Can Hillary Clinton Bring Us Better Weather?

Guest opinion by William L. Anderson

Not long ago, had someone run for President of the United States on a platform of creating better weather, both the media and the voters rightly would have rejected that candidate for the right reasons. Unfortunately, common sense now is turned upside down and the candidate who fails to promise better weather now is under fire for being “anti-science.”

In a recent campaign speech in Miami, Hillary Clinton declared that destruction caused by Hurricane Matthew was the product of “climate change,” as though the actions of this latest storm differed significantly from that of previous hurricanes. Claimed Clinton:

Right now the ocean is at or near record-high temperatures, and that contributed to the torrential rainfall and the flash flooding that we saw in the Carolinas. Sea levels have already risen about a foot, one foot, in much of the southeast, which means that Matthew’s storm surge was higher, and the flooding was worse.

The idea that “torrential rains” during a hurricane are unusual ignores history. When Camille slammed into the Gulf Coast in 1969 as a Category 5 hurricane, killing more than 250 people and later dumping 32 inches of rainfall into the James River watershed in Virginia, no one claimed that this superstorm was human-caused.

In 1935, the strongest storm ever to hit the U.S. mainland, the Labor Day Hurricane, brought record winds and more than 400 deaths, and it brought more destruction than Matthew ever caused, but no one claimed it was the result of “climate change.” However, should a storm of that magnitude hit this country today, the media and many politicians would declare that “climate change” was the culprit. Indeed, as a number of tweets and public statements came out from “climate activists,” it is clear that many of them were disappointed that Matthew was not even more destructive, with one scientist declaring on Twitter: “With ridiculous complaining I am seeing, some seem disappointed there isn’t tragic loss of life/apocalyptic (sic).”

Clinton certainly seems to have drunk the “hurricanes are caused by humans” Kool-Aid. Ironically, in her Miami speech, she claimed that it is anti-science to have any skepticism about Al Gore’s apocalyptic predictions of doom—despite the fact that Gore has misstated science and has made a number of false predictions. Given that the heart of scientific method involves testing theories to see if they actually predict real events, one cannot claim to be pro-science and take Gore’s unfulfilled predictions seriously.

For example, Gore claimed that the Arctic Ocean would be completely free of ice by the summer of 2007, yet summer ice levels in that region are showing no signs of diminishing. Likewise, Gore claimed that ice in Antarctica would be disappearing when, in fact, the ice sheet over that continent is growing. Very few, if any, of Gore’s predictions have come to fruition, but that “inconvenient truth” stops neither Gore nor Clinton from making false claims.

As already noted, Clinton declares in her Miami speech that sea levels have “already risen by about a foot” in the U.S. Southeast. The context of her comments implied that the increase was recent. However, the chart below demonstrates that the rise in sea level has been about eight inches since 1880, with about two-thirds occurring before 1980, when some climate scientists warned that the earth was on the verge of a new ice age. (The alleged culprit for the dreaded “global cooling” also was the burning of fossil fuels, so in the past 40 years, activists have claimed that use of these fuels creates both dangerous heating and cooling.)

global-sea-level-change-from-1880

As the chart demonstrates, rising sea levels have been part of a longer-term trend, not something that just began. Unfortunately, good science becomes lost in the political rhetoric.

To make matters worse, a number of Clinton’s fellow Democrats and their party platform call for scientists and others who do research in climate-related fields but don’t reach the apocalyptic conclusions Democrats demand to be investigated and even prosecuted and imprisoned for being “deniers” and “anti-science.” In the name of “believing in science,” they are using vile tactics of outright intimidation to attack people for actually doing science.

No one has accused the “skeptics” of faking data or setting up fraudulent models to rig false results. Instead, Democrats and activists like James Hansen simply accused them of reaching conclusions contrary to the current political zeitgeist. This atmosphere of political intimidation is reminiscent of “Lysenkosim,” the era of false science under Stalin in the U.S.S.R. in which thousands of scientists who contradicted the fraudulent ideas of Stalin’s favorite “scientist,” Trofim Lysenko, were imprisoned or executed. (At least Democrats so far have not called for “skeptics” to be killed!)

Nothing in Clinton’s speeches leads one to think she opposes her Party’s platform calling for this persecution of scientists who disagree with her. Like Al Gore, she seems to have an agenda that, frankly, is anti-science. She cannot bring us better weather, but she can impose a climate police state, which would damage this country more than any storm ever could.


William Anderson is Professor of Economics at Frostburg State University, Frostburg, MD, and a contributing writer for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Advertisements

68 thoughts on “Can Hillary Clinton Bring Us Better Weather?

  1. “Clinton declares in her Miami speech that sea levels have “already risen by about a foot” in the U.S. Southeast”.

    But…but….40s in.

    .

  2. jones
    I appreciate the calumny – but I think the quoted speech was Candidate Obama, – predicting – claiming – a solution.
    I Guess Candidate Clinton is rubbishing POTUS Obama.

    I may well be wrong – this side of the ditch, it all looks unfamiliar.

    Auto, striving to show an interest in the quadrennial lump-smashing, when it is all sorted by the likes of Googol and Big Bill and his infamous Windows 10 printer-eater . . . .

  3. I do not believe for a minute that the Clintons actually believe in AGW. Bill is no fool. She may play the rhetoric but most likely will do nothing which is good

    • To be true Hillary has barely mentioned the issue during the campaign. She is no fool either, and she seems to have long accepted the fact that the American public puts “global warming” very low in their list of problems.

      Occasionally, however, she has to pander to the remaining spots of green left here and there.

    • I can’t find a link but I remember Bill Clinton gently mocking Al Gore … something like: Al Gore would take the fact that the sun rises in the morning as proof of global warming.

      The Clintons are two of the most cynical people ever. I wouldn’t be surprised if they know they are lying.

      That reminds me of a joke from the 1980s.

      Q: What’s the difference between a computer salesman and a used car salesman?
      A: The used car salesman knows when he’s lying.

      Would you buy a used car from Hillary?

    • AGW in her hands will be a money raising scheme for the crony capitalists. Add a few bankers to play a part in cash flow and make some profits.

      • This.
        The Wikileaks emails have already shown that they will introduce a “Carbon Tax” but it must not be mentioned during the Election run up as it is “Toxic” with the public.

  4. Any political candidate who thinks that they can control the weather by taxing people and crippling industry is in need of psychiatric examination and treatment.

  5. Iffen Hillary wins the job of POTUS then you best not be thinking about her bringing us better weather, but on the contrary, you damn well better be worried about the gawd awful climate that Hillary will be responsible for.

    That is, …. the socio-economic climate of the US of A.

    • …unless you are a “friend of WJC,” in which case you become rich at the hand of taxpayers.

  6. Hillary’s misguided perception that CO2 causes global warming will bring us WORSE weather in the form of flooding. Thermalization explains why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. One of the unintended consequences of changing from coal to natural gas is a further increase of water vapor which increases rain which increases the probability of flooding.

    • Thermalization? I don’t think so; water vapor is far more important as an IR absorber / emitter than CO2, which is why CO2 doesn’t much matter. (Which is heavier: a turkey buzzard, or a turkey buzzard with a fly sitting on its wing?)

      And it turns out that atmospheric humidity is really not increasing, from the data I’ve seen. (Rains out pretty quickly, I guess.) And flooding would be a problem only if increased rainfall occurred over LAND. But rain watersheds are well established, so it is only sudden, intense rainfall that generally give rise to floods.

      • The process of a molecule absorbing the energy in a photon and conducting the energy to other molecules is thermalization. Water vapor rotation relaxation time of 0.5 microsec compared to 6 microsec for CO2 keeps the thermalized energy nearly all in the WV. Further discussion along with a link and a graph (thru July, the link gives thru Sept) showing the increase in water vapor (NASA/RSS have been measuring this by satellite since 1988) are at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com. Water vapor increase rate is about 0.0446 kg/m^2/yr (2.28E13 kg/yr for the planet).

      • Dear Dan,
        Thanks for the clarification for your usage, but it doesn’t matter. So long as the CO2 molecules are at thermal equilibrium (stable temperature), for every molecule that receives a photon and distributes the energy kinetically to others, there will be a molecule out of the high-energy Boltzmann distribution that will emit a photon. Net gain is zero. (In the laser weapons game, this condition is called “bleaching.”) Water is even more prone to shed extra thermal energy as longwave IR.

        But the statement about water vapor increasing is interesting, since I vividly recall seeing trend graphs going in the negative direction. But why would CO2 be the cause?

      • mic – by “net gain is zero” do you mean that CO2 cannot warm the atmosphere? Dry nights cool faster than humid nights which demonstrates that WV molecules absorb photons and warm the atmosphere. Why would CO2 molecules be different?

    • Mic – Lasers obviously work but there must be more to the story. I list 5 other compelling observations corroborating that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Perhaps the presence of many (35 or so) times more WV molecules than CO2 molecules is relevant. I have seen arguments against what you are saying but I am not qualified to challenge either their or your assessment of the relevancy of laser physics.

      The increasing WV content is a surprise to me too. I was pretty sure a few months ago their was an as yet unidentified factor that was countering the down-trend that should have been evident by now and it appears that increasing WV is it. Average global WV content, as determined by Total Precipitable Water, TPW, has been measured by satellite and reported by NASA/RSS since about 1988. The link to the numerical data is kind of obscure and changes every month. The chain of links is:
      http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product
      ftp://ftp.remss.com/vapor/
      ftp://ftp.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/
      The above sequence of 3 links leads to this one with last two digits of last number being the latest (and only) month available
      ftp://ftp.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201609.time_series.txt

      The data thru July is graphed as Figure 3 at my blog.

    • Yes she can. She will have a complete control of media. The weather will become better immediately.

      Masters like Al Gore showed us what can be done with a purposeful movement, concentrated on a single objective. Josef Goebbels did show it to all Germans in 1933-1945. Germany was the land of virtues and successes. All natural and human-caused catastrophes were happening to the opponents.

      • Doggonit CG, I just want to know if she can bring any real benefits at all to the folks she panders to.

      • Shur nuff, …. Pop Piasa, ….. Hillary brings real benefits to all of her lemmings every time she engages in one of her self-touting “cheerleading” sessions …… because during and after said “cheerleading” session all of her lemmings …… “feel better all over more than any place else” …… and are “rarin n’ tarin” to go converting the rest of the populace to their beliefs and way of thinking.

        Just like those Bible believing Christians who attend an “ole fashion” Church/Tent Revival Meeting …….. wherein the preaching & praying, …… singing & shouting …… and repenting & testifying, …… gets most everyone “feeling better all over more than any place else” …… and are “rarin n’ tarin” to go converting the rest of the populace to their beliefs and way of thinking.

        Same scene, same act, ……. but different plays.

  7. There is definitely a dark cloud over Hillary Clinton. So I guess when she left it would seem that the weather is better.

  8. “Can Hillary Clinton Bring Us Better Weather?”

    Well, sure.

    Just look at how much better the weather is due to Obama.

    /grin

  9. I don’t suppose anyone reading here has seen the series of videos by Dr Ted Noel MD who analyzes the publicly-known events (falls, stumbles, seizures, blood clots et al) and other info (wikileaks revelation about her staff’s inquiry and info requests on various medical issues) surrounding Hillary and her health and on that basis Dr Noel (with consultation with specialists he knows) poses a hypothetical as to her medical condition ala probable Parkinson’s Disease?

    • I am not a fan of Hillary’s. I think she is a crook with bad policy proposals.

      But, I do not think the possibility of her suffering from Parkinson’s Disease matters in this election. I doubt anyone backing Trump would concede he was unfit for the presidency if he should start to suffer from Parkinson’s.

      SR

      • But, I do not think the possibility of her suffering from
        Parkinson’s Disease matters in this election.

        Yeah … it never occurs to the electorate that a Parkinson’s freeze-up (LIKE she had on 9-11-2016 this year at the 9/11 memorial) could occur at a crucial point in ‘tensions’ where a nuclear first strike is imminent from the hostiles (like the Norks) in the world …

        The bottom line: No one will be left alive to chronicle her behavior and the medical complications that figured prominently leading up to the next armed conflict that lead the Norks and Iran to launch their nukes (HER finger supposedly frozen-up and unable to to ‘work’ the nuclear button, or not, when one of her aides pats her on the back and says “Go ahead Hillary, press the button.”); Our (US) electorate has the attention span of a gnat, the depth of curiosity of a small kitchen-floor puddle and has more interest in the Kardashians ..

      • Yeah … it never occurs to the electorate that a Parkinson’s freeze-up (LIKE she had on 9-11-2016 this year at the 9/11 memorial) could occur at a crucial point in ‘tensions’ where a nuclear first strike is imminent from the hostiles (like the Norks) in the world …

        _Jim, …. do you mean a Parkinson triggered “Hillary freeze-up” …… like the one that is faulted for the deaths of Americans during the 2012 Benghazi attack?

        And ps: I wanna know who has “copies” of all of Bill Clinton’s E-mails that were also on Hillary’s secret basement Server ……. because the world wants to know what their content/context is?

        Ya gotta know his E-mails WERE there simply because ……. why would “Slick Willie” be paying an IP for E-mail Services when his wifey has a “free one” for him to use? ????maybe Chelsea also,

      • re: Samuel C Cogar October 20, 2016 at 5:25 am

        do you mean a Parkinson triggered “Hillary freeze-up” …… like the one that is faulted for the deaths of Americans during the 2012 Benghazi attack?

        Samuel, you propose a plausible and likely scenario with that post. Perhaps she was ‘away’ on what some medical treatment specialists call a “drug holiday” (an abstinence from a prescribed drug treatment regiment allowing the drug therapy to be somewhat more effective after resumption) and could simply not be ‘disturbed’ with those urgent ‘matters of state’ …

        Either way, still “unfit for office.”

      • If she can’t handle the stress (Poor health) she should not even attempt to run for president. She’s only attaining power for the sake of money. That has been her MO since they first started entering the public service. She expects to live in a cozy life after she gets elected since she and her friends manufacture the problem and offers the solution at the same time.

  10. Hillary will be Obama without the restraints.

    It turns out, Hillary stole furniture from the State Department when she left there! She and Bill also stole over $250,000 worth of furnture and other items from the White House when they left there, and ended up having to repay the U.S. government about $250,000. You would think she would learn her lesson, but no, she continues to steal! The woman is unbelievable. She has no inner restraints. If she is elected president, she won’t have many outer restraints either. The Republican Congress does not fill me with confidence.

    Let’s hope that “Silent Majority” is out there waiting to vote for Trump. Putting an immoral, serial liar like Hillary Clinton in Office would be a disaster for the whole world.

  11. You’re talking about the woman that made “mis-spoke” and “I don’t recall”…common every day words

  12. .
    Hickory dickory dock,
    Can Hellary run out the clock?
    She keeps throwing lies,
    And the media abides
    The propaganda she feeds to her flock.

    Why do they love her,
    When we continue to discover,
    Her crooked and evil ways?
    The answer is plain
    To all (save the insane),
    That liberals live in a daze.
    .
    – author unknown

  13. Hillary Dillary Rhetorical
    She calls her critics deplorable
    But they know she’s a phony
    So full of baloney
    When Trump wins she will be deportable.

    Hillary Dillary sleeze
    It’s likely she has a disease
    She coughs and she staggers
    And it’s a fairly good wager
    She’ll soon need to crawl on her knees.

    Hillary Dillary Cork.
    In her please stick a fork.
    No one can trust her, and
    The Feds want to bust her,
    So we can all be done with this Dork.

    Hillary Dillary Snoop.
    Out of her mouth comes sheer poop.
    She never can muster,
    Any more that just bluster,
    And treats everyone as a dupe.

    Hillary Dillary Honey.
    The Woman loves nothing but money.
    She never stops trying,
    And resorts to fake crying.
    When its apparent to all that she’s lying.

    Hillary Dillary Ream.
    Her morals are from a bad dream.
    She lies and she cheats,
    For her pals the big treats.
    For the rest, she’s a most dismal scene

    Hillary Dillary Fake.
    With all the warmth of a snake
    All her moves are suspicious
    Her talk meretricious
    And her hubby an infamous rake.

    Hillary Dillary Sage
    She rants and raves on the stage
    She talks democratic,
    But lives aristocratic,
    And deserves to be put in a cage.

    Hillary Dillary Dock.
    Her vaunted career is a crock.
    Takes big dough from Goldman
    But acts not beholden,
    To Wall Street she remains in deep hock.

    – FosterSpeak website

  14. It looks like the very left wing, CSIRO has done some “tweakng” of their graph. Here’s the longest local record I could find:

  15. One more … okay, maybe one or TWO more ….
    .
    .
    There is an old woman named Hillary
    Who’s stunningly easy to pillory
    She’s both clever and mean
    On the Washington scene
    And as scary as loaded artillery

    She is wed to a horny old dude
    And a lot of young babes he has wooed
    Also middle aged skanks
    Much to Hillary’s angst
    It’s amazing he’s never been sued

    As First Lady she served for 8 years
    Through some difficult blood, sweat and tears
    To the Senate she went
    Like a hound with a scent
    Where she ruffled her minions and peers

    Later Hillary sought nomination
    For the chance to be running the nation
    As Commander-in-Chief
    In her honest belief
    She could win and cause rampant vexation

    She got beat, to her great disappointment
    But she got a high level appointment
    To reduce her disdain
    And diminish her pain
    Like Ben Gay or some other such ointment
    .
    .
    – Litwit http://forums.familyfriendpoems.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=49517


  16. Trump’s last speech before the last debate. Interesting to watch. Huge, highly enthusiastic crowd, half male, half female, more than a few of various ‘races’ there, utterly at odds with the propaganda on the mainstream ‘media’ (sic) or rather (sick)!

  17. .
    Huma, please tell me the reason
    My numbers toward zero keep easin’
    They can’t blame me still
    For the rapes done by Bill
    And the worst crime that I’ve done is treason
    .
    .
    – Voat website

  18. Last one –
    .
    .
    There once was a senator named Bernie,
    Who embarked on a firebrand journey,
    His supporters made noise,
    In front of Trump’s boys, [Not true, of course -_Jim]
    And left the event in a gurney.

    Hillary’s chasing the White House,
    Millennials sputter and grouse,
    They’d rather choose Sanders,
    Say Hillary panders,
    And don’t like her husband that louse!

    For being a conservative pillar,
    Cruz made the contest quite the thriller,
    He’s stayed in the race,
    And held second place…
    Not bad for the Zodiac Killer.

    I’ve had it! My limericks are junk,
    This whole election is bunk,
    Though I’ve had a blast,
    This season shall pass,
    Back to Congressional funk.

    – Cara Giaimo

  19. The article could have also mentioned the 1900 Galveston hurricane, which killed at least 6000 and the 1925 Tri-States tornadoes that swept across Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana claiming nearly 700 lives and destroying 10,000-plus buildings. Why wasn’t anyone citing human activity as the cause then? While we’re at it, what about the 1926 south Florida hurricane? Had that struck today when the area is far more built up and populated, the damage caused would be likely to exceed any storm to have hit North America. Yet greenhouse emissions were far lower than today’s, but somehow it managed to happen regardless.

  20. Politicians started claiming power over the economy some 60 years back. Now they can claim power over the weather. Who knows what else they will have power over, if elected, in the next 60 years.

  21. Hillary is most notable for her lack of actual achievement. Her tenure as Secretary of State has left the US with tattered relations, Europe over run with the largest refugee crisis since WWII, Iran ascendant, Russia and China aligning, and N Korea openly planning a nuke first strike. That she is laughably wrong in climate is a relatively small failure for her.

  22. A chimp should be able to beat Hillary Clinton yet Trump just doesn’t seem capable of rising above the mud slinging . Barring a miracle and a new anyone but Hillary wave Trump is Trump and despite a desperate need for change he spends way too much time ranting instead of laying out how he is going to improve the country . He has had some chance and still does .
    In many ways he did better in the final debate but the fact is a debate plays to Hillary who is backed by the MSM .
    Will you recognize the election result ? What a bizarre question . Like what choice does anyone have unless hints of wide spread corrupt votes become a proven fact ? That is the only reason to be so vague .
    Clearly with the admission today of “anarchy ” revealed by a Democrat Brown Shirt Operative Trump may have a point . If more of the dirty politics of the Democrats show the teachers pet may find that
    debate performance is forgotten fast .
    Twenty days is a long time .

    • “Will you recognize the election result ? What a bizarre question.”

      It was a bizarre question, and an even more bizarre interpretation of Trump’s answer. Wallace, and the Leftwing Media want to act like Trump is promoting insurrection in the streets if he is not elected. Of course, it’s their job to distort Trump’s meanings as much as possible, and they are good at their jobs.

      My take on Trump’s answer is he is challenging the nation to look closely at what is going on with our election process, and the jury is still out as to whether it is rigged to the point of determining the winner, or not. Both the Obama and Clinton campaigns have complained in the past about rigged elections. The Leftwing Media want you to think this is unique to Trump.

      The Leftwing Media, in their efforts to smear Trump, concentrate on just a few soundbites, such as the above, and then they all jump on the bandwagon and twist the truth to make Trump look as bad as possible. They ignore all the rest of the substace of the debate, because it is not in their propaganda interests.

      Another example is Trump’s use of “Hombre”. The Leftwing Media wants to portray Trump as singling out Mexicans as the bad guys crossing the border. They completely ignore that Trump first said “bad “people” before he later said “hombre”, so Trump wasn’t singling out anyone.

      These two little items will be all we hear about from the Leftwing Media. And from Fox News, too, since Fox feels the need to air the Leftwing narrative and comment on it, and I must say, I am personally disappointed in many of the reporters at Fox (especially Megyn Kelly). They seem to have an anti-Trump agenda, themselves. I suppose they are members, or potential members of the Washington DC/NYC elites, so I guess they are just defending their territory from the usurper, Trump. But that doesn’t change my feelings that they are distorting the truth, whether deliberately, or cluelessly.

      Hannity is about the only one I watch on Fox anymore. And I must not be alone because Hannity has the highest rating in tv, and this happened just since everyone else has decided they want to trash Trump (O’Reilly being a small exception). He got that because he is fair to Trump, while all the rest are all playing “Gotcha!”.

      I’ll start watching the rest of the Fox News people, and the Leftwing Media after Trump wins the election. It will be delicious!!! Their faces will tell it all.

      BTW, Fox&Friends in the mornings is GREAT! :)

      • @ TA – October 20, 2016 at 5:18 am

        TA, I really enjoyed reading your commentary, ….. all of it.

        And especially this comment because my fondness of the Fox TV News Channel has been IN DECLINE for the past 8 or 10 months and am also suffering disappointment, to wit:

        and I must say, I am personally disappointed in many of the reporters at Fox (especially Megyn Kelly). They seem to have an anti-Trump agenda, themselves.

        Yes, Megyn Kelly especially, as well as Geraldo Rivera, Chris Wallace and Bill O’Reilly, all of which I liked quite well at one time when they were all mostly “Fair & Balanced” in/with their reporting and commentary. Now they are all non-bashful committed “fence-straddlers” with an anti-Trump agenda ….. and with at least two (2) of them leaning really “hard-to-the-left” off the top of that fence.

        And Juan Williams is what I would describe as being a “necessary evil” for a proof-positive “claim” of ….. “Fair & Balanced” …… and thus knowing his job “task” I just switch channels whenever he has “the microphone”.

        Hannity is about the only one I watch on Fox anymore. And I must not be alone because Hannity has the highest rating in tv,

        For sure, you are not alone …… because I also mostly watch Hannity.

        I don’t foresee it happening, but iffen Trump should lose …… I will lay a big part of the blame on the above anti-Trump noted Fox personnel.

      • “And Juan Williams is what I would describe as being a “necessary evil” for a proof-positive “claim” of ….. “Fair & Balanced” …… and thus knowing his job “task” I just switch channels whenever he has “the microphone”.”

        Juan Williams used to be fairly “fair and balanced” but since this election has come up he has taken Hillary’s side almost exclusively. I really find it hard to understand how an intelligent fellow like Juan cannot see through the Hillary/Left lies. The indoctrination is strong in this one. He is really a good advocate for Hillary, repeating all the standard Leftwing talking points, but I just find it hard to believe that he believes in what he is saying, because it is diametrically opposed to the truth, and he must know that. Juan is spinning fables for Hillary.

        I have to change the channel, too, when Juan starts making excuses for Hillary. Geraldo doesn’t do that nearly as much, but I turn the channel on him, too, sometimes (Thank God for Forensic Files!).

        I wonder if Fox takes notice of how many people switch away from their programming and what was being said at the time? They might learn something if they paid attention.

        Thanks for the earlier compliment, Samuel.

      • I really find it hard to understand how an intelligent fellow like Juan cannot see through the Hillary/Left lies.

        TA, don’t be forgettin now, ….. Juan W was “fired” by the CEOs of NPR and was thus desperately in need of a job when Fox News hired him ……. and me thinks that Juan W is now just doing the “job” that he was hired to do.

        IMHO, iffen Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes had not, per se, “split up the seed corn” and parted ways, ……. then Juan Williams would still be looking for a job of Commentator.

        And I can somewhat “stomach” Juan W, …… but never ever Alan C.

    • Amber – October 20, 2016 at 2:04 am

      Will you recognize the election result?What a bizarre question.

      Amber, iffen you consider the “source” of that question then there is NOTHING bizarre about it.

      I decided a long time back that Chris Wallace was an avid “Hillary supporter” and has only been pretending to be ”Fair & Balanced” when “live” microphones or TV cameras are anywhere near him.

    • Amber: “ yet Trump just doesn’t seem capable of rising above the mud slinging .

      Worked REAL WELL for President McCain and President Romney didn’t it? They stayed well above the ‘fray’ …

      No, wait —

      • Amber saidith:

        “ yet Trump just doesn’t seem capable of rising above the mud slinging . ”

        And _Jim saidith:

        Worked REAL WELL for President McCain and President Romney didn’t it? They stayed well above the ‘fray’ … No, wait —

        Well now, ya’ll, …… how’s come ya’ll never posted any dastardly demeaning comments about Sarah Palin and her family members NOT being able to ………. “rise above the dastardly, dishonest, disingenuous, falsely concocted “mud slinging” rhetoric” that was being touted by highly partisan lefty liberal “troughfeeding” Democrats …… as well as the highly Democrat-partisan lefty liberal “troughfeeding” News media?

        When a big percentage of the populace become conjoined in their belief that it is now no longer any hope, thus rendering it impossible for them to “rise above the mudslinging and dastardly deeds of the ruling Political Party”, ……… then “anarchy” will arise out of the “fray” of disillusioned producers of goods and services. And “Katy had better bar the door” when that happens.

    • The only promise Obama has kept is to try to fundamentally change the United States. He is trying his best, but he is running out of time.

  23. There is no greater evidence that CAGW is a political rather than a science driven hypothetical than political proclamations implying that voting for a candidate can alter the catastrophe.

    If you are a believer you are either badly served by the public school system or have found a place in line for the taxpayer funded transfer payment system call climate science.

Comments are closed.