Supreme Court tosses Louisiana gerrymander and limits the use of the Voting Rights Act.

 

The Louisiana district gerrymandered in favor of Black voters. New York Post.

The Supreme Court tosses Louisiana gerrymander and limits the use of the Voting Rights Act in drawing congressional districts, which will likely lead to major gains for Republicans in Congress. New York Post. Louisiana added a 2nd majority black district that sent an additional Democrat to Congress. However, voters sued saying their 14th amendment rights were violated because the map was based on race and not other factors. The six conservative justices agreed and said that Louisiana had redraw its maps. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan blasted the ruling, saying it "gutted" section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Republicans appear to agree and plans are already being made to redistrict the Southern States. However, it might not be enough to affect the outcome of the 2026 midterms given that many states have already begun the primary process. 

My Comment:

It is unfortunate that this ruling came so late in the election cycle. If it had happened in 2025 there would be basically no chance that the Democrats could win in 2026. But the timing is pretty terrible. There are a lot of states, like Texas, North Carolina and Mississippi, that aren't going to be able to redistrict because the primary process has already started. And Alabama's maps are frozen due to another court case. Louisiana and Florida should be able to redistrict but it might not go much beyond that. 

How many new seats the Republicans can pick up from this is questionable. Most analysis I have seen is that the Republicans could gain 2-4 seats, with Florida being the most likely to gain seats. Like I said, there are just too many Southern states that won't have time to redistrict. At best this would make up for the Virginia redistricting. 

But a lot is going to ride on how that court case turns out. The maps are now on hold and the consensus is that the Democrats will either lose the case outright or be delayed enough that the current seats will stay in use through the midterms. It's very possible that four seats that were going to be lost in Virginia will be dramatically safter, giving the Republicans 6-8 seats that they were going to lose otherwise. 

Is that enough to keep the House? I am not sure. Midterms are usually brutal for the party in control of the White House. It's one of the more consistent things in American Politics and it would not be shocking if the Democrats won in 2026 even with the optimistic 6-8 seat gain that this ruling and the failure of the Virginia gerrymander.

Republicans are facing headwinds as well. The Iran War is genuinely unpopular and so are the high gas prices from it. I still think that a peace deal is going to be in place long before any votes are cast in the midterms, but the longer the war goes without a peace deal, or worse, the return to active combat, the more damage is done. 

But I also don't see a blue wave like the Democrats want. I think the Senate is safe while the House might see the kind of slim lead for Democrats the Republican currently "enjoy". The Democrats are still historically unpopular and they have made no effort to change their policies that turn off voters, like support for transgender people and other woke nonsense. They also have a huge deficit in money. Consensus is that the Democrats have an 80% chance to gain the House but I am more bullish, and say it's a 60-40 proposition, not good for Republicans, but not hopeless either, contingent on the Virginia gerrymander not surviving and the Iran conflict ending soon. 

Long term though? It's going to get rough for Democrats. I am guessing most of the black majority districts in the South are going to be removed by 2028 at the latest. And it's possible that some of the Democrats' maps in blue states will be changed due to lawsuits too. 

And the 2030 census is likely going to be an absolute bloodbath for Democrats. The combination of voters fleeing from blue states like New Yor and California and the effects of Trump getting rid of illegal aliens in blue states is going to result in a lot of house seats and electoral college votes going to the Republicans. It's very possible that the Democrats could be in the wilderness for a long time in the most optimistic outcome. 

 

Former FBI director James Comey has been arrested for a threat to President Donald Trump.

 

Former FBI Director James Comey. Fox News/Getty. 

Former FBI director James Comey has been arrested for a threat to President Donald Trump. Fox News. Comey posted on his Instagram account a picture of shells arranged to read "8647". The case hinges on the interpretation of that post. "86" is slang that means to remove or kill and "47" is a reference to Donald Trump, the 47th president of the United States. Comey argues that his usage was of the "remove" meaning of 86 while the government argues his meaning is clear. Comey had removed the post and apologized claiming that he didn't know the other interpretation of the term. Comey's post came after two attempted assassinations of President Trump, but before the latest shooting at the White House Correspondents' dinner.  

My Comment:

I'm of two minds of this. On the one hand, it's going to extraordinarily difficult to prove that Comey actually meant the "kill' interpretation of 86. You have to prove intent and that is going to be extremely hard to do so. 

But I also think that Comey knew exactly what he was saying. I know the media is saying that "86" has never always meant "kill" but I have literally never heard it used in any other way. It's to the point where it feels like gaslighting. And it's not like there is a whole lot of difference between the two meanings, and least in intent. 

The context is that the same folks that are calling for violence against President Trump are also using the 8647 phrase, to an absurd degree. It's possible that Comey was just ignorant, but I don't see how anyone with a social media account would interpret it in any other way. 

But can it be proven in court? I really don't think so. The whole post seems like it was designed to get as close as possible to the line of a real threat without crossing it. He's got the defense of ignorance and arguing that he wasn't smart enough to know the implications of his post. He can also say that he was drawing attention to someone else's work and that he was just documenting it, which is a strong defense. I don't think for a moment that Comey's arguments are actually accurate, I think for sure he knew what he was doing was wrong.

But legally? I don't think it matters. The legal standard is that Comey posted this knowingly and willfully as a threat and that it's beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't mean it in another way. Unless there is some kind of smoking gun where Comey had admitted that he absolutely meant it as a threat, I don't see how a jury will convict. 

So why pursue charges anyways? Some of it is due to Comey being a scumbag that skated other charges on a technicality. The powers that be want another shot at taking him down and a long shot is better than no shot as all. 

But mostly I think this is a message to folks making similar statements on social media that aren't at all ambiguous. That message is that if you make a threat against the President, even if you are being cheeky with it, you are getting charged. Even if you are someone like James Comey, a former FBI director, you will get charged. I do think that they believe that Comey's actions are illegal, but sending the message that nobody can threaten the President without consequences.  

Melania and Donald Trump call for Jimmy Kimmel to be fired again

 

Melania Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. New York Post/AFP. 

First Lady Melania Trump issued a rare public statement calling for the firing of ABC late night host Jimmy Kimmel. New York Post. Melania and Donald Trump called for the firing after an exceptionally ill timed joke made by Kimmel. Kimmel said “Look at Melania, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.” in a parody of the Whitehouse Correspondent's Dinner before the event happened. Of course, an assassination attempt on President Trump and other members of the White House occurred at the event. Melania Trump accused Kimmel of hiding behind ABC and called for the network to fire him. Kimmel was previously suspended for lying about the Charlie Kirk assassination, falsely claiming that Tyler Robinson was a Republican. 

My Comment:

Most media reports are absolutely downplaying the original incident that almost got Jimmy Kimmel fired in the first place. I absolutely think he should have been fired for that and if he gets fired now I would not be upset. His lies were incredibly damaging as there are still people that believe that Tyler Robinson was a Republican and not the LGBT activist he was. Robinson killed Kirk because he was angry that Kirk wasn't fully on board with transgender ideology and he was dating a male to female transgender person. 

Kimmel did serious damage with his statement that Robinson was conservative. And the worst part is that news had broken that day, well before Kimmel taped the show, Robinson's real motive. This wasn't a joke, it was a deliberate lie that Kimmel and his team absolutely shouldn't have done. 

This current controversy though? It seems a lot less serious. It was a bad joke for sure, you shouldn't be implying that a woman would be happy that her husband died under any circumstances. But if you do it to a woman who was married to a man that had multiple assassination plots against him and one that he was not only injured in but legitimately only survived due to what can only be described as divine intervention, you are going to make everyone mad. 

But it was just a joke and I am not really comfortable firing people over jokes, even when they are in extraordinarily bad taste. I will also say that Kimmel made the joke before the event and had no idea what was going to happen with the attempted assassin. If this was all Kimmel did I would not really support him getting fired. 

If Kimmel does get fired for this, it would be imperfect justice. I absolutely believe that he has no business surviving the original Charlie Kirk assassination controversy, but this current one is dramatically less serious. He should get fired for being a liar, not for being a crappy comedian that insulted the President and First Lady. 

I do feel for Melania Trump here. She has an absolute right to be disgusted by what Kimmel said. It's pretty clear she was traumatized by the attack and it some ways it was worse than Butler for her specifically. Not only was her husband in danger this time, but she was herself, along with a lot of people she knows and cares about. I don't blame her for being upset. 

As for Kimmel himself, I don't know if this will end up with him being fired. It really depends on how angry people get about this. He almost got fired the last time, mostly because ABC affiliates revolted and advertisers pulled out. Will that happen again? I am not sure. Like I said, this case isn't as serious as the last controversy and I don't know how sustained the anger will be for a failed assassination attempt that nobody died at. 

But I do think that Kimmel could be at risk. Late night TV is a joke now anyways and this is the 2nd incident in 7 months. ABC has to be thinking that the continued controversy with Kimmel isn't really worth it. If there is a groundswell of anger over Kimmel or yet another incident, Kimmel might be gone. 

Argentina renews claim to Falkland Islands over the UK.

 

Argentine President Javier Milei at a ceremony honoring war dead from the Falkland Islands war. Time/Getty.

Argentina has renewed claims of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands as opposed to the United Kingdom. Time. Argentina and the UK fought a major war over the Islands, which the Argentines call he Maldives, but the war ended with a UK victory. America is officially neutral in the dispute but a leaked memo claims that the US may reassess that due to the fact that the UK was unwilling or unable to assist in the Iran War. The UK, under Keir Starmer, reasserted their own sovereignty over the Falklands. 

My Comment:

To be clear, I don't see a second round of the Falkland Islands war. Indeed, Milei opposes the idea and wants to gain control of the Islands through diplomatic means. This isn't really a change and the only possible difference is that the White House might be moving away from neutrality on the issue. 

A war is extremely unlikely in the short to mid term. The Royal Navy, though a shell of it's former self, still has a couple of aircraft carriers and a major submarine fleet. They are very short on escorting frigates and destroyers, and the ones they have are often not deployable, but they still have a lot of combat power. 

If Argentina had invested in their own military, they might have had a chance to win an actual war against the UK, given how weak the Royal Navy is right now. But Argentina is also weaker than they were during the Falklands War. They never really rebuilt their forces and all they have are some old destroyers and a bunch of corvettes. They have some modern F-16 fighters but I just don't see them beating the Royal Navy's carriers, and the considerable forces deployed to the Islands. 

I mention the weakness of the Royal Navy because it's a major reason why the United States and United Kingdom are on the rocks right now. Much has been made about the unwillingness of the UK to help with Iran conflict but the fact of the matter is that they were barely able to deploy the destroyer HMS Dragon to help protect their own assets in the region. They had a carrier, the HMS Prince of Wales, but they did not have the destroyers and frigates and submarines available to actually protect it. There was some discussion of them pairing up with the French so that their ship would have been protected, but instead they did nothing. 

Given those circumstances, the United States is understandably angered at the UK. They not only refused to help, they were unable to do so. So in response the United States might be reevaluating their relationship with the UK. 

But I also think that the United States realizes that there isn't much of a point of being allies with a country that is so dysfunctional that it can afford an aircraft carrier but can't even deploy it without help. And I also think that they don't really believe that the UK has much of a future. Indeed, I have been saying that for years, very few countries in Europe are going to survive in their current state given the awful state of their economy, the absolute incompetence of their leadership and the massive damage and instability that immigration is causing. 

Argentina has none of that. Indeed, they seem like a country that has not only turned things around, but has a bright future. Milei seems like a competent leader and the country has none of the problems with immigration that the rest of the world has. 

Regardless, I don't see the actual control over the Falklands changing any time soon. The people there absolutely want to remain with the UK and unless that changes I don't see how Argentina can claim the territory without it being unjust. And as long as the Royal Navy has some inertia and Argentina doesn't start seriously investing in their military, I can't see anything changing. 

President Trump safe after shots fired at the White House Correspondence Dinner.

 

Agents draw weapons after the shots rang out. New York Post/AFP.

President Donald Trump is safe after an apparent assassination attempt at the White House Correspondence Dinner. New York Post. Trump was attending the dinner for the first time and an opening speech had already occurred. A man opened fire with a firearm, striking an agent who was saved by his bullet proof vest. The shooter had tried to get past the metal detectors at the event at a full sprint, but was stopped. CNN's Wolf Blitzer said that he heard around six shots. Another witness said the suspect had assembled an unusual long gun. Trump was not the only high ranking official at the dinner, as Vice President JD Vance, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Health and Human Service Director RFK Jr. were all in attendance. No motive has been released for the attack.

The AP has live updates for this story.

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump DROPS SECURITY FOOTAGE appearing to show tonight’s shooting breaking out at the WHCA dinner

Glad the Secret Service got the scumbag and everyone is SAFE 👏🏻 pic.twitter.com/uuZ8YGbzYP

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 26, 2026

 

My Comment:

This marks the fourth major assassination attempt against Donald Trump since his political life began. There was the illegal alien that tried to disarm a cop in 2016 in Las Vegas, the Butler assassination attempt, the Florida Golf course assassination attempt and now this. There were other attempts as well, but these were the major ones and the ones that at least had a plausible chance of succeeding. I do believe that this incident means that Trump has faced more threats to his life than any other American President. 

This was extraordinarily concerning, not just because of the attack against Trump, but the fact that most of the Presidential Line of Succession was there too, at the very least the top three. Trump, Vance and Mike Johnson were all there and if this assassin wasn't stopped when he was, we might have been swearing in Chuck Grassley as President... And it wasn't just Republicans at this dinner, at the very least Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrats leader in Congress, and Senator John Fetterman were there as well. 

The suspect has been identified online but it's too early to tell what his motivation is. President Trump said it he was likely a "lone wolf nutjob" and that's probably accurate. He's been identified as Cole Allen, a 31 year old teacher from California but no motive has been released. Trump said it was unlikely that it was related to the Iran conflict but as of right now, it is a possibility. 

I did listen to Trump's press conference and I have to say, it seemed like this affected him pretty deeply. He praised the folks that protected him and said that it's a risk of his job. Trump was his usual braggadocios self, but I did notice that his voice cracked a little when he was talking about his wife Melania's reaction to the shooting. Trump remained fairly calm during the shooting but it's also clear that he understands just how dangerous his job is, and mentioned that race car drivers and bull riders have a lower chance of death than an American President. 

The political implications of this are yet to be seen, but I do think that the press realizes that this was an attack on them as well. I don't think that means they will suddenly start giving Trump a fair shake, but they might indeed tone down the rhetoric a bit. Indeed, Wolf Blitzer was put in physical danger in this incident so maybe things will change? Same with the Democrats in the audience, Trump and his team might have been the targets but they were in the line of fire too. 

One thing that I don't think will change is the rhetoric coming from the far left in this country. The leadership of the Democrats is condemning this attack, but the message from Reddit and BlueSky appears to be that "this was staged and Trump deserves it anyways". I just don't think those folks have any shame anymore, and little connection to reality, and if Trump getting shot on stage in Butler didn't change anything, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk didn't change anything, I don't know why this would either...

President Trump has rescheduled Marijuana making it legal for medical purposes

 

File photo of a marijuana plant. NPR/Getty.

President Trump has rescheduled marijuana making it legal for medical purposes federally and allowing medical research. NPR. The drug has been moved from Schedule I, which includes drugs like heroin and LSD, to Schedule III, which includes drugs like Codeine and steroids. Schedule I drugs are ones that the government have ruled have no medical purposes, but Schedule III drugs are recognized to have legitimate medical uses. The change will not legalize private use but will allow patients to use FDA approved drugs and state regulated ones as well, while other forms of the drug will remain Schedule I. Medical marijuana companies and companies are big winners in the change as they will be able to operate more openly. Anti-marijuana groups may attempt to block the rescheduling of the drug. 

My Comment:

I am not sure what the reaction to this will be. Obviously anti-pot groups are going to be upset and there are a lot of people that believe that marijuana has no medicinal use. Those people are not going to be happy. But pro-pot people? I am not sure they will be happy either as this doesn't go far enough for them. 

I don't really think this will be blocked though. The anti-pot people are a minority and this seems like an easy thing that Trump can do. I don't know on what basis they can challenge this. My guess is these anti-drug groups are going to file lawsuits but those lawsuits will absolutely fail. 

As for pro-pot groups, they are absolutely going to want to go further than this, they want full legalization and simply rescheduling some of the forms of marijuana for medical use only is not going to be enough for them. They want pot to be as easy to buy as alcohol and obviously this doesn't go that far. 

So is this the right move? I think so. I don't know if I support full legalization but I do think it's worth it at the very least to study pot to see if it can actually help sick people. I do think there is pretty good evidence that it can help people with glaucoma and cancer patients so I have zero problem with those people having better access to these drugs. 

It does seem like this will be the first step for full legalization of pot. 24 states, plus Washington DC, have legalized recreational use while 40 have medical marijuana laws in force. My state, Wisconsin, has essentially a full ban, but even here cracks are forming. 

Is that going to be a good thing? I am not sure. Obviously, legalizing pot has been an economic boon for states that have legalized it. Indeed, folks in Wisconsin often drive north to Menominee Michigan just for pot, helping the economy of that town quite a bit. Millions in tax dollars are collected as well. 

There are downsides as well. Folks don't like seeing people high on weed while out in public. And a lot of people drive while high, which is obviously dangerous. I also think that the younger generation's switch from alcohol to pot is a major reason why they have so many problems forming friendships and relationships. Pot makes you satisfied with doing nothing while booze acts as a social lubricant and gets people to loosen up. 

Regardless, I do think that this half-measure is probably the right way to do this. The people that could benefit medically will at least get a chance to try and more research can be done. We will, at least in states where it isn't fully legal, avoid the downsides of the drug and the folks that need help will get it. I think that's a positive development. 

Another member of Congress, Democrat Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, has resigned in the wake of a scandal.

 

Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick. Fox News/AP.

Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick has resigned in the wake of a major scandal. Fox News. The Florida Democrat was accused of stealing Covid relief funds and has been indicted by a grand jury. The House Ethics panel found that she had stolen the funds and there were preparations being made to expel her from congress. She has denied wrongdoing and said she was resigning to help her constituents. She is the third member of Congress to resign in a week after Eric Swalwell and Tony Gonzalez did so last week due to separate sex scandals. A fourth member of Congress, Cory Mills, who has been accused of domestic abuse and stolen valor, could face expulsion as well, though the House Ethics committee has not ruled on his case yet.  

My Comment:

This happened yesterday, but it was a pretty slow news day. And it is an important story. McCormick was pretty obviously guilty of the crimes she was accused of and it was pretty clear that she was going to be expelled from congress. 

So why did she resign? I am guessing it was to help with her criminal trial. She's facing a very long sentence and I think she is probably going to go to trial. If she was expelled from Congress it would be a huge problem for her even though I would think that the judge would want to keep that under wraps to the Jury. Still, why take the risk of a savvy juror knowing that she was expelled from Congress? 

Plus it allows her to save a little face. It's absolutely humiliating to be expelled from Congress, which is why Swalwell and Gonzalez resigned as well. In those cases neither man had faced anything like a fair trail but both were perceived as guilty enough to kick out so they resigned. A similar thing happened here. 

This does have implications for the control of the house. When Swalwell and Gonzalez resigned, it didn't matter because they were both from separate parties. But with McCormick resigning, there is a potential gain of a seat for the Republican Party. The GOP's lead there has been very narrow for awhile now so extending that could be a victory for them.   

The question now is if Cory Mills survives. Unlike McCormick the accusations against him haven't been vetted and there hasn't been a flow of new accusations against him. If the Ethics Committee does find him responsible for the stolen valor and domestic abuse allegations, he will be out too. But so far he hasn't been. 

Nancy Mace has introduced an expulsion of Mills but supposedly he's doing the same thing to her. I think he has a point, he deserves some due process for the accusations against him. And I don't believe for a second that Mace is doing it for anything other than her own publicity. Either way though it's very possible that we will see another tit for tat resignation in the wake of the McCormick resignation. 

DOJ charges the Southern Poverty Law Center for fraud after it was found that they were funding, not fighting, right wing extremism.

 

Acting US Attorney Todd Blanche and FBI director Kash Patel. New York Post/AFP/Getty.

The Department of Justice has charged the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for fraud after it was found they were funding right wing groups. New York Post. The SPLC had donated millions of dollars to members of right wing groups, like the Klu Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and even an organizer of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. The SPLC says that these people were informants, but the government accused them of hiding payments to them and for purporting to fight right wing extremism while funding them. The government argues that this was fraud as the payments to right wing groups was not disclosed to donors. The SPLC even went so far to use shell companies to hide the payments. 

My Comment:

It's been a truism on the right that the demand for rightwing extremism far outweighs the actual supply and that most noticeable extremist groups on the right are infiltrated with informants and undercover law enforcement agents. This is very strong evidence that the idea isn't off base. The SPLC was funding right wing groups for years.

The SPLC is saying that these folks were just informants, but even if that is true and this wasn't an effort to make a problem where non existed, what they were doing is indeed fraudulent. Paying informants doesn't appear to be illegal, but not disclosing that to the donors that paid for it was. You can't claim to be an anti-right wing network while at the same time paying the people that they are supposed to be fighting, many of the people that gave money to the SPLC would not have done so if that had been disclosed. 

Using shell companies to hide the payments is a big no-no as well. The victims in this case would be the banks that processed the payments, which is illegal to lie about. It's something that I don't think the SPLC can defend, though their argument is that it was to protect their informants. Though somehow I doubt that the leadership of these right wing groups were checking their memberships for unusual payments from the SPLC. 

The SPLC's involvement in the Unite the Right rally also makes a lot of sense. The rally, which ended with a death after a woman was hit by a car, pretty much destroyed the far right in America and it's clear now that the SPLC was helping out quite a bit. They were paying for transportation to the rally and I wouldn't be surprised if the tiki torches were there idea as well. 

The damage that rally did to the right is hard to understate. The right was ascendant when the rally happened but it really did change things. Suddenly the right was scary again with the tiki torches sending the exact opposite message that they wanted to send. And it didn't help that someone died. To find out that the left was deeply involved in that rally to the point they were paying for transportation is not surprising, but it does vindicate a lot of what I believe. 

Will the government get a conviction? You never can tell these days. Given the evidence, I don't think there is much doubt that the SPLC is guilty of at least some of what they are accused of, I don't know how you defend using shell companies legally. But with all prosecutions of left wing crimes, I worry about jury nullification, activists judges and 100 other lawfare efforts that the left is going to use to defend the SPLC. Time will tell if the charges stick...     

UK Prime Minster Kier Starmer faces fresh calls for resignation for misleading Parliament over Peter Mandelson's Jeffrey Epstein ties.

 

Lord Peter Mandelson (left) with Jeffrey Epstein in an undated photo. NBC News.

The Prime Minster of the United Kingdom, Kier Starmer, is facing fresh calls for resignation for misleading Parliament over Peter Mandelson's ties to Jeffrey Epstein. NBC News. Mandelson was arrested for passing data to Epstein this year and his ties to the disgraced billionaire were public knowledge before Starmer appointed him to the most prestigious and influential ambassadorship with the United States. The scandal reignited after it was revealed that the Foreign Ministry had recommended against the appointment of Mandelson for security concerns. However, Starmer never mentioned this to Parliament and he stands accused of misleading them on this issue. Starmer placed blame on the Foreign Ministry for not telling him that he failed his background check. 

My Comment:

Kier Starmer is a historically unpopular Prime Minster and this is the kind of thing that can bring down an entire government. Starmer has a lot of enemies and he has pushed many unpopular and damaging policies, most notably restrictions on the internet. Plus, the economy is terrible and they are having major issues with fuel costs due to the Iran conflict. The scandal alone wouldn't be enough to take him down alone, but given his popularity, approval is in the 20's, it could well take him down. 

Though the public perception of Epstein is that he was a pedophile trafficker, it's not entirely accurate. He obviously did a lot of that, but folks stuck by him because he was a fixer too. He was the guy that you would go to if had a problem that needed to be solved or you needed information. He was also probably beholden to one or more intel agencies. Indeed, that was what he was doing with Peter Mandelson in the first place. Epstein was getting information from Mandelson and handing it to someone else. 

That's about the biggest red flag you can get for someone in such a critical government post. The US ambassador spot is a huge one for the UK and it's one that a lot of information can be sucked out off. Though Epstein was long dead before Starmer appointed Mandelson to the post, it's an act of insanity to send the same guy that has already been compromised once to do the job. It's just baffling that it was allowed to happen. 

Regardless of the obvious security issues that Mandelson posed, you would have thought that Starmer would have avoided him for the whole connection to Epstein in the first place. Mandelson's connection was well known and though his corruption wasn't revealed until after the Epstein file release, it still showed some extremely bad judgement for him to be friends with Epstein. 

But Starmer appointed him anyways. Starmer is claiming that it's everyone else's fault and not him. Mandelson lied to him, he says, and so did the Foreign Ministry. It's just pure arrogance on his point and I think it's a major reason why I don't like him or his party. Labor has always struck me as far left schoolmarms that want to control everything people do, regardless of how little credibility they have. 

The sad thing is that Starmer is likely to survive for at least a little while. Starmer still has to support of Labor and as long as that is the case he will likely survive a vote of no-confidence. But he's on the razor's edge. I don't think that this scandal alone will be enough to take him down, as angry as everyone is. But there's a real chance that if anything else happens, Starmer could be forced to resign. 

Crazed woman shot by police after kidnapping and stabbing a 3 year old in Nebraska.

 

Bodycam footage shows Noemi Guzman about to stab the child. New York Post. 

A woman was shot and killed by police after she kidnapped and slashed a 3 year old boy at a Nebraska Wal-Mart. New York Post. 31 year old Noemi Guzman confronted the child's babysitter and took the child after shoplifting a knife from the store. She then stabbed 3 year old Cyler Hillman in the face and hand before police shot and killed her. The boy is expected to recover but had to get stiches to close the laceration inflicted by Guzman. Guzman had a long rap sheet and had been found not guilty due to insanity after a crime spree that saw her stab her father, try to burn down his house and then breaking into a church to threaten a priest. She also had a previous conviction for assault in 2018.

***WARNING: THE FOLLOWING STORY CONTAINS GRAPHIC DETAILS. VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED***

An attempted kidnapping at an Omaha Walmart ended with a child injured and a woman dead.https://t.co/WRlvLnFS1a pic.twitter.com/BuDV62DJLK

— KETV NewsWatch 7 (@KETV) April 15, 2026

My Comment:

 Normally I don't cover minor incidents like this one, even if they go viral, but this case speaks to larger trends in law enforcement and criminal justice for what should be obvious reasons. I had wrote previously how the justice system might change how they handle mental illness after the man who murdered Iryna Zarutksa, Decarlos Brown, was found not competent to stand trial.

In a sane world, Guzman would absolutely not be on the streets. Her rampage in 2024 was beyond the pale. Not only did she stab her own father, she tried to light both him and his home on fire. She then broke into a church and threatened a priest and it's a miracle that nobody was killed during that rampage. And she was already a convicted felon for an assault! 

Guzman was undoubtably mentally ill. She appears to have been a severely schizophrenic person and she was apparently off her meds. Her motivations here were likely her mental illness and it's tragic that she wasn't under control. 

But she was supposed to be. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity, but that's not supposed to be a free pass. Instead of institutionalizing her she was let out as an outpatient and was ordered to take her meds. The problem was there was nobody there to actually ensure that she was taking her meds. A lot of people with severe mental illness stop taking their meds for various reasons.

This was a recipe for disaster and it's lucky that Cyler Hillman was only stabbed and not killed. And it's the kind of thing that is sadly predictable. This was an entirely preventable crime. Had the laws of Nebraska had been better, Guzman would have been in prison, getting treatment, or in a secure mental health facility, depending on how the laws would be changed. Something like New York's "guilty but mentally ill" verdict or even just ensuring that folks aren't let out as outpatients would have prevented this crime. 

I do think that there is a growing outrage over these kinds of preventable crimes. People like Noemi Guzman and Decarlos Brown should absolutely not be on the streets and the laws need to change to protect our law abiding citizens from career criminals and dangerous mentally ill people. 

I do understand that the old asylum system absolutely had some downsides. Warehousing the mentally ill did have a lot of injustice involved in it and conditions were poor. But it does seem like it was the better system because at least it protected innocent members of the public from people like this. 

Finally, I do think this is another example of why bodycams backfired on the left. This story would not have gone viral if it wasn't for the dramatic screencap from the officer's bodycam. That means that there wouldn't be more discussion of these insanity laws, many of which were championed by the left in the first place. 

Trump hints that a 2nd round of diplomacy with Iran may be coming soon.

 

An oil tanker. BBC/Reuters. 

President Donald Trump has hinted that a 2nd round of diplomacy with Iran may be coming in the next couple of days. BBC. Trump made comments that the US might go back to Islamabad, where peace talks were held last weekend, in the next couple of days. This comes after a US led blockade has stopped most Iranian traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. At least six ships have been turned back by the US Navy. It is unclear if there has been a breakthrough on diplomacy, the last round of talks failed due to disagreement over Iran's nuclear program. Meanwhile, Israel and Lebanon have entered peace talks of their own. 

My Comment:

As expected, a 2nd round of peace talks is beginning. Peace talks usually take quite some time and it's rare for the 1st round of talks to be fully successful. Indeed, it's very possible that the 2nd round of talks will lead into a 3rd round and beyond. 

However, there is a chance that there will be major progress made in the 2nd round of talks. I say this because they are coming so quickly after the 1st round and that could mean that whatever the sticking point was, it has been resolved. 

It could be the fact that while the US diplomats were authorized to negotiate an end to the war, the Iranian delegation had to get it approved with their leadership first. From what I understand, that made their negotiating tactics rather handicapped and they weren't able to actually make a deal. It's possible that obstacle has been removed. But it's also possible, even likely, that this will just be a more considered counter offer from Iran. 

I do think that Iran is going to be motivated to negotiate because of the blockade. Iran gets a huge amount of their money from oil sales and they were also getting money from their transit bribes they were forcing on ships that were trying to transit. The blockade, while not perfect, is going to cost the Iranian regime millions of dollars a day, every day that it's in effect. Give that Iran's economy is in shambles, not having the oil flowing out of the Strait of Hormuz is going to be extremely costly. 

I also think that the conflict will likely remain in a "frozen" state and that the ceasefire will be extended. There is always a chance that something goes wrong, but I am guessing that as long as diplomacy is happening at this high of a level the conflict will remain in it's current state. Both sides have a major incentive to not start the conflict again, so unless someone screws something up or there is just an absolute impasse I am guessing that the ceasefire will hold. 

It's also positive that Israel and Lebanon are holding talks. It shows that Israel too wants to end the conflict. I had worried about them torpedoing any peace deal but it seems like they want out of this conflict as well. 

So, how likely is this 2nd round of talks to end the war? I'd say it's unlikely, but not impossible, like a 1 out of 3 chance. More realistically, it's going to be a starting point and it will probably take more rounds of negotiating to actually end the war. There is always a chance of a breakthrough or some kind of disaster but my guess is that the war will probably end sometime in May or June. 

Two Congressmen, Democrat Eric Swalwell and Republican Tony Gonzales resign from Congress after separate sex scandals.

 

Eric Swalwell. Bloomberg.

Two Congressmen, Democrat Eric Swalwell and Republican Tony Gonzales, have resigned from congress after separate sex scandals. Bloomberg. Swalwell had been accused of raping a drunk woman and additional sexual misconduct by four other women. Gonzales, a married father of six, had an affair with a staffer who then killed herself. Swalwell had already dropped out of the California Governor's race while Gonzales had lost a primary contest against pro-gun Youtuber Brandon Herrera. Both men risked expulsion if they had not resigned as momentum was budling to expel them. Two other members of Congress, Democrat Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, who is accused of stealing pandemic relief funds, and Republican Cory Mills, who has been accused of domestic violence, may also face resignation and/or expulsion. 

My Comment:

I have mixed feelings about this. As a gun rights supporter this is like Christmas, New Years and the 4th of July all mixed together. Swalwell was so deranged on this issue that he literally threatened to use nuclear weapons on gun owners if he didn't go along with his gun confiscation schemes. And Tony Gonzales was so anti-gun that Brandon Herrera almost unseated him in 2024 and was successful in doing so in 2026. Neither of these men cared about the right to keep and bear arms or the right to self defense and I am not sad to see either of them go. 

But I also don't like the precedent set here. Swalwell may well indeed be a sex pest at best and a rapist at worst but none of those accusations have been tried in court and we don't even know who made the rape accusation. That's not enough to get a conviction in court and I don't think it should be enough to force Swalwell to resign, or even leave the California Governor's race. 

As for Gonzales, his case was complicated by the fact that his mistress committed suicide. Had that not happened, he would just be another person who cheated on his spouse. I honestly don't think that Gonzales should be punished just because his mistress ended her life. That's tragic but I also don't think it's a good idea to send the message that if you are angry against your partner you should kill yourself to ruin his life. 

Regardless, both men could have fought against this but decided it wasn't worth it. That could mean that Swalwell is guilty but it also might mean that both men know that fighting against expulsion would be an uphill battle and not worth the trouble they would face.  

Politically this is going to result in a status quo ante. With both men resigning and residing in relatively safe seats, the control of the house won't change. This is another reason why I am upset about Gonzales being forced to resign. We could have had a slight advantage for a short time before Swalwell was replaced but the GOP just threw that advantage away. Gonzales wasn't a great congressman but again, why give away that advantage when he was already going to be gone in less then a year?

As for the two other members of congress, I expect that Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick will be gone soon too. The accusations against her are pretty solid, she absolutely abused her position. She took $5 million in FEMA relief funds and threw them into her congressional campaign and was found guilty on 25 out of 27 charges against her by the House Ethics Committee. It would be crazy if she wasn't forced to resign or even gets expelled if she refuses to do so.  

Cory Mills is a less certain thing, but he's been accused of a whole lot. Domestic abuse, sexual misconduct, various financial crimes, abuse of office and even stolen valor. But the case against him hasn't been tried in the House Ethics Committee and are not as confirmed as the ones against McCormick. Still, he would likely be forced to resign or even be expelled if McCormick is going to leave. 

Either way, I think this is more about appearances than anything else. After all, Katie Porter wasn't forced to leave the California governor's race for domestic violence, but Swalwell was. If we also kicked everyone out that cheated on their spouse, would there be any members of Congress left? Well, maybe Lindsay Graham in the Senate, but that's it. All of this just seems performative.  

The US will blockade Iranian ports after Islamabad talks fail to end the war.

 

Vice President JD Vance after the negotiations. AP. 

The US military will blockade Iranian ports after Islamabad talks fail to end war. AP. The blockade was announced this morning and will block all ships coming out of Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz. Ships leaving from other ports in the region will not be affected. The 21 hour talks in Islamabad fell apart mostly due to the nuclear issue as Iran has refused to give up their supply of enriched uranium. US destroyers are reported to be in the Strait in an effort to prepare for mine clearing operations. 

My Comment:

First of all, the peace talks. I had some hope that the talks would have worked but it was never a sure thing. The United States and Iran were far apart on the nuclear issue. As long as Iran has nuclear material, it's going to be a red line for the United States and any peace deal is going to require Iran to give it up. They weren't willing to do so yet and that means that the talks were going to fail. 

That doesn't mean that the war is back on. There is a real chance that a 2nd round of talks are going to happen soon. Right now, the ceasefire is still on and neither side has really broken it. Pakistan, in their role of mediator, has said that contacts are still being made between the two sides. And everything I have heard has said that both sides were actually pretty close to a deal besides the nuclear material issue. I think there is a real chance of another round of talks in the "days to weeks" timeline. 

Aa for the blockade, it's mostly symbolic in nature. The elephant in the room is that few ships were willing to run the strait in the first place, even after the ceasefire was put into place. Why? Because was able to lay a few naval mines but they don't actually know where they are. Nobody does because after laying them, the mines drifted out of position, making them a major threat to shipping, and, more importantly, the insurance companies that insure the ships bottom lines. 

The blockade does have a major effect though. A few ships have ran the strait throughout the conflict after paying bribes to Iran. The blockade will absolutely prevent this if the US Navy is up to snuff. Those ships won't be able to escape into the Indian Ocean. This will cut off the last real lifeline in terms of funding that Iran has and it will put some pressure on Iran to cut a deal. 

It's also going to put pressure on the rest of the world to do something about Iran. America doesn't really need any of the oil coming out of Iran. Not only are we the biggest oil producer in the world right now, we are getting oil from our new vassal, Venezuela. Europe, China, Australia and many other countries are going to hurt a lot unless they pressure Iran into making a deal. 

The bigger news is that the United States Navy is moving to remove mines. Supposedly two destroyers have already entered the area and are preparing for mine removal opperations and mapping of safe routes. Once that happens and the mines are gone, or at least a safe path is opened, the Strait of Hormuz will be open for non-Iranian traffic. This would remove a lot of Iran's leverage and I don't think they can really do too much about it. 

Eric Swalwell's campaign for Governor of California has fallen apart after accusations of sexual assault.

 

Congressman Eric Swalwell. New York Post/AP.

Congressman Eric Swalwell's campaign for Governor of California has fallen apart after accusations of sexual assault. New York Post. An anonymous staffer said that Swalwell had sexually assaulted her on two occasions, one in 2019 and another in 2024. In both cases she said she had gotten blackout drunk and woke up the next day with little doubt she had been raped. Swalwell has denied the accusations and even threatened defamation suits, but it still has led to an exodus of staffers and endorsements for the front runner in the California Governor's race. 

My Comment:

I am on record as saying that Swalwell is one of the most disgusting people in politics today and is one of my most hated political enemies. I will never forgive him for threatening to nuke American Citizens just because they didn't want to go along with his assault weapons confiscation scheme. He's been one of the most prominent advocates of gun control in his party and if I was confident that these allegations were true I'd be celebrating the end of his political career. 

But I have serious reservations to the point where I feel I have to defend Swalwell a bit. He absolutely might be guilty but at this point? We should wait for actual proof. Right now there is no way to confirm or deny the accusations against him as we don't even know who the person is that brought them. He hasn't been charged or convicted of any crime and the presumption of innocence should absolutely apply. A man's career should not be ruined because of an anonymous accusation of sexual assault. It has to be on the record with a name attached to it for any real investigation to occur.

Swalwell also denies he has ever had sex with a staffer, consensual or otherwise. Right now it can't be proven that he has done anything at all. The accusations against him are serious and worth investigating but nothing has been done to prove the allegations one way or another. And they appear to be a classic case of "he said, she said" which might just be unprovable either way. Plus, Swalwell doesn't have a history of this kind of thing, as far as I am aware. 

Regardless, the timing of this is extraordinarily suspicious, which is why I am so reluctant to believe the accusations against a man I otherwise hate. Had these accusations come off cycle when there was no huge election I might give them more credibility (Not much more, the accusation being anonymous is a huge red flag). This wasn't done when the incidents occurred, they were done at an absolutely critical time in the California governor's race. 

Some context is necessary here. California has, the frankly ridiculous, open primary system where the top two candidates, regardless of party, advance to the general election. This year two Republicans, Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco were leading in the polls because the Democratic field was far to large. The Democrats needed to get one of the major Democratic candidates to drop out in order to make sure the nightmare scenario for them, two GOP candidates on the ballot in November, didn't occur. 

Taking down Swalwell was the best way to do this. With him either dropping out of the race or damaged to the point of irrelevance, the nightmare scenario will not occur as presumably the voters that were going for Swalwell will go to Tom Steyer or Katie Porter instead. Indeed, it's possible that it will be both of those candidates now instead of Hilton and Bianco. 

This doesn't necessarily mean that these accusations are a fabrication. Indeed, it's possible they are legit and it's just the timing that is suspicious. But I have to think that given these circumstances Swalwell should at least get some benefit of the doubt. He still deserves to lose the Governor's race, after all, lost in all this was the absolute fact that he was for a time compromised by a Chinese Spy. But I can't help but think that this was a plot against him. 

Man accused of murdering Iryna Zarutska found not competent to stand trial.

 

Iryna Zarutska before her death. New York Post.

Decarlos Brown Jr., the man accused of brutally murdering Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte North Carolina has been found not competent to stand trial. New York Post. The finding complicates his state murder charges and will delay the trial 180 days. If the judge in the case decides to accept the report, charges against Brown would be dismissed without prejudice. Under North Carolina law a defendant is found incompetent if they can't understand the charges against them and can't assist with their own defense. Brown is in federal custody for additional charges of violence against a railroad carrier, but has not been mentally evaluated in that case. Zarutska's murder caused massive outrage after it was caught on video and it was revealed that Brown was a habitual offender that was still on the street.  

My Comment:

This is not an unexpected outcome but folks are not going to be happy with it at all. The Iryna Zarutska case was hugely important and anything other than a life sentence or death penalty for Decarlos Brown Jr. is going to be extremely unpopular at the least, and could even lead to changes to how people are found incompetent to stand trial. 

To review, Zarutska was an Ukrainian refugee that fled the war. She was on her way home for work on a Charlotte light rail car. Decarlos Brown Jr. stabbed her in the neck and she died. High quality video of this murder were posted by the government and caused extreme outrage given the pitiful way she died and the total lack of remorse shown by Brown. 

Decarlos Brown Jr. was mentally ill. He was schizophrenic and obviously unwell. But mere mental illness isn't enough to declare someone not competent to stand trial. In order to do so you can't be able to understand the charges against you or help with your defense. It's supposed to be a high bar to clear and without seeing him personally I don't know if he clears that bar or not. 

People are also pointing out that if Brown was so out of it that he can't even understand the charges against him, why was he on the street in the first place? Decarlos Brown Jr. was a menace, having been arrested multiple times, some of them violent. But soft on crime laws let him out on the street and he also wasn't committed. Folks aren't going to tolerate a system where a man can't be held for his crimes and can't be sent to a mental hospital  

The murder of Zarutska might change things, especially in North Carolina. There is already legislation there to make it easier to hold people who have serious mental health concerns and if Brown is found to be permanently unable to stand trial and the case(s) gets dismissed the calls for changes will be even louder. 

Regardless, folks aren't going to be happy about this regardless of the outcome. I do understand that there should be some standards for trying people who are so out of it that they can't even show up in court, but there also has to be some justice. Given the horrific nature of the crime and the outrage already being about how Brown seemed to be immune to actual consequences for his actions, I can't see people accepting anything other than a long prison sentence or an execution. 

Fragile ceasefire between Iran and the United States brokered by Pakistan.

 

President Trump and the Strait of Hormuz. UPI/Getty/Orbital Horizon. 

A fragile ceasefire between Iran and the United States, brokered by Pakistan, has been called in the conflict. Fox News. President Trump had made threats against Iran, preparing a massive strike against Iran's infrastructure and power plants saying it could end the Iranian civilization if a deal was not made. However, a last minute deal, brokered by Pakistan, stopped the fighting for now and will reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Both sides have agreed to start negotiations formally in Pakistan in Islamabad on Friday. 

My Comment:

This is a positive move towards and end to the five week war with Iran. Both sides have some major incentives to end the war and a ceasefire is the first step. But the real question is if the ceasefire will hold and if a real peace deal will be reached. 

To be clear, there is a chance that the deal could fall apart fairly quickly. There are other parties involved besides the Iranian government and the United States. Indeed, the elephant in the room is Israel. They have been more aggressive when it comes to Iran and they want actual regime change as opposed to a simple deal like Trump and Iran want. Israel will probably require, at the very least, and end to the Iranian nuclear program, and end to Iran's ballistic missiles and an end to Iran's support of their proxies, like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen. Only the first, ending Iran's nuclear program, is likely to be agreed to. 

Iran could torpedo things on their end too. The Iranian secular government seems incredibly tired of this war and want it to end and it looks like the religious Mullahs want it done too. The real problem is the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). They have a lot of hardliners and they are in control of some of Iran's forces. They could try to undermine any ceasefire and they actually have been doing so previously. 

Still, this is what is needed to end the war. It's also very possible that talks in Islamabad will end the war. Iran would be allowed to save a little face and Trump will be able to crow that he was able to defeat Iran with very little cost. There's a lot of incentive to make this work and I am cautiously optimistic that it will. 

I will also say that if it does work out it will vindicate a lot of Trump's actions over the past five weeks. Launching this war was controversial to say the least. Folks were mad about it to the point where a lot of folks when fully unhinged. 

But it also shows that brinkmanship does indeed work. Trump launched a very credible threat, one that Iran had to take seriously. If Trump had launched his energy attack it would have destroyed Iran. When a regime can't even keep the lights on that's the end of the road and a major reason why the Ukraine conflict has gone on so long is that Russia has refused to destroy Ukraine's remaining power generation. Seeing this, Iran finally blinked, possibly with a nudge from China as well. 

Some people are accusing Trump of chickening out, but it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what Trump is. He was always going to try and get a deal. It's like nobody has actually read his book, Art of the Deal, or failing that, a summary of it. Of course those people were also claiming that Trump was going to nuke Iran too, so we probably shouldn't be listening to them anyways.   

City councilor in Indianapolis attacked in anti-data center attack.

 

Bullet holes in the councilors home and a no data center note. CBS News/Ron Gibson.

A city councilor in Indianapolis reports that his home was attacked in an anti-data center attack. CBS News. Ron Gibson reported that his house was shot at 13 times at midnight. A note saying "no data centers" was left at the door. He was with his 8 year old son at the time, and neither were injured. Data centers are used for AI applications but have come under heavy criticism due to the effects on energy prices, water usage and reducing jobs. Gibson was advocating for a new data center in Indianapolis at a recent meeting and faced heavy opposition. 

My Comment:

Of all the things to get upset by, a new data center doesn't seem like it should be one of them. Certainly not to the point where you are trying murder people who disagree with you. That's obviously an extreme reaction, but it baffles me that opposition to an AI datacenter is that extreme. It's lucky that nobody was hurt and the fact that an 8 year old was put at risk is outrageous. I hope this shooter is caught and punished to the full extent of the law. 

To be fair, AI datacenters do have disadvantages for locals. They use a lot of water, most of which ends up being evaporated into the atmosphere. In arid regions where water use is already a problem, I could see that being a legitimate concern. Indiana is not one of those regions, they have the Great Lakes and many rivers to cool these data centers down. 

Power use is another problem and it does lead to higher prices. These datacenters do suck up power like nobody's business and some of those costs are put on consumers. This is compounded by the fact that the same NIMBY people who hate datacenters also hate building new powerplants, most notably nuclear ones. 

There's also general opposition to AI in general. Folks are indeed afraid that they are going to lose their jobs to AI and that isn't really inaccurate. A lot of tech jobs, for example, have already been lost and many of the white collar "do nothing daycare" jobs will probably go away as well. Stopping data centers isn't going fix that but people feel like doing something to oppose AI given how much of a major social change it is. Indeed, I feel a bit of this myself as it's pretty obvious that this blog is obsolete when AI chatbots exist...

Still, the AI genie is fully out of the bottle and these data centers are going to be built somewhere. The demand for more AI generation is extreme, and unless there is a massive crash in AI demand, more data centers will be needed. 

I would rather these data centers be built in the United States. Sure, there are some places they shouldn't be built, like anywhere with water issues, but I absolutely don't want what could be critical infrastructure to be built in foreign countries where China or other adversaries could target them. AI is going to be important and I don't want the United States to be cut off because NIMBY's couldn't deal with it. 

And it's not like the datacenters don't have benefits as well. They do involve some high paying construction jobs and when complete there are also some well paying maintenance tech jobs as well. Those jobs can help locals. Plus there is a large property tax base that these datacenters can provide which will offset some of the costs. 

Regardless, the pro and anti-datacenter arguments should remain those. When folks are shooting up the homes of politicians then things have gotten too heated too quickly. I do think that the anti-datacenter people are going to win a lot of these fights but if they keep resorting to violence it's not going to go well for them... 

US Military recovers two pilots from downed F-15E far behind enemy lines in Iran.

 

File photo of an F-15E Strike Eagle. US Government photo. 

The United States Military has rescued two pilots from a downed F-15E Strike Eagle far behind enemy lines in Iran. NBC News. The jet crashed in Iranian territory and the pilot was rescued immediately. However, the planes Weapons System Officer (WSO) was not and had to escape and evade on the ground. President Trump announced tonight that the WSO was saved by US forces in a major operation that resulted in no US casualties. The plane was shot down by enemy fire, most likely by a MANPADS system, and was joined by an A-10 Warthog which was shot down by enemy fire as well, though the pilot was able to escape to Kuwait before ejecting. 

My Comment:

Late breaking news that deserves a brief post, this is very welcome news. Though the rumors of the rescue have been going on since this evening, it wasn't confirmed until just recently that the WSO was safe. It's very good news to say the least. 

It's also a blow to Iran's pride. They, and their backers online, had been hoping that the WSO would be captured, and that there would be serious casualties in a failed rescue operation. Some accounts were even posting that the WSO had been captured and that the Iranians had set a trap, and were even cheering on the idea that Special Forces troops were in danger. 

Instead they got embarrassed. Shooting down two planes was not much of an accomplishment, but capturing a pilot would have been an embarrassment for the United States. But having both pilots not only survive, but be extracted in complex rescue missions that resulted in no US deaths whatsoever shows just how much the United States is dominating the skies over Iran. 

To be fair, we don't quite have air dominance. Iran still has some anti-air weapons left, obviously. Those weapons are probably mostly MANPADS, shoulder launched missiles, and possibly a few mobile SAM launchers and AAA guns. But it's telling that they weren't able to prevent this rescue with their remaining air defenses. And the F-15 and A-10 were likely shot down in a case of "wrong place, wrong time". They just happened to be over an area that happened to have a guy with a missile launcher. 

Indeed, US air loses have been almost non-existent in this conflict. We have lost five planes, along with a few planes and helicopters being damaged (most notably a couple of E3 Sentry's being damage on the ground). Three of those planes were lost in a friendly fire incident, but we will count them anyways. There have also been about a dozen drones lost as well, not counting our Kamikaze ones. That's insanely low given how absurdly intense our operations against Iran have been. 

Regardless, this incident will likely be turned into a Hollywood movie at some point. People like stories of this kind of heroism and people surviving against all odds. Folks may not all approve of this conflict with Iran but they do like seeing the United States military engage in the kind of professionalism we saw this weekend. 

US Attorney General Pam Bondi will leave the Trump administration.

 

Pam Bondi and her replacement Todd Blanche. BBC/Getty.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi will leave the Trump administration and will be replaced by her deputy, Todd Blanche. BBC. Bondi's term had been dominated by the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, first promising the release of an "Epstein list" of clients of Epstein but then failing to deliver when no such list existed. Trump had praised her for a crackdown on crime that appears to have had results but the Epstein issue was a drag on his administration. Bondi also faced criticism from Trump for not competently prosecuting Democrats suspected of crimes. Bondi is only the third major Cabinet official to resign or be fired in Trump's 2nd term, along with Kristi Noem and Mike Waltz.

My Comment:

I've got mixed feelings on this one. There is an argument to be made that Bondi was more effective in her role than people give her credit for. After all, there was a major decrease in crime under President Trump and Bondi probably does deserve credit for it. And she has done a competent job of defending Trump's policies in court, but that could be due to the weaknesses of the cases.

Regardless, it's pretty obvious that Bondi made a massive error in how she handled to Epstein files. She made a promise that she couldn't keep and made the issue extremely damaging for the Trump administration. Her presentation that suggested the existence of a "client list" that simply didn't exist sent conspiracy theorists into a frenzy and when she couldn't deliver on that it had the appearance of a coverup. 

It was an own-goal because there really was not a client list. There were a few people that were accused of wrong doing but it was mostly figures that we already knew, like Bill Richardson, Marin Minsky, Jean-Luc Brunel and Prince Andrew. None of those cases were prosecutable and that lead to folks feeling like justice was not being done. 

This was damaging to President Trump. I get the feeling that the general public doesn't care, other than the few people out there that care about nothing else. But it did cause a few prominent Republicans to break with the President, most notable Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene. I was never a fan of either of them, but still, it made enemies. 

Bondi was also having trouble prosecuting some prominent Democrats. Adam Schiff, James Comey and Laticia James should be awaiting trial right now, but Bondi wasn't able to secure an arrest in any of these cases. It's another point of contention with the Trump administration and the Republican base, we generally want to see these people in jail and Bondi wasn't able to get it done. 

So why did Bondi last so long? Like I said before, she did have some successes, but I am guessing it was because she was loyal to President Trump. Bondi helped to defend Trump during his 2020 impeachment and was seen as a personal friend to Trump. But that couldn't protect her forever. 

Will the United States leave NATO?

 

UK Prime Minster Kier Starmer. AP. 

President Donald Trump has stated that he is considering leaving NATO. AP. Trump has been a critic of NATO for a long time but his remarks were more explicit this time. Much of the criticism has been due to the actions of some of the European countries. Despite having some missiles launched at NATO allies like Turkey and a British base in Cyprus, much of Europe has not offered support to the conflict. Indeed, some states, such as Italy and Spain, have vetoed participation in the war and have banned US troops from operating at their bases. However, leaving NATO would be difficult due to US laws that would force leaving the alliance to go through Congress. 

My Comment:

In the short term, it's not really possible to leave NATO. Due to some laws put into place recently, President Trump is unable to unilaterally leave the alliance. He would need bipartisan support that simply doesn't exist even in his own party, let alone a Democrat party that would oppose him no matter what he does, even if it's the right thing to do. So, again, this is more about Trump venting frustration than an actual attempt to leave NATO in the short term. 

But Trump's frustration is more than justified. Europe isn't just not supporting this conflict, they are throwing monkey wrenches into it by banning use of bases. This is despite the fact that NATO allies, most notably the UK and Turkey, have come under direct attack from Iran and that NATO members outside of the United States benefit a lot more from what we are doing in Iran that we do. 

Indeed, Iran was pretty close to being able to threaten the capitals of much of Europe. I still don't think they were that close to nuclear weapons, but even a conventional ballistic attack on Europe's capitals would have been dangerous. If Iran had been able to create a nuclear weapon, after all North Korea was, all of Europe would have been threatened and we would have had a much more dangerous and high stakes conflict compared to the rather anemic one we have today. 

And they are also demanding that we open the Strait of Hormuz for them. We don't really benefit from that directly, and there would be actual risk there compared to the rest of the conflict, it would lower energy prices and ease some of the pain at the pump, but we are energy independent and not only have our own oil but Venezuela's as well. NATO doesn't have either and are refusing to buy oil from us as well. 

And it's not like we have asked Europe to do much. Indeed, Canada is off the hook here just because they supported the mission with words and not actions. All NATO had to do is let us use there bases and offer some words of support and they couldn't even do that. And it's threatening the alliance. 

Though the alliance was in trouble in the first place. The Russia-Ukraine war is a large part of it. Europe has largely depleted their weapons and bankrupted their economies in a war that is no longer necessary. Indeed, our goal now is to end the war and normalize relations with Russia. And, as critical as I am of Ukraine I have to note that they have done more to help in Iran than most of NATO, at this point I'd rather ally with them and Russia (were such a thing possible) than NATO. 

But the real problem is this question. Does it make sense to ally with people that don't have a future? As far as I can see it, much of Europe doesn't, and the US government agrees with me. Instead of focusing on their economy or military, they focused on social programs. Indeed, I am not impressed with much of NATO's military, again, Ukraine is a lot better than the majority and only Turkey, Poland and maybe France, are going to be useful in a military conflict. The UK is a joke and much of the rest are just as bad off. 

Immigration though is the elephant in the room. Europe brought in millions of military aged males in the last decade and its going to permanently change their demographics and future. It's to the point where I don't think they can make them leave without a conflict and I think that conflict is coming soon. I don't think Europe is going to be able to integrate their millions of Muslims the way America is able to do so with our immigrants and that means that NATO is likely doomed long term...