Now that I have my thinking cap on, I suggest you should also contact "The New American," a magazine published by the John Birch Society. They are always on the lookout for otherwise obscure transgressions of government and its official behavior. They might be interested in writing an article about you.
Eighty invalid oaths of office would be enough to delegitimize an entire state government, as though usurped. I think there is a provision in the Constitution that the federal government assures every state a "republican form of government." The essence of such a government is that it conforms to the laws by which it was created. This may be the basis of a suit before federal court.
This is all very confused. Whatever may have transpired between grandparents does not make the grandchild a "bastard."
And the supposed liaison is not credible. Lionel de Rothschild lived in Great Britain. Though he was in Germany for university in Gottingen (northern Germany, not Austria), he finished with that by 1836, when he married his first cousin and had his first child (a daughter) in 1837. Alois Hitler was born in 1837 in lower Austria from a 42-year-old mother. Lionel de Rothschild would have been 29 years old, living in another country. Time, space, and circumstances make the supposed parentage impossible. Anons should know better.
As it turned out, Johan Georg Hitler was legally declared Alois Hitler's father, as substantiated by the testimony of 3 family members who were present when Johan Georg had declared this fact. (Alois was born of the mother before she and Johan Georg were married, thus the "illegitimate" status up to that point.)
Adolf Hitler was Alois Hitler's 4th child from his 3rd wife, and NOT a Shicklgruber.
Radio is a funny business. It may entail an indirect approach. For example, you might have some luck with KVI 570, headquartered in Seattle. They may be the nation's oldest conservative talk radio station. In particular, the late afternoon host, Ari Hoffman, may be receptive to having you on. Or possibly John Carlson, the early morning host. An initial bite is important, particularly if they are willing to stay in touch for updates. They are quite willing to entertain repeat appearances, if the topic is concerning and/or the audience is responding. Conservative audiences are quite interested in developments in other states. Where you may catch fire could spread around. If you need light, be a prolific arsonist!
There are syndicated hosts that might be interested in having you appear, e.g., Lars Larson or Dana Loesch. Lars Larson in particular is interested in state government mis- or malfeasance. He usually concerns himself with the three states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho (his program coverage), but what is going on in California casts a shadow over the whole west coast and I am sure he would be interested. (He has national political concerns, also.)
It is also possible that conservative action groups such as Judicial Watch may find this of great interest. They have a particular axe to grind regarding the uncovering of government mis- and malfeasance. This may light their skies.
For wider exposure, the problem with the Tax Board might be set aside by non-Californians as a "local problem," but the state senators working without being under oath is a larger concern and might be what you should emphasize for outreach. From what you say, there is reason to think this might be true in other states.
Considering who you are up against and what they are promoting, have you considered approaching any religious political action committees?
What you need is publicity and exposure. It almost doesn't matter who or how, so long as the word gets out at the grassroots level. And the more that the information proliferates without major media attention, the greater the tension on the major media, waiting to see if anyone finally decides to give it coverage. All it takes is one local paper to break the story.
By all means, contact radio talk show hosts and figure out how to tell your story in 15 minutes. In 10 minutes. And in 5 minutes.
There may be one. Lots of ash covering the scene.
Looks like autocorrect artifacts, and the lack of a proof editor.
Does Space Force track forest fires? I doubt it. Here's what I see going on: Somebody dreams up a notion (space attack on Maui) that has no basis in reality, but is therefore popular among the paranoid, and people take to referring to it as a fact instead of what it is---a bugaboo.
You also call this "connecting the dots." But there is one problem with this simile. Real connect-the-dots exercises have only one correct (and known) answer (usually encoded in the numbering of the dots). Just connecting the dots without knowing the numbers leads to bizarre shapes.
How is that relevant to anything? He was probably 5'5" tall, too. I imagine he liked souvlaki. But you prove his point---when you have no argument, you call names.
If you mean this in jest, I apologize for the above. I always try to take people at their word.
Very good. You covered points I did not have time or inclination to address. But the total heat content of the atmosphere is trivial compared to the heat content of the oceans and land. It really doesn't matter what the temperature of the upper atmosphere is, because it goes down (adiabatic profile), stays constant (lower stratosphere), increases again (ozone decomposition), and goes back down again (mesosphere). Therefore, it is best not to talk in terms of energy "getting trapped." Taken as a dynamic process, what goes in must come out and nothing is getting trapped.
Unfortunately, this person is purveying crank science. He misidentifies what is going on with the greenhouse effect and simply gets it all wrong. Who am I to say? I have three degrees in aeronautics and astronautics, concentrating in fluid physics. Part of my work was analyzing the propagation of high-power infrared beams through the atmosphere. Everything works according to theory.
In a nutshell, the Earth is heated by the Sun. The atmosphere is heated by the Earth (not the other way around), and produces the adiabatic temperature profile with increasing altitude. Only up to the point where a heated gas parcel cools to the ambient conditions, where convection stops. Above that, the air temperature is constant. When the Sun goes down, the solar radiation stops and the Earth's infrared emission continues...and the Earth surface gets cold.
If there were no greenhouse gases (predominantly water vapor and minimally carbon dioxide), the thermal emission of the Earth (long-wave infrared radiation) would go straight to space and the equilibrium temperature of the Earth would be 255 kelvins (about 0 degrees F). The reality is that the mean temperature of the Earth is about 288 K (about 54.5 F). If one accounts for the fact that about 84% of the Earth's emission is randomly scattered by the greenhouse gases, the result is that half of that returns to the surface of the Earth, to add to the solar input, thus causing a higher temperature in order to balance input with output. In accordance with radiative transfer theory (conservation of energy, which is a real thing, despite his wild claim otherwise).
The greenhouse effect is not some theoretical bugaboo; it is observed and measured. It exists. The question is whether we are warming---not whether we are as warm as we are. Dr. William Happer performed MODTRAN calculations for varying CO2 concentrations and found that at 0 ppm, there was an absorption notch in the spectrum of water (no scattering in that notch). At 50 ppm, the notch was half-filled. At 100 ppm, the notch was almost entirely filled. At higher concentrations, there would be no essential difference in the absorption. Geologically, CO2 has never been even so low as 100 ppm. At that level, CO2 scatters essentially 100% of the spectrum in that notch. This means that increasing CO2 concentration can have no further effect. (It is similar to the fact that when you have truly white paint, you can't make it any whiter.)
Net takeaway: the greenhouse effect is real, it is benign, and it cannot significantly increase. If there is any warming, it is due to changes in the Sun's radiation output, the reflectance of the Earth, or an artifact of the fact that we can hardly know what is happening to better than a degree (if that).
Our problem is that WE HAVE a one party system, the "Uniparty." Just because it is split up into Team Democrat and Team RINO doesn't change the underlying reality. Having a single party is no cure for anything. Throwing the RINOs out of the GOP and making it MAGA is the only real prospect of re-establishing a two-party system, and giving freedom-loving people a party to turn to.
And it flies in the face of human nature. Not everyone will agree over any number of positions, so there will always be alliances under the heading of the points that they agree over. In the nature of political history, there will always be a struggle over those who wish to be free and those who wish to enslave.
Exactly. And the murderers here were Islamic terrorists, just like with the Twin Towers. What is your point?
It would help if you made sense. What is there to laugh about? The incinerated corpses are deep 3rd degree burns. Children seldom stick around for that. What argumentation? That Hamas committed war crimes by killing Israeli children? The children received more than "injuries;" they were incinerated to death. How do you think anyone should respond to the perpetrators of horrific murders?
God, I cannot believe how predictive Socrates was. When argument fails, cast aspersions. And for good measure, throw in a bit of prophecy. At least you admit you are showing your hand.
I was 8 years old during the Liberty incident. How many responsible parties are even alive today? This was during the Vietnam War. Do we carry grudges against the Viet Cong? I'm just curious. You must think that there is an eternal continuity of evil intention.
Beware that you will not like how this reality continues. When "Finis" does not show up on the TV screens, you might have a sinking feeling that you were living through a self-imposed mythology.
That would be basically everybody, except the psychopaths. Why do you think you are so distinctively noble? Looks like virtue-signalling to me. I notice you have nothing to say against the information I have provided.
So, what do you do when "shit happens"? Just roll over and play dead? When the shitters have every intention of making you a method actor?
Now, I have to laugh, since the "use" of phosphorus is distinctive by reason of the different uses. And now you are abandoning the camouflage of legality.
The unsafety of unexploded ammunition is well-known, but no one in their right mind points to that as an objection to using it.
And there is no problem with using it against military forces, fren. (read the whole article)
You don't mention the fire bombing of Tokyo, which hardly ever gets mention. The reason for the use was primarily that only area effect weapons would be effective, since the intervening crosswinds prevented any accuracy of bombing. Tokyo, as the center of government, was an indisputable military target, a key one.
And so were Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if you bother to read the history of the target selection Nagasaki was the reserve target, as their original target was under adverse weather conditions.
I'm a quarter German and plenty of German civilians were killed collaterally with the European bombing campaign. That's what happens when the aggressor begins with bombing civilians. You seem to believe in this fiction of "innocent civilians" inhabiting the aggressor's country. They countenanced the war and all that came from it. They could have kept the peace---but they decided to subscribe to be led and governed by a suicidal terrorist movement, so this is what comes down on their heads. As with the Germans. As with the Japanese.
I'll turn it around. Seems killing peaceful Israelis doesn't bother you. I wonder why.
Not a "chemical weapon" in regard to any prohibited aspect. That category only applies if it is used specifically as an agent to produce toxicity. Smoke-production is okay...as you would know if you actually READ the article.
There are always plenty of videos on telegram. But what do they mean? Even incendiary use is permitted under the right circumstances. (As you would know, etc.)
I haven't "dodged" any question, and the wild accusations fall on your side.
So long as Israel targets opposing forces and does not violate any treaty to which it is a signatory, I have no problem. Why should I?
It is plain as day that you just want an excuse to bash Israel. I would not be surprised if you have heartburn over the U.S. bombardment of Japanese cities in World War II.
At least you admit you are all about assumptions and have no interest in proof.
Have you ever worn those gloves? They are designed as a "uni-hand": one size fits both left and right hands. Very handy for economics, but a poor fit as a glove. They will not look natural, even to the eye. They certainly don't feel natural.
But the French journalists (Margot Haddat et al.) were eyewitnesses. Three photos (including this one) are available at https://www.reddit.com/r/2ndYomKippurWar/comments/1769p28/dead_babies_after_hamas_attack/ In order to view, you have to click on "I'm over 18." The site also blurs up and freezes after no more than a minute. You have to back up and reload to view them more.
Before chastising Shapiro for research negligence, we should play a better game ourselves. The anti-Israel (anti-Semitic) knee-jerking on this subject is disgraceful.
And came out as a critic of the UN's approach to "climate change." He keeps hot coals at the ready for that trash. Good scientists have also "worked with the UN on climate change," out of an effort to steer the ship away from an iceberg, but have come out of that also as critics. Be mindful to condemn people only by their outcomes.