The saber rattling against Venezuela continues as Trump closes air space and demands President Maduro resigns.

 

President Nicholas Maduro of Venezuela. New York Post/AFP/Getty.

The saber rattling against Venezuela continues as Trump closes air space and demands President Maduro resigns. New York Post. President Trump and Nicholas Maduro held a high stakes call. At issue is Maduro's alleged support of drug smuggling and narco-terror groups that are smuggling drugs into the United States. Maduro had demanded that he would be allowed to remain in control of the military before free elections and that he be pardoned for any potential crimes. Trump refused and said that Maduro would be given safe passage out of Venezuela. Talks broke down at that point with Trump closing Venezuelan air space in response. Trump has also threatened strikes against the drug gangs in Venezuela. 

My Comment:

Venezuela kind of popped up out of nowhere. I know Venezuela got a lot of blame for the drug smuggling issue and the Tren De Aragua issues we have had in the United States, but given the multiple other foreign policy issues that have cropped up, they were low priority. 

First of all, I have to say that a full scale Iraq War style invasion is pretty much impossible at this point. We don't have anywhere near the troops in the region to even attempt it, and there is zero desire for anyone in the United States, outside of the crustiest of neocons, for that to happen. There has been a troop buildup but it's mostly naval assets. 

There is a small chance of some kind of military conflict, but it would come in the form of airstrikes, not an invasion. I am guessing that drug smuggler bases or ports could be attacked, given that would be the casus belli of the conflict. A direct attack against Maduro itself could be in the cards too, but that would be more difficult. 

However, I don't think military action, beyond the naval stuff we have seen already, is really in the cards. President Maduro seemed rather open to leaving power and the fact that he was asking for amnesty and agreeing to elections, probably indicates he is fairly desperate for a deal. And, from what I understand, members of his regime are attempting to save their own necks as well as their Presidents. I would not be surprised if this does have a diplomatic resolution. Neither side seems so steadfast in their positions here that a deal can't be made, and given that Trump was downplaying the air space closure today, I am guessing more talks are going to be held. 

Indeed, this seems like a classic Trump maneuver. Though Trump has been called many things, the one thing you can't deny is that he's a diplomat at heart. He wants to be the guy to end conflicts, not start them, so even if things do degrade into military action, expect them to always leave an out for Maduro. It reminds me of the conflict with Iran, where Trump was working for a peace deal even as he bombed Iranian nuclear strikes. The last thing he wants is a real conflict. 

The timing for this is not great though. Trump was widely praised by his base for, finally, refocusing on domestic issues after the Washington DC attack on National Guardsmen. In response Trump finally took some real action on immigration, something that his base was demanding for a long time. 

What I can tell you is that nobody in his base is very excited by the fact that the focus seemed to last less than a holiday weekend, and he's right back onto foreign policy. Indeed, I'm rather annoyed myself. The Washington attack was something Trump should have hammered down on given how preventable the attack was and how much of a winner the issue is for Republicans. Venezuela though? Nobody really cares about that. It's not even an urgent situation, compared to something like the Russia Ukraine war. Sure drugs are a problem, but domestically, things need to be handled. 

Regardless, like I said, I fully expect a diplomatic solution. Maduro seems to get that the gig is up and is looking for an exit and the only question is the how and when. I am guessing that airstrikes will be avoided and that Maduro will step down and leave the country for a place like Russia. 

Two National Guard soldiers ambushed in Washington DC by Afghan illegal alien.

 

Soldiers stand guard near the scene of the shooting. Reuters. 

Two members of the West Virginia National Guard were ambushed in Washington DC by an Afghanistan national in the country illegally. Reuters. The suspect was identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29 year old who was admitted into the United States under Joe Biden's visa program put into place after the fall of the Afghan government to the Taliban. The National Guard were patrolling as part of President Trump's crime crackdown. The motivations of the attacker have not been revealed publicly, but terrorism is suspected and the FBI is investigating if he had any links to outside groups, though none are suspected at this time. In response, President Trump has deployed 500 more troops to the city. 

My Comment:

The status of the wounded soldiers is unclear at this point. There were reports that both of them were dead, but that wasn't confirmed, so I am assuming that as of this writing they are indeed alive. Hopefully they stay that way. 

This attack was entirely predictable. Indeed, I believe I said that bringing in thousands of Afghan immigrants without vetting in the chaos that was the Afghanistan withdrawal would absolutely lead to something like this. We had no vetting to see if these people coming into the United States were friendly and it's very likely that this man fell through the cracks. I guess it's possible that he got radicalized after he got here, but that seems very unlikely. 

I also have very little doubt that this was Islamic terrorism. Supposedly the attacker said "Allah Akbar", "god is great" before he got into the gunfight, which is an obvious tell. The real question is if he was a "lone wolf" attacker, if he had links to terrorists or if he was an out and out member of a terror group like ISIS. I am guessing he will be the first one, there aren't that many active terror groups that can fund and promote attacks anymore. 

I am going to say that this was a policy failure on the part of the Trump administration. Obviously, Biden never should have let him in to begin with, but Trump should have deported this guy. His visa had expired and you would have thought folks let in under Biden's program would have been the first to go. Supposedly, this guy was an interpreter, so maybe he wouldn't have been deported anyways, but I don't really understand why these guys weren't the first on the list to be deported. Hopefully they will be now. 

I do think that Trump's focus on foreign policy is worth criticizing at this point. Trump has been focused on ending foreign wars, which is obviously commendable, and he has had a lot of success. But this attack is going to cause some serious demands for him to refocus back on the issue that got him elected.  Twice. I know that the Russia Ukraine war might be getting close to some kind of resolution and that is drawing a lot of attention from his administration, but at some point enough is enough and the focus has to be at home. 

The Democrats reactions to this has been predictable. Before anyone knew who was responsible, they were very loud saying that this had nothing to do with the video they released that encouraged soldiers to disobey "unlawful" orders, without specifying what those orders were. And some of them were either downplaying the attack, saying that they soldiers shouldn't have been there in the first place if they didn't want to get shot, or even celebrating it! They got a lot more quiet when it was revealed the suspect was a Afghan national, but it still happened. 

Was this attack a failure? I am not sure. So far at least, nobody has died, and the suspect was wounded and captured himself. But the image of soldiers being shot only a block or two from the White House? That's going to stick with people. The attack was mostly a failure, but I can't deny the fact that this was impactful... 

Chaos and hilarity on X/Twitter as the location feature shows many users were falsely posing as Americans.

 

Screenshot of a fake Ivanka Trump page.

X, formerly known as Twitter, released a new location feature that exposed many accounts as falsely posing as Americans. BBC. Thousands of accounts were exposed as not being American in the update, which caused a large amount of criticism. The accounts were both pro-and anti-Trump. Many of these accounts were based in India and Nigeria and were verified and monetized by the platform. Motivation for these accounts is varied, some are attempting to exploit America's culture war for money while others may be trying to influence policy. America was not the only country to have fake users, with the BBC finding many pro-independence accounts in Scotland were actually based in Iran. 

My Comment:

A lighter news story for once, this entire situation was endlessly entertaining for me this weekend. So many accounts got exposed for not being what they claimed to be and everyone else was laughing at them while proving that they actually are Americans. 

Most news outlets are trying to make this political but it really isn't. There were impersonators on both sides, fake Republicans and Democrats. And many of these accounts weren't political in any way, they were just scamming people or trying to scam money from the monetization system. And it's not like it was just America that was affected by this, the report mentioned Scotland, but there are other examples too. 

Indeed, it's been a meme for awhile that a lot of these accounts were pretty obviously fake. From what it sounds like the fake pro-Trump accounts were mostly Nigerian, anti-Trump accounts were European or Canadian, "groyper" accounts were European and Indian accounts were faking anything and everything. None of this is new. Indeed, the constant stream of fake Elon Musk accounts was beyond annoying for a long time on X. 

This does raise some questions about the monetization system on X. For the sake of disclosure, I am verified on X but not monetized and it is a goal of mine. But it's a lot harder to do legitimately than simply doing what these accounts are doing, impersonating an American and then using bot farms to boost their accounts. That means folks are getting money for fake content that should be going to actual real accounts, and that sucks. 

What is a concern is the idea these accounts could have been influencing elections or other major issues. The Israel-Gaza conflict is a good example of this. Many pro-Israel accounts were actually Indians, either because they wanted to exploit the issue for monetization, or because they genuinely like Israel. And the anti-Israel people were often Europeans or from Muslim countries. Both of these kinds of accounts may have falsely increased the relevance of the issue. And the same thing could have happened in the 2025 midterm elections as well, on both sides of the ball. 

I should note that I don't have a problem with foreigners commenting on American politics. After all, American politics are fairly global and sometimes those folks bring up good points. Indeed, I follow folks from all of the world. It's the impersonation and exploitation of monetization that is a problem, not to mention the out and out scammers. 

I do think that this was an extremely good idea by Elon Musk and X and it's something that I really wish was universal over all social media. I'm generally opposed to digital ID's and such, but transparency for social media is a little different. I should have a good idea of where posters are posting from, but right now I can only do that on X. It should be universal. 

Secretary of Stare Marco Rubio says "tremendous progress" in Russia Ukraine peace deal...

 

BBC/EPA.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says there has been "tremendous progress" in a proposed Russia-Ukraine peace deal. BBC. The statements came after Trump put pressure on Ukraine to end the war via his Truth Social account. There had been concern from Pro-Ukraine factions that the deal proposed last week was too generous to Russia and it is unclear what, if any, concessions were given to Ukraine. However, Ukraine does seem to be positively reacting to talks. The US plan was a 28 point plan and progress has been made to narrowing Ukrainian objections to the plan. Russia has vowed support to the leaked plan and it is unclear how much work needs to be done to bring the parties together. Trump gave Ukraine until this Thursday to agree to a deal, though he latter said that there may be further offers. 

My Comment:

I do hope that Rubio didn't give away the goat with this revised deal. The previous version, lambasted in the media as pro-Russia, seemed quite the opposite to me, given that Zelensky would remain in power and Ukraine would be allowed to have a military and "security guarantees". Indeed, the only thing that I thought was pro-Russia is that there wasn't an equivalent exchange of land in the North that Russia captured for the disputed Donbas territories. 

As a review, the original plan called for Ukraine to give up all of Donbas, claims to Crimea and the line in other areas would determine by where the front lines are. It would incentivize Russia by ending sanctions and giving one of their war goals, no path to NATO for Ukraine. Ukraine would get to keep a smaller military and would have to accept Russia as an official language (racism against Russian speakers was a major reason why the war started in the first place). 

I am guessing that Ukraine got some kind of face saving concessions if they are positive about this. I think the exchange of land could be a thing that they would agree too in the most current draft. Russia controls some minor territories in the north near Kharkov and Sumy, and these could be exchanged for the parts of Donbas they have yet to conquer. Russia would still be gaining more than they would be losing but it would allow Ukraine to say that they didn't give away the farm either. 

What concerns me is that the deal might be for stronger security guarantees for Ukraine. Anything that could potentially draw America into a conflict with Russia is not something I would support, so any kind of mutual defense pact would be a deal breaker for me. How much of a concession Ukraine got here could be the thing that breaks the whole deal apart. Such a deal would be unlikely for obvious reasons, Ukraine would then have a motivation to restart the war with the United States as an ally, but you never know how much they gave away. 

Will Russia play ball? I think it really depends just how far these concessions go. Russia does have some motivation to end the war, but keep in mind they are winning right now. Much of the Ukrainian military is getting caught up in cauldrons and it's clear that Russia's attritional strategy is working. They have little reason to give major concessions to Ukraine under any circumstances given how strong their position is on the battlefield. 

However, the original deal did seem like it was finally listening to what Russia was saying. They don't want NATO to expand, they don't want a militarized Ukraine and they don't want Russian speaking citizens of Ukraine to be discriminated against. If some concessions are made to Ukraine (and the land swap one seems very obvious) than it's very possible that they will accept. 

I do hope that if Zelensky refuses to accept even this watered down proposal that President Trump finally throws up his hands and cuts him off. I have never liked Zelensky and I give him the lion's share of the blame for this war continuing as long as it has. The original deal was better than he deserved so I am hoping that Zelensky sees the writing on the wall and ends the war, despite the threats against him and his presidency. 

Minnesota taxpayers fleeced of millions of dollars from welfare fraud and the stolen funds were sent to terrorists in Somalia.

File photo of Al-Shabaab fighters. Radio al-Andalus.

Minnesota taxpayers were fleeced of millions of dollars from welfare fraud and some of the stolen funds ended up in the hands of Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab. City Journal. Fraud is a huge problem in Minnesota and much of the fraud is coming from the states large Somali community. Minnesota's Medicaid Housing Stabilization Services, HSS, was supposed to help people gain housing, but an investigation showed the majority of claims were fraudulent. Many of the companies that were contracted to help people were just fronts and the money did not go to any people in need. The Feeding our Future company was supposed to help children and families sign up for the Federal Child Nutrition Program, but the money was funneled to founders. When confronted with the fraud, the suspects claimed "racism", but were charged anyways. One of the players in the Feeding our Future scam was also involved in an additional fraud in Minnesota's Early Intensive Developmental and Behavioral Intervention program, a program to help autistic children. The fraud was so broad that 1 out of 16  four year old Somali children in the state were listed as autistic. 

The cost of these frauds is estimated to be in the billions. And much of that money was sent back into Somalia. In 2023 $1.3 billion dollars were sent to Somalia as remittances, more than the budget of the government of Somalia, and much of it was ill gotten gains. Most concerning is the fact that some of the money was getting to the Somali terror group al-Shabaab. Al-Shabaab is a long running terror group guilty of several very large terror attacks in the region and links to al-Qaeda and ISIS. Some of the money was sent to the group directly, while in other cases the money was taken as taxes. It is claimed that the Minnesota taxpayer is the largest funder of al-Shabaab. 

My Comment:

It's hard not to be disgusted by what these people were doing. Instead of helping their community they were sending taxpayer dollars to Somali, which is bad enough on it's own. But the idea that these taxpayers were indirectly funding one of the more notorious terror groups in the world is beyond the pale. This is going to be a huge scandal for Governor Tim Walz and the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party. 

That there was corruption at all should not have been surprising. This is how things work in the third world. But the problem is that nobody could speak out about it because the people that were doing this were Somali in origin. They are a favored group for the Democrats as they have a good get out the vote mechanism (more accurately, a voter fraud program) and they are also an immigrant community, both of which means they are progressive darlings. 

Folks were indeed of being called racist and that's one of the reasons why folks weren't charged until now. But much of it is also because of willful ignorance on the part of State and National figures in the Democratic Party. You can't tell me that Governor Tim Walz and Representative Ilhan Omar didn't know, as Omar directly lobbied Walz for more money from this program. 

The fact that the money ended up in the hands of al-Shabaab should not have been surprising at all. The terror group gains some money from direct donations, but that's probably not where the majority of the money was coming from. Instead, the majority of it was from taxation. Much like the cartels in Mexico, al-Shabaab was demanding a cut from the people that were receiving remittances gathered from the fraud. The money gets there from "hawalas", informal trade networks that avoid any tracing as it avoids actual banks. The terrorists help facilitate the movement of money and they also take bribes and taxes from Somali citizens. 

And the money they collected? It went to violence. Al-Shabaab is currently launching a major offensive that is threatening to take the capital of the country, Mogadishu. They actually have taken a large portion of Southern Somalia and control much o the countryside there. The fighting this year alone has killed around 1000 people, and that number is just going to go up. Were it not for this fraud, things might still be bad, al-Shabaab has a large tax base now, but they would not be doing as well as they are now. 

All of this is infuriating to me. The idea that there was going to be major fraud in welfare programs targeting the Somali community in Minnesota was something that should have been obvious for everyone. The idea that the money coming out of Minnesota would be funding al-Shabaab should also not have been surprising.

So why didn't the Democrats see this coming? Well, some of them obviously did. I have no doubt that Ilhan Omar was aware of what was happening and didn't care. But the rank and file people suffer from pathological empathy, where they sympathize with foreigners over their own people. To them, pointing out the obvious is racist because everyone is good at heart and folks are products of their environment, not their DNA. They fully bought into the tabula rosa/blank slate ideology, which leads to them getting burned from things like this. 

This should have major political implications for the Democrats in Minnesota. Minnesota is a blue state but it's on the verge of being a swing state, like Wisconsin. Indeed, the Somali community is the main reason why it's not a swing state, along with other immigrant groups. Folks are going to be disgusted like this and it could lead to Tim Walz, who is up for election next year, losing to his Republican challenger. That could be optimistic on my part, but I do think this scandal will have legs. 

Of course, I don't think it will lead to long term changes, even if Tim Walz loses. At best, we will see what we saw in Virginia, where Glenn Youngkin used a similar scandal, the trans bathroom issue, to propel himself into power. But then the GOP lost the state as soon as the next election as the issue was no longer relevant. Though Minnesota is close to being a swing state, it's not there yet and things might have to get worse than massive fraud being used to fund a foreign terror group to change it, if change is even possible at this point. 

I also have major fears for my own state, Wisconsin. I live in an area with Somali refugees, and though they are just another group of people to me, some good, some bad, most in the middle, I do worry that the community here would be doing some of the same things. The idea that my tax dollars could be going to fund an Islamic terror group is, quite frankly, disgusting. It's horrifying to me...