TRUMP/Clinton: CROWLEY – Why Trump won; Henninger – Trump mosh pit; NY Post – Stop & frisk.
NATIONAL: STRASSEL – Comey’s blind eye; SIMON – Dem war on blacks; HAYWARD – Internet surrender.
PA: FIELD – PA voter registration.
Janet: Please call your House members NOW and tell them VOTE “NO” on the Continuing Resolution (CR) or H.R 5325. This is URGENT because the voting will take place this week. If it passes, it will give Congress and Obama all they need to stuff the Lame Duck session after the November election with pork and other BAD bills. The mischief making gives power and NO ACCOUNTABILITY to Obama and lawmakers who lost and will not return to Congress
Janet: Malvern Office for Trump –
Location for the Malvern Office for Trump. Phones should be in soon and then phone banks will begin. Right now you can get signs, handouts, and volunteer for door to door campaigning.
The address is: 270 Lancaster Ave, Suite H, Malvern PA 19355
Questions or contact: Josh Herman, 484-678-8693,, email@example.com
“One of these two is catching the mood of the country, and the other just isn’t.” Daniel Henninger, http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-mosh-pit-1475103216
Monica Crowley, Washington Times: “The real reason why Trump won the debate”
Nearly everyone has a coaching voice for Trump. Remember, however, the conflict in roles: tonight’s coaches keep their present job but fish for promotions to Trump’s team. Crowley, however, was brilliant with John Batchelor night before last but the script is unposted.
No one has picked up on Donald’s “sense of the future.” This is the ability to sit under a tree and consider all the options available and to pick the most likely one to succeed. Most writers criticize him for being too nice. There are, however, two debates remaining in which he will stun the Xitch without appearing to be a bully . . . Trump, I am convinced, has a sterling sense of the future. Most of his self-appointed coaches do not.
Meanwhile, Barry needs Hillary to support his true legacy: his ambitions to lead the UN or to join Soros’ staff. Loading us with mid-East immigrants is a Cloward-Piven tactic: Make a crisis and supply a government to manage it. Barry has done this for 10 years and is still at it!
“. . .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.’ . . .”
Daniel Henninger, WSJ: “The Trump Mosh Pit”
“Only one of Monday’s debaters is still in sync with the country’s restless mood.
“. . . We have been through this exercise so many times with Donald Trump. When in July last year he said of Sen. John McCain, “He’s not a war hero,” I, like others, thought, he’s done. You cannot run for president and say an American military man who was tortured in a North Vietnam prison camp is no hero. Everyone, including the umpteen GOP candidates, thought Mr. Trump’s early primary surge would collapse.
“Of course the Trump contraption rattled forward, surviving one awful gaffe after another. The meme then (as now) was that the Trump supporters were basically idiots—now known as the deplorables. Well, it’s also true that you can pay a king’s ransom to watch the New York Yankees from the box seats with normal people or a lot less to sit in the upper deck with guys who will F-bomb your kids for nine innings. They’re all cheering for the same team. Welcome to America. Welcome to the Trump mosh pit. . .”
“. . . As the NYPD release rightly notes, “Stop, Question and Frisk is not unconstitutional,” and even Judge Shira Scheindlin’s disastrous 2013 ruling never said so.
“Fact is, the Supreme Court found it constitutional back in 1968 and has never reversed or even modified that decision. Scheindlin ruled merely that the NYPD’s use of the tactic had shown “deliberate indifference” to constitutional rights, claiming racial bias.
“Then the US Court of Appeals threw her off the case because her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
“And it stayed her ruling — a step usually taken only when a decision is unlikely to survive the full appellate process.
“But higher courts never finished examining her decision — because de Blasio, who’d won his race for mayor vowing to end the practice, squelched the city’s appeal. . .”
Victor Davis Hanson, NRO: “The Next President Unbound”
“There is reason to worry about both candidates abusing power as president, because Obama and the press normalized executive overreach.”
“Donald Trump’s supporters see a potential Hillary Clinton victory in November as the end of any conservative chance to restore small government, constitutional protections, fiscal sanity, and personal liberty.
“Clinton’s progressives swear that a Trump victory would spell the implosion of America as they know it, alleging Trump parallels with every dictator from Josef Stalin to Adolf Hitler.
Part of the frenzy over 2016 as a make-or-break election is because a closely divided Senate’s future may hinge on the coattails of the presidential winner. An aging Supreme Court may also translate into perhaps three to four court picks for the next president.
Yet such considerations only partly explain the current election frenzy.
“The model of the imperial Obama presidency is the greater fear. Over the last eight years, Obama has transformed the powers of presidency in a way not seen in decades.
“Congress talks grandly of “comprehensive immigration reform,” but Obama, as he promised with his pen and phone, bypassed the House and Senate to virtually open the border with Mexico. He largely ceased deportations of undocumented immigrants. He issued executive-order amnesties. And he allowed entire cities to be exempt from federal immigration law.
because these largely illegal means were used to achieve the progressive ends favored by many journalists.
“The Senate used to ratify treaties. In the past, a president could not unilaterally approve the Treaty of Versailles, enroll the United States in the League of Nations, fight in Vietnam or Iraq without congressional authorization, change existing laws by non-enforcement, or rewrite bankruptcy laws.
“Not now. Obama set a precedent that he did not need Senate ratification to make a landmark treaty with Iran on nuclear enrichment.
“He picked and chose which elements of the Affordable Care Act would be enforced — predicated on his 2012 reelection efforts.
“Rebuffed by Congress, Obama is now slowly shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detention center by insidiously having inmates sent to other countries.
“Respective opponents of both Trump and Clinton should be worried. . .”
Kimberley Strassel, WSJ: “Jim Comey’s Blind Eye”
“The FBI director can’t defend immunity for Hillary Clinton’s aides—which says volumes.
“Two revealing, if largely unnoticed, moments came in the middle of FBI Director Jim Comey’s Wednesday testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. When combined, these moments prove that Mr. Comey gave Hillary Clinton a pass.
“Congress hauled Mr. Comey in to account for the explosive revelation that the government granted immunity to Clinton staffers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson as part of its investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton had mishandled classified information. Rep. Tom Marino (R., Pa.), who was once a Justice Department prosecutor and knows how these investigations roll, provided the first moment. “He asked Mr. Comey why Ms. Mills was so courteously offered immunity in return for her laptop—a laptop that Mr. Comey admitted investigators were very keen to obtain. Why not simply impanel a grand jury, get a subpoena, and seize the evidence?
“Mr. Comey’s answer was enlightening: ‘It’s a reasonable question. . . . Any time you are talking about the prospect of subpoenaing a computer from a lawyer—that involves the lawyer’s practice of law—you know you are getting into a big megillah.’ Pressed further, he added: “In general, you can often do things faster with informal agreements, especially when you are interacting with lawyers.”
“The key words: ‘The lawyer’s practice of law.’ What Mr. Comey was referencing here is attorney-client privilege. Ms. Mills was able to extract an immunity deal, avoid answering questions, and sit in on Mrs. Clinton’s FBI interview because she has positioned herself as Hillary’s personal lawyer. Ms. Mills could therefore claim that any conversations or interactions she had with Mrs. Clinton about the private server were protected by attorney-client privilege.
“Only here’s the rub: When Ms. Mills worked at the State Department she was not acting as Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer. She was the secretary’s chief of staff. Any interaction with Mrs. Clinton about her server, or any evidence from that time, should have been fair game for the FBI and the Justice Department.
“Ms. Mills was allowed to get away with this ‘attorney-client privilege’ nonsense only because she claimed that she did not know about Mrs. Clinton’s server until after they had both left the State Department. Ergo, no questions about the server.
“The FBI has deliberately chosen to accept this lie. . .”
Roger Simon, PJM: “Hillary and the Democrats Continue Their War on Blacks”
“Hilary didn’t know what to say about the police that wouldn’t offend someone, so she spread the accusation to everyone. We’re all guilty (meaning, one assumes, all white people, although that was naturally left unsaid). At the same time, obviously, she was doing her best to pander to the black vote that, for the first time in a long while, has been a tiny bit more fragile for the Democrats.
“The moral-narcissism component allows Clinton to assume the mantle of the “good person,” that she is doing the”right thing” when her policies and those of her party have had the exact opposite result for black communities that have been in steep decline for some time. Holt, of course, never raised that possibility.
“Underlying all this is a ruthless attempt to encourage that most pernicious, self-defeating and self-fulfilling prophecy that African-Americans will always be victims. And if they are victims, they always vote Democrat, the party of victimhood. (If they don’t vote Democrat, they support professional victimhood organizations like Black Lives Matter until the proper deals are made and they do vote Democrat again, a roundelay of unhappily ever after.)
“The result of all this? Bodies in the street. A lot of them. Almost all black.”
John Hayward, Breitbart: “Frank Gaffney on Obama’s Attempt to Slip Irreversible Internet Surrender under the Radar: ‘We’ve Got Three Days to Fix This’”
“. . . The conversation turned to the impending handover of Internet control to a foreign body, a topic that should be of major concern to American voters, although Marlow sarcastically observed there was no time for it during the debate because moderator Lester Holt thought it was more important to discuss Donald Trump’s thoughts on Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
“A lot of people in this audience have absolutely no clue why we would do this and can’t even interpret what Obama and the globalists are thinking,” Marlow said.
“Well, quite frankly, I’m among them. I can’t figure out what the argument is for doing this,” Gaffney replied. He went on to explain the situation:
What they’re preparing to do is to cede, or surrender, the last vestige of American control, or even influence, over what is done with critical functions of the Internet. It gets pretty arcane, but the point is, if you think that the freedom of the Internet – whether it’s the ability of people to communicate freely information on it, or whether you think of it as an engine for free enterprise, let alone if you understand the contribution that it makes these days to national security – including, by the way, the operations of our critical infrastructure – you will understand that the United States retaining a measure of quality control as to what’s going on with how the Internet is populated with names and numbers, domains, websites and the like, is a very important thing.
“And for absolutely no good reason, other than people – or countries, I should say, like Russia, and China, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and North Korea – don’t want us to have any say in this and would like to be able to change things around so that they cannot only restrict all the things the Internet does to help their own people become familiar with the terrible they’re being subjected to, at the hands of their totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, but they want to take those freedoms – freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of enterprise – away from us, as well.
“So this is what it comes down to, Alex: there’s no good reason for doing this, certainly not in the next three days, which is what’s going to happen unless Congress intervenes.. .”
Also – John Hayward, Breitbart: “John Bolton: Hostile Foreign Governments Will Use Obama’s Internet Surrender to Their Advantage”
“…Breitbart Editor-in-Chief and SiriusXM host Alex Marlow asked Bolton about the impending surrender of Internet control to a multinational body, which Bolton saluted Senator Ted Cruz and some of his colleagues for making an “heroic effort” to block by inserting legislation into the continuing resolution for federal government funding.
“It didn’t happen,” Bolton said regretfully about Cruz’s efforts. “I don’t know why. I don’t know whether the Republican leadership in the Senate and the House were not receptive to it. It’s inconceivable to me, inconceivable, that we’re about to let this happen, because it is completely correct that once we let go, we are never going to get it back.”
Nick Field, Politics PA: “Voter Registration Update – GOP Continues to Chip Away”
“. . . Republicans made gains in 57 of PA’s 67 counties. Once again, their biggest gains came in the Southwest where Appalachian residents are fleeing the Democratic Party. Among the standouts where Republicans reduced the margin between the GOP and the Dems were: Westmoreland (984), Butler (459), Cambria (450), Fayette (439) and Washington (429).
“It’s also worth pointing out that Republicans are making up ground in Luzerne County (382) and running up the score in York County (944).
“Democrats are still able, however, to pad their margins in Philadelphia (4,527) and Allegheny (1,744) Counties.
“The SEPA Counties of Delaware (743) and Montgomery (615) are also still trending blue.
As I’ve noted in the past, though, the most intriguing trends have been in the two other SEPA Counties: Bucks and Chester. Republicans were able to regain ground in Bucks (463) and get the Dems’ registration advantage to under 10,000. Meanwhile Chester, which is the only collar county where the GOP holds the edge, continues to go against the grain. The Dems were able to shave 215 off the Republican margin there. . .”