Super Sunday, the left's continuing alienation of voters and terrorists and the "ban"

What a Superbowl.  What an epic collapse, or comeback, whichever you prefer.  Anyway, it was entertaining.  And, so was the half-time show.  I publicly apologize to lady Gaga for saying she was going to “musically  lecture us on inclusiveness”.  I thought her show was high energy, very entertaining and just what the doctor ordered.

Of course some couldn’t help but link politics and to the spectacle. It’s fairly well known that the Pats Tom Brady and Coach Bill Belichick are favorably linked to Trump.  Shaun King, a well know race-baiter (also known as “Talcum X”) couldn’t help himself. He attempted to lecture America at half-time of the game.  Hilarity ensued.  He eventually deleted the tweet.

Apparently Bruce Springsteen told an Australian crowd that he was “embarrassed to be an American” during a performance.  Gee, Bruce, we’re embarrassed you’re an American too.  Why don’t you just stay down-under and renounce your citizenship. No need to live in embarrassment when there’s such an easy solution.  And yes, I’m tired of the entertainment industry’s moral preening.  The fact that you can act, dance or sing doesn’t at all mean anyone wants to hear your political opinions.  However, if you choose to state them, which is everyone’s right, don’t whine when people push back and there are monetary consequences as well.  Oh, and don’t expect to have any effect on those you “deplore”.  They’ve already written you off.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading about the so-called “muslim ban”.  Of course, it’s not.  Not even close.  But the purpose of agit-prop is to name and set the message and agenda.  That’s why you hear that repeatedly used by the left.  In fact, you can get a much clearer appreciation for what the EO contains at the following link.   One of the purposes is:

As we have been advocating for the last fourteen months, a pause in the Syrian refugee program is needed in order to ensure that our vetting standards keep the American public – and refugees – safe.  ISIS (the Islamic State) has specifically and publicly called for the infiltration of the refugee program – seeking to use refugees fleeing genocide as camouflage to enter the United States and inflict terror. ISIS has successfully inflicted carnage in this way throughout Europe.

Of course the left, conveniently forgetting that the brothers that bombed the Boston Marathon were refugees, claims that no one has ever been harmed by one.  Obviously that’s not true.  But none other than the New York Times ran a story about there being no such thing as a “lone wolf” when it comes to terrorism.  The article essentially describes Syria as the epicenter of ISIS terrorism.  Speaking on a planned attack in India, the NYT reports:

And from Syria, investigators believe, the group’s virtual plotters organized for the delivery of weapons as well as the precursor chemicals used to make explosives, directing the Indian men to hidden pickup spots.

The article also points out the ISIS has demanded its recruits make their way to Syria (which, it further notes is much harder now than it was).

My point, of course, is knowing that, what thinking person then would object to using special rules and pausing an influx of refugees from a country in which a terrorist organization has, for some time, said it planned to use to infiltrate this country?  And, further, given their method of operation, how hard is it to imagine ISIS turning disgruntled Syrian refugees into killers via the internet?

Yeah, that’s right, no one.  Not if they can objectively think beyond the slogans and logically connect the dots.  That, of course, excludes the left.

If you’re following the fake news count since Trump has been president, here’s a handy compendium that lists 24 of the most egregious.  As you watch this occur you begin to realize that where the news media should be spending most of their time – i.e. on substantive issues that are important to us all – they instead have decided on outrage as their vehicle.  Even if the outrage has to be made up.  You know, whatever it takes to bring down a hated politician.  And truth?  Kicked to the curb.

And the Trump voters?  Given the antics of the left, it would seem they’re more and more happy with their vote than they may have been in November:

I am weary of lectures about what values I should have and how insensitive I am. I am tired of being “guilted” for having a job, finding a way to live comfortably and having a practical sense of priority on global warming. I make choices and decisions based on what can be done and what I can pay for, not on what is said or promised. I don’t carry signs, chant, dress up in clever costumes, vandalize or wear pink hats.

I work, and I worry about who pays the tab. My voice has not counted for years, but we have long since passed the point where that is even relevant. The injustice now is that this country has already spent so much money and incurred so much debt that the bill will fall to our grandchildren. My view is that this country does not have the right to spend future taxpayers’ money without their consent. 

I can accept a view that women have a right to have an abortion, but I don’t want government to pay for them. I understand that Democrats feel the need to atone for their party’s defense of slavery before the Civil War, opposition to reconstruction immediately after the Civil War and support of Southern racial segregation until the 1960s, but I don’t want my grandchildren’s money spent trying to make this right. I welcome any immigrant who can contribute, pay taxes and obey our laws, but I don’t want to pay to support those who can’t.

But all that doesn’t matter. My grandchildren should make these choices themselves, not the current collection of Washington and state government politicos who use my taxes to make empty speeches and buy votes in the next election. Balance the budgets and pay off state and federal debt first. And then we can have all the empty values-centered debates about which cause du jour we want to throw money at.

It seems that the outcome of the last election is understood only by people like me.

He goes on to tell he has no special love for Trump at all, however, given the alternative and what was represented by that alternative, in the end he felt he had no choice.

I voted for Trump because he was the alternative to letting a collection of free spenders, organizers, race-baiters, intellectuals, tree huggers and professional value arbitrators continue to spend our grandchildren’s money.

This country and this generation of voters must pay our bills and not sit around having dorm-room debates on philosophy and injustice. I voted for Trump because we can’t afford another president we simply like; we need one now who does something.

So, go ahead — rage, riot, demonstrate, burn, dress up, march, protest, pout, sing, make speeches, resist, vandalize and denounce me as much as you want. I am deplorable, and I am happier with my vote every day.

The good news?  It’s still not registering on the left.

~McQ