Alabama primary race between former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Coach Tommy Tuberville will be decided tomorrow.

Coach Tommy Tuberville. Politico.

An extended primary race for Alabama's Senate seat between former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Coach Tommy Tuberville will be decided in tomorrow's runoff. Politico. President Trump has endorsed Tuberville after he fired Sessions for his performance as Attorney General. The winner of the race will go on to face Doug Jones, who took the seat from the Republicans after Sessions resigned to join the Trump administration. The seat is considered extremely vulnerable and most voters believe that whoever wins the runoff will beat Doug Jones. Tuberville has had major endorsements and has an advantage in polling but some of his momentum has been lost due to the runoff being delayed by Coronavirus. There are fears that the virus could depress turnout and could effect the outcome of the campaign. 

My Comment:

One of the more interesting Senate races is about to enter a new phase. Doug Jones seat is probably the most vulnerable one in the country and it would be a major win for Republicans and would help them either keep the Senate or even grow their lead there. 

Jones only got in because of Judge Roy Moore. Moore was a bad candidate who was popular among his Evangelical base but was destroyed by the national news media because of a sex scandal. I have always said that Moore was railroaded and the accusations against him were either false or so minor that they were irrelevant. Either way, it took the full force of the Democrats and the media machine to beat him and even then they almost failed. 

Whoever wins tomorrow will likely beat Doug Jones. Jones isn't that good of a senator and he blew his chances at retaining his seat when he went along with basically all of the Democrats most radical ideas, most notably impeachment. Had he took a stand he may have had a chance but I can't really see him winning. 

My guess is that Coach Tuberville will be the one that wins. He's popular and has the right endorsements and, most notably, he doesn't have the baggage that Jeff Sessions has. He's also a more acceptable candidate for moderates and he's unlikely to be taken down by a fake sex scandal like Roy Moore was. If he wins I am guessing he will take the seat back this November. 

Could Sessions pull an upset though? I guess it's possible. He was extremely popular in Alabama and if it wasn't for his awful performance as Attorney General, he's still be beloved by basically all Republicans. He was a good senator when he served and I think some people might want a known factor as opposed to Tuberville, who isn't a career politician. 

I still think it is unlikely though, but I do wonder what would happen if he does win. It's very obvious that President Trump doesn't want anything to do with Sessions. It's very unlikely that they put their differences aside and work together to try and win the seat. I still think that Sessions would beat Jones regardless, but it's very unlikely that Sessions will get any help. Doug Jones won't get Trump's endorsement either. 

Who would I vote for? I'd go for Tuberville, not so much on his own merits, but on Sessions' performance. I would have voted for either man over Roy Moore but Sessions was just a huge disappointment when he was Attorney General. He cared more about prosecuting legal pot dealers in states where it was legalized than fighting against illegal immigration, the corruption in the Justice Department and investigating the Democrats. And his biggest blunder was recusing himself from the Russia scam. He could have nipped that in the bud and protected President Trump from the witch hunt that defined the first three years of his presidency. I could forgive that if there was no other choice and if it meant losing the seat to Doug Jones, but with Tuberville being there, why should I? 

Murder case in Indiana goes viral due to claims the victim said "All Lives Matter".

Jessica Doty Whitaker. Social media photo.

A murder case in Indiana has gone viral due to claims that the victim said "All Lives Matter". The Heavy. 24 year old Jessica Doty Whitaker was shot and killed after a dispute between her group and another group. According to her fiance, Jose Ramirez, someone in their group said the N-word. After an argument where the other group said "Black Lives Matter" while someone in the Whitaker's group said "All Lives Matter". The dispute ended peacefully after both sides realized they were armed and they ended with a fistbump. However, an unknown assailant then opened fire on Ramirez and Whitaker, with Ramirez returning fire. 

My Comment:

This story is going viral on Twitter and other social media sites today. However, I'm not 100% sure it's a great example of what people are claiming it is. First of all it's unclear if Whitaker was the one that said anything at all. Someone in her group said all lives matter, but it may not have been her. Indeed, what exactly her involvement was is unclear. 

I also want to say that the left will make it a big deal that someone said the N-word. That obviously doesn't justify the shooting but for the left, who long abandoned the idea that speech is difference than violence, it might. There isn't any information as to why the word was used and I have to point out that this was a mixed race group. Obviously Ramirez is Hispanic though Whitaker was white. 

This whole incident seems like two groups of very stupid people interacting. Dropping the N-word was a bad choice as even if you respect the idea of free speech. It's a fact that people get angry enough about it to kill. Doing so is a recipe for disaster, regardless of the context. It wouldn't matter if they were just quoting rap lyrics, it's a bad idea regardless. 

Doing so while armed is doubly stupid. Hell, both sides were incredibly stupid for trying to have an argument while armed. I know that one of the big things in CCW culture is that you are supposed to be the most polite person in the world and avoid conflict at all costs. Neither side did this and someone died as a result. Of course we don't know who was carrying legally, if anyone was, but still, bad behavior all around. 

What's frustrating about this is that it looked like cooler heads were going to prevail. After the argument and the realization that everyone was armed, they made amends and fistbumped each other. Then when the situation was over someone fired and ended up killing Whitaker. There was no reason for this. 

But is this a case of Black Lives Matter killing a random white person because they said the wrong thing? Probably not. Instead it just seems like another example of pointless violence, with a bit of a racial tinge to it. And not quite white vs black either as it seemed more like black vs Hispanic with a white person getting in the way. It should also be clear that just because someone says Black Lives Matter doesn't mean they are part of the movement. This wasn't a protest, it was just two groups of people running into each other on a holiday weekend. 

Plus, I'm guessing that Whitaker wasn't the main target. Ramirez was walking with her and I am guessing that he was the target. The attacker was just a bad shot and hit the wrong person so it's pretty irrelevant if Whitaker said "all lives matter" or not. 

So while I do think that this was a good example of stupid violence with a racial tinge, I don't think it qualifies as a Black Lives Matter killing. We have had enough of those already so we shouldn't have to make ones up when the facts of the case don't really match up. 

Police seize firearms from couple who defended themselves from angry mob of BLM supporters.

A photo of the incident. The Federalist/Bill Greenblatt.

Police have seized firearms from the couple who defended themselves from an angry mob of Black Lives Matter supporters in St. Louis Missouri. The Federalist. The couple, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, retrieved their firearms and pointed them at the rioters after they broke a metal gate and came on to their property. Mark McCloskey said he and his wife felt like their lives were in danger and that the rioters had no reason to be on their property. Black Lives Matter claimed that the rioters were there trying to reach the Mayor of St. Louis' house but McCloskey points out that it's not possible to reach her house on the street the rioters broke into. Police have seized the AR-15 used in the incident while the handgun is in the possession of the McCloskey's lawyer. 

My Comment:

The persecution and possible prosecution of the McCloskey's is one of the most disgusting things that has come out of the George Floyd riots. They did absolutely nothing wrong morally and their actions were more than justified under Missouri law. Indeed, they would have been in their rights to open fire on these rioters and their restraint in not doing so was pretty amazing. 

There is absolutely no reason for these weapons to have been seized. With no crime having been committed there is zero reason to seize these weapons. Charges could be filed in this case but there is no crime that was committed. The McCloskey's would win at trial and would do so easily. Missouri's castle doctrine extends to property including lawns, so it's very obvious that no crime has been committed. 

So why is Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner doing this then? Other than the fact that she's racist you mean? It's very clear that the main goal of the Black Lives Matter movement is to ensure that black people are held to a different standard than anyone else. They don't care how justified it is to defend yourself against a black criminal (and these rioters were criminals the second they broke down the gate) they want it to be illegal. It doesn't matter if they broke into your property and threatened your lives, just like it doesn't matter when a drunk steals a taser from a cop and then shoots it at him. If you threaten or kill a black person then you are racist to Black Lives Matter, regardless of the obvious legal and moral justification in these cases. 

This is also about punishing the McCloskey's for having the temerity to own firearms. They have an absolute right under the 2nd Amendment to keep and bear arms and they exercised that right. That's something Democrats won't stand for. They would rather see the McCloskey's dead, their house burned down and their history erased then allow them to defend themselves. 

I also think that the goal here is to bankrupt the McCloskey's in legal fees. Gardner knows that she can't win at trial, but if she keeps up a pressure campaign she can hurt the McCloskey's severely. Not only is she damaging their back accounts, the negative publicity is going to hurt their business. 

Of course, there are more sinister motives for confiscating the McCloskey's firearms. Now that they are disarmed there is no way for them to defend themselves. The couple has already been doxxed and threatened. All it would take is one more angry mob or even just one random angry criminal, to take them out and there isn't a thing anyone could do for them. I hope that they at least have an armed friend that can lend them a weapon or stay with them for awhile. Or failing that, they can hire an armed security guard.

It's clear that the McCloskey's can't rely on the police to help them. They called for help but the police didn't show up in time. Indeed, the police weren't doing anything to stop the looting, arson and rioting in St. Louis. Police are afraid and in many cases have been ordered to stand down when it comes to Black Lives Matter. You can't rely on the cops for help under these circumstances. You need a firearm to protect yourself. 

I do wonder why we haven't heard from the NRA or other gun rights groups in this case. It might be because the McCloskey's were pretty obviously not that experienced with their firearms. Regardless, incidents like this is why groups like the NRA, the 2nd Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America even exist. You would think they would be screaming about this case but as far as I can tell they haven't said much at all.  

China accuses Kazakhstan of having a "new" pneumonia-causing virus, with Kazakhstan denies.

People in Almaty, Kazakhstan. BBC/Reuters.

Kazakhstan has denies reports from China that they have a new pneumonia causing virus that China claims is even more deadly than the Coronavirus. BBC. Kazakhstan, which just reinstituted a nation-wide lockdown, has had a major increase of cases of pneumonia but are saying that China's claims are not based in reality. China says that since the beginning of the year 1772 people have died of pneumonia with 628 in June alone, including some Chinese citizens. Medical workers and victims families in Kazakhstan believe that the pneumonia deaths are due to Covid-19, not due to some mystery virus. Testing in Kazakhstan has been unreliable and there is evidence that not everyone who dies has been tested. 

My Comment:

What a weird story. I can't think of any reason why China would think that there is some kind of new virus in Kazakhstan when the obvious answer is that the extra pneumonia deaths are from Coronavirus cases that slipped through the cracks. 

I don't know that much about Kazakhstan and their healthcare system but even here in America we have had problems with accurate testing and correctly attributing deaths to the virus. Though here I think they are overplaying the numbers, counting any deaths as Corona-related even if it's clear that the disease itself wasn't the cause, it's no stretch of the imagination to think that the Kazakh government could be doing the same thing the other way. Either that or they just don't have the testing to get actuate numbers. 

It just seems very irresponsible for China to make this claim and I almost wonder if it wasn't in bad faith? I get that they would want to warn their citizens of the danger of being in Kazakhstan right now, but why lie about a new disease when there isn't any evidence that there is one in play? Are they trying to embarrass Kazakhstan? Are they trying to make themselves look better? Or are they just dumb? It just doesn't make much sense to me. 

And I just don't trust anything that is coming out of China these days. They have lied to us about so much that you would be foolish to trust anything they say. I mean, they knew about the Coronavirus long before they warned the world and it's not a stretch that they would lie about other things. Hell, even the viral "Three Gorges Dam will collapse story", which I would have normally dismissed as fake news, sounds plausible just because China is so secretive and dishonest. 

This does worry me though. What if China is actually right and there is a worse virus out there that the Kazakh government is covering up? If so than their warnings will be unheeded as nobody is going to trust what China has to say. I don't think that scenario is likely at all though, but it is an unpleasant thought. 

I think the media is overhyping this though. I had seen this story throughout the day today and a lot more articles covered China's claims than they did Kazakhstan's denial, which I find more credible. Why is the media doing this? Bad news gets clicks. A story saying that there's a new virus out there that could be worse than Coronavirus is a lot more enticing than one that says that it's probably just unreported cases of Corona. It's why you are hearing all the stories about Black Plague in Mongolia, even though Black Plague has never really gone away and the chances of a major outbreak are extremely low. 

Still, I am glad that the BBC and other outlets printed the Kazakh response and did some actual journalism by asking people who lived in the area what is happening. These people all say that it's just Coronavirus deaths, so I'm going to go with that. Part of journalism is that you are supposed to get both sides of the story and I am glad that there are still a few people out there that seem to understand that. 

Hispanic man charged with a hate crime after intentionally ramming a man on a motorcycle.

Daniel Navarro's mugshot. 

A Hispanic man has been charged with a hate crime after ramming and killing a man on a motorcycle in Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin. WBAY. Daniel Navarro, 27, was charged with 1st degree murder with a hate crime modifier after he rammed into Phillip A. Theissen, a retried Marine and police officer. Navarro did not know that Theissen was a former cop but targeted him because he was a white man riding a motorcycle. Navarro claimed to be a victim of racism from white people and accused his neighbors and coworkers of "poisoning him". Navarro claimed to have political motivations for the attack as well as personal ones. He said that if white people and President Trump were going to create the world we are living in then people would have to die. However, he also said that he didn't want to have his parents take care of him. 

My Comment:

It's not often I comment on local stories (I live in Wisconsin, but not in the Fond Du Lac area), but this one was fairly disgusting to me. It's very telling of the current political climate that this kind of thing can happen. I mean there has always been racism but it's pretty clear that actual racist attacks are increasing and the victims are often white. 

Ironically enough, Navarro, at least from his mugshot, looks like he's pretty white himself. He may be Hispanic and have some native blood, but if I had seen him in a gas station or something I wouldn't have noticed him as anything other than a regular guy. I mean, I guess if he was speaking Spanish or something I could have picked him out as Hispanic but he doesn't really look that different than the white guys around here. 

And do I buy his claims of being discriminated against? Maybe? It's not something I'm familiar with myself. Some people might say things about Hispanics in private but it's pretty rare for me to see a white guy trashing a Hispanic one face to face. And I work at a place that's majority Hispanic and everyone mostly seems to get along.

My guess is that Navarro was just kind of an idiot and was likely mentally ill. A lot of time people tend to think there is a racial motivation when sometimes people are just jerks for no reason. And it's very possible that Navarro's grip on reality wasn't all there so he was seeing things that weren't there. 

I do think that the media is partially responsible for this attack. They have always been hyping racial tension but ever since George Floyd died they have totally abandoned any kind of responsibility. They are really pushing the idea that it's white people against everyone else and that all minorities are discriminated against constantly. 

This is probably less true today than it has ever been. I do think that racism against minorities still exists but it's not anywhere near the problem that the media makes it out. And it's also very clear that the media is not interested in actually solving racism. They just want white people to be the victims instead of anyone else. 

When this is the environment is it any surprised when a disturbed individual like Navarro takes it seriously and ends up killing someone? The media was feeding him a steady diet of poison into his mind and he ended up snapping. I think that these kinds of attacks are going to continue and the media will continue to ignore it. While this story is pretty big locally, I doubt any major national media will cover it, even though I think their role in this was clear. 

This case obviously hits close to home for me. I have family and friends who live and work in Fond Du Lac and it could have easily been them instead of Phillip Theissen. And by all accounts it seems like Theissen was a decent person who was helping his community. His loss will be missed and this entire event was a terrible tragedy.