Category: Crap For Brains

To point out, the case in Tennessee hinged on the fact that the drunk driver was no inebriated that he couldn’t even pump his own gas and the clerk pumped the gas for him. It was proved that the drunk would have run out of gas before he crashed.
What I suspect will happen is that the service stations and convenience stores will make paying at the pump with credit card or cash only with no way provided for the employees to accept payment.

New Mexico Court Rules Gas Stations Liable for Selling Fuel to Drunk Drivers
The court’s ruling says, “Providing gasoline to an intoxicated driver is like providing car keys to an intoxicated driver.”

Drunk driving is dangerous. The NHTSA says that someone is killed every 52 minutes due to a preventable crash where at least one party behind the wheel is intoxicated. Now, the New Mexico Supreme Court is looking to hold gas stations accountable for their role in knowingly allowing drunk drivers to hit the road.

Last week the court ruled 3-to-1 that gas stations have a “duty of care” to not allow individuals who are intoxicated to purchase fuel. In fact, the ruling goes as far as to edict that any gas station which knowingly permits drunk drivers to fuel up their vehicles can be held liable for any injuries caused by that person behind the wheel while they are intoxicated.

New Mexico is the second such state in the U.S. to publish a ruling which places the burden of responsibility on gas stations—Tennessee was the first. However, it’s important to note that there is no state law that explicitly prohibits the sale of gasoline to an intoxicated party in New Mexico. The court instead cited a fatal accident that occurred in 2011 where a gas station sold fuel to an intoxicated person who later got into an accident and killed the driver of the vehicle that was hit. It also pointed at previous rulings and the recent overhaul of the state’s liquor laws which revoked the sale of miniature bottles of hard liquor from convenience stores.

“A duty not to sell gasoline to an intoxicated person is consistent with liability for providing an intoxicated person with alcohol or a vehicle,” reads one of the Justices’ opinions of the ruling. “Gasoline, alcohol, and the vehicle itself are all enabling instrumentalities involved in intoxicated driving. Gasoline is required to operate most vehicles today. Providing gasoline to an intoxicated driver is like providing car keys to an intoxicated driver. Accordingly, liability under negligent entrustment for the sale [of] gasoline to an intoxicated driver is consistent with New Mexico law.”

The court also noted that gas stations have an “economic incentive” to sell fuel to drunk drivers, even if it means putting others at risk.

However, the lone vote against the ruling—which came from New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Barbara Vigil—noted that New Mexico’s current policy against intoxicated driving doesn’t support extending liability onto vendors of non-alcoholic goods like gasoline. She argues that this ruling against the offending gas station could have a significantly broader impact than just this scenario.

Vigil wrote, “[U]nder the majority’s reasoning, vendors of any item that enables DWI—not only gasoline—could now be liable for a customer’s DWI-related torts. Thus auto parts stores, tire shops, mechanics, and others will be left guessing as to whether they are subject to the new duty and, if so, how to behave so as to avoid liability.”

The key takeaway involves knowingly allowing someone who is drunk to purchase gasoline—just like a bartender continuing to serve alcohol to someone visibly intoxicated, which is illegal in New Mexico. But how far does the business have to go to ensure that the customer isn’t intoxicated? Would a court consider it overly burdensome to give a breathalyzer test to every patron? Probably. And what about unattended pumps which are found in every state except for New Jersey and Oregon? And as more EVs hit the road, what about public charging infrastructure? Surely this wouldn’t extend to holding Tesla accountable for a drunk driver using its supercharger and then abusing Autopilot to drive home.

Regardless, it would appear that such a ruling could have far-reaching consequences. And given that New Mexico is only the second state to rule in favor of finding a gas station liable for a drunk driver, this probably won’t be the last time that a similar case is debated by high courts.

Actual Atlantic headline:

BLUF:
Article author Applebaum writes that Lindell thinks the Chicoms stole the election by hacking it in Biden’s favor and is spending millions trying to prove it, after which the Supreme Court will vote to put Trump back in office.
She doesn’t think he will be able to prove it, but assuming he did somehow, he would apparently be destroying democracy by putting the actual winner of the election back in office.

DOJ has okayed “local communities” to mandate vaccinations?
That also sounds like SloJoe is looking at mandating vaccines and would do so if he could.
Just because the DOJ says something does not make it legal, and no city can mandate vaccinations anymore than the federal government can.

Anything out of SloJoe’s mouth has no relation to facts, science, or reality

CDC justified new mask guidance based on vaccine study listed as failing peer review
Journal changes status of submitted India study from “reject” to “revise” after CDC highlights it.

he Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited an unpublished study from India to justify its recommendation Tuesday that fully vaccinated people “wear a mask in public indoor settings in areas of substantial or high transmission” of COVID-19.

That study, which claimed the Delta variant produced an unusually large viral load in more than 100 vaccinated healthcare workers with “breakthrough infections,” was listed as having failed peer review in the journal Nature when the CDC cited it.

Archives of the study’s page on Research Square, a preprint server for unpublished research, show that it was marked “reject” on July 9 and remained so at least through the evening of July 26, Eastern Daylight Time.

That version was still live early Wednesday morning, the day after the CDC cited the study in its July 27 updated science brief, according to a Twitter user who posted a screenshot.

The “reject” status and review notes were removed by mid-morning and replaced with “posted,” suggesting Nature had approved the paper without revisions, which drew controversy on Twitter. The notes were quickly restored and status changed to “revise,” bearing the same date — July 9 — as the original “reject” status.

Research Square addressed the confusion twice around noon Wednesday, blaming “a bug” and “a user interface error on our end.” It said the paper was still under review “and the current editorial decision is ‘Revise.'”

The review notes disappeared again from the “peer review timeline” later in the afternoon, leaving only a “current status” classification of the paper as “under review.” Research Square also posted a revised header clarifying that the paper was being considered by “a Nature Portfolio Journal,” not necessarily the flagship journal, and that it partners with the publisher on “a journal-integrated preprint deposition service.”

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
Whenever a law is pro-gun, the ATF tells FFLs to ignore it. When a law is anti-gun, the federal agency demands that the dealers comply.

Conflicting ATF Letters to State FFLs Shows Continued Two-Faced Hypocrisy

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is sending letters to Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) in states that have passed bills protecting the Second Amendment demanding that the FFLs do NOT follow state laws. The ATF, at the same time, sent letters to FFLs telling them to FOLLOW state laws in states that have passed laws that have weakened the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

Good grief. It took him long enough. If I was a voter in the Ft Smith area, I might be looking for a better candidate to replace this goober in the next election.

Prosecutor says deadly physical force justified in Fort Smith shooting

FORT SMITH — A Fort Smith man who stopped a shooting rampage in May by killing the gunman won’t face criminal charges, prosecutors said.

Sebastian County Prosecutor Dan Shue announced his decision Wednesday in a letter to Police Chief Danny Baker. Shue said after reviewing the investigative reports surrounding the shooting, his office concluded Wallace A. West, 58, was justified under Arkansas law in the fatal shooting of Zachary Brian Arnold, 26.

West shot Arnold after Arnold killed Lois Hicks, 87, in her home at Three Corners Apartments at 3600 S. 74th St., according to police.

“Mr. West acted lawfully when he shot Mr. Arnold and likely saved a number of lives in the process,” a Police Department news release states. “At last count, Mr. Arnold had fired 93 rounds from his semiautomatic rifle before Mr. West was able to stop him. There were no other fatalities or injuries, though a number of residents were home at the time of the assault.”

The Police Department started receiving calls of a shooting at the apartment complex about 7:15 a.m. May 15, according to Shue. Arnold came out of his apartment firing a semiautomatic rifle while yelling at his neighbors to come outside, according to police.

Hicks came outside to check on Arnold, who chased her into her apartment and shot her multiple times.

West, identified in the Police Department news release Wednesday as an off-duty employee of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, woke to the sound of gunshots, Shue wrote. He ran outside and saw Arnold shooting into Hicks’ apartment.

West then grabbed a bolt action rifle, which was scoped and loaded, from his gun cabinet, stepped onto his balcony and fired once at Arnold, missing him because he was “shaking so badly,” according to his witness statement.

Arnold turned and fired several rounds at West.

Arnold went back into his apartment, presumably to reload, and he came back outside, Shue wrote. He began walking down the complex, rifle in hand, according to West. West took a second shot, which struck Arnold in the head and killed him.

Continue reading “”

“Because the public health leaders in our administration have made the determination based on data, that, that is a way to make sure they’re protected, their loved ones are protected, um, and that’s an extra step given the transmissibility of the virus.”

Because they say so?
That’s their answer?
That’s not an answer, it’s an excuse, one that can be used to justify anything by an authoritarian government. And one more indication that something stinks about this whole thing.

Med Schools Are Now Denying Biological Sex.

Today we bring you another installment of Katie Herzog’s ongoing series about the spread of woke ideology in the field of medicine. Her first story focused on the ideological purge at the top medical schools and teaching hospitals in the country. “Wokeness,” as one doctor put it, “feels like an existential threat.”

Katie’s latest reporting illustrates some of the most urgent elements of that threat. It focuses on how biological sex is being denied by professors fearful of being smeared by their students as transphobic…..

During a recent endocrinology course at a top medical school in the University of California system, a professor stopped mid-lecture to apologize for something he’d said at the beginning of class.

“I don’t want you to think that I am in any way trying to imply anything, and if you can summon some generosity to forgive me, I would really appreciate it,” the physician says in a recording provided by a student in the class (whom I’ll call Lauren). “Again, I’m very sorry for that. It was certainly not my intention to offend anyone. The worst thing that I can do as a human being is be offensive.”

His offense: using the term “pregnant women.”

“I said ‘when a woman is pregnant,’ which implies that only women can get pregnant and I most sincerely apologize to all of you.”

It wasn’t the first time Lauren had heard an instructor apologize for using language that, to most Americans, would seem utterly inoffensive. Words like “male” and “female.”

Why would medical school professors apologize for referring to a patient’s biological sex? Because, Lauren explains, in the context of her medical school “acknowledging biological sex can be considered transphobic.”

Continue reading “”

When the ‘Fact-Checker’ gets it right back at them

PolitiFact Claims Joe Biden ‘Doesn’t Want to Ban Handguns,’ But Here Are His Actual Words.

Joe Biden has been pretty clear about his desire to ban handguns.

During his CNN town hall last week, Biden was asked, “So, how will you address gun violence, from a federal point of view, to actually bring about change and make our local cities safer?”

In his response, Biden told the woman who asked the question: “The idea you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon — whether it’s a — whether it’s a 9-millimeter pistol or whether it’s a rifle — is ridiculous. I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things…”

In response to the tweet from House Republicans declaring that Biden “says he wants to ban handguns,” PolitiFact claims “the clip doesn’t back up the GOP tweet, and the full transcript goes further to sink this claim.”

PolitiFact claims that the numbers cited by Biden “apply to assault-style firearms and high-capacity magazines. As recently as June, when Biden rolled out his strategy to bring down murders, he said he wants to ban both.”

“Experts disagree over what is or isn’t an assault weapon. States set different thresholds for what qualifies as a high-capacity magazine,” PolitiFact continued, before adding, “But regardless of the definition, neither term includes all handguns.”

Did anyone say Biden wants to ban all handguns? Nope. Yet, PolitiFact unwittingly admitted in its analysis that some handguns would be affected by Biden’s gun control proposal. So, does Biden want to ban handguns? He’s publicly indicated that he wants to ban some. There’s no doubt about that.

Yet, PolitiFact rated the claim that Biden wants to ban handguns as “False.” In fairness, they could have gotten away with rating the claim “Half True” because one could argue that the House GOP’s wording wasn’t clear, but they didn’t take Biden’s words out of context. They even showed the video of Biden’s response to the question. Biden may not have said he wanted to ban all handguns, but he clearly said he wants to ban some. Yet, PolitiFact disingenuously rated the claim false, which seems to imply that Biden never said he wanted to ban any handguns at all.

Biden Official: Gun Access Prevents Stopping Domestic Terrorism

Domestic terrorism is the big boogieman these days, according to the party in power. Of course, it wasn’t last summer when “activists” burned down pretty much every major city they could get their hands on, but it’s different when it’s their people doing things, right?

However, in recent years, there have been several incidents that can be categorized as domestic terrorism such as white supremacy-motivated attacks on Jewish synagogues as well as the attack on Republican lawmakers in Alexandria.

Now, an official with the Biden administration is claiming that a lack of gun control makes it more difficult to stop attacks like these.

“Easy access to firearms — especially certain types of firearms — can make acts of domestic terrorism more feasible to undertake and more lethal once they happen,” JOSHUA GELTZER, the deputy homeland security adviser at the NSC, told NatSec Daily in his first on-the-record interview since assuming that position this month. “As this administration works … to address some of the challenges associated with the widespread availability of firearms in this country, we are doing so with the knowledge that that is a priority in and of itself — as well as one that relates to the stepped-up efforts that we’re undertaking to address domestic terrorists.”

Geltzer piloted the first-ever “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism,” bringing together experts from across the government to understand the threat and plan for it. One aspect of the strategy includes “reducing access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and enforcing legal prohibitions that keep firearms out of dangerous hands.”

Geltzer was more explicit on the administration’s link between gun control and quashing domestic terrorism during his interview with NatSec Daily. Asked if gun reforms were imperative to stopping domestic terrorism, Geltzer replied: “I think tackling things that feed into the domestic terrorism challenge is an imperative, and there are a lot of things that feed into it. Easy access to certain types of firearms feeds into it. But so does, for example, polarization fueled by disinformation. That can make recruitment to domestic terrorism causes easier and more likely.”

I’m absolutely stunned that someone from the Biden administration would make the case that gun control would somehow help combat domestic terrorism. I mean, no one else besides, like, everyone in the administration would ever make such a case.

However, let’s also understand that the worst domestic terrorism case in the United States was Oklahoma City, which used no guns at all.

The problem with domestic terrorism, like any terrorism, isn’t that they might get weapons. They’re going to get weapons of some description, even if they have to make them.

No, the issue is to look for clues that they’re planning something, which almost always exists. There are clues that they’re up to something and people need to know that if they think something is up, they’re better off notifying the police than just assuming it’s nothing. If it turns out to be nothing, so be it, but if you fail to act and innocent people die because of that, is it something you can live with?

The truth is that gun control isn’t an essential ingredient to combating domestic terrorism. It’s not even a particularly key ingredient. It’s just another excuse the Biden administration is willing to concoct to justify infringing on our Second Amendment rights.

We’re Not Exporting Our Values to China — We’re Importing Theirs.

Lawn Order, Chinese Style

California is home to nearly 40 million people and the supply of water does not always meet demand, particularly in times of drought. A recent newspaper article offered the solution of snitching on one’s neighbors.

On July 9, the Sacramento Bee published an article headlined, “Is your neighbor wasting water? Snitching on them may ease California drought, study says.” According to the report, “ratting out one’s neighbors could help relieve some of the pressure from California’s current drought.”

That caught the attention of California Globe editor Katy Grimes.

“While California politicians and water officials have long supported water snitches,” Grimes wrote on July 12, “this is the first time we’ve seen a study supporting the idea, and curiously, an out-of-state university study.” That study turned out to be “Public Water Waste Reporting: Contextual Correlates and Conservation Outcomes,” by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Manny Teodoro, a self-described “environmental justice” warrior.

According to the study’s summary, “The success of water conservation restrictions depends in part on governments’ capacity to monitor water use. Inviting the general public to report instances of water waste is one means of expanding government capacity to monitor and enforce water use.”

For Grimes, “the study was all about monitoring neighbors and ratting them out when their sprinklers run too long or on the wrong allowable water day.” In this case, Teodoro leaned on strategic assistance.

The study supports the idea of “participatory surveillance” and cites the Chinese research article “Social ties and citizen-initiated contacts: the case of China’s local one-stop government,” written by Youlang Zhang, assistant professor in public administration at China’s Renmin University, and Xufeng Zhu, professor of public policy and management at China’s Tsinghua University. The article examines why some citizens are “more likely to initiate contact with the government than others.”

As the abstract explains, “We find that citizens with strong political ties are significantly likely to initiate contact with local one-stop governments.” For Grimes, “strong political ties” means that “these citizens have some sort of political tie to the Chinese Communist Party and/or the Chinese government because China is a one-party state.”

As it turns out, the research for “Social ties and citizen-initiated contacts” was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), established in 1986 under the jurisdiction of the State Council and since 2018 managed by the Ministry of Science and Technology. The State Council of the People’s Republic of China, in turn, is “the Central People’s Government of the PRC” and “the highest organ of state administration.”

The English-language link for the State Council shows a photo of Xi Jinping participating in the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) centenary celebrations. In China, all science is political science, and everything traces back to the CCP. Meanwhile, the push for what Grimes calls “water snitching” is hardly the only Chinese influence in California.

For the new span of the Bay Bridge from San Francisco to Oakland, California rejected federal funding that would have required the use of American steel. Instead California contracted with China’s state-owned Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries Co., which at the time had no experience building bridges. California politicians claimed Chinese steel, engineering, and labor would save money and render a quality product. They were wrong. The span came in 10 years late, $5 billion over budget, and riddled with safety issues that remain to this day.

One of the biggest boosters of the new span was Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a former mayor of San Francisco. In March 2020, Gov. Newsom declared a state of emergency and during an April 7, 2020 MSNBC appearance, announced a $1 billion deal for “upwards of 200 million masks” with “a manufacturer here in the state of California.” That turned out to be Build Your Dreams (BYD), a Chinese company with no experience manufacturing masks, and at the time the efficacy of masks was still in question.

The $1 billion deal was 30 percent more than the state budget allotted for infectious diseases for the entire fiscal year. Newsom hid details of the deal, even from fellow Democrats. The governor quickly sent the first installment of $495 million to BYD, and the Chinese company referred reporters’ questions back to his office.

Newsom’s dealings with BYD have made the recall election something of a referendum on China. The vote will take place on Sept. 14.

Does Pasadena Police Chief Not Know What Straw Buys Are?

Right now, a lot of the Second Amendment news out there revolves around the Biden administration’s focus on straw buys. The administration has said they’re cracking down on these kinds of gun sales.

However, after a news story earlier today, I’m left wondering just how many people even understand what a straw buy actually is.

After all, it seems the police chief in Pasadena doesn’t.

Violent crime is down in the city this year, according to Pasadena police Chief John Perez, but the alarming number of guns seized to-date by officers has caught the attention of local leaders, who asked to see a more detailed report on the matter.…

“Many of these guns are what you would consider registered to somebody. The track record of these guns are very interesting because of straw purchases, which means people sell them to one another without any legal process,” Perez said.

Uh, no. That’s not what the term “straw purchase” means. Those may be illegal gun sales in states with universal background checks, but they’re not straw buys.

A straw purchase is when someone buys a firearm for another who generally cannot purchase a gun for themselves. This is an act that’s illegal in all 50 states and all U.S. territories.

Buying and selling of firearms without undergoing a background check is something else entirely, and you’d think a police chief in a city of over 140,000 people would understand this.

If he doesn’t, then just who in the hell does?

It’s especially frustrating because he follows up with this:

“So, there are many times that the weapons are in fact missing from people’s homes, and when we contact them, they didn’t know they were stolen or they were unreported in burglaries,” Perez said. “It runs the gamut in different categories.”

If they’re stolen guns, then they can’t be the result of a straw buy. He clearly seems to grasp that many of these guns are stolen firearms. That’s an important point that we need to see discussed more, especially by law enforcement.

But it doesn’t help if a police chief of a decent size city muddies the issue by simply not understanding what we’re talking about here.

Of course, this makes me wonder how much of this push by the Biden administration is because they don’t understand what a straw buy is or not. Granted, this is President Joe Biden we’re talking about here. I’m not sure he knows what day of the week it is, much less what a straw buy is or isn’t.

Still, that might explain the push to combat something that accounts for only a small number of firearms used in criminal acts.

After all, there’s not much else that explains this odd focus on straw purchases all of a sudden.

Of course, the question then becomes just how many police chiefs in the country also aren’t aware of what a straw buy is. Maybe that’s why there are so few prosecutions for these things?

If I didn’t have enough reasons to weep for our nation’s future, this would be enough.

Biden Admin Disavows CRT Material Originally Included in Official School Reopening Guidance

After the Biden administration’s Department of Education was forced to walk back guidance on schools reopening that included counsel from critical race theory purveyors Abolitionist Teaching Network, the White House disavowed the group in a press briefing on Thursday.

‘Thinking’?
He’s brain dead, Jim.

Biden’s Wishful Thinking On Gun Control Reveals Its Weakness

It shouldn’t really come as a surprise that Joe Biden would like to ban semi-automatic handguns as well as modern sporting rifles, though it is somewhat shocking that Biden would admit his desire in front of a live television audience. Maybe the president forgot where he was, or perhaps he figured if he revealed his big secret on CNN few people would be watching and paying attention, but either way, Biden’s remarks are getting a lot of traction in conservative media today.

I’m the only guy that ever got passed legislation, when I was a senator, to make sure we eliminated assault weapons. The idea you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon, whether — whether it’s a .9 millimeter pistol or whether it’s a rifle, is ridiculous.

I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things. But I’m not likely to get that done in the near term. So here’s what I’ve done. The people who, in fact, are using those weapons are acquiring them illegally. Illegally.

And so what happens is, I’ve got the ATF… Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms, I have them increased their budget, increased their capacity along with the Justice Department, to go after the gun shops that are not abiding by the law and doing background checks. For real.

Biden’s right that he’s not likely to get a gun ban “done” in the near term. He’s also apparently forgotten that the Supreme Court has said that bans on classes of firearms like handguns violates the Constitution. Maybe he should read up on the Heller decision and skip his afternoon nap today. Even before the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns, however, the vast majority of the country never considered taking such a step. D.C. banned handguns in 1976, the same year voters in Massachusetts rejected a statewide ban on pistols. Chicago and a couple of its suburbs imposed their own handgun ban in the early 1980s, but the idea never really caught on in even the most Democrat-dominated cities.

The president isn’t just out of step with most Americans in his anti-gun extremism, he’s lying to them by demonizing federal firearms licensees and blaming them for the actions of criminals.

Continue reading “”

Facebook Flags the Name of a Gardening Tool When Used in a Gardening Group

The Biden White House leans on Facebook to censor your speech online if what you say goes against what the Biden White House wants you to say.

This is not a conspiracy theory. It’s a fact. Let’s see how well Facebook handles the very sensitive topic of policing even non-political speech in a nation that’s built on the principle that speech must be free, and where people have wide varieties of interests that may fall outside Silicon Valley’s collective experiences.

Facebook flagged the word hoe in a gardening group.

Oh. No. They censored “hoe.”

Wait ’til they figure out what people do with certain emojis…

A group called WNY Gardeners has been repeatedly flagged by the social network for “violating community standards,” when its more than 7,500 members discussed the long-handled bladed implement, which is spelled with an “e,” unlike the offensive term.

When one member commented “Push pull hoe!” on a post about preferred weeding tools, Facebook sent a notification that read, “We reviewed this comment and found it goes against our standards for harassment and bullying,” a moderator said.

This is funny and would be a lot funnier if the Biden White House hadn’t deputized Facebook to chase you and me around on its platform if we post something the regime doesn’t like. But it has.

Dumb White House plus dumb censors = a major problem.

Yesterday I tried to share a graphic on Facebook that said factually true things that are not in dispute. Facebook gave me a little warning as I was posting, as if to flash a yellow light, warning me to slow down and think about whether I really want to speak against the regime.

I posted it anyway and headlined it noting that Facebook tried to slow it down. I am both an American and a Texan.

Back to the hoe scandal. Facebook said it would put more humans on the task, supposedly to avoid censoring hoes and the like. That’s not a comfort to any thinking individual.

The extra set of eyes did not prevent a subsequent post in the group from being automatically disabled because of “possible violence, incitement, or hate in multiple comments,” Licata said.

“Kill them all. Drown them in soapy water,” and “Japanese beetles are jerks,” were some comments Facebook deemed offensive, according to the moderator.

(Eyeroll.)

Japanese beetles are jerks.

Japanese beetles are a serious pest of flowers, trees and shrubs, fruits and vegetables, field crops and turf.

That’s not me talking. That’s the University of Minnesota. Whoever wrote that will be hauled in for sensitivity training any minute now.

We live in a time in which some dopey scientist out there wants us all to mind the feelings of sharks, and the stupid mainstream media doesn’t laugh him straight off the nearest pier.

Remember; he has the launch codes.

How does he not know this is completely untrue?
He’s brain dead, that’s how.

Question:
When will children under 12 be able to get ‘vaccinated’?
Answer:
Duuuuuuuhhhh