Month: April 2023

America’s middle class has been shrinking for the past 50 years.

While middle class Americans remain the biggest income group by number of people, as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz details below, the same can’t be said of the aggregate income earned by them.

From 1970 to 2021, the share of U.S. aggregate income earned by the middle class shrunk massively, from formerly 62 percent to just 42 percent.

During the same time, aggregate earnings by high income Americans increased from 29 percent to 50 percent – despite the fact that the high income class is still less than half as big as the middle class in America.

You will find more infographics at Statista

A report by Pew Research Center includes these numbers and also shows that unmarried women and those in single-earner households are less likely to belong to the middle class.

The report considers anyone whose household earns between two thirds and double of the U.S. median income to belong to the middle class.

Both the low income and the high income class have been growing in America – squeezing the middle class from both sides. One especially alarming trend that only pertains to the low income class is that while it has been increasing in size, it has been decreasing in its share of aggregated income. Between 1970 and 2021, earnings of the low income class decreased from an already meager 10 percent to just 8 percent.

Black and Latino Americans are still much more likely to belong to the low income class – at around 40 percent of each group in this category compared to 24 percent of white people.

However, the report attests one of the biggest upwards movements for Black Americans and moderate gains for Latinos. Yet, the Black middle class is still barely expanding as some gains seem to have gone straight to the Black high income class, which more than doubled in size in the past 50 years. Over the past half century, the white low income class has been expanding, but it remains much smaller than Black and Latino low income classes in relative terms.

Looking at people who have experienced a big amount of downwards mobility in America independent of race, it has been those with less educational attainment.

This includes people with only a high school diploma as well as those who didn’t finish college.

Via The Cradle,

Officials in Israel have raised concerns about the dwindling stockpile of US munitions stored in the country, as in recent months, Washington has been quietly shipping the armament via the Port of Ashdod to Ukraine.

“These are Israel’s reserve stockpiles for times of war … The move has had a bigger implication in light of the threats on Israel in multiple theaters,” an unnamed former cabinet minister told Israel Hayom.

“US equipment stored in Israel was handed over to the US armed forces, in accordance with an American request,” the Israeli army said in response to a query by the news outlet.

A US official also confirmed that “it is still not clear when the reserves will be restocked,” as the US war machine has pivoted from fueling conflict in West Asia to new fronts in Ukraine and Taiwan.

While Kiev prepares for a critical spring offensive against the Russian army, western states have been scrambling to supply the European nation with enough arsenal to turn back the tide of war, as Ukrainian troops reportedly blow through 90,000 artillery shells per month – twice the rate produced by the US and Europe combined.

Reports of the US Army tapping into its reserve stockpiles in Israel first surfaced in January.

“[The Pentagon has drawn from] a vast but little-known stockpile of American ammunition in Israel to help meet Ukraine’s dire need for artillery shells,” the New York Times revealed on 17 January.

Tel Aviv reportedly agreed to allow the shipments on the condition that the Pentagon replenishes the stockpile, with Washington pledging earlier this year to “immediately ship ammunition in a severe emergency.”

According to Israel Hayom, the “implicit understanding” between Tel Aviv and Washington has been that munitions stored in US military storage facilities “would be earmarked for Israel in times of emergency if the Jewish state faces a major attack along the scale as the 1973 Yom Kippur War.”

Unease in the apartheid state has also spiked due to President Joe Biden’s iciness towards Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the ongoing rapprochement between Iran and several Arab states under the auspices of China.

On Thursday, we wrote about President Biden being caught with a cheat sheet providing the full text of a question he would be asked by a reporter at a White House press conference. Just hours after we posted that article, Biden demonstrated why his staffers go to great lengths to limit situations where the 80-year-old is asked to think and speak extemporaneously.  

The Biden communications team has fully tamed the White House press corps, but the same can’t be said of the group of children who visited 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on Thursday as part of Take Your Child to Work Day. 

Things went off the rails when one of those children asked Biden a simple question — what was the last country the US head of state had visited? 

“The last country I’ve traveled — I’m trying to think the last one I was in — I, I’ve been to 89 — I’ve met with 89 heads of state so far, so, uh — I’m trying to think. What was the last — Where was the last place I was? It’s hard to keep track. Um, I was — “

The dark comedy grew richer when it was another child who mercifully bailed Biden out, by shouting “Ireland!”

“Yeah, you’re right, Ireland,” Biden replied. “That’s where it was. How’d you know that?” Biden this week announced his re-election bid; he would be 86 years old at the end of a hypothetical second term. 

Joe Biden is asked by a kid the last country he visited and he can’t remember. He was in Ireland last week, which he didn’t remember until a kid told him. Good lord: pic.twitter.com/xpnklgA6sP

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) April 27, 2023

Biden spent three days and nights in Ireland, in a trip that ended just 13 days before Thursday’s question. It included what should be a memorable visit to his ancestral home of County Mayo. 

If this were an episode of Veep, we’d be treated to some poor White House staffer under a withering barrage of profane insults for their child having stumped the president with the simple question.

Also at Thursday’s event, Biden ventured to name all his grandchildren. He listed six of them, but he omitted Navy Joan Roberts, the 4-year-old daughter of Hunter Biden that was born to former stripper Lunden Roberts, having been conceived while Hunter was still in a relationship with his dead brother Beau’s widow.

“I have six grandchildren and I’m crazy about them, and I speak to them every single day. Not a joke.” Biden told the kids at the White House. After a long-winded description of the six that omitted Hunter’s child, Biden concluded, “And guess what? They’re crazy about me because I pay so much attention to them.”

Hunter met Roberts when she was a stripper at a DC club. In a child support hearing last week, Roberts asked an Arkansas judge to throw Hunter in jail for having repeatedly failed to turn over financial records as part of the lawsuit’s discovery process. Hunter initially denied his fatherhood, but a paternity test established that fact. 

Iconic weight loss company Jenny Craig is shedding some pounds of its own, it was reported this week. The company is going to be “winding down physical operations” and is reportedly looking for a buyer, according to NBC News. 

The company’s employees have been warned about “potential mass layoffs”, the report says, noting that the company says it “has been going through a sales process for the last couple of months.”

A company FAQ document related to the transition said: “While we had to issue Warn Notices specifically for sites where we had more than 50 people potentially impacted, this will likely impact all employees in some manner.”

It continued: “We do not know the exact employees/groups whom will be impacted, and if any employees may be retained. As a result, we would suggest that you anticipate that your employment may be impacted and begin to seek other employment.”

The company was founded in 1983 and was recently bought by HIG Capital in April 2019, for an undisclosed amount. At the time it operated 500 stores in the U.S. and Canada, mixed between company-owned and franchised.  

The company didn’t return requests for comments by NBC. Bloomberg reported separately that the company is considering bankruptcy and that a filing could come “as soon as next week”, according to people with knowledge of the matter. 

CEO and President Mandy Dowson told Bloomberg: “Like many other companies, we’re currently transitioning from a brick-and-mortar retail business to a customer-friendly, e-commerce driven model. We will have more details to share in the coming weeks as our plans are solidified.”

NBC says it found “dozens” of users on LinkedIn who list Jenny Craig as their employer who are now “open to work”. Severance for its current employees is supposed to be “based on job level and tenure with the company”, according to the FAQ, which then, also states: “However, at this time, it is highly unlikely that these will be paid.”

Authored by Doug Casey via InternationalMan.com,

International Man: There has been a recent push by some US politicians of the neocon variety to use the US military against Mexican drug cartels.

Senator Lindsay Graham has proposed designating them as “terrorist organizations.”

Representative Dan Crenshaw introduced an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to target drug cartels inside Mexico.

What’s your take on this?

Doug Casey: That’s just what the US needs: another war, and this one on the border.

The people who back the use of military force in Mexico can only be described as thoughtless warmongers with no grasp of either ethics or history. If the war against organizations like the Taliban in Afghanistan was a world-class disaster, would an invasion work out better in Mexico, which has three times the population of Afghanistan, is much richer and much better organized? And they’re right on the border, which is really asking for trouble.

The solution to the drug cartel problem is to legalize all drugs. The fact is that anybody who wants drugs today can get them easily, even if they’re in high-security prisons. From a practical point of view, making drugs illegal doesn’t work. All it does is greatly increase the price of the drugs in the US and create huge profit margins to import them. Even if you destroyed every cartel in Mexico, people that want drugs will still want them. As long as drugs are illegal, their prices will remain high and new cartels will arise.

But despite the relaxation of penalties on cannabis, it’s highly unlikely drugs will be legalized. The DEA, one of the most corrupt Federal agencies, is a permanent lobby to keep them illegal. And there’s way, way too much money in keeping them illegal.

The only solution is to learn a lesson from Prohibition in the 1930s. When they illegalized alcohol in the 1920s, it created the profits that allowed the Mafia to grow. It certainly didn’t cut down the amount of drinking; it just increased the amount of crime. Similarly, the insane War on Drugs is responsible for the success of the cartels.

They say fentanyl, an important medical drug, kills 50,000 to 100,000 Americans per year. That’s mostly because its quantity and quality are uncertain, a consequence of its illegality. But the real question is ethical: Does government have a right to “protect” people against themselves? My answer is: No. If people like it, it’s their body and their business. Prohibition of alcohol—which is also quite a dangerous drug—was costly, destructive, immoral, and stupid. Fentanyl, the current bete noir of busybodies, is no different.

If drugs were as easily available as aspirins through pharmacies, users would know what they were getting, and people who want them could get them at a cheap price in known doses.

Apart from recognizing that you can’t protect people from themselves, it’s important to look at the root of why many people get lost in drugs. The answer, I believe, is that they’re trying to hide from reality and blot it out. Why is that? It’s a subject for another conversation. But the irrationality and coercion caused by State intervention in private lives are part of the answer.

International Man: Mexican President Obrador has stated he will not allow the US government or military to enter Mexican territory.

It’s also well known that Mexican cartels have a significant presence inside the US.

Suppose the US government sends the military into action in Mexico anyways.

What do you think could happen?

Doug Casey: It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that the US has invaded Mexico.

In the 1840s, the US basically stole all the territory in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, from Mexico. I know you shouldn’t say that—it sounds unpatriotic. But patriotism should be focused on American values, not necessarily on supporting the actions of politicians in Washington.

In the Marine Corp’s hymn, one of the lines is “From the Halls of Montezuma” because US forces were actually fighting in Mexico City.

It happened more recently when during the Mexican Revolution in the 1910s, Pancho Villa raided across the Rio Grande, and General Pershing’s troops crossed into Mexico to (unsuccessfully) pursue him.

There’s plenty of precedent for Americans invading Mexico, but perhaps the shoe is on the other foot now. 20 million or more Mexicans live in the US, mostly in the Southwest. Believe it or not, many of them talk about a Reconquista.

It’s uncertain what effect it will have on the US border if warmongers like the smarmy and foolish little Lindsey Graham succeed in fomenting an invasion of Mexico. It could turn into a counterinvasion, an active shooting war unnecessarily created to quash the Mexican drug business. Which—insofar as it’s even a real problem—is a US problem.

International Man: No matter what happens with the US military in Mexico, the situation at the border remains a mess.

What do you think should be done?

Doug Casey: The violence of the cartels is said to be one of the motivators for migration to the US. There appear to be at least one or two million people—nobody has the exact number—annually migrating from Mexico and other places into the US. Once they arrive, many become wards of the vast US welfare system. It’s a problem.

The solution, as with so many social ills, is strict observance of property rights. That implies the border should be defended. Why? The migrants usually cross the privately owned land of Americans; they have no right to trespass. Even when the land is owned by the federal or state government, they have no right to trespass. It’s a question of strictly enforcing property rights.

There’s a sign that often appears out west, “If you’re found here at night, you’ll be found here in the morning.” It’s a justified sentiment.

Entering the US, or, more importantly, onto anybody’s private property without permission, is a serious offense. Property rights are the basis of all rights.

It’s hard to know exactly, but I suspect a major attraction to migrants is that they know that once in the country, they’re basically guaranteed free food, medical care, schools, housing, and numerous other forms of welfare. That attracts the wrong kind of people. The immigrants of the 19th century were also penniless but got absolutely nothing when they came to the US. Now migrants get lots of freebies. Part of the answer is to eliminate any and all types of welfare both for Americans and immigrants—as well as strict enforcement of property rights.

International Man: Renowned trends forecaster Gerald Celente has said, “When all else fails, they take you to war.”

Do you agree?

Doug Casey: Gerald is absolutely correct.

Looking at America’s war history, when the US fought Germany and Japan, those countries were transformed because they were totally flattened, devastated, and dispirited—that made it easy to reform them in the image that the US government wanted.

In the Korean War, which was really a war fought against China on Korean territory, the US dropped more bombs than in all of World War II. The country was totally flattened, and South Korea also transformed itself in the image that we wanted.

But Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and for that matter, Vietnam, were more on the order of sport wars against primitive countries. They were all embarrassing disasters.

What kind of war are we looking at with Mexico?

Will Washington flatten the country in order to change its government? I question whether the Mexicans will accept that. Or will Washington get involved in a protracted guerrilla war where drug gangs are designated as terrorists? Randolph Bourne was right when he said: “War is the health of the State.” Unfortunately, the average American seems to have lost the power of critical thinking. He robotically equates the health of the State with the health of America.

Either way, it’s a bad idea for America. But Washington isn’t America. The Deep State will, however, find somebody to fight. Unfortunately, it looks like Russia and China are next on the dance card, although they could certainly add Mexico to the naughty list while further bankrupting and corrupting the US.

International Man: The US government is becoming more desperate and reckless by the day.

How can the average person protect themselves and profit from this situation?

Doug Casey: The US government is increasingly designating any real or imagined enemy du jour— whether they’re Mexican drug cartels, the Russians, foreign separatist movements, or various American citizens—as terrorists. Once someone is termed a terrorist, the gloves are off, and it becomes possible to commit any kind of crime to combat him.

As the US destabilizes in many ways, Washington is finding its real danger lies within the country. What we’re looking at is a war of the US government against numerous and various groups, as well as dissident individual citizens. The FBI, CIA, DEA, and other praetorian agencies are being transformed into domestic secret police forces.

One way to protect yourself from this is to vacate the premises until it becomes safe to live in the US again.

Let me emphasize the importance of having a second residency or a second citizenship in case the US goes in the direction of so many countries in the past. And it’s not just the US. Many supposedly free Western countries are becoming quite repressive.

In fact, it’s dangerous being a US citizen in the US these days, at least if you speak out too loudly. It certainly concerns me personally. Even though I don’t believe it’s possible to change the course of events, I say what I do because it’s right, not because it’s smart.

That said, you should plan on the US government becoming much more virulent in the future. Washington, not Mexican cartels, is the real danger.

That’s absolutely the case for the next two years, while genuine Jacobins control the government. But perhaps beyond that. There’s no telling who’s going to be elected or what they’re going to do. Since we’re likely going to be in the middle of a huge financial, economic, political, social, and military crisis, anything is possible. Little of it is good.

The trend in motion is probably going to stay in motion.

*  *  *

It’s clear there are some ominous social, political, cultural, and economic trends playing out right now. Many of which seem to point to an unfortunate decline of the West. That’s precisely why legendary speculator Doug Casey and his team just released this free report, which shows you exactly what’s happening and what you can do about it. Click here to download it now.

When on Thursday the US Navy announced that Iranian commandos had seized a Marshall Islands-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman, conveniently absent from the narrative was the fact that just days prior the United States seized a ship laden with Iranian crude, identified as the Suez Rajan which was destined for China.

“US authorities ordered a tanker of Iranian crude oil to redirect towards the US in recent days, in a move officials believe was the trigger for Iran’s decision to capture a US-bound tanker on Thursday,” the FT reports. “Three people briefed on the situation said the US had intervened to summon a ship loaded with Iranian crude, originally destined for China, as Washington looks to step up enforcement of sanctions on Tehran.”

The Thursday seizure of the Advantage Sweet Suezmax crude tanker by the Iranians, which had been chartered by Chevron to move product from Kuwait to Houston, had resulted in swift condemnation by the Biden administration, with the US calling on Iran’s government to immediately release the oil tanker.

While the Advantage Sweet incident grabbed international headlines, Washington’s action against the Suez Rajan (a Greek tanker carrying Iranian product) was not widely publicized or even known about.

But US officials are now making the following belated admission: 

The previously unreported US action towards the Suez Rajan shines a new light on Iran’s decision to capture the Advantage Sweet, a US-bound tanker of Kuwaiti crude that was chartered by Chevron.

A US official said Thursday’s “seizure appears to be in retaliation for a prior US seizure of Iranian oil, which Iran recently attempted to get back but failed”.

The ship with Iranian crude had been destined for China, and reportedly the Iranians had tried to pursue it when it was diverted toward the US after a court order from the DOJ. One of the companies involved with the vessel had helped with the US apprehension.

In recent years the US has seized a number of tankers with Iranian oil for alleged sanctions-busting activities, including recent interventions against vessels headed to highly sanctioned Syria.

Authored by Savannah Hulsey Pointer via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The House rejected legislation from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) that would require President Joe Biden to withdraw most U.S. troops from Somalia in an April 27 vote.

Opponents of the legislation said it would hurt national security by making it harder to fight al-Shabaab, designated as a terrorist group by the United States over a decade ago.

House lawmakers, including its sponsor, claim that 900 U.S. troops in Somalia on an uncertain mission will never bring peace. Despite his claims, the House rejected the legislation, H.Con.Res.30, in a vote of 102-321.

Gaetz said during a floor discussion that to accept Biden’s decision last year to send soldiers back to Somalia, one would have to believe that 900 U.S. troops are what is going to save a country of 17 million from a hardened group of 7,000.

“I think that strains not only logic but our understanding of the history of Somalia,” Gaetz said during the floor debate on the bill.

“The future of Somalia must be determined by Somalia. And to the extent that foreign influences could be helpful, I would argue that the African Union is far better positioned to build a stronger sense of national identity and national unity among clans that have been warring in Somalia for generations than U.S. troops,” he added.

Coup Concerns

In recent weeks, Gaetz has also claimed that U.S.-trained Somali soldiers had staged coups across Africa. Gaetz questioned U.S. Africa Command Gen. Michael Langley, USMC, why taxpayers should continue paying for this endeavor in March, citing claims that certain U.S.-trained soldiers had led many coups and coup attempts.

“The American people have extremely low confidence in our military leaders and their ability to assess their own efficacy,” Gaetz said in March when he introduced his resolution.

“How do they expect Americans to believe their justification for occupying Somalia when they can’t even determine who in their own training programs will lead a violent coup afterward?”

Terror Group Aligned With al-Qaeda

Violence in Somalia has continued to be an issue of concern, with al Qaeda-linked al-Shabab seeking to establish an Islamic state through force.

Read more here…

The Biden administration is following through in a big way on its past denunciations of nuclear rhetoric and threats coming from Russian leadership of the past months and year. The Kremlin is likely to see it as an ultra-provocative and unnecessary step, revealed in fresh New York Times reporting on Friday…

“The United States is wiring Ukraine with sensors that can detect‌‌ bursts of radiation from a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb and can confirm the identity of the attacker,” the Times report says. The goal, according to the report, is for US officials to be made immediately aware of if a radioactive weapon detonates inside Ukraine, and to be able to identify Russian forces as the culprit.

NYT describes the measure as “the hardest evidence to date that Washington is taking concrete steps to prepare for the worst possible outcomes of the invasion of Ukraine, Europe’s second largest nation.”

Interestingly, an elite team under an Energy Department organization which the Times calls “shadowy” has been tasked with deploying the sensors with the help of Ukrainian partners on the ground: 

The Nuclear Emergency Support Team, or NEST, a shadowy unit of atomic experts run by the security agency, is working with Ukraine to deploy the radiation sensors, train personnel, monitor data and warn of deadly radiation.

In a statement sent to The New York Times in response to a reporter’s question, the agency said the network of atomic sensors was being deployed “throughout the region” and would have the ability “to characterize the size, location and effects of any nuclear explosion.” Additionally, it said the deployed sensors would deny Russia “any opportunity to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine without attribution.”

Further this would ensure that alternative or less conventional nuclear ‘dirty bomb’ deployment methods such as delivery by truck or boat could conceivably be more traceable (in addition to the more obvious: a mushroom cloud).

Russia last year on multiple occasions alleged the Ukrainians could be planning a small nuclear dirty bomb false flag attack, in order to draw in NATO forces directly into a ground war in Ukraine.

US officials and the Times report addresses this in saying “For instance, Moscow could falsely claim that Kyiv set off a nuclear blast on the battlefield to try to draw the West into deeper war assistance.” With the sensors in place, officials say, “in theory… Washington would be able to point to its own nuclear attribution analyses to reveal that Moscow was in fact the attacker.”

So now it seems the US is prepping for the eventually of a false-flag blame game, disturbingly enough. Already last year iodine pills had been widely distributed in Ukraine and other Eastern European countries. 

Nuclear Emergency Support Team has meanwhile said in a statement that–

“If a nuclear emergency were to occur in Ukraine, whether a radiation release from a nuclear reactor or a nuclear weapon detonation, scientific analyses would be rapidly provided to U.S. government authorities and decision-making centers in Ukraine and the region to make actionable, technically informed decisions to protect public health and safety.”

There’s no way they could be preparing for a false flag. I’m sure they’re just putting the sensors in as a precaution.https://t.co/FYD887xXsd

— Rich Coupe (@rich_coupe) April 28, 2023

But it remains that Moscow says its nuclear doctrine hasn’t changed. This includes the nuclear option in instances where the nation’s survival is deemed under existential threat. The Kremlin has further repeatedly denounce what it calls Western media and officials’ twisting Putin’s words anytime he speaks on the matter of nuclear weapons.

Russian leadership has also asserted it doesn’t intend to use tactical or strategic nukes in Ukraine; however, Putin’s recently announcing “plans” to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus has certainly rattled the West. He described it along with sending nuclear-capable bomber aircraft as a necessary decision in response to the UK giving Ukraine armor-piercing shells containing depleted uranium.

Authored by Stephen Gutowski via The Reload (emphasis ours),

Americans are less interested than ever in imposing an “assault weapons” ban.

Those are the results of a Monmouth University poll released on Monday. That poll found 49 percent of Americans opposed a ban on the sale of assault weapons while 46 percent supported one, and six percent were unsure. That marks a nine-point decline in support and a seven-point increase in opposition since Monmouth asked the same question in June 2022.

“Despite continued incidents of mass shootings, public support for banning assault weapons has dipped,” Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute, said in a press release.

The poll is just the latest to show a decline in support for the policy, which targets guns like the AR-15 and AK-47. It indicates Americans are growing increasingly skeptical of new broad-based restrictions on different kinds of guns, despite their presence in high-profile mass shootings. The deterioration of public opinion toward assault weapons bans may negatively affect the recent renaissance the policy has enjoyed in recent years and may be why several states where Democrats hold complete control, such as Colorado and New Mexico, failed to pass one this year.

Monmouth’s poll comes a few months after an ABC News/Washington Post survey found a majority of Americans now oppose a ban on the sale of assault weapons, often defined as semi-automatic centerfire guns capable of accepting detachable magazines and featuring banned cosmetics like pistol grips or telescoping stocks. A Quinnipiac University poll from the same time frame found more Americans opposed a ban than supported one. The downward trend in support has persisted even after mass shootings that have captured public attention and House Democrats passing the first proposed federal ban in nearly 20 years.

A poll from The Economist/YouGov has been one of the only consistent outliers from major polling firms on the issue. It shows support for a ban at over 60 percent. Although, that poll further confuses already-nebulous terminology by asking about a ban on “assault rifles,” which are traditionally defined as being capable of automatic fire–unlike common AR-15s.

While gun-control advocates and President Joe Biden (D.) have continued to pursue a federal assault weapons ban as their top policy solution for mass shootings, the popularity of the guns they are seeking to remove from store shelves has skyrocketed. Late last month, a Washington Post/Ipsos poll found tens of millions of Americans own an AR-15.

It isn’t the only estimate that puts the number of legally-owned ARs in the tens of millions.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry’s trade group, estimated there were over 24.4 million AR-15s and similar rifles in circulation last year. Georgetown professor William English found in his 2021 National Firearms Survey that “30.2% of gun owners, about 24.6 million people, indicated that they have owned an AR-15 or similarly styled rifle.”

Monmouth’s survey found political affiliation significantly impacted whether a respondent supported banning assault weapons. A majority of Democrats support such a ban, while a majority of Republicans and independents oppose it. Similarly, liberals support a ban, but conservatives and moderates do not.

Breakdowns along age and racial lines were apparent too. The 55+ age group was the only one to feature majority support for a ban. White Americans were more likely to oppose a ban than support one, while a bare majority of non-White Americans support a ban.

Support for other gun-control policies fared better in the Monmouth poll, though slight declines were present. 81 percent of adults said they support universal background checks, down two points from 2022 and accompanied by the caveat that only 28 percent believe it should be accomplished through an executive order. Support for a federal “Red Flag” law came in at 72 percent, down three points. The split on requiring permits for those who want to conceal a gun in public remained steady, with 56 percent supporting them and 41 percent opposed.

Monmouth conducted the poll of a random sample of 805 adults between March 16th and 20th.

Russia launched Friday attacks on the central Ukrainian cities of Dnipro Uman – and other locations, marking the first large-scale missile and aerial raids in almost two months, and resulting in a mounting civilian death toll. 

Ukraine’s defense ministry had previously warned the population it believed that major aerial strikes were imminent. The strikes occurred in the early night hours of Friday, with Ukrainian rescue operations ensuing throughout the day.

Some large residential buildings were reportedly struck in the missile barrage, with Ukrainian rescue and health authorities telling international press that 26 people, including five children, were killed.

The attack included over 20 cruise missiles and as well as some ‘suicide drones’ at a moment Ukraine is preparing for a spring counteroffensive: 

Al Jazeera’s Charles Stratford reporting from Kyiv said that the attack, according to the Ukrainian government, was executed by one of “23 cruise missiles and so-called kamikaze drones that Russia fired in the early hours of Friday morning. Some were reportedly launched from as far away as the Caspian Sea,” he said.

The attacks show “Russia’s ability to strike targets across this country whenever and wherever it pleases”, he said.

A Russian Defense Ministry statement also said it utilized strategic bombers to target Ukrainian army reserve unites, with an aim toward preventing additional troops from reaching the frontlines.

Russian missile hit residential apartments block in Uman, Cherkasy region of Ukraine.
Russia launched new massive missile attack against Ukrainian cities this night after weeks-long pause. Explosions were reported in Kyiv, Dnipro, Kremenchuk, Mykolaiv https://t.co/C4KIVXZPVW pic.twitter.com/N4DS9pIMJL

— Liveuamap (@Liveuamap) April 28, 2023

Russia is also denying that it targeted civilians. “Overnight, the Russian Air Force carried out a collective rocket strike using long-range high-precision weapons targeting temporary deployment sites of Ukrainian army reserve units,” Russian MoD spokesman Igor Konashenkov told reporters later in the day.

“The target of the strike was achieved. All designated facilities were struck. The advance of the enemy’s reserves into combat zones was thwarted,” Konashenkov said.

Ukraine’s military meanwhile claimed its anti-air defenses had intercepted many of the inbound missiles. Given the reported rising high death toll, Kiev is likely to press its Western backers even harder at this point for more advanced anti-air systems.