The issue mentioned below about calling witnesses (supoena power by Republicans) is not granted under Pelosi’s resolution. So NOT like the majority offered rights to the minority during Nixon and during Clinton. Here is another example of Schiff’s almost Soviet style circus show. Rep. Jim Jordan is now telling us that Adam Schiff is blocking the witness from answering specific questions from Republicans (RIGHT SCOOP):
NEW: Rep. Jim Jordan says Adam Schiff has blocked Republican questions that could lead to the unmasking of the whistleblower. pic.twitter.com/QBk3xxXNKi
If this is truly an open and fair process, both sides should be able to ask questions of the witnesses, and Adam Schiff should not be preventing witnesses from answering questions or stopping Republicans from asking questions. This is clearly not a fair process. “This has been a tainted process from the start,” Scalise said. “What happened today confirms even worse just how poorly Adam Schiff is handling this process, denying the ability for Republicans to even ask basic questions that are critical to the heart of whether or not a President of the United States is impeached.”
After showing some TWEETS by Sean Davis and Byron York, RED STATE sums up the resolution by Nancy Pelosi well:
Someone point out to me how this changes anything. The chair is Adam Schiff. The resolution gives him sole authority to release transcripts. All this does is legitimize his selective leaking. Now he can release excerpts as he sees fit without having to shovel them through CNN. If a testimony helps Donald Trump, he can simply hold it back and no doubt he will (I have a story tomorrow coming about Schiff instructing witnesses not to answer the questions of Republican members).
But maybe he’s giving subpoena power to the minority party like Republicans did during the Clinton impeachment investigation? Nope. Adam Schiff once again garners full authority to veto any requested witnesses or subpoenas and the only appeal is to the entire committee, which is majority Democrat and will always vote to back up Schiff. Again, nothing has changed.
Nearly every single anti-transparency dynamic Republicans have pointed out still exists, just with prettier language around it. This resolution is window dressing. It’s an attempt to shovel fodder to the media, knowing they will now proclaim all Republican concerns moot. The fact that some conservatives are going along with the gambit is disappointing.
Republicans aren’t asking for a lot. We simply want to see the transcripts. We want to be able to judge the contradictions, context, and any possible evidence for ourselves. Adam Schiff being the arbiter of that is not acceptable and as long as that dynamic exists, this inquiry will continue to be a sham.
Just to catch you up on some hometown news. Our “alcoholic, pot-addled throuple-threat young-underling-seducer Katie Hill (who attacked Lindsey Graham for defending Brett Kavanaugh by asking, “What are you afraid of? what’s in your past?”) – has resigned from Congress, after a failed “hail Mary pass” to join the “Squad.” I imagine her Democrat minders asked some simple questions, the first being “Are there more of these photos that will eventually pop-up?” I can only imagine her reply as, “This is just the ‘tip’ of the iceberg.”
(LANGUAGE and Theme Warning) WHY do I say “sexual predator”? Because she has a position of authority over others and they may feel pressured into doing things they may otherwise not consent to in order to keep their job. Or that is what I would hear if this were a male GOP member. I wonder… I mean… this could be Katie Hill speaking (or thinking it and acting on it in some way):
Donald J. Trump (Katie Hill): You know and …
Unknown: She used to be great. She’s still very beautiful.
Donald J. Trump (Katie Hill): I moved on her, actually. You know, she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it.
Unknown: Whoa.
Donald J. Trump (Katie Hill): I did try and fuck her. She was married.
Unknown:That’s huge news.
Donald J. Trump (Katie Hill): No, no, Nancy. No, this was [unintelligible] — and I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping.
She wanted to get some furniture. I said, “I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.” I took her out furniture —
I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.
Trump bragged about it (and probably over-exaggerated like he does a lot) — Katie Hill actually did it (in some form at tax-payer expense).
CALIFORNIA POLITICAL REVIEW summarizes the RED STATE article exposing Katie Hill for just another swamp creature using tax payer money for sexual flings that if a Republican male would be front-page news. (NOQ also posted on this.)
Is Democrat Congresswoman Katie Hill a #MeToo Sexual Predator? Photos say YES
The story is simple. A 30 year old woman, Congresswoman to be Katie Hill, and her husband take in a 22 year old girl that just graduated from College. The man and the woman have been married for several years, with the woman a leading candidate for Congress. The woman, Katie Hill, the openly bi-sexual, now member of Congress.
While running for Congress she puts the young girl on campaign staff. Then, when elected, the girl is put on the congressional staff. As part of her “duties” for the Congresswoman Katie Hill AND her husband, she has sex with them—all over the place. They travel the country finding new beds and locations. But Hill, as the picture shows, wants to make sure the girl has nice looking hair. While naked, Hill brushes the girls’ hair. But, note the girl is very disinterested—she is looking at her Smartphone.
Men have been destroyed for much less. Former Congressman Joe Barton had to leave Congress because he took nude selfies—but he is a Republican. What did Katie Hill do?
Took a series of sexual photos in a threesome with a staff member.
Used tax dollars to finance her sexual life with a young girl.
Appears to be a sexual predator, #MeToo, using her position to get a girl in bed with her AND her husband
Determine how much in tax dollars was used for salaries and travels by the threesome to finance sexual escapades.
It is time for the Ethics Committee of Congress to investigate this matter. It is time for Alyssa Milano and the rest of the #MeToo industry to demand the resignation of Democrat Congresswoman Katie Hill. I would hope that House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy would lead this effort to remove Hill from Congress. I would expect the California Republican Party to demand her resignation. Will District newspapers also ask her to leave?
P.S. Katie Hill is no longer having sex with the young girl–instead she is now having an affair with a male STAFFER! How much is that costing the taxpayers? …..
RED STATE has MUCH MORE about Katie Hill… here is a taste:
According to the text messages reviewed, after Hill left the throuple Heslep was told “by numerous sources” that Hill had been involved in a sexual relationship for a year with her then-finance director, now Legislative Director, Graham Kelly. In a post on his now-deleted Facebook account, Heslep posted a screenshot of a text message between himself and a friend of the couple in which the friend admits that he now knows about the Hill/Kelly affair.
Someone decided to add the humor into the above from a SCV Community site. But before viewing it, one must know why this was done. See my post entitled:
Between 50 and 70 members of the US Army Delta Force and Rangers flew in on six helicopters and surrounded al-Baghdadi during the overnight raid in Syria’s Idlib province, an official source told Fox News.
The JAMES FOLEY FOUNDATION released the following statement on Twitter about Bagdadi’s death: “I am grateful to our President and brave troops for finding ISIS leader Al-Bagdadi. I hope this will hinder the resurgence of terror groups and pray that captured ISIS fighters will be brought to trial and held accountable.”
The DAILY MAIL has the story that my wife pointed out was similar to the THREE AMIGOS (following headline).
‘He died like a dog’ Donald Trump addresses the nation and confirms that ‘coward’ ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed by U.S. Special Forces and died ‘whimpering and crying and screaming’ after being cornered inside his Syrian lair and detonated his suicide vest
Donald Trump announced Sunday morning that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead
U.S.-led forces descended on al-Baghdadi’s lair in Idlib, Syria overnight
The president said al-Baghdadi ‘died like a dog’ after being run down a dead-end tunnel and cornered
Baghdadi detonated his suicide vest, killing himself and three of his children
Eleven children were cleared from the lair
Baghdadi’s two wives were killed during the operation without their suicide vests being detonated
Trump teased Saturday night that he would be making a ‘major statement’
Al-Baghdadi issued a chilling call to arms in 2014 declaring an Islamic ‘caliphate’
Under his leadership, smaller-scale higher-frequency attacks became the norm
Trump says he does not regret pulling U.S. forces from northern Syria
NED NEDERLANDER: “Tell us, ‘we will die like dogs’.”
EL GUAPO: “What?”
NED NEDERLANDER: “Tell us, ‘we will die like dogs’.”
EL GUAPO: “You will die like dogs.”
DUSTY BOTTOMS: “No we will not die like dogs! We will fight like lions! Because we are!…”
NED NEDERLANDER, LUCKY DAY & DUSTY BOTTOMS: “The Three Amigos!”
Inside the raid that killed al-Baghdadi: ISIS leader detonated suicide vest as US Army Delta Force and Rangers closed in on his lair in overnight firefight
Major ISIS target, believed to be Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, reportedly killed in Syria
Between 50 and 70 members of the US Army Delta Force and Rangers flew in on six helicopters and conducted Sunday’s overnight raid in Syria’s Idlib province
Al-Baghdadi is believed to have detonated a suicide vest as forces closed in
Unverified video showed the moment he was killed, along with his three children
President Donald Trump held a morning press conference on Sunday and confirmed al-Baghdadi ‘died like a dog’ in the extended firefight
Defense Secretary Mark Esper said there were two minor injuries to US soldiers after Trump indicated that a US K-9 was injured
Al-Baghdadi issued a chilling call to arms in 2014 declaring an Islamic ‘caliphate’
Under his leadership, smaller-scale higher-frequency attacks became the norm
Trump said Al-Baghdadi was surveilled for a few weeks before the raid
Below you will see in my upload (3rd video below), that it is true that the witnesses the Democrats call are refuting their narrative. EVEN WITHOUT REPUBLICANS calling witnesses of their own. So while the total count on the committees are 58 Democrat and 47 Republicans — the Founders set it up for the entire House to be involved. And as you will see, the inquiry has begun last week (again, 3rd video).
And when they are allowed to cross examine (the Democrats often times stop this from happening by shift which committee is handling the interview, or making it an Intel case), QUID PRO QUO is not crossing the witnesses lips:
REP. RATCLIFFE: Ambassador Taylor again today I found him to be forthright. He had very strong opinions on Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy. But again the mainstream media reporting that he provided evidence of a quid pro quo involving military aid is false. I questioned him directly on that. Under Adam Schiff’s rules I can’t tell you what he said but I can tell you what he didn’t say. Neither he or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aide was being withheld. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo!
I put together a “collage” of issues detailing why Republicans would “STORM” these secretive — nonConstitutional — hearings in order to try and make them public. Public. They are not trying to cover up anything, they are trying to make it fair and open. You would think the media would flock to this idea… however they are not. What follows are talking heads, politicians, and the like discussing and clarifying the issues.
Here is a person intimately involved in the process during the Clinton process in the house, Newt Gingrich. His NEWSWEEK article is excellent!
…two very different approaches can be seen in the voting pattern in the House. In November 1973, the House voted to fund the investigation into President Richard Nixon on a bipartisan 367-51 vote. By February 1974, everyone was so convinced that Rodino was being fair and nonpartisan that the resolution to conduct a formal investigation passed 410-4.
[….]
The result of our openness was that a substantial number of Democrats continued to vote with us on the procedures despite intense pressure from the White House and outside groups. In September 1998, the House voted to release the Starr report by 363-63 (nine failed to vote). Among Democrats, 138 voted to proceed in a fair way, and only 63 voted against investigating President Clinton.
Think about that. In 1998, we carried House Democrats by better than 2:1 to investigate President Clinton.
In the current atmosphere—with the dishonest, one-sided rigged game, and indeed, an obvious liar as chair of the investigation—can you imagine two-thirds of the House Republicans voting with Pelosi and Schiff for a witch hunt conducted under totally partisan rules?
Everyone who is interested in better understanding how fair people used judicial standards and basic fairness in 1973 and 1998 should read former Congressman and current Judge Jim Rogan’s personal history of the process in an important book: Catching Our Flag: Behind the Scenes of a Presidential Impeachment.
It will make crystal clear that the current partisan actions are a complete sham.
Mark Levin had an excellent dressing down of Jake Tapper from CNN regarding his recent commentary on the GOP “STORMING” the sham process the Democrats are calling an impeachment inquiry. Levin plays audio of Jake Tapper discussing the impeachment issue of the recent “STORMING” of the sham process the Democrats have made the vaunted impeachment inquiry. The GOP, mind you, merely wants the process in the public with the same rights afforded to Trump as were afforded to Nixon and Clinton. You would assume the media want the same thing… but in fact they are supporting the “Star Chamber” like process.
What kind of issues might the GOP regarding witnesses they would call up? Hunter Biden maybe? Joe Biden? Bill Taylor… in cross-examination? Maybe on the following snippet from ACE OF SPADES?
Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, who provided key testimony to the Democrats’ controversial impeachment inquiry yesterday, has evidenced a close relationship with the Atlantic Council think tank, even writing Ukraine policy pieces with the organization’s director and analysis articles published by the Council.
The Atlantic Council is funded by and works in partnership with Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.
In addition to a direct relationship with the Atlantic Council, Taylor for the last nine years also served as a senior adviser to the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), which has co-hosted events with the Atlantic Council and has participated in events co-hosted jointly by the Atlantic Council and Burisma.
Meanwhile, a search of government records reveals that Joe Biden intervened with both the DHS and the DOJ on behalf of Graft Hunter’s clients.
Joe Biden privately contacted the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice when he was a senior and influential U.S. senator to discuss issues that his son Hunter’s firm was being paid to lobby on, according to government records.
On at least two occasions, Biden contacted federal departments to discuss issues related to Hunter’s firm’s lobbying clients, according to records reviewed by the Washington Examiner.
…
Government records show that Biden, who has always insisted he knows nothing about his son’s business activities, helped Hunter’s work with strategic and highly specific interventions that could have benefited his son to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars….
If the hearing was fair and honest… the Democrats know they would lose the public confidence. Hence the secrecy. Even with the Republicans — with biased rules, are prevailing when allowed to cross examine.
More Video Fodder
After Rep. Adam Schiff read a false version of President Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Zelensky and claimed it to be parody, Larry decides to do a little investigating into why the Congressman is so confident in the whistleblower, whether he had contact with him, and whether the whistleblower actually had firsthand knowledge of the call. Larry also takes a look into why the whistleblower process requirement for firsthand knowledge was mysteriously removed.
With the NBA in a tough spot over their condemnation of Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey’s tweet supporting Hong Kong protests, Larry looks into coaches Brian Kerr, Greg Popovich, and player Lebron James and how they are quick to criticize President Trump and comment on other political issues in the US, but are reluctant to criticize China for any of its human rights abuses. Larry thinks one sports commentator knows the reason why.
PART 1
After Lebron James lambasted Daryl Morey for supporting Hong Kong protesters, Larry decides to look into one of the NBA’s biggest issues: fatherless households. He cites a number of well-known figures about the issue that he says faces not only NBA players but America’s black community in general.
PART 2
Larry Elder does a great job (in two segments) of showing the incredible hypocrisy of the NBA, China’s Orwellian fruition of it’s use of technology to keeps it’s communist regime in power. A must listen to excoriation of the issue with professional sports. Here is the CNN article Larry was reading from: “CHINA’S CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY YOU’VE NEVER HEARD OF“.
John Solomon gives an example of evidence showing Hunter Biden and his father’s involvement in corruption and the media saying it is poppycock:
VANITY FAIR MAGAZINE in May noted some of the following… it shows that this story PRE-DATES Trump, and, is a “truism” as Left and Right (pundits/columnists) have written about it. This is an excerpt from the Vanity Fair article:
Times reporter Ken Vogel, presumably seeking to pre-empt accusations of water-carrying, explained on Twitter that the paper’s interest in the subject predates Trump. “TO BE CLEAR: Independent of @RudyGiuliani’s efforts, the intersection of @JoeBiden & HUNTER BIDEN in Ukraine warrants scrutiny,” he said, noting that the Times had begun reporting on the Burisma story in 2015. Some within the Obama State Department, too, were concerned with the appearance of impropriety, or the possibility that Hunter’s business could complicate his father’s diplomatic efforts. (“I have had no role whatsoever in relation to any investigation of Burisma, or any of its officers,” Hunter Biden told the Times in a statement. “I explicitly limited my role to focus on corporate governance best practices to facilitate Burisma’s desire to expand globally.”)
In Peter Schweizer’s March (2019) book, “Secret Empires,” he shows many of these connections… and JOE BIDEN HIMSELF admitted it in an open forum:
And the four Democrat Congressmen threatened the Ukraine more than Trump EVER has (via MARC THEISSEN):
Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”
So, it’s okay for Democratic senators to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump, but it’s not okay for the president to allegedly encourage Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?
(For a person to say the following Biden dirty business dealings didn’t happen is to ignore Left and Right — and Joe Biden’s own admission. Hunter Biden went into business with John Kerry’s step-son, and Whitey Bulger’s nephew. The deal in the Ukraine became so shady that John Kerry’s step-son cut business ties with him due to drugs and corruption: https://tinyurl.com/y232e6mk)
How are “Trump haters” different from “Trump critics?” How is the Resistance different from past political movements? What are the long-term implications of its activities? And how are the media involved?
And, how can the Trump “impeachment inquiry” be seen as the latest chapter of the Resistance’s efforts?
This is American Thought Leaders??, and I’m Jan Jekielek.
Today we sit down with Kim Strassel, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board and a prominent political commentator. She was the recipient of the Bradley Prize in 2014, and she writes the Journal’s long-running “Potomac Watch” column.
This particular update comes by way of PJ-MEDIA, and has an example of a Democrat candidates (plural) running for the 2020 nomination for his party. Here are some examples:
…And yes, it appears that the Menstrual Equity Act is a real thing. H.R. 1882, otherwise known as the Menstrual Equity For All Act of 2019. Apparently Beto thinks women across America have never heard of a pharmacy. Oh but wait, this absurd legislation isn’t just for women! According to GovTrack, this legislation will “increase the availability and affordability of menstrual hygiene products for individuals with limited access, and for other purposes.”
Individuals. Because men have periods too! Duh! Beto may not have gotten that memo, but Cory Booker and Julián Castro did. …
Here is the bit by Julian Castro that got those who love science scratching their heads:
On Wednesday, during the Democratic presidential debate, Julian Castro, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under former President Barack Obama, decided biological men should be given the same rights to an abortion as biological women, stating, “Let’s also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise that right to choose.”
Trans females are biological men who claim identity as women.
Castro’s answer was triggered by NBC News’ Lester Holt, who asked, “Secretary Castro, this one is for you. All of you on stage support a woman’s right to an abortion. You all support some version of a government health care option. Would your plan cover abortion, Mr. Secretary?”
Castro answered, “Yes, it would. I don’t believe only in reproductive freedom, I believe in reproductive justice. And, you know, what that means is that just because a woman — or let’s also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise that right to choose. And so I absolutely would cover the right to have an abortion.”…
One comment from a Facebook post noted the “obvious,” (lol)
Why are MEN advocating for this??? That’s nothing less than gender appropriation! (TM) What’s more, it’s absolutely unacceptable male privilege! (TM) HOW DARE THEY! (sarc)
Here is the earlier post on the topic (posted May 2017)
I had to laugh at this… but it is sad at the same time that (a) people think this is a normal thing, and (b) watching this little girl struggle with the FACT that a man could never menstruate or have periods (cramps, mood swings, headaches, tender breasts, bloating, various food cravings, etc). Apparently she even did a Google search on the topic… how much do you want to bet this household leans progressively left. She seemed truly disappointed there was not a way to make a man menstruate [which will never happen — just like a vagina is not made out of a man’s penis.]
This should be combined with the lunacy exemplified in this recent story:
Brown University’s student body president will be hand-delivering menstrual products to all nonresidential bathrooms on campus, including men’s rooms, with the help of 20 other students.
The initiative is intended to communicate the message that “pads and tampons are a necessity, not a luxury,” and that not all people who menstruate are women.
L&T notes this in his post: “The movement in the ‘Trans-‘” world is a bubble. The bubble is a dome of protection that guards you from truth, facts, and anything that makes you feel any slight discomfort.”
Here is the girls video that is attempting to help men with sex-changes to have “periods.” And note this girls struggle to not find anything online saying a man could menstruate, even after the mutilation done to his body.
Women use tampons to — essentially — remove blood in a controlled manner as to not ruin clothes, stay dry, and the like. NOW people will be inserting blood to simulate what my wife tells me is a hassle that allows for the miracle of life.
Like Life & Times, I am a Christian, and so have a religious matrix I view this topic through. But this should be just as black-and-white to the atheist evolutionist. That is, it has taken millions of years of survival-of-the-fittest to hone through natural selection and population growth the ability to procreate… the menstrual cycle being a part of that. Of course I don’t think the irreducible complexity of such a thing could ever be cobbled together by chance. That is another argument for another time. But assuming the sexes and reason for them from a strictly evolutionary and biological viewpoint should be just as perplexing [absolute] to those people.
Science tells us that universe came into being via The Big Bang. But how do you get from energy and matter to a self-aware human being? That takes three additional Big Bangs that science can’t explain. Noted theologian, Frank Pastore (who died in a motorcycle accident a few years ago… he will be missed), unravels this compelling mystery and, in the process, poses the ultimate question that every thinking person must face.
My wife and I were readying for a cruise to Hawaii, and I knew I was going to be doing A LOT of walking — which was an issue for me. Why? Because at the end of 2014 I broke my ankle, leg, and fractured my knee. I was out of work essentially for three years, when they removed my “tightrope,” a good portion of my chronic pain went away and I could function better. (I am a driver now as I cannot stand on my feet for ten hours a day any-longer.)
I listen (while I drive) to talk radio, and I heard advertisements for RELIEF FACTOR’S 3-WEEK QUICK START. I figured, I can try it or bring this cane I just bought with me when I get bad. So I splurged and took that a week prior and during the two-week cruise. Dammit all if it didn’t work!. I felt really good and could walk much better and could be on my feet longer. As much I say it is a miracle mix from nature… it is too expensive for me to buy monthly (essentially 80-dollars a month).
So I got on Walmart’s app and found the ingredients for 80-dollars for two-months (click to enlarge) and have em shipped to me:
I take one pill of each of the above, twice-a-day. It helps I am sure my Multiple Sclerosis as well (because it is a natural anti-inflammatory mix — if I could afford it, I would add a small CBD-oil pill in the mix). I make packs with the little 3″ baggies from the craft area at Walmart, which include a multi-vitamin for men that I can take two-of during the day (making my own packets a convenient mix), as well as creatine (Why? Read This Article). HOWEVER, this can be time consuming… so if you can afford it and wish for convenience — I would get RELIEF FACTOR.
EDITOR’S RANT: I just think it is sad that people do not realize — in general — that we have been warming for 10,000 years [assuming the broadly accepted ages of geology and the ice-age]. I mean, sea levels stood 350 to 400 feet lower than today — 10,000 years ago. If you run the numbers (see: ICE-AGE NOW), you’ll find that sea levels have been rising an average of .42 to .48 inches (just under half-an-inch) per year for the past 10,000 years. Rising sea levels have been the norm, in other words, for 10,000 years. (Here is a short video of 4-climate guys discussion the issues: YOUTUBE).
“In a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing on climate change, under questioning by Mo Brooks, Alabama District Five, four members of a bipartisan panel of climate science experts all admitted that humans are not responsible for the Earth’s global warming that has occurred over the past 20,000 years,” Limbaugh stated. “Why the past twenty thousand years? Because that is when the Earth’s last glacial maximum occurred. The point is… well the points are these: average global temperatures were roughly eleven degrees Fahrenheit colder than they are today, 20,000 years ago. Stated differently, global temperatures have risen on average, one half a degree Fahrenheit every one hundred years for the past twenty thousand years. Sea levels, sea levels were roughly four hundred and ten feet lower 20,000 years ago than they are today. This is according to the United States Geological Survey, which the global warming crowd loves and cites often. Stating this a different way, sea levels have risen on average roughly two feet per century over the past 20,000 years— roughly double the global warming advocates’ claimed average sea level rise of one foot per century since 1993.” (RUSH)
Also this article has some good “average” information: “Climate Alarmists Foiled: No U.S. Warming Since 2005” (REAL CLEAR ENERGY)
When American climate alarmists claim to have witnessed the effects of global warming, they must be referring to a time beyond 14 years ago. That is because there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005, according to updated data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)…
[….]
…There is also good reason to believe U.S. temperatures have not warmed at all since the 1930s. Raw temperature readings at the preexisting stations indicate temperatures are the same now as 80 years ago. All of the asserted U.S. warming since 1930 is the product of the controversial adjustments made to the raw data. Skeptics point out that as the American population has grown, so has the artificial warming signal generated by growing cities, more asphalt, more automobiles, and more machinery…
