July 29, 2019
Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.
July 28, 2019
The Trump Administration has systematically removed thousands of references to Global Warming from the registry.
According to IFL Science:
The White House's apparent disdain for the climate crisis may not be new news, but therecouldbe an even sneakier game afoot. This is according to a reportpublished by theEnvironmental Data and Governance Initiative(EDGI), an independent watchdog,accusingthe administration of wiping climate change references from government websites.
Indeed, between the first half of 2016 and the first half of 2018,
mentions of "climate change" across 5,301 sample pages decreased 25
percent from 6,552 to 4,912.
While the use of the phrase "climate change" plummeted 25 percent, there was a smaller drop (4.5 percent) in the number of pages it appeared on. It was, however, completely removed from 136 pages, more than half of which (73) were on the EPA website. Of those, 43 were from the epa.gov/climatechange domain withdrawn in April 2017.
"Climate change" is often replaced with softer words like "climate", thereport authors say, pointing to a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) page titled "Climate Change and Occupational Safety and Health" in 2016 that waschanged to "Occupational Safety and Health and Climate" by 2018 as an example. This undermines the sense of urgency around climate change, they explain. Arecent IPCC report concludes we must act now to avoid climate catastrophe.I find the indignation of leftist sites like IFLS (which stands for I F#%king Love Science - so typical of liberals to use unnecessary profanity) quite amusing; they don't mind when NOAA or NASA actually alter data to promote Global Warming, but they draw the line here. Sauce for geese and ganders, my friends. And all the administration is doing is making the language more neutral and less, well, cheerleading.
Godspeed, Mr. President!
I recently had another argument with a True Believer in the Church of Climate Change, and thought Aviary readers would be interested. I apologize for not inserting my hyperlinks, but they are many and time is limited today.
[link-https://www.sbs.com.au/news/extreme-weather-caused-by-climate-change-has-damaged-45-per-cent-of-australia-s-coastal-habitat?fbclid=IwAR1h5eDxoRQ57HfbbFI2DTm8frAD1A1GHQ-GtdVNjlJXSTQnHw0y9ODVvzs]Here is the article that started the debate. And below is the argument, started by one Klaus
Klaus Cepan said:
A new study by the University of Bern, published in the journal Nature 571, 2019, has now examined data from the last 2000 years and found clear differences between past climate fluctuations and current climate change.
So far, climate fluctuations have only occurred regionally. The fact that the climate is changing all over the world at the same time is a new phenomenon. This makes the scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change even stronger than it has been.
The study: https://
News article in English: https://
News article in German: https://
Klaus Czalan, there is no consensus. See here https://
July 27, 2019
There is no planetary wqarming, according to new research from the University of Alabama Huntsville.
From the article:
"No matter how you measure them (the main methods being ground thermometers, weather balloons, and satellites), world atmospheric temperatures have gone down for more than three years since a peak reached in early 2016,” he adds.
Global temperature peaks have dropped by one-third since satellite records began in 1979
According to Menton, the satellite-based measurements taken by The University of Alabama in Huntsville, which he considers to be the most accurate, reveal that global temperature peaks have been progressively dropping ever since they first started to be collected back in 1979.
The most recent +0.47 degree Celsius temperature "extreme” that NASA, NOAA, and many others have been citing as evidence that we just went through the "hottest” June on record is actually lower than the +0.88 deg. C peak that occurred in early 2016. And this +0.88 deg. C peak in 2016 was about 33 percent lower than the one captured back in 1979, revealing that the planet is cooling, not warming.
Yes, we do have man-made global warming. It's just that it's made up.
The U.S. Senate is considering a bill to make suing for copyright even easier than at present.
According to Blunt Force Truth:
In other words, the Congress wants to make it easier to sue people who send a meme or post images that they didn’t create themselves, essentially a giveaway to lawyers who sue unsuspecting suckers for a living.
I happen to be one of those suckers.
Our older readers here at The Aviary remember that we got sued over a photograph, and it wound up costing $1,600, which I had to pay to avoid winding up in court in either New York or California - both places I would have lost my shirt. The photographer used software to search the web for pictures he copyrighted then sued violators - it was how he made his living. I used the photo in good faith, thinking it was part of the public domain. I was wrong.
This is going to absolutely kill free speech in this country. Those two paragraphs I just posted could theoretically be used in a complaint, as there is no definitive guidelines on how much of an article one can post. You have to wing it - and hope you don't get sued. In fact, copyright is so crazy that a guy at National Review got sued for doing a pseudo-Dr. Suess article. The estate of Suess argued it was a ripoff of his STYLE and they won!
We need reform to go in the exact opposite direction.
If Republicans fail to stop this they will be killing their greatest allies - the blogging community, as well as social media. I would say they can't be so foolish, but I've learned that they surpass my expectations.
Attorney General William Barr has announced the Federal Government will resume executing condemned criminals. They ended the practice in 2002.
Read about it at Hot Air.
The article cites conservatives against the death penalty, who complain about the cost of executing an individual. That is nonsensical; we spend more every day on other things. At least we are making a bold statement; if you murder somebody or commit some other heinous act you will die. The Bible puts it plainly - the King has the "power of the sword' to "punish evildoers". NOT the power of prison or the power of psychological analysis. The sword. Why?
Because in the end fear of being put to death will indeed reduce crime. And even if it does not, it makes a statement that crime is intolerable, that we as a society value the rule of law and the protection of the innocent. It's a statement about who we are, who we protect. Doing away with the death penalty is saying we don't care about the innocent victims, but rather more about the monsters.
I have always found it amazing that we held so many terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and yet executed none of them. That sent a message to the enemy, that we wouldn't kill them for what they did. We needed to execute a lot of them. That would have made the point that we weren't going to put up with terrorism. But the cowardly Bush Administration was afraid to do it, and the disloyal Obama Administration even more so. But it needed to be done. In any war crimes committed by the enemy are punished by death. Only in the so--called War on Terror have we tried imprisonment alone. And so many of the enemy have ended up back on the battle field.
This is a good decision. I'm willing to spend the money to do it, rather than waste this money on idiotic programs, like promoting global warming education or whatnot. At least something worthwhile is being done with our cash.
More global warming horse poo.
"Temperatures did not rise and fall everywhere in step [in the past]," editors wrote in an accompanying opinion piece in Nature Geoscience. "Specifically, early cool or warm intervals that lasted for centuries peaked at different times in different regions."
That's a radical departure from modern climate change, Scott St. George, a climate researcher at the University of Minnesota who wasn't involved in the research, wrote in a news and views article for Nature. [10 Climate Myths Busted]
First, why go back 2000 years? In point of fact we have been moving out of an ice age for the past ten thousand, so if it is warmer that should not surprise anyone. But it's also demonstrably false; a look at the ebb and flow of civilization tells us the Medieval Warming Period was worldwide, and the little Ice Age likewise.
During the Medieval Warming Period you had the rise of numerous civilizations, and the expansion of others. You had the Mongols swept out of the Gobi and conquer much of the world. Why? Their food supply increased with the warmer weather. You had the rise of the Mayan Civilization, the Aztecs, the Incans, and the Mound Builders of Cahokia. The Mayan civilization largely tanked at the end of the MWP, (shortly before Columbus landed) as did the Mound Builders, whose civilization completely collapsed and disappeared. The Incans had problems that continued to last for centuries. Of all the American civilizations only the Aztecs came out in anywhere near decent shape, but even they were easily taken by a few hundred Spaniards. It is absolutely clear the American civilizations flourished and failed in conjunction with these climate events.
Obviously, in Europe you had the MWP and LIA; that is well documented. And the Europeans shivered in their Medieval hovels until the climate warmed and they then expanded across the globe.
There is no question both of these were worldwide.
Most of the researchers evidence comes from tree rings and other proxy data. Well, proxy data is fungible. When Michael Mann constructed his "hockey stick" graph, he used data from the Yamal Peninsula site in Siberia.It eventually came out he used just 3 trees, because the others showed not warming but a slight cooling. In other words, Mann lied by omission. This is exactly what these studies are trying to do, too, to reinvigorate the 'hockey stick" despite ample evidence it is wrong.
Another nice try that will garner a lot of attention from the mainstream media, then will be utterly refuted but never retracted by said media. That's how they play the game; get fake news out there then let it die a quiet death.
July 26, 2019
John McCafee, the cyber security inventor, has gone missing again. The tech guru went on the lam a while back, fleeing Belize after police investigated him for murder. Now Mr. McCafee appears to be running again.
According to C-Net:
"I have good reason to suspect that John McAfee, @theemrsmcafee and other companions have been detained by authorities at their latest port of call," Loggia-Ramirez tweeted on McAfee's account Tuesday.
"If John misses his next check-in, events will be set into motion that I cannot prevent once they have begun. John has secreted data with individuals across the world. I know neither their identities or locations. They will release their payloads if John goes missing."
(2/4) I last spoke with John as his boat was being boarded. The situation was tense but controlled. Our conversation was cut short by authorities confiscating their phones. The bastards wouldn't even give him a cigarette.
— John McAfee (@officialmcafee) July 23, 2019
Mcafee accuses the CIA:
This is weird story from a weird guy. I suspect it will get stranger yet.
Oh, and did I mention McAfee is running for President of the United States?
Facebook has banned Candace Owens for saying 'Black America must wake up to the great liberal hoax'".
From the article:
"My @facebook page has been suspended for 7 days for posting that white supremacy is not a threat to black America, as much as father absence and & liberal policies that incentivize it, are.
"I am censored for posting the poverty rates in fatherless homes," she wrote on Twitter.
No censorship? No war on Conservatives? How much is this in-kind contribution to the Democrats worth?
Here is more on my arguement over geothermal glacial melt: /tge furst oart us avaukavke here. Apologies for not inserting the hyperlinks; time is limited and I just don't have the time or energy to do it.
Well, that's a formidable wall of text.
I have to point out a couple of things that have a lot of bearing on your "the volcanoes melted the glaciers" theory.
The Earth receives about 174,000 terrawatts of energy from the Sun, day in, day out. The amount of heat coming from the Earth's interior (globally) is about 47 terrawatts (0.03% of the amount coming from the Sun). So the theory doesn't really pass the initial back-of-the-napkin test, even in a high-vulcanism, low-sun area like Iceland.
Further, when a volcano erupts, most of its heat goes stratospheric. Hot air rises, and the hotter it is the faster it rises.
BTW, your links are borderline gibberish. You've been feeding your brain junk food.
For example, the "90% of glaciers" one. Glacier retreat is a global phenomenon, but the article supposedly showing glacier growth is 100% about the Antarctic continental ice shelf (which is gaining ice for well understood reasons that are perfectly compatible with climate change). It also links heavily to iceagenow.info, which is basically the InfoWars of the climate denial movement
From the article: "If the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing, wouldn’t that mean that more than 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are growing?"
Dude doesn't even know what a glacier is lol
PS: If vulcanism was the primary cause of these glaciers shrinking, wouldn't the losses be concentrated around areas of highest activity? And wouldn't the scientists who, I dunno, devote their entire lives to studying this sort of thing, maybe pick up on that?
Did you think you, a layman, could just Dunning-Kreuger your way into the conversation and tell them something they missed? Or do you think they're deliberately hiding the truth?
Mr. Birdnow rebuts:
July 25, 2019
Thar she blows! Scientists are starting to leave the Climate Change plantation.
Finnish Scientists: Effect of human activity on climate change insignificant
From the article:
Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi, from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, in their paper published on 29th June 2019 claim to prove that the "GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature.”
Thus, in order to come to the results matching the actual climate change the IPCC has to "use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity.” In addition, Kauppinen and Malmi claim that their paper proves that "the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.”
The authors argue that the IPCC has used computational results which can not be considered experimental evidence, and site this as the reason for contradictory conclusions.
They've got THAT right; it's an algorithmic mirage, a statistical sleight-of-hand.There never has been any there there; Global Warming was a con, a generations-long War of the Worlds scare to stampede the public into world government and redistribution of wealth. But the endless crying of wolf has the public in a mood to disbelieve, or at least take it with a grain of salt.
The article continues:
Yawp! They ignore the fact that, out of the four molecules of carbon dioxide in the ten thousand molecules of air in our atmosphere, we have contributed well under one of them.
They ignore negative feedbacks.
They ignore solar and other influences.
All they can do is say the paper was not peer reviewed. But we know from the Climategate e-mails that there was a concerted effort to sabotage peer review, to make it impossible for "denier" scientists to get published. Then they use that as ground to dispute any work that disagrees with them. Cute trick.
Prof. Masayuki Hyodo and his team Yusuke Ueno, Tianshui Yang and Shigehiro Katoh from the University of Kobe in Japan in their paper published this month in propose that the "umbrella effect” is the main factor behind climate change.
"When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth’s climate.”
It is now accepted that Heinrick Svensmark's theory on cosmic rays and cloud cover is correct. I remember when The Gang Green screamed bloody murder whenever someone mentioned Svensmark's theory. Now they have had to quietly assent to it.
The science behind global warming is overturning the theory, despite the best efforts of the alarmists and international order - and the media - to keep it alive. Sadly, young people only get information promoting the exploded theory, so they believe it. If it's written online it must be true!
A Facebook posting by Missouri State Representative Shamed Dogan trumpets hearings about the disparity between black and white stopss by police officers. From the post:
Coverage of today's hearing from KMOV in St. Louis.
I left the following comment:
By the way, I wrote about the problems with the numerical approach to this shortly after the Ferguson riots. See here: [link-https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/03/ferguson_by_the_numbers.html]Ferguson by the Numbers.
Sheriff Dave Marshak discusses the way data is collected and what it means:
ook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2357878087764167&id=1418139991737986&_rdr#2358290137722962]My statement on the annual release of Traffic Stop Data:
Racketeering charges are dismissed against the Trump children
* Sports]according to the Washington Times.
Apparently judge Lorna Scoffield threw out a class action suit against Trump and his kids for endorseing a company that tanked. The judge rightly argued Trump had in no way cost the people money, as he only endorsed the company.
Hat tip; Warner Todd Houston.
I recently left a comment on Facebook in which I asserted glacial loss in Iceland was due to an increase in volcanic activity. A commenter demanded evidence of that assertion, and asked why glaciers in other places were melting. I left the following reply:
Yes, Mr. Anderson, we had Eyjafjallajökull erupt in 2101, and Bárðarbunga 2014–2015, for starters. The latter is listed as Iceland's largest eruption series in 230 years, Hudson, T. S.; White, R. S.; Greenfield, T.; Ágústsdóttir, T.; Brisbourne, A.; Green, R. G. (2017-09-16). "Deep crustal melt plumbing of Bárðarbunga volcano, Iceland". Geophysical Research Letters. 44 (17): 2017GL074749. doi:10.1002/2017gl074749. ISSN 1944-8007. the Icelandic Met Office is predicting an eruption of Bardarbunga based on a series of major earthquakes, which shows the volcanoe is coming awake. See http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/08/18/iceland-volcano-idINKBN0GI1BW20140818 You had Gjalp in '96, and and Grimsvoltn in 2011. And don't forget Eyjafjallajökull. Grimsvotn was the most powerful eruption Iceland had seen since 1918. Here's a popular article about the eruptions of late. https://www.iflscience.com/environment/icelands-next-volcanic-eruption-about-happen-0/
According to Volcano and earthquake activity in Iceland https://www.jonfr.com/volcano/
And there has been considerable upticks in earthquake activity around all of the Icelandic volcanoes in recent years.
Yes, Icelandic Volcanism is increasing - and with it glacial melt.
BTW, there is a ring of fire under West Antarctica as well. Ditto Greenland. Volcanoes are tied to planetary wobble and Milankovich cycles.
Antarctica is a particularly poor example of "global warming" causing ice melt. The average temperature of West Antarctica is minus 10 degrees C or on the coast to minus 60 in the interior. Do you really believe a warming atmosphere is responsible for ice loss there? But WAIS has been melting anyway. Why? Because of underground volcanism. It's not even sensible to blame warm oceans going under the ice sheet because warm water has to pass the Antarctic Convergence, a deep, wide current of very cold water. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet actually gained mass. http://www.geologyin.com/2015/10/mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet.html See also https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
BW, while some glaciers are melting some are growing. Take the Lahaul Spiti Glacier as a prime example of growth. Here is a paper by School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi l 10067, India. http://lahaulspititravel.com/balanced-conditions-or-slight-mass-gain-of-glaciers-in-the-lahaul-spiti/
Im fact There is considerable evidemce that glaciers are growing worldwide https://principia-scientific.org/climate-shock-90-percent-worlds-glaciers-growing/ How can you explain that given the mechanism you believe is responsible for glacial melt? If it's caused by a warming of the atmosphere thos should largely be impossible.
You are the one asserting a new scientific principle. The burden of proof is on you here..
Oh, and the Earth has not warmed in a staitstically significant fashion since the late nineties. https://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/04/no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-9-months-a-new-record-the-pause-lengthens-again-just-in-time-for-un-summit-in-paris/
One last thing; much of the planetary warming is a result of manipulation of past and present temperature data by NOAA and NASA. See here. https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/
Sorry about not inserting hyperlinks; the original comment didn't do it, and, frankly, it's too much a bother here. One point; I have to look these up every time I argue with a True Believer, and these sites are becoming increasingly difficult to find as Google and the other search engines scrub them from the web. Ones I used in the past now do not show up on a search. It is horribly frustrating, because the truth is being expunged by these big tech companies. You can't really blame the Alarmist, either, in many ways since they aren't being given both sides of the argument.
I can't stop thinking about catchy names for Special Prosecutor Robert Muller. We should hold a contest to create a name to be used in the next election.
My top picks are:
Mule the Tool
Mule the Fool
Mueller the Mewler
and my favorite
Mueller the Drooler.
July 24, 2019
It may be that Robert Mueller being — to be polite — a bit past it accounts for his surprisingly befuddled demeanor and seeming unfamiliarity with his own report at Wednesday's hearings. The imputation that Mueller does little or none of his own writing — many credibly believe Andrew Weissman and/or his cohorts are the true authors of the report — may also be an explanation for this behavior. On multiple occasions when questioned about his own text Mueller had a blank expression or looked over to his last-minute sidekick Aaron Zebley for answers that should have been obvious. (Zebley's presence was itself a sign of nervous desperation.)
I have another suggestion for something else that further explains the former special counsel's behavior, a particularly precipitous decline from when we have last seen him, from competent to doddering.
He has a guilty conscience.
(Dana suggests here that he could have been joining Hillary in copious draughts of Chardonnay, but that's just my personal theory. His performance today suggests that he was into something much more powerful.)
He should. And not just because Peter Strzok texted to his paramour what feels like decades ago that there was "no there there." Anyone with an IQ in the proverbial triple digits has known that for a long time. (How distant it seems, months, years, that Dianne Feinstein was asked about the collusion/conspiracy— pick one — and admitted there was none.)
Mueller, unless he was living on Pluto, knew this. And somewhere, deep down, a part of him, an increasingly significant part, I suspect, must have realized what he was doing was wrong. (Besides his demeanor, this may also explain why he gave up on interviewing Trump.)
This guilty conscience was made manifest in the many questions he claimed he could not or would not answer on the subject of the predicate for his investigation. As the world knows, more and more it is becoming clear that the entire Russia probe was a put-up job. Mueller's awkward answers and body-language responding to the questions about why Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious Maltese "professor" of dubious alliances, was not prosecuted for his multiple lies when so many others were was particularly telling.
Mueller was correct in asserting his investigation wasn't a "witch hunt." It was far worse. It was part of a treasonous and/or seditious (depending on your definitions) attempt to prevent a man from winning the presidency and then, once he had done so, to sabotage and unseat him.
Oh, dear readers, there's great stuff here! One does not bypass a Roger L. Simon article lightly -- the man is always Required Reading, Class A! And it's found here https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/does-a-guilty-conscience-explain-muellers-fumbling-testimony/ so you really should go to it for all the goodies!
Seafood restaurant launches 'PETA Tears' beer: 'We wanted something that goes well with seafood'
It turns out, PETA’s "tears" pair well with seafood.
At least, that’s the hope of a restaurant owner in Baltimore. After feuding with the animal rights group over a billboard last September, Jimmy’s Famous Seafood in Baltimore, Md., is releasing a new beer called "PETA Tears” — and the eatery directly called out PETA in the announcement.
John Minadakis, the restaurant’s owner, told Fox News that the brew was inspired by social media. "We read every tweet, email and message that we get,” he said.
Working with a local brewery, he says they "spent months perfecting it,” as hewanted something "that goes well with seafood, for obvious reasons, and wasn’t too high in alcohol content.” He also says that they wanted to avoid anything that was already tied to certain seasons, like a summer shandy or pumpkin spice beers. Also, IPAs were off the table.
The result was a traditional American blonde ale, and when it came time to name it, Minadakis says it was an easy choice.
"We knew there might be some push back, but we’re ready for that," says Minadakis, who added that the family-owned restaurant was "overwhelmed with support" after the billboard feud."We’ll let the product speak for itself.”Minadakis' beef with PETA began back in September, after PETA ran a billboard in Baltimore that showed a picture of a crab that read: "I’m ME, not MEAT.” Jimmy’s responded by running their own billboard that showed a cooked crab with the caption, "SteaMEd crabs. Here to stay.”
I don't go in for blonde ale that much, but if I'm ever in Baltimore I'll look up this place. I love seafood, and anybody who has the stones to take on PETA deserves my money.
The article, complete with photos, is here: https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/baltimore-peta-tears-beer-jimmys-famous-seafood
Robert "the Mule" Mueller is caught contradicting his own report.
From Western Journalism:
"Is that indeed true, your investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in election interference activity?” Collins asked roughly halfway through his five minutes.
"Thank you, yes,” Mueller replied.
"Although your report states collusion is not a specific offense, and you said that this morning, or a term of art in federal criminal law, conspiracy is. In the colloquial context, are collusion and conspiracy essentially synonymous terms?” Collins followed up.
After asking Collins to repeat the question, Mueller answered, "No.”
"If no, on page 180 of volume one of your report you wrote, ‘As defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute,'” Collins said.
"You said at your May 29 press conference and here today you choose your words carefully. Are you sitting here today testifying something different than what your report states?”
Now, this is the very sort of thing that would have landed one of the Administration people in jail for lying to the FBI, but Mueller gets away with it. Why is it o.k. for him but not for someone like Michael Flynn?
Meanwhile, Chairman Adam Schiff tells Mueller to break the law and ignore DOJ guidelines.
On Tuesday, Schiff told Mueller that advice was out of bounds.
"The DOJ Letter attempts unduly to circumscribe your testimony and represents yet another attempt by the Trump Administration to obstruct the authorized oversight activity and legitimate investigations of the Committee,” Schiff wrote in the letter, which was provided to The Hill by an aide.
"The Committee categorically rejects the Department’s overly expansive and baseless ‘prophylactic’ assertion of executive privilege in all its various forms. Accordingly, I fully expect that the DOJ Letter will have no bearing on your testimony before the Committee tomorrow.,”
"While I understand that it is your intention to focus on the public version of your report, the Department’s attempt to restrict your testimony finds no support in law, regulation, or Department policy,” Schiff wrote.
The Rule of Law no longer seems to matter to the political class - only power.
P.S. Mueller also said he had NEVER HEARD OF FUSION GPS! That was at the very center of the scandal. The Republicans should ask him to return his pay for not doing his job, at a minimum. In reality, Mueller knows full well, but it wrecks the narrative about Trump.
The man belongs in jail.
Selwyn Duke uncovers more fake hate.
From the article:
It turns out that it was all basically a hoax.
The sparks flew when the accused man, Eric Sparkes, came forward and credibly claimed that Georgia state representative Thomas (D-District 39) fabricated the "go back” story for political gain. It didn’t help the legislator’s cause that Sparkes is Hispanic and an ardent, Trump-deriding Democrat with the social-media posts to prove it. She subsequently backtracked on her initial accusation.
Yet while much has already been reported about this story, that a certain aspect of it is underemphasized speaks volumes about our time’s askew, perverse priorities. The focus has been on what Sparkes did or didn’t say, with the idea that this determines his "guilt or innocence.” But what’s more significant? What the man said?
Or that a lawmaker believes he should be arrested for saying it?
Read the rest at the New American.
UPDATE: It was Thomas and not Sparkes who was the aggressor and who said "go back where you came from", according to witnesses. And, despite filing a false police report, Thomas will not be charged. Political cloud doth have it's privilege.
BIG, BIG UPDATE:
Thomas tweeted support for the Parkland school shooter!
Ilhan Omar has called for the deportation of political opponents herself in the past.
(A tip of the Porkpie to Tim McNabb.)
53 queries taking 0.8954 seconds, 383 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.