Why libs hate the US men’s hockey team

Not a Megan Rapinoe or a Colin Kaepernick in the bunch. TD

 Pete McArdle - American Thinker

"What, above all, accounts for the incredible ire and invective hurled at the gold-medal-winning men’s hockey team?  The players publicly showed love for their country."

"Never before has so much spleen been vented over so little. A bunch of red-blooded guys from the states play a bruising and exciting game of hockey over in Milan, Italy, and when they win in overtime, the loony American left explodes in disgust.

"Now, why would “liberals,” and I use that word loosely, have and express so much hatred for a bunch of fellow Americans who just play hockey and play it well?

"Let me count the ways.

"The U.S. hockey team was overwhelmingly white; no diversity was to be found. The folks who chose the squad failed to include any blacks, any obvious Chinese-Americans, any Puerto Rican rappers who wear dresses, and certainly no dyslexic, transgender dwarves. This disturbing lack of DEI came about because the players were chosen based on merit, i.e., their ability to play, much like the almost all-black NBA.

"Sadly, the U.S. hockey team was also toxically masculine. They were not afraid to trade elbows, and totally unconcerned about leaving blood and tooth fragments on the ice. They were there to win, regardless of the personal sacrifice. Don’t forget that after Jack Hughes lost teeth from a high Canadian stick, and before he scored the winning goal, cherubic Jack returned the favor, giving a Canuck player a good taste of his stick and earning Hughes time in the penalty box.

"The men’s hockey team also failed to follow the equally successful U.S. women’s hockey team’s lead, by snubbing President Trump’s invite to the White House and the SOTU speech.

"The lady hockey players, before disappearing into total obscurity for the next four years—and some of them, forever—brazenly told a sitting American president, “New phone, who dis?”

"Hair to do, nails to polish, a pressing term paper coming due, no doubt. The foolish men’s team, on the other hand, couldn’t wait to visit the White House and the Capitol building." . . .More...

Who are these people, heckling Trump, and refusing to stand for America's heroes?

 "Who can watch the ugly expressions of the faces of so many of those Democrats, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, etc., and not wonder, “Who are these people?'”  Patricia McCarthy

There is something terribly, horribly wrong with the current crop of Democrats - American Thinker . . . "This was true before Trump’s glorious State of the Union speech Tuesday night, but their behavior during and outside of it further exposed the death of any loyalty they ever had to this nation.  

"They behaved badly during last year’s SOTU, refusing to stand for the victims of illegal migrant murders or the little boy who was surviving brain cancer.  They are a hardhearted bunch.  

"They were no better during this speech.  Again, they did not stand for many of the most obvious moments in the speech that were a test of basic morality.  

"Bottom line?  No matter what the issue, even the protection of American citizens over illegal aliens, they sat on their hands, demonstrating for all that they fervently disagree with any of the successful and positive policies Trump has implemented.  

“ 'Stand up if you believe that the government’s priority should be protecting Americans over illegal immigrants,” Trump said. Not one of them stood. That was when Trump commented that they should be ashamed of themselves.  

"Indeed.  How to explain their lack of essential American values?  Of fundamental decency?  They proved beyond all doubt that they do revere illegal migrants into this country over law-abiding American citizens. 

"The Democrats did not stand when Trump indicted the insane and cruel mutilation of people who suffer from gender dysphoria.  That is when President Trump remarked that “These people are crazy.”  

"Yes, they are.  They are worse than crazy.  There is something so very wrong with elected officials who embrace such madness.  But then we already knew they were descending into a demented state. " . . . 

"The country is so much better off since Trump was re-elected, and that fact makes the reasons for the Democrats’ rage and fury obvious.  He has brought the country back from the brink to which Obama/Biden took us.  They stupidly defended, even celebrated, Biden’s policies, even though they certainly knew he was gone mentally and that his open border was a disaster that may well never be completely undone' ".   More...

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Warns Trump of Deep and Serious Risks If U.S. Strikes Iran

 Breitbart   

"Axios reported that Gen. Caine has advised Trump and top members of his national security team that a military campaign against Iran could carry serious consequences, including the possibility of the United States becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict. The account was based on conversations with five sources"

"As President Donald Trump considers whether and how to conduct military strikes against Iran ahead of another round of talks in Geneva, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine has advised the president and senior officials that such action could carry significant risks, including the possibility of a prolonged conflict, according to Axios.

Axios reported that Gen. Caine has advised Trump and top members of his national security team that a military campaign against Iran could carry serious consequences, including the possibility of the United States becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict. The account was based on conversations with five sources who either attended or were briefed on high-level internal meetings.

According to Axios, Caine has not advocated for a strike but would execute any decision the president ultimately makes. One source described him as a “reluctant warrior” in discussions about Iran, contrasting his posture with his support for the operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. While Caine was described as fully supportive of the Venezuela operation, two sources told Axios he has been more cautious regarding Iran because he views the stakes as higher and the risks of entanglement and American casualties as greater.

Another source with direct knowledge of Caine’s thinking told Axios that the chairman is not opposed to a military campaign but is “clear-eyed and realistic” about the likelihood of success and what could unfold once a conflict begins. A senior official pushed back on suggestions that Caine had voiced skepticism.

Joint Staff spokesman Joe Holstead told Axios that, in his advisory capacity, the chairman presents “a range of military options” along with “secondary considerations and associated impacts and risks,” and does so confidentially. White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly remarked in a written statement that Caine is a “talented and highly-valued” member of Trump’s national security team and that the president hears “a host of opinions” before deciding what he believes best protects U.S. national security." . . . More...