot out of this deal as well. They would get an US managed nuclear program, not that they really need it. But they would also lose the sanctions that have crippled their economy. One assumes that Iranian oil would be allowed to be sold on the market and foreign companies would be able to invest in Iran again. This would again be good for everyone, gas prices would plumet and Iran's economy would recover.

So will Iran go for this? Again, it depends on who is in charge. Iran's religious nutjob leadership will never accept this, but it doesn't seem like they are in charge. Iran's secular leadership seems a lot more reasonable and if they are in charge I can absolutely see this happening.

The problem is that they aren't the only ones with a vote. Both Israel and the Gulf States may have different demands on ending the war, mostly demanding regime change. Given that Israel is a party to the conflict, getting them on board will be critical. I don't know if Iran will be receptive to a regime change or not and it could be the stumbling point to any peace deal. 

Either way, I do think we should be optimistic that a deal will be made. I think it's moderately more likely than Trump simply declaring victory and going home now. A lot can still go wrong but I think it's very possible that Iran will decide that peace is the best option now. 

President Trump announces energy cease fire in Iran, claiming talks are ongoing.

 

President Donald Trump. BBC/EPA.

President Trump announces a five day energy cease fire in Iran, claiming talks are ongoing. BBC. Trump had previously threatened to destroy Iran's energy production. Iran has denied any talks are ongoing but it is unclear who in the Iranian government Trump is negotiating with. Trump said that Iran had agreed to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, a major war goal. Some question if the story is even real as Trump is well known for keeping his personal thoughts about military conflict close to the vest and is known to mislead his enemies on military matters. 

My Comment:

It's hard to comment on what President Trump is doing when it comes to military conflict because he does believe that it's stupid to telegraph what he is planning. He's got a point, keeping your enemies confused is a valid strategy and one that has worked for him in the past. 

And I also think that's just as true for Iran. I would be shocked if they weren't talking to the United States in some fashion and I have seen other media reports that they are using intermediaries in the region to pass messages to and from the United States. 

The real question is who Trump is actually talking to. He has specifically denied that he's talking to the new Ayatollah Khamenei, who might not even be alive after injuries sustained in airstrikes. But could it be the Iranian President? Some general that wants out? Some other high ranking figure? Or someone representing Khamenei? Who knows? 

I am guessing that whoever it was blinked. Iran's government's grip on the country is already weak for many reasons, most notably a water crisis in the capitol. Had Trump actually destroyed Iran's energy infrastructure it would be the end of the Iranian regime as it stands right now. It would be an absolute disaster for them. They would not survive. 

It does raise the question on why Trump didn't just do it. I am guessing it's because it would be a humanitarian disaster as well. It would also mean that it could turn Iran into a failed state. That would be a good way to end the war but it seems likely that the war is going to end with a negotiated settlement at this point. 

So, will that happen? It's probably the 2nd most possible outcome. I still think Trump declaring victory and going home is the more likely option. But it's more likely now that a deal will be made with someone from the regime. It does seem like a complete regime collapse is a lot less likely than the other outcomes at this point.  

ICE Agents will assist in airport security as DHS shutdown continues.

 

Long lines due to a lack of TSA agents. BBC/Getty.

ICE Agents will assist in airport security as the DHS shutdown continues. BBC. Travelers have been facing hours long lines due to a lack of TSA agents for security. ICE agents are well suited for the role as many of them use similar machines on the border. ICE will not be involved in screening passengers directly, but they will be used to free up TSA agents so they can do so. The lack of funding for DHS has caused TSA agents to go without pay for more than a month and 400 agents have quit.

My Comment:

I've got mixed feelings about this. First, the negative. I don't really want ICE agents doing anything other than deporting illegal immigrants. I know that deportations are still going on but the problem is big enough that even the 3 million that have been deported or left is hardly a drop in the bucket. I want that number to go up by a very large amount and every agent helping at our airports is an agent not deporting illegal immigrants. From what I understand the impact will be minimal, ICE has 22,000 agents and only a hundred or so are going to be used here, but still. 

But I have to admit that this is a great solution to the TSA shutdown. ICE agents are going to be able to help the TSA with these long lines and will eliminate much of the leverage the Democrats have on this issue. ICE already has experience with the kind of roles they will be used for so it's a natural fit. 

The Democrats whole strategy was to put pressure on the Republicans to somehow defund ICE and they were relying on making travelers miserable in order to do so. With this deployment they aren't going to accomplish that. Indeed, they won't accomplish anything whatsoever and the longer the shutdown occurs the more criticism they are going to get. 

What will the Democrats do now? My guess is they will get some kind of temporary injunction to prevent President Trump from doing something he clearly has the authority to do. They will find some judge that cares more about screwing over President Trump over the law, just like they have done so many times before. But eventually the ruling will be overturned. 

Regardless, I do think this is going to backfire on the Democrats. ICE hasn't been affected by this shutdown at all, it's already funded, so all this is accomplishing is punishing the people at the TSA, FEMA and the Coast Guard. Given the current security situation it's insane that the Democrats are holding this funding up. All it would take is one major terrorist attack and the whole thing will be beyond bad for the Democrats. 

And it's not like the issue is exactly relevant anymore. The conflict with Iran has stopped the momentum of every single other news story in the country. Nobody is talking about ICE and deportations anymore and the Democrat's "martyrs", Renee Goode and Alex Pretti, have been almost completely forgotten, except when the Republicans mock them for causing their own deaths. It's a non issue now and people are going to be upset. 

USS Gerald R Ford to head to port after damage from a fire.

 

File photo of the USS Gerald R. Ford. BBC/Reuters.

The USS Gerald R. Ford will head to Crete for repairs after major damage from a fire. BBC. The Ford, America's newest and most powerful aircraft carrier was deployed in the conflict against Iran. A major fire broke out in the ships laundry room, destroying it and causing over 100 beds to become uninhabitable due to the effects of the fire. 200 sailors were exposed to smoke inhalation while three were treated for injuries. The ship remains operational but will return to Crete for repairs. The ships deployment has become controversial as it has been at sea for nine months, and has faced combat in both Venezuela and Iran. The USS George HW Bush is expected to replace the Ford soon. 

My Comment:

The fire that damaged the Ford was a pretty severe one. Fires on a ship are always a big deal but this one made part of the ship uninhabitable and destroyed the laundry room, which is very important on such a large ship. It is not a surprise that the ship will have to be repaired and refurbished. 

Laundry fires are a common threat to most naval vessels. In a large ship like the Ford, these facilities are often in constant use and given the extreme length of this deployment it's possible maintenance and safety could have been put at risk. Of course, fires happen on ships all the time so it's not surprising that this happened. 

I also think there is no evidence that this was anything other than an accident. Some pro-Iran accounts are pushing the idea that this was an attack by Iran, but that seems ludicrous to me. The Ford is in the Red Sea and even if the Iranians had the exact location they would be very unlikely to be able to strike the ship at this point in the war. They simply don't have the weapons or intelligence capabilities to locate and strike the Ford. And if they were somehow able to do so, it wouldn't be possible to hide it. 

Sabotage is similarly extremely unlikely. It's possible some sailor wanted to sabotage the ship, as things like this have happened before, but I can't see them starting a fire in the laundry room of all places. And, again, that's not something you would be able to hide either. 

The real issue is that the deployment of the Ford lasted too long. It's almost been 10 months at sea for the ship and that's almost a record. Given how new the ship is and how intensely it's been used in both Iran and Venezuela, it's no surprise that things have gone wrong. In addition to this fire, the ship had major problems with sewage as well, which is also a common problem for deployed ships. It's possible the extreme length of this deployment contributed to the fire. 

How much does this affect the conflict with Iran? Short term, it's not great, but it's also not the end of the world. The Ford may be capable continuing combat operations, but it's going to be out of position in Crete, which is a Greek Island in the Mediterranean. It will still be able to launch some strikes but it will cause some issues until it is replaced. 

There is good news though too. The replacement of the Ford, the USS George HW Bush, is probably only a week away. And it's not like the Ford was the only Carrier operating in the area, the USS Abraham Lincoln is also deployed and will be able to pick up the slack. In addition, the USS Tripoli, carrying a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) and a squadron or so of F-35B Lightnings will be in the region shortly as well. The disruption caused by this fire will be a short one. 

As for the conflict itself, the timing of this fire isn't the worst. Given how badly Iran's military and navy have been mauled by our forces, having a carrier be out of position isn't really that relevant anymore. It would have been one thing if it happened right at the beginning of the conflict, but now? It's not going to affect the war much. 

I do think that the real story is that we shouldn't be deploying carriers for this long. The problem is that most of our fleet is down for repairs. Plus the Nimitz is about to be decommissioned and the Kennedy hasn't been fitted out yet. I know the timing of this conflict was probably important but it might have made more sense to push the Bush to take over for the Ford before the conflict even began. 

The left is canceling Cesar Chavez, a famous union activist, for unspecified allegations of misconduct.

 

Cesar Chavez. AP file photo. 

The United Farm Workers union is distancing themselves from Cesar Chavez following unspecified allegations of misconduct. AP. The Union said that Chavez had been accused of abuse of young women or minors. They did not say they had any direct knowledge of these allegations and have not received any direct reports of abuse. Chavez was a famous organizer for farm workers unions and organized strikes against poor working conditions for farm workers. He died in 1993 at the age of 66. 

My Comment:

This is a fairly odd thing to happen. As far as I am aware there have never been credible accusations of Cesar Chavez being a sex pest. None whatsoever. It's very strange that all of a sudden the union he founded has distanced themselves from him and are encouraging their supporters to do anything but celebrate the man and his legacy. 

And he does have a major legacy. Chavez is someone that most people find pretty impressive given that he was able to protect workers on farms from bad conditions. He organized strikes and got better conditions for workers. He's the kind of guy that the Democrats have lionized for years and it's absolutely shocking to see him cut loose after this, especially after he's been dead for 30 years. 

What is even more shocking is that this is happening before any allegations have even been released. Supposedly the New York Times is writing a long form article that will detail these allegations. But the article hasn't been released yet and nobody has even vetted the allegations 

This is crazy to me as the left has been very reluctant to cancel other heroes they have. Martin Luther King was credibly accused of extramarital affairs and even accused of rape, but his legacy remains intact. Harvey Milk was openly dating a 16 year old boy and he didn't get canceled either. But they are canceling Chavez now?

This tells me one of two things. The first possibility is that Chavez is a next level sex pest. It would have to be worse than extramarital affairs or openly dating a 16 year old. The allegations are for abuse of young women and minors and that could mean anything from "he dated a 17 year old consensually" to "he abused small children". If it's the latter than I could see why they are distancing themselves so dramatically. 

It's also possible that this is a huge over reaction The New York Times piece, if it even exists, has not been released and hasn't been vetted. Like I said, these allegations are totally new and do not gel well with what we know about Chavez and his personal life. It's very possible that the allegations are bunk and they are just cutting him lose.

Why? Part of it is due to the impact of #MeToo. In today's Democrat Party you can't even be accused of any kind of mistreatment of a woman, no matter how long ago it happened and how weak the evidence is. Though #MeToo is not the force it once was, it still had a major impact on the way the Democrats and left feel. 

But honestly? It was probably because Chavez was opposed to illegal immigration. He considered illegal immigrants to be strike breakers and called INS (the forerunner to ICE) on them. He was even opposed to guest worker programs that would put him two the right of most Republicans and President Trump himself on the issue. Indeed, it's almost certain if Chavez was around today he would have voted for Trump just because of this issue alone, at least the 1970's version of him. Given that illegal immigration is now a sacred cow on the left, it's not surprising they are canceling Chavez. 

Trump hints that Cuba may have major changes soon.

 

President Donald Trump. Politico/AP. 

President Donald Trump is hinting that Cuba may have a major change in leadership soon. Politico. Cuba may have been sent a warning as Trump said that he "might have the honor of taking Cuba" and that he could do "whatever he wanted" with the communist nation. Cuba and the United States have had some talks but the island is under an extreme energy crisis after being cut off from Venezuelan oil. Cuban Americans have wanted Cuba's communist government to fall for decades now. 

My Comment:

The communist regime in Cuba is at it's weakest point in recent history. Cutting of the oil and money from Venezuela has been a disaster for them and nobody has picked up the slack to provide them oil due to the extreme pressure from the United States. Power went out completely today to the point where even essential services aren't working. 

It's not something Cuba can sustain long term. There is a limit that the Cuban people will accept and losing power long term is not something they will tolerate. If a deal isn't made soon, the Cuban people might just take out the regime themselves. 

Talks are ongoing and the sticking point is likely the Trump Administration's demand that Cuba's president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, step down. How strict that demand is isn't something I know, but I am guessing it's pretty non-negotiable. Trump wants to do what he did in Venezuela, replacing a hostile president with a lot more friendly attitude. 

The real question is if they are going to keep the regime without the leadership like they did in Venezuela or are they going to go for a full replacement? I can't see the Cubans going for the 2nd option, but I would also think that Marco Rubio and other prominent Cuban American settling for the 1st. Perhaps some kind of compromise where the regime stays in place for now but new elections are held soon?

Regardless, I do think that the Cubans will be motivated to make a deal. They simply don't have much of a choice. Getting cut off from energy is going to destroy their regime, and fairly quickly as well. Like I said, they won't want to wait until the Cuban people take matters into their own hands. 

But they have to be thinking about Trump's more aggressive foreign policy. They know that they won't have much of a chance if Trump decides to take them out, just look at what happened in Venezuela and Iran. President Diaz-Canel must understand that not making a deal with the United States is likely to end his life. 

I would not expect it to come to that though, and certainly there aren't the forces in the area to press the issue and there won't be until the Iran conflict ends. The US military probably could handle two conflicts at once, but there is the idea they should finish one conflict before starting another. 

But we can do two things at once. We can negotiate with Cuba and fight Iran at the same time. And if a deal is made we will get another vassal in our collection, to go along with Venezuela. Cuba isn't as valuable as Venezuela is, but they have been a thorn in our side for my entire lifetime and beyond and ending the Cuban regime would be a major accomplishment. 

Tucker Carlson claims that he will be charged as a unregistered foreign agent.

 

Tucker Carlson at TPUSA. Newsweek/AFP.

Tucker Carlson claims that he will be charged as an unregistered foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Newsweek. Carlson said that the CIA had read his text messages he had sent to people in Iran and were preparing to sent a recommendation to the FBI to arrest Carlson under FARA. Carlson has denied any wrong doing. Once a prominent pro-Trump voice, Trump himself has said Carlson has lost his way and was "not MAGA". Carlson has had a major shift in his coverage, almost exclusively critical of Israel, in the past year or so. 

When you discover the CIA has been reading your texts in order to frame you for a crime. pic.twitter.com/XgoluHw8EG

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) March 14, 2026

My Comment:

I have to say that I am very disappointed in Tucker Carlson. Carlson was a conservative darling for a long time but in the past couple of years he has gone full Nicholas Fuentes. It's very sad when someone falls into Israel Derangement Syndrome. 

That isn't to say that people shouldn't be critical of Israel. Like every country Israel has done some bad things. Those bad things aren't usually what critics like Carlson cite, but it's true. People should indeed be free to criticize Israel. 

But when only Israel gets criticized? Something else is going on. I think it's ok to be critical for the war against Iran, I question the wisdom myself (but not the results). But blaming it entirely on Israel is a joke. Israel had an influence, to be sure, but that's absolutely ignoring the fact that the Gulf States, most notably Saud Arabia, wanted this conflict as well. 

And so did President Trump! He's been an Iran hawk for years, even before he was politically active. Indeed, I am pretty surprised that folks were surprised when he did bomb Iran. It's not like he wasn't saying that he was considering it for years or anything. Indeed, I wasn't surprised at all when conflict with Iran happened, it was always backed in when it came to Trump. Is it fair to criticize Trump for that? Sure, and if his Iran gamble had failed I would do so. But the criticism should go to Trump for being Trump, not because Trump is some kind of "slave to Israel" like the nonsense Carlson is peddling. 

I tend to think that the anti-Israel right is just antisemitic. I'm not pro-Israel per se, but I think the criticism of Israel is so over the top that I can't take it seriously. Israel might do bad things, but their enemies do worse and if they want to help us destroy our common enemies than so be it. 

So is Carlson a foreign agent? I doubt it. If he is it will be easy to prove it as it would require him to have taken money from Iran or another foreign source, like Qatar. Plus, Carlson is a journalist so he would have first amendment protection as well. Unless he was passing sensitive information to Iran then I don't see how he could get charged.  

What I think is likely is that Carlson is worried about his texts with Iran being released. That has happened before, Carlson's attempts to get an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin were leaked in 2021 and I think the same thing is likely to happen here. 

I don't think Carlson is going to get charged with a FARA violation or anything else. He's just angry that his text messages to people in Iran are going to be released and it's probably going to be damaging to him. Folks aren't going to be happy that Carlson was talking to Iran, especially if he was bad mouthing America while he was doing it and this is just playing the victim. 

I do think that the CIA was probably reading texts that Carlson was sending. But that has nothing to do with Carlson and everything to do with the fact that the CIA was probably monitoring every communication Iran was sending. They have a clear government interest in doing do and honestly, what did Carlson expect to have happen? 

ISIS attack on ROTC class at Old Dominion University stopped by student.

 

Police at Old Dominion University. CBC News/AP.

An ISIS attack on Old Dominion University in Virginia was stopped by a student armed with a pocket knife. CBS News. The suspect, 36 year old Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, was a former Virginia National Guardsman who had been convicted in 2016 for being a member of ISIS and planning a similar attack. He entered the classroom and asked if it was an ROTC course and when he was told it was, he opened fire, killing the instructor, Lt. Col. Brandon Shah. A student armed with a pocket knife attacked the attacker and managed to kill him. Two other people will wounded in the attack. 

My Comment:

This wasn't the only Islamic terror attack in the United States today. There was also a car ramming attack against a Synagogue in Michigan, but in that case the only person that died was the attacker, though there were injuries due to the car hitting someone and smoke inhalation. This attack in Virginia is the more serious of the two as it resulted in a death. 

One has to wonder why Jalloh was out on the street. From what I understand he had served most of his required sentence and was out on supervised release. One wonders how he was able to get a firearm as he would not have been able to purchase one legally. One also wonders why he was still in the country. Jalloh was a naturalized citizen from Sierra Leon. From what I understand it wasn't possible to revoke his citizenship as he was already past the five year limit for doing so when you join a terror group. 

Since he wasn't denaturalized and deported, he was able to conduct this attack. The attack was mostly a failure as a courageous student stabbed him to death with a pocket knife. Given the circumstances, a gunman in a classroom, it was the smart thing to do, but it still takes an insane amount of bravery to attack a man armed with a gun when you only have a pocket knife. 

I don't think the cadet will be charged in this case. From what I understand he was able to carry a pocket knife in Virginia, even on campus. Plus, the prosecutor would have to be insane to charge the cadet under these circumstances, but if any state would be willing to do so it would be Virginia under their new far-left Governor, Abigail Spanberger.  

The motivation for this attack hasn't been specifically discovered, but given this was a member of ISIS it is pretty obvious. I don't know if this attack was related to the war in Iran though. Again, much like the attackers in New York that threw a bomb at a protest, this was a Sunni Muslim ISIS supporter. I doubt they care too much about Iran being attacked. I am guessing he did this because he hated his term in the National Guard and didn't like the idea that the US military was used against Sunni Muslims in the ISIS war last decade, with the Iran conflict being a tertiary concern at best, though it may have been the thing that stirred him into action. 

It does seem like I was right that the Iran war could "stir up the crazies". This is the third major terror attack since the war started that I am aware off, and thankfully most of them have been failures. This was the most successful one, and even though it's tragic that LT. Col. Shah was killed, it's still nothing compared to what we were seeing last decade. 

FBI warned that Iran could attack targets in California.

 

A recovered Shahed 131. US government photo. 

The FBI has issued a warning that Iran could attack targets in California with drones. ABC News. The FBI said they had gathered intelligence indicating that Iran could use drones in such an attack if a conflict broke out. The attacks could come from shipborne drone carriers or from troops in Mexico. However, Governor Gavin Newsom said that he was unaware of any threats. There have been major incidents with drones from the Mexican border, but those have been operated by the Drug Cartels, not Iran. 

My Comment:

It's very strange that this report is coming out now given that if there ever was a threat from Iranian drones, it's almost certainly over now. Iran's fleet is in taters at this point and their drone carrier, the IRIS Shahid Bagheri, has either been crippled or destroyed. I don't know if Iran possesses any vessels at this point that could even reach the United States, let alone launch a drone attack. 

In theory, the threat was serious. Iran theoretically could launch a drone attack from a ship, either their dedicated carrier or from a converted cargo ship. If they were able to achieve surprise they could potentially launch an attack. 

But even then, I doubt it would have been successful. The Pacific Ocean is protected by the US Navy and they are regularly patrolling for suspicious vessels. This has only increased due to naval operations against drug smugglers. The Iranians would have to somehow evade the US Navy an Coast Guard. 

And even if they launched an attack? They would have to have their drones evade our air defenses. US air defenses are pretty good and we have pretty good anti-drone technology as well. Indeed, we have used our anti-drone lasers and other weapons against drones threatening our homeland before. In theory, if Iran somehow achieved total tactical and strategic surprise, they might be able to evade our defenses. But right now, I can't see it happening. 

The main threat cited by the FBI was an airborne attack from the ocean. The ABC article cited an expert that said the threat could come from Mexico. That seems even less likely than the attack from the sea. Mexico does have a small Iranian presence, but I seriously doubt that the Iranians were able to get a bunch of drones into the country without anyone noticing. And, again, the border is where our anti-drone defenses are the strongest. 

Regardless, I generally think that this report is outdated and the threat was mostly theoretical in the first place. Iran could have tried this before their fleet was destroyed and their military capabilities were degraded but if there ever was a threat, it's gone now. 

Indeed, I don't think that Iran would have even wanted to do this. A direct attack on the US Homeland would be a massive escalation. If they had tried this and succeeded it would be the equivalent of Pearl Harbor. Blowing up a lot of Californians would likely unite the country and silence any anti-war voices and would invite a retaliation on a scale that the Iranians can scarcely imagine. And it could even lead to an actual ground invasion. Iran's strategy appears to just be to wait it out at this point and hope that President Trump will settle with the destruction of their military. Launching a major attack on the American homeland would be cross purposes for that. 

Senate Majority leader John Thune says the SAVE America Act will get a vote, but won't get rid of the silent filibuster to pass it.

 

Senate Majority John Thune. Senate Photo.

Senate Majority leader John Thune says the SAVE America Act will get a vote, but he won't get rid of the silent filibuster to pass it. AP. The act would greatly tighten election security by requiring Voter ID, eliminating mail in voting and requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. It would also ban transgender surgery for minors and biological males participating in woman's sports. The bill is popular but is expected to fail as zero Democrats will vote for it and cannot pass without 60 votes. There has been a large push for the Senate to get rid of the "silent filibuster" which would force Democrats to actually speak to block the bill, which would most likely allow the bill to pass. Thune says there are not enough Republican votes to actually get rid of the silent filibuster rule. President Trump has vowed to not pass any new legislation (except funding for the Department of Homeland Security) until the SAVE America Act is passed.

My Comment:

This is just another example of how dysfunctional our Congress is. Voter ID is extremely popular and is supported by around 75 to 80% of voters. In a normal world 75 to 80% of the vote in the Senate would be voting for this too. But instead we can't even get 60 Senators to vote for this. 

I do understand why the Democrats are opposed to this. They absolutely hate the idea of voter security as they depend on voter fraud, mail in ballots and non-citizens voting in order to win. We don't know how bad this problem is, due in part because we simply don't have any national legislation like this. But I do think that cleaning the voting roles alone would be enough to secure the election for the Republicans in 2026. 

But for Thune and the other Republicans? I just don't get it. They claim that preserving the filibuster is more important than winning the 2026 elections. They don't seem to realize that the filibuster only exists because the Democrats still had a couple of moderates, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, back in 2022. Those two Senators saved it but if the Democrats ever gain control of the Senate again, they will almost certainly kill it. And if that happens Thune is going to look like an absolute idiot, especially if it happens in 2026 specifically because this bill didn't pass. 

The failure of the bill will likely have a demoralizing effect on Republicans. This is a hugely popular bill and passed in the House easily. To see the Senate do absolutely nothing to defend it even though it is extremely popular is bad enough. To see them not do it when it could win the Republicans the Senate, House and probably the presidency in 2028? Absolutely infuriating. And it could lead to folks simply staying home because they don't think they can win an election that isn't' fair. And to be sure, our elections without voter ID are not fair. 

Keep in mind that Thune has been extremely obstructive to the executive branch. His commitment to tradition is blocking recess appointments and supporting non-MAGA candidates in various Senate elections, most notably in Texas this year with John Cornyn over Ken Paxton. At this point it seems like enemy actions and it seems he cares more about the stupid filibuster and obscure Senate rules than actually fighting the Democrats and working to help America. 

President Trump signals that the conflict with Iran may not last much longer.

 

President Trump at a press conference. NPR/Getty.

President Trump has signaled that the conflict with Iran may not last much longer but has not given an end date. NPR. Trump said that the United States had great success against the Iranian fleet and Air Force. He also said that due to the destruction of Iran's military he could end the operation now and call it a great success, but he would not end the war until Iran's nuclear capabilities were totally eliminated. Trump said that he had held off on hitting certain Iranian targets, like power generation. The conflict with Iran has caused volatility in the oil markets, but prices dropped today after a weekend panic. 

My Comment:

Folks are pretty happy that Trump is announcing this. Though people are divided on the war, nobody likes the economic disruption it is causing. Oil prices spiked dramatically yesterday, but dropped just as dramatically today, for multiple reasons. Nobody wants a long war with Iran and everyone would be a lot happier if it ended very soon. 

I do think that Trump is absolutely right, so far the Iranians have been rocked. As many as 42 of their ships have been destroyed, their Air Force is grounded and wrecked and even the last F-14's in active service appear to have been completely destroyed. Much of Iran's leadership is dead and every time one gets replaced they get killed as well. Indeed, there are already rumors that Iran's latest Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the former Ayatollah, may already be wounded or dead. 

And Iran's threats to close the Strait of Hormuz? Not effective. Though many ships are stuck waiting for the conflict the end or for escorts to show up, there have been as many as 20 ships that have run the strait and none of them have been sunk. They just shut their transponders off and go through the Strait and Iran hasn't been able to do a thing about it. 

Given the military situation, i do think Trump is right. He could end the war today and call it a success and it would be hard to argue otherwise. It will take years for Iran to rebuild their drone and missile forces and decades to try and build up air defenses, an Air Force and a Navy again. And I do think that this is a possible way that the war will end, especially if the economic disruptions end up being real. 

But I do think there are a couple of war goals that aren't yet accomplished which will prevent President Trump from doing this. First, the nuclear material that Iran produced has not been secured and either it will have to be destroyed through an airstrike (which is unlikely), surrendered as part of a peace deal, or secured directly on the ground. The last operation has been hinted in the media but if that's the case I am guessing we are in for weeks of bombings to make sure that operation isn't opposed. 

Second, I don't think President Trump wants the current Iranian regime to survive. And neither does anyone else, with the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah being the only exceptions. Israel has their own war goals and they absolutely want the Iranian regime gone, and so do the Saudis and the other Gulf States. A Venezuela situation where the United States turned it int a vassal state, or more accurately a suzerainty, doesn't seem possible with the current Iranian regime and I don't see how the war ends with the current Iranian government still in power. They would have to give up a lot in order for that to be acceptable to the Israelis and the Gulf States, and I don't know if the Iranians are there yet. 

Regardless, it does seem like the war is more likely to last weeks as opposed to months or years. Iran no longer has a credible military and there are signs of extreme stress on the regime. The main issue is like I said, the regime still exists and so does the nuclear material. But I also don't think that this will last much longer. Of the three outcomes I think the Iranian regime bending the knee to Trump or falling completely would be the most likely, and a special forces raid to be the least likely. But in any case, I do think we are close to the end game. 

The FBI has launched a terrorism investigation after an IED was ignited at a New York Protest.

 

A suspect drops an IED while police react. CBS News/AFP/Getty.

The FBI has launched a terrorism investigation after an IED was ignited at a protest in New York City. CBS News. The incident occurred at Gracie Mansion, which is where Mayor Zohran Mamdani lives. An anti-Islam protest was occurring, along with a counterprotest when two men from Pennsylvania launched an attack. 18 year old Emir Balat ignited and threw a device and then retrieved a 2nd bomb from Ibrahim Kayumi, a 19 year old, and lit that device as well before dropping it. Neither device worked but the FBI says they were serious IED's, loaded with screws and nails, and had M-80 fireworks as the fuse and a large amount of TATP. It is unclear what the motivation of the attackers were but they did shoot "Allahu Akbar" and are being investigated for ties to ISIS. Both men had recently traveled to the Middle East. 

My Comment:

This is a somewhat confusing situation as it's not clear if these men were members of the counter protests and if they were targeting just the right wing original protest, or both groups. The CBS article describes the attackers as left wing, though I don't know if they should. These guys seem like regular old radical Muslims that happened to be aligned with the left on this particular protest. 

Regardless, everyone was lucky that the bombs didn't go off. From the picture above, the 2nd device absolutely could have killed or wounded the suspect (Emir Balat) along with the police officers that were trying to confront him. And the 1st device could have killed and wounded people on both sides of the protests. 

It was luck that both devices didn't blow up. The design appears to have been sound, but something didn't work. It could have been the fuse or the mixture of the explosives but in both cases the devices failed. If they hadn't we probably would have seen, at the very least, double digit casualties, and potential fatalities. 

I would not be surprised if these attackers had links to ISIS or other terrorist groups. They were traveling in the Middle East and could have made contacts there. Indeed, that may have been where they learned how to make their bombs. Generally speaking, you want someone who has experience to teach you how to build a bomb as trying to learn it yourself is a good way to blow yourself up, so I am guessing they had help while they were overseas, assuming they didn't have domestic help here to build them. If they didn't build them, than that is a real problem as a bombmaker is on the loose... 

I don't think this has too much to do with the war in Iran. It's possible that it was a secondary motivation, but this protest was the motivating factor. It was against Islam in general and New York City's Muslim Mayor Zohran Mamdani and had very little to do with Iran. Plus, my guess is that the attackers were Sunni, given the countries they traveled to and the fact that they might have ISIS ties. Iran's Islam is mostly Shia and I doubt there are going to be too many radical Sunni Muslims that would attack in defense of that regime. 

As for the protest and the counter protest, both of them were pretty cringe if I am honest. You can make an argument that Islam in general is incompatible with the west, but protesting against Mamdani himself because of it (instead of his politics) seems to cross the line to actual harassment. I don't like Mamdani either but it's because he's a leftist, not because he's a Muslim. Indeed, he's an example of a Muslim that doesn't seem that devout and should be left alone, not harassed. He can and should be protested for being a left wing nutjob, not a Muslim. 

The counterprotest was just as cringy. They called this an anti-Nazi rally, as if the only people in the world that would have a problem with Islam are Nazis. Plus, they were protesting in favor of the people throwing the bombs as well. In my view neither of these groups were covering themselves in glory here.

Either way, I do think we are seeing an uptick of Islamic violence again. The good news is that there doesn't seem to be a large terror group like ISIS funding and inspiring it. The bad news is that there are a lot of things that are stirring up the crazies. I don't think we are going to see a major ISIS attack or Iranian sleeper agents (if that was going to happen it would have happened last year), but there are lot of lone wolf attackers that might try something... 

  

Kristi Noem is out at DHS, to be replaced by Senator Markwayne Mullin.

 

Kristi Noem testifying before congress. AP. 

Kristi Noem is out at DHS and will be replaced by Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin. AP. Noem will still have a role in the administration, in a newly created post the "Special Envoy for The Shield of the Americas", which will focus on security in the Western Hemisphere. However, it cannot be viewed as a promotion and is a fairly stunning fall for one of Trump's major allies. Noem had faced rare bipartisan criticism. Democrats did not like her actions in Minnesota and disagreed with her attempts to call Alex Pretti and Rene Goode as terrorists. However, Republicans were critical of her as well, most notably criticizing a $220 million ad campaign that was supposed to encourage illegal immigrants to leave but was seen as self-promotion for Noem. Noem was caught in a lie about that ad campaign as she had said that Trump had signed off on the campaign while he did no such thing. She has also been criticized for how she spent DHS money and slow pace in approving FEMA funds. 

My Comment:

The departure of Kristi Noem is the first major departure from the Trump administration at the cabinet level. Compared to Trump's 1st term his cabinet has been very stable and everyone else has remained since being confirmed. It's a major improvement over Trump's 1st term where he had a real problem with incompetent or disloyal cabinet members. 

As for Noem, I never really liked her at DHS. Before heading to DHS, she was a governor and she had a major scandal after she confessed to putting down a dog when it became vicious. Though she made the argument that doing so wasn't uncommon in South Dakota, it was terrible optics and showed that she didn't have very good political instincts. Indeed, it's a major reason why Trump didn't pick her for VP. 

Those bad political instincts struck again during her tenure. Her $220 ad campaign heavily featured herself, and it backfired spectacularly. Instead of encouraging illegal immigrants to leave, it seemed a lot more like self-promoting her as a tough woman yet again. 

The Hill. 

This is the first time I have seen this advertisement and I absolutely see the point. The focus is all on Noem. She looks good riding on a horse and there is a ton of focus on who she is and not much on the actual focus of the advertisement, getting illegal aliens to go back home. It absolutely has the tone as if she is running for something, despite already having a high ranking position. It was, in short, pretty inappropriate for a sitting cabinet member. 

The media was talking about other scandals, and I do think she does deserve some criticism for that too. Though I generally approved of the DHS operations in Minnesota and do consider Alex Pretti and Rene Goode to be domestic terrorists, the way Noem handled both backfired. Noem went for flashy, high profile, raids which enraged the left and allowed them to frame the operation of tyranny. And though Pretti and Goode were horrible people that were doing horrible things, Noem called them terrorists before any kind of investigation could have proven that. 

In short, I think she has terrible political instincts and seems to care a lot more about her image than actually being competent. She does have some talent, but it's overshadowed by the fact that she just doesn't seem to understand how her actions will look to the general public and that's fatal for a cabinet member in charge of one of Trump's main platforms. Indeed, she made it look to Democrats that she was cracking down far too hard, while many Republicans have been whining that she wasn't doing anywhere near enough. That's a clue that she lost the plot. 

Markwayne Mullin should be a very good replacement, and one that Democrats may regret getting rid of Noem for. Mullin is respected in the Senate and is very likely to be confirmed. And he has a reputation of a fighter, both metaphorically and literally as he was an MMA fighter. If nothing else, he has to have better political instincts than Noem. 

Finally, I have to say that I do dislike the Noem archetype. Though she is a pretty strong Republican she is the same kind of person like Nancy Mace, Marjorie Taylor Greene or Pam Bondi. All of them seem to fit the "Girl Boss" archetype, where it's more important to look good and look tough than actually be competent and it seems all of them were promoted beyond their actual abilities. There are plenty of strong Republican women who actually are hard workers and are incredibly competent but I don't like these girl bosses no matter what party they are. Noem and her ilk are just the AOC and Ilhan Omar of the right...  

Iran war update: US gets submarine kill on Iranian frigate, F-35 gets first air to air kill.

 

The IRIS Dena, now at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. The Guardian/Reuters. 

The United States has destroyed the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena in the Indian ocean, marking the first time a US Submarine has torpedoed an enemy ship since World War II. The Guardian. The Dena was returning from India after a fleet review and was torpedoed near Sri Lanka. The ship was Iran's newest vessel and was destroyed. Some survivors were rescued by the Sri Lankans. 32 survivors and 28 bodies have been recovered as of this writing.

https://t.co/PiqQpVIrMu pic.twitter.com/Wc1e0B0um7

— Department of War 🇺🇸 (@DeptofWar) March 4, 2026

  

File photo of the F-35 Lightning II, similar to the F-35-Aidr operated by Israel. Times of Israel/Reuters.

Israel has secured the first air-to-air kill of a manned aircraft by an F-35 after shooting down a Yak-130 over Tehran. Times of Israel. The F-35 was the Aidr version used by Israel and is the first time Israel has gotten an air-to-air kill in 40 years. The aircraft shot down, the Yak-130 isn't a pure fighter craft, it's a trainer and strike aircraft, but was more of a threat than other obsolescent designs, like the F-4 Phantom and F-5 Tiger, that Iran had been using. In addition, the UK got their first air-to-air kill of a drone with their own F-35 flying over Jordan. 

My Comment:

This is far from a comprehensive update of everything that is happening with the war in Iran, I obviously did not mention the fact that Iran launched a missile at Turkey, of all places. But I did want to focus on these military firsts given how significant they are.  

First, the sinking of the IRIS Dena. The Dena was one of the most threatening remaining surface combatants Iran had and unlike the rest of the fleet, it was deployed when the conflict started. It appeared to be heading back to Iranian waters. Though the ship was not a powerful surface combatant compared to US ships in the area, it did represent a major threat as it was armed with surface to air and surface to surface missiles, that could potentially be a threat to US planes and ships. It could have even been used as a commerce raider given that it was free in the Indian Ocean. 

Given that, it needed to be destroyed and an attack sub was probably the best option. Airstrikes would have been difficult given the position of the USS Ford and USS Lincoln, and I doubt that the US Navy had a surface ship of their own to go toe to toe with the Dera. Instead a submarine fired two torpedoes at the ship and appears to have destroyed it completely, to the point where the Sri Lankans only saw an oil slick when they came to rescue the survivors. 

Also notable, and somewhat buried in the article is that the ship reported to have their weapons disabled through electronic means. This seems like it goes beyond the normal electronic jamming, as I don't see how it would completely disable the Dena's weapons systems. 

Could this be another use of the famed "discombobluator" that Trump mentioned in the Maduro raid? Trump described it as a weapon that could simply shut off electronics, such as the weapons used by the Dena. From what it sounds like this would be a directed energy weapon that would use high energy microwaves to induce an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) effect on the target. If that is the case, it's a gamechanger as it would give a huge military advantage to the United States for what should be obvious reasons. 

As for the F-35, any dogfight is notable. To be fair, I didn't write a post about the Qatari F-15's that got air-to-air kills on SU-24 fighter jets, but I absolutely did note it. The F-35 finally getting an air-to-air kill is notable given how controversial the type is and because it was against a more modern fighter. 

To be fair, it's not like the Yak-130 is really a top of the line fighter jet. It's a trainer and attack aircraft that can be used as an interceptor in a pinch. It's fast and maneuverable, but it likely had no realistic chance in a long range fight with an F-35, and I am guessing it would struggle in a dogfight as well.  The fact that Iran is using the type at all to contest the skies over Tehran shows that their Air Force has been severely depleted. 

The F-35 has been criticized for not being a good dogfighter and not having the capabilities of the F-22. This should be a minor vindication of the type as it shows that its role as a long range fighter is real. In this combat environment, it would be almost impossible for Iran to get into a dogfight and it makes the use case of the F-35 a lot more defensible. It will still get some well deserved criticism for being overpriced and being vulnerable in dogfights (and for only having one engine), but this use will be a good proof of concept for the fighters use in the future. 

I do have to wonder why Iran even bothered at this point. The chances of a single Yak-130 doing much of anything against the US and Israeli fighters arrayed against them is almost nil. I guess they could have gotten lucky and gotten into missile range of a fighter jet somehow, but even then, at best you shoot down one fighter. It wouldn't change the fact that the United Sates and Israel have total air superiority in this war, and will likely be joined by other nations soon. Though if the leadership of Iran was rational, this war would have never happened in the first place. 

The Surpreme Court appears likely to overturn federal gun control law that bars drug users from owning firearms.

 

Stock photo of a marijuana joint. NBC News/AFP/Getty.

The Supreme Court appears likely to overturn or modify a federal gun control law that bars drug users from owning firearms. NBC News. The case, United States v. Hemani involves Ali Daniel Hemani, who was arrested in Texas by federal officers after being found with marijuana, cocaine and a handgun. Hemani's lawyers argued that the law that bars gun ownership for users of drugs was unconstitutional under the Bruen test, which requires gun laws to have a historical precedent. The Government's argument was that there were historical gun bans for "habitual drunkards", but Hemani's lawyers argued that the standard was a lot higher than simply possessing and using drugs. The court seemed swayed by that argument, with justices noting that simply using drugs did not make someone dangerous and even noted that the bar for habitual drunkards was extremely high, noting the founding fathers own heroic levels of drinking. The case attracted odd bedfellows, with the ACLU, NORML and gun rights groups supporting Hemani while the Trump Administration and gun control groups supporting the law. 

My Comment:

I have written about this law before, but it was in the context of Hunter Biden's conviction of the same crime. Hunter Biden, infamously, lied on his federal 4473 form that everyone has to fill out before buying a gun as part of the background check. There is a box, 11e, that asks if you use drugs and Biden, as a heavy drug user, lied. At the time I thought Hunter Biden might bring the case to the Supreme Court, but Joe Biden pardoned him before the issue became relevant. Thankfully Hemani was able to bring a similar case. 

I do think that the law,  (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)), should be overturned. Being a drug user should bar you from your constitutional right to own firearms. Actually using a gun while high should be a crime, outside of active self defense situations, but simply owning a firearm and using drugs does not make you necessarily dangerous. 

Making the issue even more dumb is the fact that marijuana counts as one of the drugs. Though I am no fan of weed, it's absurd that you are committing a federal crime buying a gun after using a substance that is legal in 40 of 50 states for medicinal use and 24 out of 50 for personal use. And alcohol, a drug that does affect behavior, is not one of the drugs. 

I do think that there is a precedent for laws that could bar drug users from owning firearms, but the standard is going to be extremely high. Habitual drunkards is a level of degeneracy that was hard to reach even back in the time of the founding fathers. Are there drug addicts that reach that level today? Absolutely! And in those cases you probably could bar them from gun ownership. 

But I really do think that there has to be some kind of ruling from the government that says you are a degenerate drug user, like some kind of commitment to a treatment center or strong evidence of bad behavior related to drug use. Given that most degenerate drug users are going to be barred from gun ownership due to felony convictions or being committed to a mental health center, it's kind of a moot point. 

So how will the court rule? I am guessing that the law will be at least partially overturned. The Justices, even the liberal ones, seemed very skeptical of the law as it was written. I don't expect a full repeal of the law, but I would be surprised if the law wasn't seriously modified. 

I'd take the win in either case. Though marijuana isn't legal in my state, and even if it was, I would never try it so I wouldn't have to lie on my federal 4473 form if I ever buy another gun. I don't really have a desire to try pot regardless, but I do think it's ridiculous that if I wanted to I would have to give up my gun rights to do so. That absolutely should change.

Finally, I have to say that I am disappointed that the Trump administration is defending this law. Though Trump has been far better for gun rights than the Democrats, he's also squishy on the issue and this is a good example of that being the case. To be honest, he's also been squishy on marijuana issue as well, going through the trouble of rescheduling the drug, but still having a very baby boomer opinion on the drug and it's users (yes, I know Trump isn't a baby boomer, but still). Folks accuse me of always defending Trump, but this is another case where I do think he should be criticized.  

Mass shooting in Austin Texas appears to have been an act of terrorism.

 

An image of the shooter, Ndiaga Diagne. Fox News.

A mass shooting in Austin Texas is being investigated as an act of terrorism. Fox News. The shooter, 53 year old Ndiaga Diagne, opened fire from his SUV around 2:00 am at a crowd gathered outside of a bar with a handgun. He then got out of his vehicle and continued firing until he was shot and killed by police. Two people were killed by the gunman and 14 others were wounded. The suspect was a naturalized citizen originally from Senegal. He was wearing a shirt that said "Property of Allah" and an undershirt that had the Iranian flag underneath. Despite the motivation likely being Islamic terrorism, no direct links to any terror group or the Iranian government are suspected at this time. 

My Comment:

Looks like the conflict with Iran has stirred up the crazies. This guy was not part of any organization but decided to pick up a rifle and a handgun anyways. Supposedly he has a criminal history and a history of mental illness. He fits the profile of a "lone wolf" terrorist and those do tend to be stirred up by current events. 

I think there is almost zero chance of this guy being directly connected to Iran. He was from Senegal, not Iran and no connection has been found between him and Iran. And this was not an all organized attack. The attacker just went to a popular night-life location and opened fire, that's not exactly a complicated plan. I would expect that a state sponsored terror attack would be a lot more sophisticated than that and would target something more important than a crowd at bar close. 

Indeed, I think the idea of Iran having a bunch of sleeper cells in America is pretty provably false at this point. Iran did not activate any sleeper cells when the United States bombed Iran's nuclear facilities or during the war with Israel. I am guessing if they had large numbers of sleeper agents they would have activated them last year. Iranian Americans are generally against the Iranian government as well. 

Thankfully, this attack was put down pretty quickly. Indeed, it seems like the attacker made a pretty bad mistake in opening fire with his handgun first as opposed to his rifle. This gave the cops time to kill him quickly after his first attack. It also may be why so few people died, I can't imagine his pistol fire was accurate from the seat of his car and the rounds were a lot less powerful. 

There are some pretty obvious questions as to why this guy was allowed to stay in the United States and get citizenship. He was originally a tourist overstay from 2000 but was allowed to be a permanent resident in 2006 after a marriage to an American citizen, and got his own citizenship in 2013. Of course, none of this would have been happened if he had been deported after overstaying his visa. 

It's rather surreal that this attacker may have been tweeting at a sitting US Congressman, Randy Fine. Fine was in the news for being rather anti-Muslim and Diangne may have tweeted at him after Fine said that if you hear "Allahu Akbar" someone's about to get killed. I don't know if it's confirmed that this was the shooter or not, but still, it's bizarre. 

The Muslim terrorist in Austin had tweeted at me.

He was upset I said that when someone screams Allahu Akhbar there’s a good chance someone is going to get killed.

That’s exactly what this Muslim terrorist was screaming last night as he murdered Americans.

The time for… https://t.co/PbgJBoC4DB

— Congressman Randy Fine (@RepFine) March 1, 2026

So, is there potential for more attacks like this? Like I said, I think sleeper attacks are unlikely, but lone wolf attacks like this are fairly likely from the Islamic community. These kinds of attacks often follow major media events like the conflict with Iran. And I don't think it will just be the Islamic community that will be stirred up. The far left could be a threat as well, given how deranged they have become about President Trump. Such attacks aren't certain, but are possible, so it would be smart to keep your head on a swivel until the war ends...