Opinion/Analysis: The real reason why Trump won the debate

Four years ago, you could have almost seen Bill Clinton’s thought bubble as he watched Barack Obama’s weak and listless performance against Mitt Romney during the first presidential debate: “I can’t believe we lost to this guy.” Mr. Clinton never would have mailed it in the way Mr. Obama did. He may have lost some of his old magic, but he’s still got the golden touch. His wife, however, never had it — and clearly never will, as evidenced by her plodding and grating debate performance against Donald Trump this week. At the same time, Mr. Trump was aggressive, projecting authority even when he was on relatively shaky ground. Unlike others who have opposed her, he didn’t care that she was a Clinton or a Democrat or a woman. He didn’t defer to her, offer special treatment or allow her a wide berth for Clintonian parsing. Relishing his outsider role, he positioned her squarely in her role of status quo incumbent. By doing so and by clearing the bar of appearing a reasonable man and plausible president, he lived to fight another day. Because he’s never done this before, voters give him a lot more running room to make mistakes and find his bearings. The fact that he more than held his own on the biggest political stage on earth is astounding. The traditional metrics don’t apply to this candidate or this election year, which is why he was able to walk away not just intact but perhaps stronger. In terms of political strengths, Mr. Trump appeared every bit the non-politician, the gifted television presence, the spontaneous and charismatic force of nature. Mrs. Clinton showcased her deep resume while presenting herself as the next historically unprecedented choice riding the next identity-politics wave. In terms of political weaknesses, Mr. Trump whiffed on hitting her on her private email server, the Clinton Foundation, leveraging her public position to enrich herself, Benghazi, her serial lying about all of this and more. He had flashes of impatience and defensiveness and often lapsed into self-reference when he should have kept his answers focused on the future of America. Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, was predictably dissembling, non-transparent and obtuse while permitting the unknowns — particularly about her health — to remain unknown. She looked every inch the global elitist, and condescension dripped from her every pore. Not a good look for her. In terms of major narrative vulnerabilities, Mrs. Clinton could not speak convincingly of the Clinton Foundation, her server or email scandals nor of her portfolio as secretary of State (Libya, Benghazi specifically, the Russian reset, the rise of China, the Iranian nuclear deal, the failure to support key allies such as Israel, the decision to release known terrorists from Guantanamo Bay). It helped that she wasn’t asked about these things by the moderator, Lester Holt, who posed general questions to her while asking pointed questions to Mr. Trump, which forced him on the defensive. She also could not speak convincingly of the economy or Obamacare, given that she is the grandmother of socialized medicine and Obamacare is already in its predicted death spiral. Again, she got an assist from Mr. Holt, who didn’t bring it up. Mr. Trump struggled to speak convincingly about Russia or Ukraine or nuclear doctrine. But one of his best moments was when she tried to suggest that he’s unprepared for the presidency. The question, he said, isn’t whether she was in the game. It’s how she played it — and what results she produced: We are now less wealthy, less prosperous, less safe, less secure, less powerful. On the flip side, Mr. Trump enjoyed major narrative advantages, including the most feeble gross domestic product growth since the end of World War II under Mr. Obama and the attendant weakness in jobs and capital formation; illegal immigration and bad trade deals that have disadvantaged the working and middle classes; the breakdown of law and order in many American communities; and the need to defeat the corrupt, rigged system, reorganize relations with allies and foes, and reawaken American morale. He managed to exploit some of this, though it would have been more powerful if he had simply pointed to the smoking ruin of the Obama-Clinton economy and foreign policy and said, “We tried it your way.” Mrs. Clinton had the narrative advantage of the first Clinton administration economy, 1993-2001; the experience of having dealt with world leaders; Mr. Obama’s popularity; and beating up on Wall Street. Her failure to capitalize on many of these narrative strengths was a major communications failure. Debates, however, are less about the nuances of policy and more about style, tone, well-timed zingers, and demonstrating the ability to think on one’s feet. He sprinted through the questions with the speed and agility of a leopard; she plodded through them with all of the grace of a three-legged rhinoceros. The scene is now set for the balance of the campaign. The race remains in the air, barring some unforeseen plot twist. In the end, however, Mr. Trump did one critical thing that went largely unnoticed. He stated implicitly — which he should have stated far more explicitly — that we don’t have to settle for the crippled America Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have given us. The power to turn it around rests with us. And by making that clear, Mr. Trump scored the only point that really matters.

Agreed!!  Dr. Monica Crowley was the author of that spectacular analysis of the first Hillary/Trump debate.  Excellent!!    🙂

Black moon set to rise this week in ‘rare’ lunar event – but what is it?

A ‘rare’ black moon is set to rise tonight/ Saturday morning– but what exactly is the lunar event and will we be able to see it? ‘Black Moon Rising’ may sound like the title of an apocalyptic sci-fi film but the astronomical event is unlikely to signal the end of the world, despite the concerns of some doomsayers. From blood moons to strawberry ones and those of the ‘super’ variety, it can be difficult to keep up with all the different names given to the Earth’s natural satellite. The latest causing excitement among skygazers is the so-called black moon, however there are several definitions about what it actually is. Most experts agree the term black moon refers to the second new moon in a calendar month. It shouldn’t be confused with a blue moon, a phenomenon that occurs when there is a second full moon in one calendar month. Joe Rao from space.com explains: “A second full moon in a single calendar month is sometimes called a blue moon. A black moon is supposedly the flip side of a blue moon; the second new moon in a single calendar month.” The last black moon was in March 2014 and the next one after this year’s is expected in 2019. Time and Date explains: “Black Moon is not a well-known term in the astronomy world. In recent years, the term has been made popular by astrologers and followers of the Wiccan religion.” A new moon occurs every 29.5 days. The moon ‘disappears’ from the sky when it is between the earth and the sun with it’s illuminated side facing away from us. The black moon event will take place in the early hours of Saturday morning at 1:11am (GMT) for those in the Western Hemisphere. The black moon will coincide with Halloween for those in the Eastern hemisphere. Unfortunately, you won’t actually be able to see it as the moon will appear invisible. It will just be very dark. Don’t worry, it’s very unlikely the black moon with affect your weekend plans, despite doomsayers predicting it could be the end of humanity.

Indeed..  And yet, all of the crazies will probably be out there..  So, you’ve been warned.  For those that want to try and “see” it anyway, try looking up around 8:11pm ET (6:11pm MDT) this evening. Muhahahahaha!!!      🙂

Fact Check: Five Things to Know About Alicia Machado

In the late 1990s, as President Bill Clinton was about to face the biggest sex scandal of his political career over his affair with Monica Lewinsky, a beauty queen named Alicia Machado caused a major scandal by gaining a large amount of weight after winning the Miss Universe crown. Donald Trump had just taken over the pageant, and fought to deal with the fallout. Hillary Clinton has, for months, planned to use that episode against him, training Machado for the attack. Here are the facts: 1. Trump fought to save Machado’s Miss Universe title, and her job. What is a sensitive feminist male boss supposed to do if a female employee — hired, again, for her appearance — gains a large amount of weight? He is supposed to defend her job. And that is exactly what Trump did, urging the pageant not to fire her, and appearing with her at a gym to offer support.

Yeah..  Betcha didn’t know that!  To read the rest of these eye-opening facts that Hillary, and her supporters in the dominantly liberal mainstream media don’t want you to know, just click on the text above.

Starnes: Hey, how about a “Pantsuit Tee”? Hillary offers clothing for the emasculated man

Attention all of you political fashionistas! Hillary Clinton wants to outfit men in something called the “Everyday Pantsuit Tee.” I’m sure it’ll be all the rage among the skinny jeans and soy latte crowd. The $30 shirt, available on her online store, promises to bring “a whole new meaning to casual Friday.” The union-printed shirts are unisex. Pantsuit bottoms not included. Remember when President Obama sold yoga pants? They were five percent spandex — think stretchy pants. I can’t imagine any red-blooded, patriotic, American man who would be caught wearing either Hillary’s pantsuit tee’s or Obama’s yoga pants. Well, maybe just one. Does anybody remember what happened to ObamaCare’s Pajama boy? I don’t have the fashion prowess of Tommy Hilfiger or Michael Kors, but I think it’s safe to say, Hillary’s pantsuit tee is political clothing for the emasculated man. Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is “God Less America: Real Stories From the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values.” Follow Todd on Twitter @ToddStarnes and find him on Facebook

HAHA!!  Another great article from Todd Starnes.    :-)

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse student ‘very upset’ over dorm’s Harry Potter mural

A University of Wisconsin-La Crosse student had a serious complaint for his campus’ official “Hate Response Team”: he was “very upset” by a Harry Potter mural in a college dorm. The mural, in the Laux Residence Hall, depicts Neville Longbottom, a character from the Harry Potter films. The nerdy Neville was played by actor Matthew Lewis, who blossomed into a notable hunk post-puberty. The mural shows him as both a geeky boy and an attractive young man — transformed, according to the mural’s caption, by a stay at the Laux Residence Hall itself. The depiction of this metamorphosis “represents our ideal society and everything I am trying to fight against,” wrote the offended student, whose name is redacted. “It represents white power. Man power. Cis power. Able power. Class power. ECT [sic] ect. I am angry that I know the people who put this mural up, and I am anger [sic] because I know the people who let this mural be put up. Like I said earlier, maybe I am being a little sensitive, but it is how I feel. This represents, to me, our society, and I do not want it up on this wall. Why do we need a BEFORE and AFTER?” The complaint, unearthed by a Heat Street records request for reports of bias on UW-La Crosse’s campus, was filed in April. We confirmed the mural remains up, despite the student’s complaint. By deadline, neither of the students who painted Neville Longbottom’s poster had responded to Heat Street’s inquiry. UW-La Crosse established its “Hate Response” Team more than a decade ago to address acts of bias, prejudice, intolerance and hate on campus. Over the same timeframe, more than 100 other colleges and universities also established similar bias response teams. But recently, they’ve also come under fire in some places for restricting free speech and catering to the most easily offended students on campus.

Wow…  You really can’t make this stuff up, folks..  What a whiny, thumb-sucking, bed-wetting, loser.  This sort of nonsense is what is becoming more and more common on college campuses….  Like I said, ya can’t make this stuff up..

ISIS ‘dead set’ on using chemical weapons, US military official says

Islamic State militants are “dead set” on using chemical arms and are likely to try them again as Iraqi forces advance on Mosul, a Pentagon spokesman said on Monday, a week after a rocket with a possible chemical agent landed near U.S. troops. The rocket fired Tuesday landed in an unpopulated area near Qayyara West base, several hundred yards from where hundreds of U.S. troops are working to prepare an airfield for an Iraqi offensive to recapture the city of Mosul. No one was hurt in the attack. The shell initially tested positive for a mustard agent, but two subsequent tests have been inconclusive and the device is undergoing further tests, Navy Captain Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters. “We fully recognize this is something that ISIL has done before. They’ve done it many times, at least a couple dozen that we know of where they have launched crude makeshift munitions that are filled with this mustard agent,” Davis said using an acronym for the group. An air strike by the U.S.-led military coalition destroyed an Islamic State chemical weapons factory on Friday near Qayyara, the second attack against a chemical arms facility this month. Davis said Islamic State’s ability to weaponize mustard agent has been rudimentary. The group typically uses a chemical powder bound together with oil, which leaves behind a telltale oil trace. “It’s not generally in a lethal concentration. It’s more of an irritant than anything else, but again, not something we view as militarily significant,” he said, noting that the gas form of mustard agent used in the First World War was far more lethal. Even though Islamic State has not perfected the ability to weaponize chemicals, U.S. and Iraqi forces still have to be prepared for a chemical attack, Davis said. “We recognize this is real. They’re dead set on it. They would love to be able to use chemical weapons against us, against the Iraqis as they move forward,” Davis said. “We are making every effort to make sure that we’re ready for it.” He said U.S. troops deployed to the region have the training and equipment they need to defend against chemical attacks and are working to ensure the Iraqis are prepared and properly equipped as well. Davis said the United States has provided more than 50,000 gas masks to Iraq, with about 40,000 going to Iraqi security forces.

Hillary Clinton’s State Department Allowed Millions of Taxpayer Dollars to Be Spent Helping Companies Outsource American Jobs

Hillary Clinton’s State Department oversaw a government agency’s expenditure of millions of taxpayer dollars to help companies outsource American tech jobs to foreign countries. In 2010, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars building schools in Sri Lanka and Armenia, specifically to increase those countries’ outsourcing capacity to take away American jobs. “The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is an independent federal agency that receives overall foreign policy guidance from the Secretary of State… USAID plans its development and assistance programs in coordination with the Department of State,” according to the State Department’s website. The head of USAID at the time was Rajiv Shah, who was a former top director with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Microsoft has been one of the nation’s biggest lobbyist for expansive immigration policies, which would allow corporations to replace American tech workers with foreign laborers who will work for a fraction of the Americans workers’ salary. For example, in 2014 Microsoft pushed for greater admissions of low-wage foreign workers into the United States at the same time as the tech giant was laying off 18,000 of its own employees. In August of 2010, trade magazine Information Week reported on USAID’s plan to use taxpayer dollars to help companies outsource American jobs.

I wonder if the next moderator of a Hillary/Trump debate will bring this up to Hillary and call her on it…since she keeps attacking Trump for his outsourcing…  Yeah… Probably not.  The double standard and hypocrisy is incredible.  To read the rest of this article, click on the text above.