Liberal hypocrisy comes to light as Kellyanne Conway rightfully cites Barack Obama’s history of banning Muslim refugees (which was worse than Donald Trump’s), yet the press and the liberal protestors get angry at Trump for “banning” Muslim refugees? Whether you agree with this banning or not (I disagree with the banning, by the way), you have to put things in perspective when it comes to left-wing hypocrisy and these protestors.
I grabbed a short bit from Larry Elder and added the video to his audio… as well as ending this upload with another clip where a specific question about numbers of those stuck at the airports is, as well as a clarification of the State Dept. numbers.
Larry Elder pours over the Sunday shows and by doing so shows the green-Card issue is at worst a misunderstanding [purposefully or innocent] on the Press’ part – at best poorly communicated through proper channels via the Trump administration. What is clear however is that nothing in the bill itself requires the conclusions by the Left and the media. Here David French makes the point:
✦ The plain language of the order doesn’t apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S., and green-card holders have been through round after round of vetting and security checks. The administration should intervene, immediately, to stop misapplication. (National Review)
I include in this long audio/video Mark Levin’s impersonation of John McCain.
Here is my description of the audio:
Hugh Hewitt sets up Tom Barrack’s Sunday “Meet the Press” interview with Chuck Todd and himself. Mr. Barrack is the Chairman of the Inaugural Committee and says that his team was responsible for providing the White House with the crowd numbers.
Not included was Chris Matthews noting how reasonable and intelligent Barrack is and follows that up with saying Trump is the same way in person. Adding that Trump is a great listener as well. Matthews continues to say that the public gets a Trump that everyone who personally has met and knows him does not recognize.
You can watch the fuller interview on MEET THE PRESS.
I wanted to pass on a note I left my friends and readers on my Facebook in regards to Chuck Todd’s interview of Kellyanne Conway, and her statement about facts:
Here are some related articles… the first one in the list below is the one Dennis Prager is reading from:
- There is actually no new information leading the CIA to its conclusion. The New York Timesreports: “The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.” In other words, someone only decided after Trump won that the accusation was worth making.
- The “evidence” that the CIA has gathered is inconclusive. The FBI also disagrees with some of the CIA’s conclusions about Russia’s motives. “While lawmakers were seemingly united on the need to present a strong bipartisan response, the FBI and CIA gave lawmakers differing accounts on Russia’s motives, according to The Post,” The Hillreported on Sunday.
- Despite left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process.The most that the CIA is alleging is that the Russians may have helped hack of the Democratic National Committee emails, as well as (possibly) the emails of Hillary Clinton campaign chaiman John Podesta. There is zero evidence Russian hackers messed with voting. Ironically, Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount has eliminated any doubt about the integrity of the results.
- Julian Assange and Wikileaks have vigorously denied that the Russians were involved in Wikileaks’ disclosures. Of the Democratic National Committee emails, Assange said: “That is the circumstantial evidence that some Russian, or someone who wanted to make them look like a Russian, was involved, with these other media organisations. That is not the case for the material that we released.” Assange made similar denials about the Podesta email leaks later in the election.
- What would the consequences of allowing undue Russian influence in our elections be, exactly? Would we yield primacy in Eastern Europe to Vladimir Putin? Would we give up our plans for missile defense? Would we make deep unilateral cuts in our nuclear arsenal in exchange for flimsy concessions ? Would we tolerate a Russian land invasion of a friendly, pro-Western country? Would we cede the Middle East to Russian hegemony? Because Hillary Clinton and Obama already did that.