I have been interested in drugs and athletic performance since I learned of “greenies.” Here’s a report on Marijuana and enhancement.
After the Presidential debate last night, I thought that Donald Trump had performed very poorly . He was making disagreeable facial gestures, interrupted often, misspoke and just missed opportunities to score points.
Prior to the debate, pundits were saying that Trump had to improve his presidential bearing. Apparently, it is Hillary Clinton who comes across as smug and as a candidate who offers nothing new and new is what is needed.
Here are the polls:
Majority of snap polls show Trump won debate by a landslide despite CNN’s overwhelming victory for Hillary in biggest official survey
- CNN’s snap poll gave Clinton the win with 62 per cent to Trump’s 27
- But most of the others reported Trump was the winner by a landslide
- The pair engaged in a vigorous back-and-forth at Hofstra University
- Here, we present the results from snap polls conducted after the debate
CNN awarded Hillary Clinton an overwhelming victory in the first presidential debate – but most snap polls show Trump emerged victorious.
Trump and Clinton tangled over the economy, her use of a private mail server and his unwillingness to release his income tax returns on Monday night.
They engaged in a vigorous back-and-forth on the debate stage at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, as polls showed them locked in a tight race.
However, after the debate’s end, polls conducted by a number of media websites showed their readers felt the real estate mogul came out on top.
Trump acknowledged the result, tweeting: ‘Wow, did great in the debate polls (except for @CNN – which I don’t watch). Thank you!’
CNN/ORC’s snap poll, gave Clinton the win with 62 per cent to Trump’s 27.
It was the biggest, and fastest, exercise conducted by an opinion polling firm.
The poll of 521 registered voters who watched the debate was a sample which the network warned leaned more Democratic than the average – starting the night with Clinton ahead 26 per cent among the sample.
And while it handed the victory overwhelmingly to Clinton, it was more mixed on whether the debate will make a difference, with 47 per cent saying it would not affect their vote, 34 per cent saying it moved them towards Clinton – and 18 per cent towards Trump.
Online polls carried out afterwards gave a different outcome – handing the title to Trump.
Such polls are self-selecting, and more likely to pick up the views of those who vote, although CNN’s study also reflected a similar bias.
The Drudge Report’s poll showed Trump fared better with 81.5 per cent of the vote to Clinton’s 18.5 while others, including Time, CBS New York and the Washington Times, also saw Trump win the vote.
Clinton edged out Trump in the Star Tribune’s poll and one conducted by NBC News.
Here are the some of the results from snap polls:
Hillary Clinton has had a series of blood clots and is on permanent blood thinners due to a probable blood disorder. These are dangerous drugs and this issue must be discussed during this campaign.
Hillary’s Priorities: Helping fellow blood-clot sufferers is not on the Agenda
Former Jacksonville Jaguars QB David Garrard has Crohn’s Disease. He’s raised money for the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America ($180,000 in one year), has visited children with the disease, and recently set up his ownfoundation to educate the public and assist fellow-sufferers.
The Michael J. Fox Foundation, now fifteen years old, distributes over $83 million each year to fund research on Parkinson’s Disease and increase public awareness.
Celebrities with serious diseases, simply by publicizing the fact, have saved lives by calling attention to the illness. There was a spike in testing for the BRACA 1 and 2 gene mutations associated with breast cancer after Angelina Jolie announced that she had the mutant gene and had undergone a double mastectomy.
In 1998, Hillary Clinton had a blood clot, a deep vein thrombosis, or venous thromboembolism (VTE). But the First Lady did not come forward with the information. Even staffers were told only that she had a sprained ankle. Hillary was eyeing Pat Moynihan’s Senate seat, and apparently felt that discussing the embolism would not help her campaign. In the fall of 2007, she changed her mind. Running for the nomination against Barack Obama and John Edwards, whose wife Elizabeth suffered from metastatic breast cancer, Hillary evidently decided that mentioning the health scare from nine years earlier might make her seem a little more sympathetic. So she confided the secret to a NY Daily Newsreporter.
But then she dropped the issue. Just as she had done nothing as First Lady or as a senator, she did nothing as Secretary of State and a member of the Obama Cabinet to increase public awareness of VTE.
The President shares Clinton’s lack of interest. As Beth Waldron, a VTE advocate and medical writer, notes:
President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget proposal included no funding at all to address VTE. By comparison, HIV/AIDS gets a $3.3 billion allocation. Breast cancer and cervical cancer (lumped together in a line item) are allocated $169 million. Both conditions are mentioned by name with dedicated funding line-items in the HHS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention budget. Yet in the CDC budget detail, there is not a single mention of VTE, which kills more Americans annually than both AIDS and female cancers combined.
How many Americans? The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 60,000 to 100,000 people die each year from VTE. About 900,000 men and women of all ages are diagnosed with it annually. This compares to about 21,000 diagnosed with ovarian cancer, 231,000 with breast cancer, and also 21,000 with HIV infections. Deaths from each, in 2014, were 14,000, 41,000, and 13,000 (from all causes) respectively.
So the 21,000 Americans who contract HIV-related infections annually are allocated $3.3 billion, while the 900,000 who experience blot clots get nothing.
“Most VTE, their complications, and nearly all deaths are preventable,” writes Waldron, and takes Clinton to task for not becoming a public advocate for victims of blood clots.
Clinton could have played a key role in changing that. [the lack of funding] Clinton’s first clot occurred when she was First Lady. Her second episode occurred the year she transitioned from the US Senate to the State Department. Her third VTE episode happened while she was Secretary of State. All of Clinton’s clots occurred while she held positions of great public influence. If at any of those junctures, she had stepped up to share her clotting experience, perhaps even become a VTE advocate and encouraged Congress or the President to increase funding, millions of lives could have potentially been positively impacted or saved.
In 2008 the Surgeon General called VTE “‘a major health problem, exacting a significant human and economic toll on the Nation.’ The report said few problems are as serious as VTE, yet there was low public awareness and clinician adherence to effective prevention and treatment strategies.”
But Hillary was not interested in saving lives. She was interested in becoming President. For the Clintons, it’s always about power and money.
Like David Garrard and Michael J. Fox, the Clintons have a foundation—with some 2,000 employees. But the non-profit organization, according to The Federalist,
distributed less than 6% of the $91.2 million it spent in 2014 in charitable grants, $5.2 million. Of the money spent on its own programs, by far the largest amount, $23.3 million, went to the Clinton Global Initiative. The CGI “exists to organize and produce a lavish annual meeting headlined by former president Bill Clinton, and characterized by the New York Times as a ‘glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities.’” Number two was the Clinton Presidential Library ($12.3 million) and number three the Clinton Climate Initiative ($8.3 million).
VTE sufferers, unfortunately, are mostly ordinary Americans without clout or deep pockets.
Beth Waldron also criticizes Dr. Lisa Bardack for misleading the public about anticoagulants. As every physician knows, they do not dissolve clots.
For the town-hall debate on Sunday, October 9, half of the questions will come from citizens, via Facebook. These will be selected by Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper.
Readers should ask Hillary Clinton some version of the following:
“You have suffered from three blood clots, or venous thromboembolisms. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that as many as 900,000 Americans are diagnosed with blood clots each year, and they kill between 60-100,000 men and women annually. If you are elected President, will you fund research to help find a cure for this disease and to help prevent it through public education?”
Readers can cite the conclusion of an article on the NIH website:
“Learning and understanding more about the burden and causes of VTE, and raising awareness among the public and healthcare providers through a comprehensive public health approach, has enormous potential to prevent and reduce death and morbidity from deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism throughout the U.S.”
President Obama sounds rather annoyed at blacks who aren’t panting for a Hillary Clinton presidency. In a stem-winder delivered to the Congressional Black Caucus on Saturday, Mr. Obama said he would consider it a “personal insult” if blacks didn’t back Mrs. Clinton in November and thus preserve his legacy. “My name might not be on the ballot, but our progress is on the ballot,” he insisted.
This wasn’t the first time the president has used a Congressional Black Caucus forum to scold black people for insufficient appreciation of his leadership. In 2011, after black lawmakers began criticizing the president’s lack of attention to the economic problems of the underclass, he told the group, “I expect all of you to march with me and press on,” adding that they should “stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying.” Some black commentators took umbrage at his tone.
“Funny, isn’t it, how Obama always gets the nerve to say shut up when he’s addressing a friendly audience?” wrote the Washington Post’s Courtland Milloy. “The unemployment rate among blacks stands at 16.7 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, up from 11.5 percent when Obama took office. By some accounts, black people have lost more wealth since the recession began than at any time since slavery. And Obama gets to lecture us?”
Five years later, the lectures continue while progress in the Obama era remains elusive to many blacks, which might explain the lack of black enthusiasm for a Democratic successor. By almost any traditional metric—homeownership, median incomes, labor participation, poverty—blacks are worse off today than they were at the start of Mr. Obama’s first term. The jobless rate for blacks has improved since 2009, but it’s improved even more for whites, which means the racial gap in unemployment has gotten wider.
Mr. Obama won 95% of the black vote in 2008 and 93% in 2012, election years that also saw record black turnout. Mrs. Clinton was never destined to duplicate that performance, but she’s struggling more than she thought she would with certain voting blocs. The black primary voters who powered her to the nomination over Bernie Sanders tended to be older. Mrs. Clinton, perhaps overconfident, spent much of the summer courting moderate Republicans instead of shoring up younger blacks who are more skeptical of establishment politicians and more likely to view third-party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein as viable alternatives.
There is little doubt that the former secretary of state will win a much larger percentage of the black vote than Donald Trump. What’s unknown is the total number of blacks who will show up at the polls without Barack Obama being on the ballot. Because the president’s economic record is so unimpressive, he’s relying on what Democrats have long relied on to fuel minority turnout: anger, fear, resentment and racial paranoia.
In his Saturday address, the president touted efforts to reduce the “mass incarceration” of blacks today, which he suggested stems from a racist criminal justice system rather than from disproportionately high black crime rates. And he voiced support for “ban the box” measures that prevent employers from asking job applicants about their criminal past, even though economic studies repeatedly have shown that these policies harm the job prospects of less skilled young black men. These are the kinds of issues that may excite the Democratic base but don’t necessarily benefit struggling black communities.
Mr. Obama also told his audience that Republicans are disenfranchising blacks by promoting voter ID laws, which he likened to having to “count bubbles in a bar of soap” during Jim Crow. In fact, a Gallup Poll published last month found that 95% of Republicans, 83% of independents and 63% of Democrats support a photo ID requirement for voting. So do 81% of whites and 77% of non-whites. Moreover, given that the black voter turnout rate in 2012 exceeded white turnout—including in those states with the strictest voter ID requirements—the GOP seems to be doing a very poor job of suppressing the black vote, if that is the objective.
The Democrats can’t run on the president’s track record with blacks, but what they do have going for them is an opponent in Donald Trump who may be the only politician in the country more unpopular than Hillary Clinton and by all indications eager to remain so. Mr. Trump’s recent return to the birther fever swamps is another signal that he is not merely uninterested in the black vote but may be hostile to it. Right now, Mr. Trump is more indispensable to Mrs. Clinton’s black outreach effort than the president.
Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor, is the author of “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (Encounter Books, 2014).
The bomb in the Chelsea section of New York City was close to my daughter’s apartment, too close. The vicious stabbings in St. Cloud Minnesota were close to my house, too close.
These terrorist attacks have some additional quality, they are the events that made it all real. Americans have shrugged off earlier attacks as our leaders have ignored them. The dead at Ft. Hood, for example, died in vain, as Obama called it a work place incident. Others don’t recognize the threat, but now people are aware and are scared. Even the dimwit DiBlasio, New York City’s Mayor, admitted that this was terrorism. The cat is out of the bag.
These slightly altered lyrics tell the tale:
Apologies to Buffalo Springfield
There’s something happening here
What it is ain’t exactly clear
There’s a man with a beard over there
Telling me I got to believe.
I think it’s time we wake up, children, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
There’s battle lines being drawn
We fought them there and now they’re here.
We’re right and they’re wrong
People are getting their guns
Getting resistance from leaders behind
I think it’s time we start, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
Now we pray for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
It’s not paranoia; it strikes deep.
Into your life islamophobia will creep
You’re called deplorable, its worse each day.
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better start, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
Stop, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
Stop, now, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
Start, children, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
From John Hinderaker at Powerlineblog.com.
“On record” meaning since the 1880s, i.e., the end of the Little Ice Age. The year is a long way from being over, but I will venture a guess that the alarmists will claim 2016, when in the books, was the hottest year evah. One problem, as we have pointed out many times, is that the books have been cooked.
The keeper of the U.S. temperature records is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is paid to be on board with global warming hysteria. How does NOAA stir up alarm? By changing the historic temperature record to make the past look cooler and the present warmer. Icecap explains:
NOAA shows July temperatures increasing at 1.0F per century since 1895, with 2012 tied with 1936 as the hottest July.
It looks like there could be a little global warming going on, right? But the temperatures reported by NOAA are not the ones that were actually recorded. This is what the same graph looks like, before NOAA’s “adjustments.”
Oops. No global warming. Icecap quantifies the impact of NOAA’s “adjustments.”
The actual raw temperature data they use to generate their graph, shows one tenth as much warming from 1895 to 2016, with 1901, 1936 and 1934 as the hottest years.
If 1895 is removed, there is no warming at all.
NOAA creates this warming by massively cooling the past. They got rid of the hot 1901 by cooling it 2.13 degrees. They cooled 1936 by by 1.13 degrees and cooled 1934 by 1.11 degrees. That is what it took to elevate 2012 to the hottest July.
Emphasis added. So NOAA’s “adjustments” increase global warming by 1,000%. Gosh! Why might they do that?
The claimed warming trend in the US is completely fake, and is altered by people at NOAA who are being paid to push the global warming agenda. Before they were paid to push anthropogenic warming, the very same people at NOAA (i.e. Tom Karl) knew that there was no US warming.
That was reported by the New York Times, before the Times understood how global warming hysteria could be used to augment the power of government.
These NOAA data relate to the U.S., which comprises only a tiny percentage of the Earth’s surface. But, as Icecap points out, the U.S. data are critical to the warmist cause:
The US makes up less than 10% of the land surface, but contains the majority of the high quality long term temperature monitoring stations for this planet. The global surface temperature record is a farce, which is why the US data is so important.
As I have said many times before, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming alarmism is not an honest scientific mistake. It is a fraud, perpetrated for the usual reasons–money and power.
Well, I would’ve been kicked out of this class for sure.
Three professors at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs are teaching a class called, “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age.” I know, I know. It sounds…horrid. But with the fall semester starting, the professors sent out an email to students signed up for the class, warning them that man-made climate change is NOT up for debate, and if they have a problem with that, they should probably just drop the class, losers.
“The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” the email states.
Translation: The entire course is based on a lie. A myth. A theory, which has been debunked time and time again. If you cannot accept that the class is based on lies, you shouldn’t be in the class. That’s what professors are telling students now. “Accept our lies or LEAVE!”
“Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,” the email continued. “If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next.”
The professors don’t want to be challenged. They don’t want to talk about how climate scientists consistently fudge the numbers. They don’t want to talk about how the U.S. government’s Global Historical Climate Network has adjusted numbers on temperature graphs. They don’t want to talk about how altering our behavior (our behavior– if you think John Kerry and Michael Moore will stop flying in their private jets and living in ginormous homes, you’re high) to reduce carbon emissions is stupid because it DOESN’T MAKE A FREAKING DIFFERENCE.
Liberals are famous for altering the argument to keep their agenda alive. Antarctic ice is increasing? That’s a BAD thing RUN FOR YOU LIVES!
I’m guessing they don’t want to talk about the crooked methodology climate alarmist John Cook used to arrive to his so called “scientific consensus.” Nope. They can’t have students stray from the groupthink narrative and actually think for themselves!
However, University Communications Director Tom Hutton doesn’t seem to have a problem with the professors’ letter, as students have other options and aren’t being forced to take the class against their will. If you want to be brainwashed, it’s totally voluntary.
“Humanities 3990 is a special topics course with multiple choices for students to take when fulfilling requirements,” he told the College Fix. “By clearly stating the class focus…the faculty are allowing students to choose if they wish to enroll in the course or seek an alternative. Additionally, the faculty who are leading the course have offered to discuss it with students who have concerns or differing opinions.”
Really? ‘Cause their letter literally reads, “If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course.” Doesn’t sound very open-minded to me.