Guest opinion by Leo Goldstein
Like everyone here, I am outraged by the terrorist attack of Dr. John Christy’s office at the University of Alabama (UAH) that followed the so-called “March for Science” (the MfS) where third-sort actors and copywriters pretended to be scientists. I share Dr. Roy Spencer’s frustration about the unwillingness of the local police to investigate this attack and his hope that FBI would investigate. We are now in the “week of action,” declared by the same shadowy forces that organized the MfS. A larger and more disorderly “People’s Climate March” is scheduled for April 29, with riots expected on May 1. The invented “climate crisis” is just a pretext for a power grab, a pretext justifying collusion with foreign powers and political parties.
The investigation of the UAH shooting should start from the top, not from the bottom. The shooter(s) might be hard to find. They might be domestic terrorists or international terrorists. We have no idea whether they acted on behalf of a larger organization, or were just lone wolves inflamed by climate alarmist and/or anti-Trump rhetoric. In any case, a connection to the MfS is very likely. Starting from the top means starting with the MfS organizers and funders.
What do we know about the top MfS organizers? Only one thing: they do not want to be known. MfS publishes neither its physical address nor names of its directors or officers. It does not even tell whether it is incorporated. The MfS National Committee and Steering Committee consist of apparently front men and women. The MfSdonations page says:
“The March for Science applied for non profit C3 status in February but is still awaiting final approval. Until that time, we are using Science Debate as a fiscal sponsor to accept tax deductible donations.”
The top MfS organizers can be anybody, from John Podesta to Bill McKibben. I wonder whether the MfS partners and low level operatives know who they are, or even care to know. But, such subterfuge combined with the large scale of operations and potential for physical violence reveals the guilty mind (mens rea) of the top MfS organizers.
Have the top MfS organizers committed any guilty act (actus reus) beyond their suspected connection to the UAH shooting? In my opinion, the answer is yes. I think there is sufficient evidence to investigate and to indict them for obstruction of justice. The MfS website instructs immigrants participating in the march to refuse cooperation and even communication with law enforcement. It does this byincorporating Guides from the notorious National Lawyers Guild. These Guides do not differentiate between the citizens and non-citizens, or between the legal and illegal immigrants. From one of the guides, 8 WAYS TO PREPARE if Traveling to Washington, DC for Marches or Actions:
“CONSIDER WHAT ID TO BRING. Carefully consider what identity documents you bring on your trip.”
This is obviously addressing criminals with multiple IDs. Applied to the UAH shooting, that might mean to use one ID to buy FN P90 (one of the few weapons chambered for 5.7mm cartridge) and another ID when going to the march.
“CREATE A PHONE TREE Create a phone tree that you can activate in the event that your vehicle is detained. There should be a designated ‘on call’ member … This ‘on call’ member is then responsible for activating other members of the phone tree.”
This is an instruction for the participants to form cells and to act as lookouts for criminals!
“In addition to the tips on the reverse side of this page, we urge you to contact organizations who have a strong history in direct action.”
The euphemism “direct action” covers a broad range of activities from innocent trespass to terrorism.
“LET THE DRIVER INTERACT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT Only the driver or the designated legal worker/lawyer should be speaking in any law enforcement interaction. … Passengers should be trained under a solidarity plan …”
In other words, do not to talk to the police — even if one sees a crime in progress.
These instructions should not be confused with explaining the constitutional rights. The V Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination. The VI Amendment allows suspects to be represented by an attorney. Neither of them allows a person to conceal crimes committed by others. Further, these are individual rights. If an organization instructs its members or followers to refuse cooperation with law enforcement, it is committing obstruction of justice. And this is exactly what the MfS had done prior to the UAH shooting. 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b)(3) says:
“Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
Dr. John Christy is a prominent scientist, deserving, together with Dr. Roy Spencer, a Nobel Prize in physics. Less than a month ago, he testified before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the hearing Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method. The UAH shooting looks like retaliation for this testimony. But FBI might be unable or afraid to connect the dots.
I ask the readers to contact the office of the U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions (former Alabama Attorney General) and the Alabama Attorney General, to demand a top-down investigation of the organizations and circumstances that led to the UAH shooting.
——————
Another NLG Guide Social Media, Criminalization, and Immigration, referred to by the MfS website, advises the participants to:
“Consider cleaning up or deleting your Facebook or other social media accounts. … See below for resources.”
That brings to mind the “case” of Kurt Mix. Kurt Mix was an engineer who helped stop the oil spill after the Deep Horizon disaster. Eric Holder’s DOJ prosecuted Kurt Mix for deleting a few text messages from his cell phone a year after the disaster. Kurt Mix had committed no crime. He had offered his cell phone to the DOJ data collection vendor long before deleting those messages. His text messages contained only a few hundred characters – a drop in the sea compared with petabytes of data available from the video cameras and other sensors on-site. The DOJ had all the information, contained in his text messages, from other sources. Nevertheless, Holder’s underlings charged Kurt Mix with two counts of obstruction of justice, threatening him with 40 years in prison, and rabidly prosecuted the case for four years. The “mainstream media” and self-appointed guardians of civil rights were sympathetic to the persecution. (Some examples: 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7,8,9).
Today, the law can be used against wrongdoers, rather than by wrongdoers.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It would be appropriate to use the same sort of “lawfare’ against the green blob and their allies as they have used.
It would be nice, but sad to say, there really isn’t anything here to go on. In that absence of any communications, verbal or written, you don’t even have a threat, legally speaking. I hate to be a wet blanket, but unless people find something more, there’s just no evidence for calling this a federal crime, and thus no justification for taking this out of the hands of the local authorities. (and they’ve already told you they’re done with it) Unless an actual witness is found, willing to testify as to what actually happened and who did it, this investigation is going nowhere.
..Ummm, wrong…shooting at a federally funded institution is a FEDERAL CRIME !
I was under the impression that the building in question belonged to the University of Alabama at Huntsville, meaning it is not a federal building. And all the reports I have seen say that while the building was hit, Christy’s office was not actually hit.
That office needed to be hit if there is to be federal jurisdiction; close isn’t good enough.
Step 1 for ALL US citizens concerned about this situation
https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice
Contact the US Attorney General Office
WWS,
The ESSC and National Space Science and Technology Center partner with NASA:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/nsstc/
If there weren’t any federal employees in the building at the time of the attack, I suppose that some may work there.
wws: the progressive rhetoric is that the election of Donald Trump is a worrisome threat to [inset victim group here] and thus JUSTIFIES violence.
Even though there was not before nor after the election racist, or misogynistic, or bigoted, or anti-semitic, etc., etc.,acts of oppression or terrorism or violence, the progressives perceive all kinds of threats, and have been given all sorts of favor, resources, etc., etc.
They have not needed anything to go on except frank unsubstantiated fear tactics.
Now, with actual bullets, why not investigate?
Yes! Contact the Attorney General at:
https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice
When you see the prompt “Please choose the general topic of your message: *, I suggest all folks responding on this topic select “Messages to the Attorney General” and include in the first line of the message something similar to RE: “Shots fired at Dr. John Christy office, University of Alabama – Huntsville”. Add your heartfelt concerns and request DOJ initiate an investigation of this act of ecoterrorism! This will make it easier for the DOJ staff to see that all of these contacts are related to the same topic.
Take real action today!
If this building had been occupied at the time of this event, then this could be viewed as a sniper attack.
Countless unoccupied U.S. buildings have been hit by bullets.
One of my vehicles was hit by a bullet while driving in major U.S. city a few years ago. These kinds of events happen often.
Never been shot at. Never seen anybody shoot at street. Never seen an illegal gun at street. Never seen a civilian carrying a gun at a public place that is ready to shoot. Never heard gunfire that’s been identifiable to criminal activity.
I feel unsafe when I see policemen with guns. I seldom see policemen when I move around in the local city, and they seldom carry guns so that I’d notice.
What’s wrong with me?
I live in a city, not in U.S. There has been two shooting incidents within one mile during the last ten years.
Most of the violence against third parties was brought in by a single man, “refugee” from Kosovo. You can understand I have little willingness to accept in a lot of young, violent men from war zones. The man was not about guns or availability of them, but rather just his madness.
Shooting at an office, – no matter where it is in the world, is a premediated action. To not investigate such a targeted crime, – is a crime in its own right! (- No matter where it is in the world, even in the USA).
Again, I hate to be a wet blanket, but how can you prove this wasn’t Joe Bob, drunk, hanging his gun out the pick up window late at night and popping off a clip at random, with no idea of what he’s aiming at?
You can’t just say that’s unlikely, you have to PROVE that isn’t what happened. With no evidence except some shell casings, we can’t prove anything at the moment. And don’t forget that the biggest problem for any prosecution is that the shots didn’t actually hit his office, they just hit his floor. That really weakens the “implied threat” theory – maybe they were aimed at the actual office they hit, because that guy was messing around with someone’s wife? Again, for a successful prosecution, you have to PROVE that isn’t what happened.
To be clear, I agree that it looks like it was probably a threat meant to intimidate Christy on Earth Day. But there just is never going to be enough evidence here to actually get a prosecution out of it, UNLESS you get an eyewitness and/or a confession.
Regardless of who it was. It needs to be investigated. If it was indeed Joe Bob, “I was just drunk and wasn’t aiming at anything in particular” isn’t a defense, it’s a confession.
“and popping off a clip at random,”
I’ve spotted your “tell”… haven’t been around guns much, eh?
You point out the need for an eyewitness. I guess I’m mainly trying to cushion people from the disappointment they’re going to feel when nothing ever comes of this, as that is undoubtedly going to launch no end of conspiracy theories.
This was a terrible, disturbing incident, but so far there’s just nothing for a prosecutor, or even an investigator, to work with. No witnesses, no surveillance videos, no license plate numbers, not even a suspected time of the attack. (sometime that night? that’s pathetic) If you’re going to pull warrants on people, you’ve got to at least make an effort at showing probable cause, and “I hate him and he hates me” is NOT “probable cause”. You gotta have more than that.
Marky – it was a colloquialism. In fact I own several handguns, both semi-auto and single action, and carry a Texas CCP.
and I’ll add, although it’s not a 5.7 millimeter, my Bersa has a 7 shot clip, and the 7 shot pattern made me think of it.
Do you also believe in the tooth fairy????
wws:
Again: review and figure out the standards for the Progressives, and apply them to the rest of us.
There you have it.
PLEASE REVIEW THE ACTUAL EVENTS THAT PRECIPITATED THE MIZZOU DEBACLE.
A pickup truck was reported to have driven by a handful of students and hollered out the “N” word at the handful, which included an African American student – THAT IS ALL IT TAKES TO SET OFF RIOTS, DEMONSTRATION, etc., etc.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/us/missouri-protest-timeline/
Facts and evidence. Evidence and facts. Petard.
Ummmmm wws…nobody is saying they know who did it, they know why the person did it, and that this person should be arrested and put on trial. They’re saying “investigate.” You admit that it was likely a violent threat, and you don’t want anything done about it because you don’t know for sure that someone will be prosecuted because of it?
hmmm….
Texas used to have a CHL (Concealed Handgun License)
Since open carry was passed, it is now called LTC (License To Carry).
(And, to be pedantic, your Bersa uses a magazine, not a clip)
To one up you on being pedantic, The American Rifleman did a column on that topic last year or so. The two terms are synonymous. There are stripper clips, and box magazines, but the usage of clip to mean magazine is old.
“There are stripper clips, and box magazines, but the usage of clip to mean magazine is old.”
There are also rotary and tube magazines, and en bloc clips that go “ping”. 🙂
Has anybody checked where Bill Nye was during the incident?
Yep, that’s how it works. The police caught a guy with alledegedly stolen items from a house. ” I didn’t steal them. They were left out side in the trash “. And as to breaking in the house, ” I had to go to the bathroom ” . He got off. Best justice money can buy.
To the Last Democrat – in the case you reference, leading to the Missou debacle – THERE WERE EYEWITNESSES THAT COULD BE INTERVIEWED! That is why they could link the truck to what came after! Eyewitnesses who could testify as to the make of the truck, who was in it, what they were doing, what direction they headed, what time they showed up, what time they left – THAT is what constitutes legal evidence!
Don’t you see how that changes everything? That’s my entire point!!! If you can find a single eyewitness to this shooting, then all will change. But no one has come forth, the local police have said they can’t find anything, and after this much time has passed, it will take a miracle for an eyewitness to suddenly appear. Now sometimes 10 years later people will turn up and say “yeah, I really did see this.” But it doesn’t happen very often, and investigators usually don’t find these people – they have to be motivated to show themselves. Which suggests an avenue – offer a $100,000 reward for anyone with information leading to a conviction, and you may get a bite or two. It’s gonna take something like that to move this case ahead.
wws,
RE:…how can you prove this wasn’t Joe Bob…blah, blah?”
Irrelevant supposition. The DOJ and FBI will determine who committed this act of ecoterrorism.
Nobody seems to be getting my point – perhaps I’ve got a bit more experience in the legal world than most. Right now, without an eyewitness, without a time of attack, and without any surveillance videos, there is absolutely nowhere for an investigator to go, nothing to do. An investigator cannot pull warrants on 1,000 people who may have been in the area – if you want to pull a warrant, you’ve got to show some probable cause that the person you are investigating was directly linked to the crime; say, that they were driving the same make of car that was seen at the time. You can’t check weapons records because Alabama has no registration system (neither do most southern states) And legally, any investigator will have a very hard time even establishing that this was meant to be a threat, since there is no directly associated written or verbal speech accompanying it, and since the bullets didn’t hit Christy’s office directly.
That’s why the local police have called it random violence and dropped it, until and unless some eyewitness calls in and reports something more. That is all that can be done at the moment – yes, that is a very disappointing outcome, but please remember, the legal world has much the same standards as the scientific world. You *have* to be honest with yourself about what data you have, and what data you don’t have, and you can’t go off on flights of fancy about what you wish you could prove, even though there’s no hard support for it.
Now if there is enough pressure, eventually someone will appoint an investigator, and he will take the file and set in on the shelf while he does other things, and in 6 months he will say “well I couldn’t find anything.” And memories will have cooled and that will be the end of it. I don’t think it’s worth going through a farce like that, but if it will make people feel good for a while maybe it’s worth it.
wws,
I appreciate your comments, which of course are eminently sensible. But apparently the need for closure is just too strong among the cognoscenti, especially in these difficult times.
The shooting at UAH is obviously another Marxist/Alinsky form of intimidation. The March for Science (MfS) is actually an acronym for MisFitS.
Of course it is a criminal act that needs to be investigated!
‘Tis the times plague when one must demand an investigation into a criminal act.
This should be treated as a RICO case against a gang.
I have also emailed my U S Senator and Congressman. Since Dr Christy has been and will continue to be a witness appearing in front of a Congressional committee, this is an act of intimidation towards such a witness. FBI should take charge.
+1! Tom in Fl.
For those wishing to contact their senators as well, here is the contact information for all
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Astute point, Tom. But still a contempt of Congress isn’t a federal crime. Primacy is with UAH which lacks specialized tools to investigate. As no one was hurt, they dropped the case.
It wouldn’t be out of possibility the firearm was illegally supplied to a prohibited person by a federal employee of the deep state variety. Possibly a BATFE employee. Which explains why the feds don’t want to investigate. Ballistic fingerprint files have been deleted for this firearm.
Gee Keith, are you implying that UAH is full of useless tools?
It shows where we are at!!
I would look for FN 5-7 registrations in the buildings vicinity. There likely are only a few (maybe only one). Anyone stupid enough to do-this-deed just might not be smart enough to realize how rare FN 5-7’s are.
Perhaps they are smart enough to know that in Alabama permits are not required to purchase guns, they aren’t required to be registered and no owner license is required.
John Lott, in a recent book, “The War on guns”, that almost no crimes are solved with registration. If a suspect gun is found by other means. finding out where the gun was purchased, if legally, is fairly simple.Iit just does not do anything to find the perpetrator in the first place.
Forrest, what they could do. Is the ammo is very rare. Most places don’t carry 5.7. They can check shops that do sell it for recent transactions and speak to anyone who bought it.
As far as I can tell, it’s not that rare. link
Bob,
You’re right. The ammo is increasingly common.
The firearms which shoot it however aren’t.
http://www.gunbot.net/ammo/pistol/57×28/
not as rare as the people who actually know wtf they are talking about, to
https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice/done?sid=3076871&token=7bf6232f343ceb3ca7b9be448f61ca50
I clicked the link and got nothing on the page except “Your message has been received” – I never left a message…
Leo Goldstein:
I write to ask a clarification and to request information.
First the clarification. When you wrote,
“Today, the law can be used against wrongdoers, rather than by wrongdoers.”
did you intend
“Today, the law can be used by wrongdoers, rather than against wrongdoers.”?
Secondly, here in the UK the security forces (MI5, MI6, GCHQ, Special Branch, etc.) always deny any activity on anything as a matter of policy. Hence, a vociferous denial of their activity is usually assumed to be an indication that they don’t want anybody to know anything of what they are doing.
Could the apparent disinterest of the police and FBI in the shooting be an indication that they are making covert investigations or does your American culture prevent that being the case?
With thanks in anticipation of your reply.
Richard
No, our police aren’t that clever. The FBI sometimes, but not campus or local cops. They’ll tell it like it is. Nor are guns regulations useful here. Most guns aren’t registered and legally don’t need to be. I’m a concealed carry permit holder in my state of Virginia and my gun’s aren’t registered. Don’t need to be. And in Virginia, any adult can openly carry legally without permit or license — such as in a holster.
Alex in VA:
Thankyou.
Richard
Surely this was actually Penn State and the office of that oppressed endangered distinguished scientist m e m and not UAH. m e m is under siege after all, he said so recently.
…..The “tolerant left” seems to be very INTOLERANT lately ?
Lately?
Correction:….”.The “tolerant left” seems to have become INSANELY and DANGEROUSLY INTOLERANT lately !”
Another inciteful and witty comment from the all-knowing MarkW!
Yes Bazzer, MarkW is usually “well informed” !!
bazzer is your typical lefty.
Can’t argue his way out of paper bag, but still wants everyone to be amazed at his virtue signalling.
Jeez, this is giving me Deja Vu, Bazz. you’re inciting a threadjacking, pardner.
The left is only tolerant of aberrance which leads to an intolerance for normality. For example, the accepted standard for scientific validation is the scientific method, while the left is tolerant of deviant science that conforms to a narrative. There are many other example of the selective tolerance exhibited by the left.
co2isnotevil:
Yes, and the above posts of MarkW and Butch are examples of the selective tolerance exhibited by the right. But so what?
The issue of this thread is a dangerous attack on a building and the response to it exhibited by the police forces. But, as is usual on any WUWT thread, there are anonymous right-wingers spoiling the discussion by attempting to promote their intolerant prejudices.
Richard
Those with any extreme views, far left or far right generally have little tolerance for anyone that disagrees with them. What we see today is that the left has been taken over by those with extreme views and the intrinsic lack of tolerance has spread across everything the left supports, moreover; the left has extended this lack of tolerance to anything the Trump administration supports, even if the Obama administration supported it in the past. Certainly, the right has its extremophiles, but the scope and scale of intolerance from the right, relative to that from the left is minuscule and this is the point that MarkW and Butch were making.
Wow whata stupid thing to do using a P90 or an FN 57 in a crime.. Super expensive weapons, rare and expensive ammo too. I own both, the P90 is actually a very quiet rifle (relatively speaking), you can easily fire it without ear plugs. Whoever did this though, isn’t your average SJW.. A $2K rifle or a $1K handgun isn’t the usual weapon of choice of your average criminal or unemployed SJW. My money is on another professor.
Agree on your description of the ammo, and of the pistol and rifle.
Tom April 26, 2017 at 2:02 pm
The individual seems to to be able to shoot with some accuracy. It might be worth checking firing ranges, to see if anyone uses a 5.7 round
michael
The description I saw wasn’t very accurate shooting, when I was younger I received a marksman award which required a grouping of five shots in an 1.25″ circle at 50m. This appeared to be one in a window!
At last someone crystallizing a suspicion. Not knowing anything about guns I looked up that ammo…and indeed its a strange choice.
Also, it’s remarkably inaccurate shooting for a rifle, and pistol seems a strange thing to use for distance work.
Even to someone as gun-ignorant as me.
So it wasn’t a serious attempt to do anything more than intimidate. Possibly using (rich) daddy’s gun borrowed for the occasion…?
The PS90 is actually a very accurate rifle at medium range. Its one of my favorite to use when target shooting. The stock design doesn’t allow for a scope, you use the integrated red dot. The PS is the civilian version with an extended barrel. I suppose the P90 would be less accurate with the short barrel and full auto option. But I highly doubt this was done with a Full Auto variant.. Those are super expensive plus the requirements to be licensed for full auto.
If this incident isn’t thoroughly investigated the protesters will commit more acts endangering more people.
I’m waiting for some leftist/liberal to say: “Oh! So you want gun control now?!”
JFK Democrats of old (which my family voted for, for 3 generations) no longer exist…Those claiming to be Democrats today are simply liberal socialists that have zero respect for law and order and are willing to do anything because, in their minds, the end justifies the means, which is being taught to children in our schools….
Our current outstanding US Attorney General, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, is a former Alabama senator. IMO it shouldn’t take much to interest him in this case.
The silence of academia is deafening on this.
I’m sure NPR, NAS, and others will be all over this. sarc
Well, sooner or later we knew the Climate War would come to violence. The Climate Stasi have fired their opening shots. And this weekend their brown shirts will be marching. Democracy awaits the outcome.
The first real test of the new administration – will they adhere to the rule of law?
Note: “. . . using Science Debate as a fiscal sponsor to accept tax deductible donations” does not work to magically “launder” donations and make them tax deductible — if the MfS activities were not within the exempt purposes of Science Debate (assuming it is an exempt organization) using it as a fiscal sponsor does not change the nature of the donations.
Shooting does not seem to be in accordance with the principles of the March of Science organization:
“Statement on Peaceful Assembly and Nonviolence
The March for Science welcomes anyone who supports science and its role in serving the public. We expect a diverse group of participants, including first-time marchers and families with young children. We want to facilitate the physical and emotional safety of everyone involved.
We endorse collaborative problem-solving when conflict arises, and we seek understanding, reasoned disagreement, and good-faith discussions with people whose priorities differ from ours.
We value inclusion, diversity, equity, and access. We do not condone harassment within or without the March for Science community. This includes expressions of sexism, ableism, racism, xenophobia, intolerance regarding religious, agnostic and atheistic beliefs, and other forms of abuse in person, online, or in signage.
We do not condone violence at the March for Science as we march, demonstrate, rally, and host teach-ins in support of our goals. We request that supporters at the D.C. march and satellite marches respect all relevant laws where they are participating as they exercise their right to assemble, speak out, and petition their leaders for change.
We are growing a global grassroots movement for science, and we are all in this together. We look forward to collaborating and seeing everyone out in their communities on April 22.”
You realize that they didn’t want Bill Nye to lead the march because he was white and male. How is that not racist or sexist?
They are hypocrites one and all. This march had nothing to with science.
I see your point.
Bill Nye is many things, some I like, most I don’t.
IF he were the best PERSON to do the job, and was asked to do so, then Reg, you are 100% correct – about the organizers being hypocritical.
I can stomach the opposition and their views – I am honour bound to do so, but NOT so for hypocrites.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5a9_1493234279 bill nye the biologist guy
that should be a mic drop…lol
What all these leftist organisations say and what they privately encourage people to do is all based in plausible deniability.
That’s why it’s always a ‘lone crackpot’.
Oh that’s not true! It is ‘lone crackpot’ only if target was conservative. Lone crackpots who target left-wing people are a sign of organized right-wing extremism.
Late last week and just before Earth Day, revised study by Wallace, Christy and D’Aleo was released and available here-
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/exclusive-new-study-calls-epas-labeling-of-co2-a-pollutant-totally-false/
The study is damning to CAGW, carbon taxes, “social cost of carbon” … the whole basis of the beast. Relevant to shooting at UAH??
A poker player would call the action and reaction a tell…