Inside Trump's wildly exaggerated 'help' for black voters

According to a report from Newsweek, the leadership of various GOP county committees are attempting to convince Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to give a thumbs-up to an audit of the 2020 presidential election ballots despite the fact that Donald Trump already claimed over 51 percent of the vote.

Following on the heels of the audit of the votes in Maricopa County in Arizona which, in the end, handed President Joe Biden more votes, Republicans in Florida want an audit of their own.

According to the report, the Republican Party of Lake County, Florida is demanding a recount, and claimed in a statement, "The Lake County, Florida Republican Party unanimously approved five resolutions to send to all Florida State legislators demanding legislative actions to improve election integrity. Many voters of all parties are angry at the findings of election fraud around the states and this is the first action responding to constant Republican concerns about election integrity in Florida."

According to Rep. Anthony Sabatini (R) who has filed a bill "...seeking to have the legislature review the election," it has nothing to do with the reported vote totals.

"It's not about margin of victory," Sabatini explained. "The fact is that people want total verification of the election results. They want an independent review of the votes."

Lake County Republican Chair Walter Price said the impetus for the audit is based upon "research" conducted by MyPlliow CEO Mike Lindell.

"Some of that information in that research originated from some of that research that Mike Lindell was doing," Price stated. "So that's part of the reason. There's a lot of statistical anomalies that just jump out."

The report adds that Price demurred when asked if he thought Biden won the election.

You can read more here.

When it comes to climate change, the point of no return has already passed.

This article first appeared at Salon.

That is the message of a new report published in the esteemed scientific journal Environmental Research Letters. It paints a picture of a future Earth in which, regardless of actions taken today, hundreds of millions of people will be displaced from their homes by rising sea levels. The carbon dioxide emissions already released into our atmosphere will linger for hundreds of years, warming the oceans and thus causing sea levels to rise. The only question now is whether the damage can be limited.

The answer, according to the report, is yes — but humans will need to take specific, drastic actions as soon as possible.

"Meeting the most ambitious goals of the Paris Climate Agreement will likely reduce exposure by roughly half and may avoid globally unprecedented defense requirements for any coastal megacity exceeding a contemporary population of 10 million," the authors write. (The report was co-written by Benjamin H. Strauss and Scott A. Kulp of Climate Central, DJ Rasmussen of Princeton University and German scientist Ander Levermann.) The long-term goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit the mean increase in global temperatures to no more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Even if that happens, however, oceans will continue to swell, meaning there will be millions upon millions of drenched city dwellers.

"Roughly 5 percent of the world's population today live on land below where the high tide level is expected to rise based on carbon dioxide that human activity has already added to the atmosphere," Strauss told AFP. With roughly 7.8 billion human beings alive today, this means approximately 390 million currently live on land that will be under the high tide level as a result of climate change.

That said, reducing the temperature rise is crucial, experts say. If Earth's average temperature increases by even half a degree Celsius, an extra 200 million people will be vulnerable to the effects of sea level rise and increased storm surges. Each successive degree only increases the damage, as sea levels progressively rise and thereby displace more people.

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.

In the report, the scientists offer detailed projections for the 20 most-affected large countries (those with at least 25 million people) in terms of the percentages of their populations that currently occupy land below high tide lines based on different warming scenarios. If the planet merely warms by 1.5°C, 2.8 percent of the population of the United States could be directly impacted. Increase that by half a degree, and suddenly 5.9 percent of Americans could deal with rising sea levels. If it goes up by 3°C or 4°C, 7.9 percent or 9.9 percent of the American population could see rising sea levels where they live.

Things will be particularly bad in New York City, where officials are already considering sea walls and other measures to fortify its population against rising sea levels. Even under the most ambitious Paris Agreement target, land will fall under the high tide line that is currently home to 6.7 percent of the population. At 2°C, that rises to 13 percent; at 3°C, it reaches 19 percent; and at 4°C, it hits 28 percent.

The most vulnerable region, however, is Asia. Nine of the ten megacities at the highest risk are on that continent, and many of the countries with the starkest projections are also located there. The jump from 1.5°C to 2°C makes the difference, in Vietnam and Bangladesh, between more or less than half of their total populations living below the high tide line. If the planet's temperature rises to 4°C above pre-industrial levels, more than 60 percent of those nations' populations could fall below the high tide line. More than 30 percent of the populations of Egypt, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Japan and Myanmar would also suffer that fate in a scenario where the temperature rises by more than 4°C.

Climate Central has also released visual illustrations of how prominent American landmarks will look after sea level rises. Almost all of the land around the Statue of Liberty National Monument will be submerged, as will the area surrounding Space Center Houston. Yet these and other major landmarks would almost certainly have to be abandoned long before sea levels rose that high, as there will be an increase in heavy rainfalls and storm surges.

According to a report from the Washington Post, the daughter of the founder of the Publix grocery store chain who helped finance the Jan 6th rally that turned into a riot at the Capitol, also spread more of her money to the nonprofit arm of the Republican Attorneys General Association to be used to promote the rally.

The report goes on to state that Julie Jenkins Fancelli's $150,000 contribution was " intended in part to promote the rally. The nonprofit organization paid for a robocall touting a march that afternoon to the U.S. Capitol to 'call on Congress to stop the steal.'"

The revelation about the contribution comes as a House select committee is looking into the events of the day and Donald Trump's possible involvement as rioters forced lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to flee for their lives.

According to the new report, the wealthy Trump donor, "gave the previously undisclosed contribution to RAGA's nonprofit Rule of Law Defense Fund, or RLDF, records reviewed by The Washington Post show. On the same day, the records show that Fancelli gave $300,000 to Women for America First, the 'Stop the Steal' group that obtained a permit for the rally featuring former president Donald Trump."

The leaders of Women for America First have been subpoenaed by the committee and are being scrutinized for their part in possibly fomenting the riot and the revelation about the $150,000 donation will likely open up a new line of inquiry for investigators.

"We have many questions about coordination and funding, and we are actively seeking records and testimony that will answer those questions," said committee spokesman Tim Mulvey. "Many witnesses are already engaging with the committee, and we expect cooperation to help us get the answers we're seeking."

The Post notes that inquiries to Fancelli -- who is reportedly not involved in the family's business -- went unanswered and it is not known if she was aware exactly how the money would be spent.

You can read more here.