The Hypocrisy About Russia is Astounding

    

Remember this:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Obama+Tell+Vladimir+I%27ll+Have+more+flexabilty&&view=detail &mid=18AD7EB17C4099EE236E18AD7EB17C4099EE236E&rvsmid=2470B88B138A20A4129A2470B88B138A20A4129A&fsscr=0&FORM=VDQVAP

President Obama told outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility" after the November election to take on the sticky issue of building a missile defense system in Europe.
Obama tells Medvedev: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
Medvedev replied: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir." The Vladimir, Medvedev refers to, is presumably incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin.

This is real evidence of real collusion with Putin and Russia. Not speculation. Not a conspiracy theory. Video and Audio evidence.

Remember all the outrage from the Democratic Party? Remember them calling for President Obama to recuse himself from any dealings with Russia? Remember them calling for his resignation? Remember the MSM coming out with calls of Conspiracy? No neither do I.

What about Hillary Clinton and Russia? Remember this article from that "Right Wing Conspiracy Newspaper, The New York Times"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

Bill Clinton earned a $500,000.00 speaking fee. The Clinton Foundation earned Millions. America lost 20% of its Uranium Assets to the Russians. Did the Democrats ask for an independent investigation? Did they ask for Hillary to be prosecuted? Did they call for her impeachment? Nope. They nominated her as the Democratic nominee for President of The United States.

 Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill has tweeted in the past about meetings and phone calls she has had with Russia’s ambassador, despite claiming on Thursday that she has never met with or talked to the diplomat.

Senator McCaskill, remember we have this thing called the internet. We have search engines. We don't have to rely on liberal fact checking organizations. We can do our on fact checking. You are a hypocrite.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/02/claire-mccaskill-claims-she-never-met-russias-ambassador-but-her-tweets-suggest-otherwise/#ixzz4aJMFYpRS

This appears to be nothing more than a concentrated effort by the Democrats to destroy the Trump Presidency before it even gets started. Stop the games. Get to work!

Is The New DNC Chair a Racist?

    

I do not like throwing the R word around. Having been called one non - stop since I started speaking out about Islam, even more when I begin to support President Trump after he won the Republican Primary, its not a term I use lightly. I think our over use of the word divides the country even more. I also think it hurts the people who struggled in the past fighting true racism. It cheapens their legacy.

Unfortunately this is a conversation we need to have. If Keith Ellison had not been robbed of the Chair Position we would still need to have the conversation. Ellison's past shows very clear signs of racism and anti-Semitism. You have to look a little deeper to find Tom Perez's acts of racism, but they are their if anyone bothers to look.

How many know Tom Perez was the involved in dropping the charges against the New Black Panthers for Voter Intimidation?  At the beginning of the Obama Administration, the Justice Department dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers that had already been won because they felt that Caucasians could not be victims of voter intimidation, and that African-Americans couldn’t be the oppressors. Tom Perez was involved with, and lied to congress about the racist decision.We all watched the video on TV. It was a clear cut case of Voter Intimidation. Perez has made it very clear he doesn't think whites can be victims of voter intimidation. If that isn't racism I don't know what is.

In addition to being a racist, Perez, like his pal Hillary, has his own email scandal. His own "recollection" issues. His own ethics issues. His own issues with the truth when testifying before Congress.

It seems the Democrats have learned nothing. 

Political Theater at the DNC

Yesterday morning I watched an interview with David Webb on Fox and Friends weekend. I think David proved yet again yesterday that he is a very intelligent commentator. In the interview he said the "fix" was in. Tom Perez would be the new DNC Chair. He said that was who the Clinton Team and The Obama team both wanted.

I have learned better than to discount anything David says. In my opinion David was 100% correct. Perez came out of no where to win the vote. For any of us who follow politics closely, it appeared Keith Ellison had it won.

It must have appeared that way to the progressive wing also. They were not happy when the results were announced.

If anyone thinks the "fix" wasn't in all they have to do is look what both Perez and Ellison did and said immediately after the results were announced. After taking over, Perez moved to name Ellison his deputy chairman, aiming to unify a divided party.

"When we have these conversations, sometimes spirited, sometimes difficult, that's not a sign of weakness, that's a sign of strength as a party and that's what were going to keep doing,” Perez said.

“If you came here supporting me, wearing a Keith t-shirt, or any t-shirt, I’m asking you to give everything you’ve got to support Chairman Perez,” said Ellison, accepting the role. “You love this country, you love all the people in it, you care about each and every one of them, urban, rural, suburban, all cultures, all faiths, everybody, and they are in need of your help. And if we waste even a moment going at it over who supported who, we are not going to be standing up for those people. We don’t have the luxury, folks, to walk out of this room divided."

When Perez won, Ellison backers erupted in anger, chanting “Party of the people, not big money!”

Both Perez and Ellison sought to present themselves as unity candidates, but Perez was widely seen as the candidate representing the Obama-Clinton wing of the party, and Ellison as the candidate of the Bernie Sanders wing.

Former President Barack Obama released a statement on the results.

"What unites our party is a belief in opportunity – the idea that however you started out, whatever you look like, or whomever you love, America is the place where you can make it if you try," he said. "I know that Tom Perez will unite us under that banner of opportunity, and lay the groundwork for a new generation of Democratic leadership for this big, bold, inclusive, dynamic America we love so much."

Make no mistake, David Webb was correct. The "fix" was in!

Hypocrite of the Week, and the Winner is...

    

This week was a very difficult decision. So many earned the award this week. Nancy Pelosi could have easily earned it for the second week in a row. CAIR could have won it for their bogus lawsuit. The ACLU also deserved it. After all they didn't file suit against President Obama for his 2011 6 month ban on refugees from Iraq.

Someone most of us have never heard of,  Obama’s DHS IG, John Roth, absolutely could and possibly should have earned it. He is the Inspector General who allowed some of President Obama's illegal Executive Orders on Immigration stand without an investigation even after the Courts had put them on hold and DOJ Attorneys' were caught lying to the Court, and sanctioned by the Judge. Still, no investigation.

In his press release about the investigation of the DHS and President Trump's Executive order, IG Roth wrote,  “In addition to reviewing the implementation of the Executive Order, the OIG will review DHS’ adherence to court orders and allegations of individual misconduct on the part of DHS personnel,” the announcement states. “If circumstances warrant, the OIG will consider including other issues that may arise during the course of the review.” The probe was initiated in response to “congressional request and whistleblower and hotline complaints,” according to the announcement. 

So many choices. I had to give the award to Senator Chuck Schumer for his performance, complete with tears, in his press conference. Perhaps Senator Schumer should also be nominated for an Academy Award for that performance. Funny how with a different President in charge Senator Schumer's belief system changes.

The Hill reported on Nov. 17, 2015, in an article headlined “Schumer: Refugee pause may be necessary”:

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, on Tuesday said it may be necessary to halt the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the United States.
Republicans immediately seized on Schumer’s comment, which breaks with other Democrats who have argued against halting the program.
Schumer, however, declined to take the option off the table ahead of a special briefing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon on the process that is now used to vet refugees entering the United States. “We’re waiting for the briefing tomorrow, a pause may be necessary. We’re going to look at it,” he said.

Doesn't sound like he thought it was "mean spirited" then. Where were the tears then Senator. Where were they in 2011?

Of course it wasn't only Senator Schumer. Where was Nancy Pelosi singing "This Land is Your Land" when President Obama suspended Refugees from Iraq in 2011? Or Secretary of State Clinton?

Of course then Senator Clinton, after 911 recommended even more:

Hillary Clinton: “We have to do whatever it takes to keep our people safe.”

Sam Donaldson: “Including profiling, senator?”

Hillary Clinton: “I think we have to do whatever it takes, Sam. And I believe that, you know, Tuesday changed everything. Tuesday was a day that America has never, ever had to experience. And I hope to heaven that we never have to again. But we are in a war situation, and we’re going to have to do things people do in times of war.”


Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/democrats-supported-immigration-halt-clinton-schumer/#ixzz4XjAgFdyv

Below are a couple of screenshots from Senator Schumer's Twitter Feed that show his hypocrisy. He will fight President Trump's lawful Executive Order but would not fight President Obama's unlawful Executive Orders. Then he wants to lecture us on agreeing on a "baseline of facts." Which ones Senator Schumer? The true facts or your alternative "facts?"

    
    

The hypocrisy is never ending. Senator Schumer I guess you can be proud of winning this award this week. You had a lot of competition!

The Hypocrisy From the Left On Trump's So-Called "Muslim Ban"

If it wasn't so serious it would almost be comical at the outrage and hypocrisy from the left. I wonder where the outrage was in 2011 when then President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton banned all Iraqi refugees for 6 months? Where was the outrage when President Carter banned refugees from Iran and even deported many who were already here?

These protests are nothing more than an attempt to try and take President Trump down. The same with the faux outrage from the media who didn't short circuit with Democrats who did basically the same thing.

From ABC News:

An ABC News investigation of the flawed U.S. refugee screening system, which was overhauled two years ago, showed that Alwan was mistakenly allowed into the U.S. and resettled in the leafy southern town of Bowling Green, Kentucky, a city of 60,000 which is home to Western Kentucky University and near the Army's Fort Knox and Fort Campbell. Alwan and another Iraqi refugee, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, 26, were resettled in Bowling Green even though both had been detained during the war by Iraqi authorities, according to federal prosecutors.

As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.

No moral outrage then. No protests. Why the difference?

The other big outcry is President Trump said we would do whatever we can to help persecuted Christians get into the country under refugee status. Again, selective outrage. Where was the outrage over only 3% of the Syrian Refugees admitted to the USA being either Christian or Yazidi?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/17/us-unintentionally-discriminates-against-christian/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426419/christian-refugees-syria-religious-minorities-united-states-resettlement-policy

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/syrian-christians-are-greatest-peril-least-likely-be-admitted

Below is the actual transcript of President Carter banning Iranians:

"Ever since Iranian terrorists imprisoned American Embassy personnel in Tehran early in November, these 50 men and women—their safety, their health, and their future—have been our central concern. We've made every effort to obtain their release on honorable, peaceful, and humanitarian terms, but the Iranians have refused to release them or even to improve the inhumane conditions under which these Americans are being held captive.
The events of the last few days have revealed a new and significant dimension in this matter. The militants controlling the Embassy have stated they are willing to turn the hostages over to the Government of Iran, but the Government has refused to take custody of the American hostages. This lays bare the full responsibility of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Revolutionary Council for the continued illegal and outrageous holding of the innocent hostages. The Iranian Government can no longer escape full responsibility by hiding behind the militants at the Embassy.
It must be made clear that the failure to release the hostages will involve increasingly heavy costs to Iran and to its interests. I have today ordered the following steps.
First, the United States of America is breaking diplomatic relations with the Government of Iran. The Secretary of State has informed the Government of Iran that its Embassy and consulates in the United States are to be closed immediately. All Iranian diplomatic and consular officials have been declared persona non grata and must leave this country by midnight tomorrow.
Second, the Secretary of the Treasury will put into effect official sanctions prohibiting exports from the United States to Iran, in accordance with the sanctions approved by 10 members of the United Nations Security Council on January 13 in the resolution which was vetoed by the Soviet Union. Although shipment of food and medicine were not included in the U.N. Security Council vote, it is expected that exports even of these items to Iran will be minimal or nonexistent.
Third, the Secretary of Treasury will make a formal inventory of the assets of the Iranian Government, which were frozen by my previous order, and also will make a census or an inventory of the outstanding claims of American citizens and corporations against the Government of Iran. This accounting of claims will aid in designing a program against Iran for the hostages, for the hostage families, and other U.S. claimants. We are now preparing legislation, which will be introduced in the Congress, to facilitate processing and paying of these claims.
Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.
In order to minimize injury to the hostages, the United States has acted at all times with exceptional patience and restraint in this crisis. We have supported Secretary-General Waldheim's activities under the U.N. Security Council mandate to work for a peaceful solution. We will continue to consult with our allies and other friendly governments on the steps we are now taking and on additional measures which may be required.
I am committed to resolving this crisis. I am committed to the safe return of the American hostages and to the preservation of our national honor. The hostages and their families, indeed all of us in America, have lived with the reality and the anguish of their captivity for 5 months. The steps I have ordered today are those that are necessary now. Other action may become necessary if these steps do not produce the prompt release of the hostages.
Thank you very much."

Sounds a lot like President Trump's restrictions to me.

While we are on selective outrage, where was the outrage from the left when an American Jew, who was a member of the Whitehouse Press Pool was denied entry to Saudi Arabia because he was Jewish? He was an American Citizen. Did not have dual American and Israeli Citizenship and in fact had never even been to Israel! No protests. No outrage from the left. Nothing.

Source here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/saudis-deny-visa-jewish-reporter-covering-obama-obama-still-going

So if you want to protest, fine. Just do your homework. If you are going to protest the actions of a politician on one side of the aisle for doing basically the same thing a politician from the other side of the aisle did and you said nothing, you might be a hypocrite.