As IF Times

Source: Clinton stresses U.S. resolve in terrorism fight; warns Trump policies aid militant recruitment

Here’s a narrative being pushed so often that many idiots have accepted it and have propagated it as being true.  I’m unclear of who started this fatuous notion but it seems to have begun by those critical of the Guantanamo detention facility.  The notion is that by imprisoning terrorists at Guantanamo and by extrapolation, attacking terrorists in their home areas, contributes to the recruiting of more combatants to the fight because they are angered by their peeps’ treatment.

Although there is no rational objective study supporting this and more importantly, that it flies in the face of common sense, were this belief true, it turns much of the constructs of a civilized society on its head.

Imagine the scenario of someone robbing a bank, vandalizing a property, or committing some more serious crime against another.  The logic goes that it would be best not to arrest and detain them for fear of his relatives and buds reciprocating by committing further crimes.  This is the logic burger that the left wants us to eat.

Unless Islamic militants are totally non human ( a topic for another discussion), fear of death or incarceration have historically been disincentives for unsociable behavior.   If you think about it, the stories brought back by released detainees from Guantanamo are probably what’s driving the recruitment of militants.  The conscripts typically don’t have a lot to give up by joining the fight given that female slaves are a prize when successful and virgins are awaiting if they’re not.  In the case of capture by the Americans, there is no torture or even severe pushing around.

As told by the released prisoners, they are housed in comfortable climate controlled residences, provided with clean clothes, have access to cable TV, entertainment, ample and nutritious food, soccer fields and deferential treatment by the guards.  Compare this to home, where everything is swathed in the monotone sepia of dust, food is beans and sleeping in proximity to biblical animals is not uncommon not to mention un-bathed men. With this as the downside, it’s hardly a wonder that the lineup to join the fight requires that recruits take a number at the back of the line.

Source: Donald Trump Bashes Alicia Machado Again, Alleging a ‘Sex Tape’ (Without Evidence) – The New York Times

To no one’s surprise, the mainstream media have aligned themselves solidly against the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, as the never ending US presidential election reaches its conclusion.  We all know that it wouldn’t make a difference if Mother Teresa ran under the GOP banner, the mere fact of the affiliation would make her a target of disdain.   We all recall the last GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, who compared to the tempestuous Trump, really was a prince of a guy.   Romney was as squeaky clean as it gets;  successful, a family man, gracious and articulate.  Still, he was portrayed as an elitist and demonized as out of touch.   They preferred the PC demagogue paper pusher of the day.  What chance does Trump have of getting any boo yahs from the media?

This most recent ‘fumble’ by Trump is more telling of the media than it is of Trump.  Essentially, they are lambasting him for calling a fat girl, Alicia Machado, fat. Trump is hardly the most tactful or articulate of speakers as we all now know, but is this really the disqualifying trait for him?  Does he cheat at golf too? He must have at least a 3 foot long list of personal frailties; calling someone a name is hardly the worst of them.  Is that the card that they want to play, that he insulted an employee 20 years ago?  Well it’s pretty transparent what the strategy is: try to disenfranchise the female vote.  A word to women who may fall for this ruse: snap out of it!  It’s the 21st century;  women are clamoring to equal  men in all aspects of life.  Getting all hurty-feely because someone called you fat is pretty lame.

People may still not understand that the reason for his success with the electorate to this point is that he is a plain talking guy who won’t be bullied to tow the liberal pc lines.  If you’re fat, you’re fat.  A Dale Carnegie graduate, he’s not,  but it’s time to move away from all the double-non speak that terrorizes people today.

Like Romney, Trump has created employment and wealth for thousands of employees.  There is a record of accomplishment and achievement.   Democrats by comparison all seem to be professional government teat suckers who have done little in life other than parlay their law degrees to pander to whatever constituencies’ votes are coveted but have never been responsible for a payroll.  The Democratic presidents going back into history all fit this profile.  Go ahead, check it out, I’ll wait here.

The present incarnation, Hilary Clinton fits this profile on steroids.  Other than the fact that she’s the politically correct flavor of the day, the main rationale offered as her qualification is “experience”, as in over 30 years of being in public office of some kind or other, flying on government planes and attending useless meetings with other useless politicos.  Why anyone would tout that as an asset is odd to me.  It’s as if the ticket taker at the parking lot claimed experience in security.  If her character and history of questionable activity and connections were detailed, it could serve as the operations manual for the Mafia.  If Hilary was around during the day that George Washington’s famous tree was chopped down, she’d have blamed it on mob that was incited by a video.  Hilary is an ideological wind vane.

The media will be and are predictable in whom they support, no surprise there.  The surprise will be if the public decides to ignore their desperate bleats this time and make up their own minds based on the important characteristics of the candidates.  I hope the vast legion of long suffering deplorables make their voices heard.  Trump’s no choir boy, but he’s still better than Hilary.