Take a glass, or perhaps a pitcher, and mostly fill it with water. Now, add some ice cubes.
Draw a marking line on the glass for the grease pencil at the point where the water level is on the side of the glass.
Go away, and come back in 3 hours.
Notice that the water level hasn’t changed as the ice melted.
Science!
In reading the Mueller report a second time I am led to a slightly different conclusion that I did at first blush. I am now convinced we are dealing with two separate authors volume 1 and volume 2.
Volume one is strictly straight to the facts ma’am, and nothing more than that. This strikes me as something consistent with what we know of Mueller in other environments in which he has served.
Volume two, on the other hand, strikes me as a rather partisan op-ed piece, such as one might find on the opinion pages of the New York Times, or coming from someplace like CNN or MSNBC. It seems specifically written to allow the Democrats in Congress to keep hoax alive.
The two volumes are so wildly different with volume two going so far out of line, I am forced to believe that there are two people responsible for the individual volumes.
As an example, the last paragraph of volume two draws the conclusion that they can neither prove nor deny that crimes were committed by Trump and his organization, but that’s not a conclusion that a prosecutor would draw. Indeed, publicizing such a conclusion is precisely against the special counsel statute.
A prosecutor would know full well if there’s nothing that you can indict a person on, you simply hold your silence.
The thing is, Mueller knows this and would instinctively react that way. I am convinced now that volume two was written by his chief of staff, Andrew Weissman, and his thirty some odd Democrat operatives which made up Mueller’s supposed “dream team”. Andrew Weissman is known as a wildly partisan critter around Washington and what is in volume two would be consistent with that positioning.
Ponder…. if this was the outcome, we can’t tell if it was a crime created or not, what in the world did we need a special counsel for in the first place? What was required here both in terms of the law and in terms of the public interest was somebody saying yay or nay. The Mueller report, as presented, fails to do so.
Another clue that this is a document with two separate authors: Look at pages 9 through 12 of volume two. The argument is being made in those pages that anything a president might do, legal or illegal, can be interpreted by a prosecutor as “obstructing justice”.
First of all, I have a little difficulty with the concept of Robert Mueller himself signing off on that kind of a statement.
Be that as it may, and even by that sweeping standard, special counsel’s office still couldn’t decide whether there was a crime or not. Indeed, it seems to me, absent that overly broad standard, they wouldn’t have been able to come to the conclusion that they did, and volume two of this document wouldn’t exist at all.
Given his history, Robert Mueller should have known the moment he walked in the door is that there was no collusion. This is precisely with Devin Nunez said a year earlier and ultimately all that what’s in volume one of the Mueller report does, is lineup completely Nunez’s report which came out in January of 2017.
Somebody’s backside is getting covered here, and it isn’t Donald Trump’s.
One interesting point this a lot of people don’t mention about the Sri Lanka is that that country is in majority Buddhist both Muslims and Christians are a distinct minority, with some 21 million Buddhists.
Yet the islamists attack Christians.
Early arguments coming out of ISIS is that te attack in Sri Lamka is in response to the killings at Christ Church.
However it should be pointed out that those killings were perpetrated by an atheist. So either ISIS is ill-informed or they are claiming responsibility for an attack that in fact they had nothing to do with.
And I will reluctantly point out that the number of attacks on harder targets, such as military installations, seems to be slowing, while attacks on houses of worship and other relatively suck targets perpetrated by ISIS are on the rise.
For the moment let’s go on the Siri that isis is in fact responsible for the Sri Lankan attacks.
it could be said that if this was a purely religious war being fought by ISIS, that the Buddhist population in Sri Lanka would also be the logical target there.
The thing is, the killing of Buddhists in Sri Lanka is not as likely to get a rise out of the West as the killing of Christians. I see this as a calculated move on the part of ISIS, therefore.
As I have said, ISIS is now claiming responsibility for the attacks. Thing is, the people that were arrested in association with these attacks are all locals and members of a local terrorist group. These are people who have neither the numerical size, nor the armed strength to pull off the kind of attacks we saw.
Almost as a contradiction, ISIS couldn’t have a large presence Sri Lanka, without raising eyebrows. Put those two factors together and it’s my guess that if ISIS were involved in those attacks as they claim, it was from a supply and direction standpoint, not actual fighters.
That ability to orchestrate attacks fire remote control if you will, of itself suggests a much larger Network than we have been previously aware of.
The last I heard which was the 24th early in the morning, the death toll has risen to somewhere north of 475 people.
Final points for this one. The tale of these attacks in Sri Lanka is a cautionary one for us here in the states. According to several reports Tama Sri Lankan intelligence caught wind of this attack a week before it happened but because of the political infighting within both the intelligence community there and the government itself, the proper officials were never notified.
Sound familiar?
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is likely a duck. Special Council Robert Mueller III looks and acts like a paid Russian agent provocateur, from American Greatness:
[T]he [Mueller] report states: “The [Russian Internet Research Agency] conducted social media operations targeted at large U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in the U.S. political system.” Thus, they created fake grassroots organizations “(with names such as “Being Patriotic,” “Stop All Immigrants,” “Secured Borders,” and “Tea Party News”), purported Black social justice groups (“Black Matters,” “Blacktivist,” and “Don’t Shoot Us”), LGBTQ groups (“LGBT United”), and religious groups (“United Muslims of America”).” The content suggests that Russia created fake grassroots groups (also known as “astroturf”) on either side of the divide to pick at the scabs of festering social controversies. This, in turn, would undermine national unity and the legitimacy of whomever was elected president.
What could possibly sow discord in the U.S. political system more than suggesting the president broke the law and stole an election by treacherously teaming up with a hostile foreign power? This was the essence of the charge made by former F.B.I. director James Comey, former CIA Director James Brennan, and their subordinates using the scandalous Steele dossier. This incredibly corrosive tale converted what were run-of-the-mill hacking and public relations operations, similar to those undertaken by many other nations—including the United States—into an act of war. Further, the dominant narrative (and even parts of Mueller’s report) obscured the fact that this was done without the consent, coordination, or even purpose of aiding one or another candidate.
I, for one, suggest that Mueller a/k/a Fearless Leader, is innocent of the specific act of agent provocateur on the grounds of stupidity. The man was not capable of running the FBI, spending years investigation innocent men. However, Mueller should be at least smart enough to name his puppet master. Fearless Leader should receive the Paul Manafort treatment. That is locked up in solitary confinement until he sings.
I stated it here, several times now:
Every single Republican president since Eisenhower has suffered under an impeachment attack from the Democrats. Every single one.
It’s to the point now where it’s a knee-jerk reaction to having lost an election, They have tried to overturn the election of every Republican president for the last 60 years. They are addicted to this action.
And so we come to today by way of CBS:
Democratic leaders in the House told rank-and-file lawmakers they plan to continue pursuing multiple avenues of inquiry into President Trump before deciding whether to initiate impeachment proceedings.
On a conference call Monday evening, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the chairs of several powerful committees discussed Democrats’ path forward following the release of the Mueller report. Pelosi spoke briefly at the beginning of the call to reiterate her position — stated in a letter to members earlier in the day — that the House should continue committee investigations into the president before deciding on next steps, according to multiple sources on the call who spoke on condition of anonymity.
After two years of telling us that we should accept the results of the Mueller report, the Democrats are unwilling to accept the results of the Mueller report. rather like after about a year-and-a-half worth of the Democrats telling us that we should accept the results of the election, the Democrats are still unwilling to accept the results of the election. There seems something of a pattern here. Anyway…
How wacky a situation do we have, when Nancy Pelosi… probably the least reality connected speaker of the House in history… comes off as the slightly more sensible one?
She is watching the world that she has helped to create, and not much liking what she sees.
For all Pelosi’s efforts, however,Pelosi will not be able to stop the Democrats from doing this. Like a common Street junkie desperate for his next fix, the Democrats are going to try to impeach the president. They will fail, of course, but that’s not going to stop their efforts.
So, you can add that to the list of reasons why the Democrats are going to be losing large in 2020.
Robert Knight over at the Washington Times:
Now, in Orange County, California, tin-ear activists are seeking to rename John Wayne Airport and remove the Duke’s statue over fatally “insensitive” remarks he made in 1971. It’s only a matter of time before they demand that all copies of his movies be burned in a cleansing ceremony, along with anything Thomas Jefferson wrote.
Meanwhile, the University of Wyoming is facing a leftist uprising over its new slogan, “The World Needs More Cowboys.” The sports teams have long been called the Cowboys. Wyoming’s license plates feature a cowboy on a bucking bronc, and Cheyenne boasts one of the world’s most famous rodeos.
On to the UW Committee on Women and People of Color, and replaced with one that “represents the diversity of the people and cultures” at the college. Like what, “The World Needs More Non-Binary Cowpersons?”
“I am not the only person for whom the word ‘cowboy’ invokes a white, macho, male, able-bodied, heterosexual, U.S.-born person,” associate professor of kinesiology and health Christine Porter told the student paper, the Boomerang, as reported in Campus Reform.
My friends, when you want to build a new house on a spot, you have to tear down the old one first.
Put another way, the most efficacious way to get a people to forget who they are is to get them to turn their backs on who they were….on the ideas and the ideals that brought them this far.
This country, this culture is great because of the independent spirit, the self-reliance, and the respect for the American cowboy… That image is the personification of America.
That’s what the left wants to remove from our lexicon, from our very being… Independent self-reliant, sovereign individuals, like the ones that actually created this country and made it what it is, are an anathema to them.
We see this attitude in everything and I do mean everything they do. Including engaging in criminal acts in their attempts to overturn a legitimate election.
I notice that the leftist press, in its desperation to discredit attorney general Barr, finds it appropriate to bushwhack him outside a church after Easter Sunday services.
I notice also, Fox news Sunday with Chris Wallace asking Rudy Giuliani, “Who made you God?”
If you find yourself unable to imagine the press treating Democrats this way, I submit to you that you have made a rather crucial discovery.
Predictions from 1970 Earth Day.
1) “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald
2) “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
3) “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial
4) “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
5) “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich
6) “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
7) “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
8) “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine
9) “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
10) “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich
11) “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
12) “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine
13) “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt
Bonus round:
According to an EPA statement made in 1983, ( in picture) today’s environment in New York is tropical and Florida is underwater today.
And before you start in with charges of my being a science denier, let’s look at the scientific credentials of Mr Seidel.
Mr. Seidel has a degree in economics and urban studies from Columbia University and a law degree and master’s in city planning from Rutgers University
Gee.
Sounds pretty scientific to me. With a degree in economics from the liberal Haven of New Jersey I can understand why the EPA would hire him as an environmental scientist.
Obviously his qualifications have nothing to do with science and his hiring is most likely politically motivated.
Now, if you look closely you may notice that all of these things are about as true as the charges of Russian collusion.
There is something of a pattern there that I just can’t put my finger on…
Let’s get this straight, once and for all….
There is no political center and never has been. Until such time as you wake up and deal with that reality, none of the rest of this business is going to make any sense whatsoever.
The only thing in the middle of the road has already been flattened.
With a hat tip to Kim Preistap… We look at the Washington Examiner… Which in turn is talking about the New York Times
On Monday, as Notre Dame Cathedral was ablaze, Paris Fire Department chaplain Rev. Jean-Marc Fournier braved the flames to rescue both a famed relic as well as consecrated hosts intended for Holy Communion. These hosts are known more commonly as the “Blessed Sacrament” or the “body of Christ.”
To be clear, Fournier, CNN, and the French reporter all tell a story wherein the chaplain rescued the crown of thorns and the Blessed Sacrament. Nothing else. Now, here is how the New York Times initially recounted that story on Wednesday with direct quotes from Fournier [emphasis mine]:
“I had two priorities: to save the crown of thorns and astatue of Jesus,” Father Fournier supposedly said.[…]
As the chaplain began removing a statue of Jesus, he said, his colleagues were fighting the fire from the cathedral’s towers. The flames had started to threaten the wooden structure around the belfry — putting the whole cathedral at even greater risk.
With the statue in hand, Father Fournier, alone in the nave, gave a benediction to the cathedral, he said.
[…]
As for Father Fournier, he said he hoped to hold thatstatue of Jesus again soon. “Preferably in a safe place,” he said. “One that has a roof
…
It would be one thing for the Times to bungle some esoteric detail regarding the minutia of Catholic theology. But apparently not knowing that the “body of Christ” is in reference to consecrated hosts, which embody the most fundamental belief of a religion practiced by an estimated 1.3 billion people, is embarrassing and borderline inexcusable.
I would only add to this that the idea that these people are hypercritical of the Christian faith and yet understand so very little about what that faith is.
if there was actually an editor and solved with this process, it’s my guess that they share the ignorance of the reporter. no shocks for the little paragraph factory in Queens.
This level of ignorance is absolutely appalling, but it’s one we in the Christian World face today.
This piece by Michael Goodwin is worth reading, but no, Michael,
I don’t know who your headline writer is, but we haven’t been set free yet. There are still Democrats out there trying to keep the hoax alive.
The Democrats seem to be taking on the air of a child who has flatly refused to eat his carrots.
With the release of the Mueller report, the gig is up, the game is over, and yet the Democrats are still trying to keep hoax alive, looking for little codicils of information, parsing every syllable looking for something that will be their aha moment.
But with the absence of proof as regards criminal activity, the Democrats are still doubling down, refusing to take no for an answer.
In other words, if the original charge proves to be baseless, the complainants will invariably lower the threshold of guilt so that even a lesser transgression will be sufficient to condemn the accused
That’s Steve Feinstein at the American Thinker.
He’s right of course, and we saw that today. The thing is, we have always known this was going to happen… They have given us every indication that they were going to pull this nonsense…
(Here’s a fun fact… did you know that every Republican president since Eisenhower has suffered under an impeachment attempt by the Democrats? Every single one. )
…with Democrats unable to accept Trump’s 2016 victory (no surprise, really, in light of how they and the liberal media refused to accept George W. Bush’s election victory over Gore in 2000 or Bush’s defeat of John Kerry in 2004, blaming that on Ohio voting irregularities and unscrupulous, deceptive “Swiftboating” attacks), the Democratic Party desperately searched for a reason to explain Hillary’s defeat, a reason they could take to the general public and convince them that Trump’s election win was illegitimate. At the best, the Democrats hoped to somehow delegitimize his victory, and have it voided (by some vague, never explained, nonexistent legal mechanism); at the very least, they hoped to sully him so badly that they’d force a disgraced resignation or completely torpedo any possibility of his re-election in 2020
And now that lie has been exposed, and the collision hoax has assumed room temperature, Democrats begin lashing out.
Roger Kimball puts it this way:
But here is the existential issue that the report confronts us with. William Barr observed at one point that ‘all Americans can and should be grateful to have [the president’s innocence] confirmed.’ And yet many people, far from being grateful, will be enraged. And that is a huge problem for the Republic.
Boy, isn’t that the truth. Have you guys seen CNN this evening? MSNBC? Every single one of them seems… Vexed. Scowling. Testy. Downright annoyed.
For the last 2 years now the press and the Democrats have been feeding the country a study diet collusion hoax in the hopes of me getting the election of Donald Trump. Now as the president himself says, “game over” and what do they do? They move the goalposts..
Adam Schiff after spending almost three years telling everybody that he had solid evidence that there was collusion set of criminal level with the Russians and the Trump team, evidence he never produced, by the way and still hasn’t, he’s now down to:
“Those acts of obstruction of justice, whether they are criminal or not, are deeply alarming in the President of the United States, and it’s clear that special counsel Mueller wanted the Congress to consider the repercussions and the consequences.”
What are those actions? Supposedly trying to get Robert Mueller fired, trying to shut down the investigation. But even as the Mueller report itself suggests, the president was expressing frustration, and that if he were truly serious about doing those things they would have been done. Else the staff that didn’t perform as directed would have been fired. That didn’t happen because Trump was never serious about it.
Apparently, the Democrats don’t understand words spoken in anger, just like they don’t understand sarcasm.
(Keep in mind, these are the people who took seriously Trump’s comments about “Hey Russia, why don’t you send us Hillary’s emails?”)
Robert Mueller and his team of Democrat Party lawyers couldn’t come up with enough ammunition for the Democrats despite nearly three years of time frame and no particular limitations on budget. so he and his team decided to punt the ball down the field a bit and let the Democrats in Congress go to town.
And so now it’s down to the Democrats in the House trying to pursue the impeachment of Donald Trump on a non criminal case of obstruction of an investigation for a crime that never happened.
I’m telling you true, the master of political thrillers, Frederick Forsyth couldn’t make up anything like this to write about.
No, I don’t think that even the Democrats believe they’re going to be able to sell this line of crap to most of the American people. I think at this point they’re simply trying to keep their base mollified.
