Gorsuch Asserts His Independence: ‘No Such Thing as a Republican Judge’

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF NBC NEWS)

MAR 21 2017, 9:34 AM ET

Gorsuch Asserts His Independence: ‘No Such Thing as a Republican Judge’

Play
Watch Live: Confirmation Hearing for SCOTUS Nominee Neil Gorsuch

Neil Gorsuch insisted that he would not shy from ruling against President Donald Trump and assured lawmakers during the second day of his confirmation hearings Tuesday that he made no commitments to the president when he was nominated to the Supreme Court.

“I have no problem ruling against a person or any party,” Gorsuch told Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, calling the question of his independence a “softball.”

  • Gorsuch said he would have “no problem” ruling against President Trump or anyone else.
  • The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge said he would have “walked out” if Trump asked him to vote against Roe v. Wade.
  • He called it “grossly improper” to speculate about how he would rule in case about travel ban.

“There is no such thing as a Republican judge, or Democratic judge. We just have judges in this country,” he added.

Gorsuch has used the start to his high-profile confirmation battle to present himself as a consensus building, independent jurist with views well within the mainstream. He repeatedly told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee he made no promises to the Trump administration about future rulings, even saying he would have “walked out the door” if Trump asked him to commit to voting against Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion.

Play
Gorsuch Pressed About Legality of Trump’s Travel Ban 3:03

But Democrats prodding him about his opinions on both established Supreme Court precedent and the legality of Trump’s most controversial acts thus far as president, including Trump’s travel bans, received few clues.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge called it “irresponsible” to tip his hand on potential future rulings.

Related: Follow the Confirmation Hearing Live Blog

“It would be grossly improper of a judge to do that and a violation of the separation of powers and judicial independence if someone sitting at this table, in order to get confirmed, had to make promises or commitments about how they’d rule in a case that’s currently pending and likely to make its way to the Supreme Court,” Gorsuch said after Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., examined him about Trump’s controversial travel restrictions.

Trump’s revised executive order banning travel from six Muslim-majority nations, issued after his first travel order was described as a “Muslim ban” by critics and met with significant legal challenges, was blocked from going into effect by a federal judge last week.

Gorsuch called Roe v. Wade “precedent” that has been “reaffirmed many times” and declined to say whether he agreed with a host of other precedent-setting rulings on issues like gun rights and the power of the executive branch.

“If I indicate my agreement or disagreement with the past precedent of the United States Supreme Court, I’m doing two things that worry me sitting here: The first thing I’m doing is signaling to future litigants that I can’t be a fair judge in their case. Because those issues keep coming up,” Gorsuch told Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the highest ranking Democrat on the committee.

Democrats and liberal groups have attacked Gorsuch for his ties to big business, centering on his skepticism of the so-called Chevron Doctrine that allows federal agencies to make rules to clarify areas where the law is ambiguous. His opposition to Chevron could curtail federal agencies ability to tackle issues like climate change and workers’ rights.

Play
Gorsuch: I Would Have ‘No Difficulty’ Ruling Against the President 2:26

Feinstein asked the nominee for assurances “that you will be for the little man” and stand up to corporate interests.

“If you want cases where I ruled for the little guy as well as the big guy, there are plenty of those, Senator,” he told Feinstein, who asked for examples to be sent to her office.

Democrats also used the hearing to voice their frustrations over Republican efforts to block Merrick Garland, President Obama’s pick to fill the court vacancy left after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February 2016.

“Do you think [Garland] was treated fairly by this committee, yes or no?” Leahy asked Gorsuch.

“I can’t get involved in politics, and there is judicial canons that prevent me from doing that,” Gorsuch said.

Scalia’s death — and Republicans’ subsequent refusal to allow President Barack Obama to fill the seat, made the Supreme Court one of the top issues in the 2016 race. Trump won 56 percent of voters who said the nominee was important, according to national exit polls.

Outside groups are pushing Democrats to unite in opposition to Trump’s pick, though most have said they will wait for the hearings to conclude before deciding how they’ll vote. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has painted Gorsuch as an ideological extremist and said he will make his views “very strongly known to them” once the public hearings conclude.

Outside groups have also been working to promote Gorsuch’s confirmation with millions of dollars in undisclosed donations. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., asked if it was “any cause of concern” for him that a reported $10 million ad campaign was launched to support his nomination.

“There is a lot about the confirmation process today that I regret,” Gorsuch said, including the strain it has put on his family.

“The fact of the matter is, that it is what it is, and it’s this body that makes the laws. And if you wish to have more disclosure, pass a law and a judge will enforce it,” he added.

Even a united front would unlikely be enough for Democrats to stop Gorsuch. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has not ruled out invoking the so-called “nuclear option,” a parliamentary maneuver that would eliminate the 60-vote threshold required to advance a nominee, and intends to approve the nominee before the Senate breaks for Easter recess.

China’s Xi calls for ‘smooth transition’ in relationship with U.S.

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF REUTERS NEWS AGENCY)

China’s Xi calls for ‘smooth transition’ in relationship with U.S.

By Jeff Mason | LIMA

Chinese President Xi Jinping on Saturday called for a “smooth transition” in Beijing’s relationship with Washington and praised outgoing President Barack Obama for strengthening ties between the two nations.

During a meeting in Peru, Obama repeated the U.S. urging that all sides in the dispute over the South China Sea reduce tensions and resolve their disputes peacefully.

The meeting is expected to be the last between the two leaders before President-elect Donald Trump enters the White House. Trump has been sharply critical of China.

“We meet at a hinge  moment in the China-U.S. relationship,” Xi said at the start of the meeting, through an interpreter.

“I hope the two sides will work together to focus on cooperation, manage our differences and make sure there is a smooth transition in the relationship and that it will continue to grow going forward,” he said.

Trump, a Republican, has accused China of being a currency manipulator and promised to slap big tariffs on imported Chinese goods. He has also called climate change a “hoax” designed to help Beijing.

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” Trump wrote in a tweet in 2012.

Obama and Xi pushed for the international community to back an agreement forged in Paris to combat global warming. Obama called that an example of the benefits of the two countries working together.

“Now we face the work of making sure our economies transition to become more sustainable,” he said.

Trump’s election has raised questions about whether the United States would try to pull out of the accord, a key legacy accomplishment for Obama, a Democrat.

China also helped negotiate the Iran nuclear agreement, another big piece of Obama’s foreign policy that Trump has threatened to dismantle.

Neither Xi nor Obama mentioned Trump in their remarks in front of reporters.

“Mr. President, I would like to commend you for the active efforts you’ve made to grow this relationship,” Xi said to Obama.

Obama noted that the two leaders would discuss areas of disagreement, including “the creation of a more level playing field for our businesses to compete, innovation policies, excess capacity and human rights,” he said.

“I continue to believe that a constructive U.S.-China relationship benefits our two people’s and benefits the entire globe,” he said.

(Reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Mary Milliken and David Gregorio)

(OPINION: HILLARY CLINTON WILL DESTROY ISRAEL IF SHE BECOMES PRESIDENT AND SHE WILL BY CAUSE AND EFFECT: START WW-3)

(OPINION: HILLARY CLINTON WILL DESTROY ISRAEL IF SHE BECOMES PRESIDENT AND SHE WILL BY CAUSE AND EFFECT: START WW-3)

Susan Michael, ICEJ USA Director <[email protected]>

 

Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has affirmed his support for five principles guiding a strong US-Israel relationship.

TRUMP SIGNS ON TO ICEJ’S FIVE GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ISRAEL

September 25, 2016 – Mr. Trump met with Israeli PM Netanyahu at Trump Tower, declaring, “If I’m president, I’ll recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital.”  
Dear Ted,

Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has affirmed to me his support for five principles guiding a strong US-Israel relationship. This came in response to a request made to Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton to agree to the principles presented by the ICEJ and its network, American Christian Leaders for Israel (ACLI), which represents 60 million Evangelicals.

A petition addressed to the candidates signed by some 40,000 grassroots Americans, and the ACLI letter signed by 650 Christian leaders across America, emphasized locating the US Embassy to Jerusalem, supporting security aid to Israel, monitoring and acting on Iran’s terrorism and violations of the JCPOA Iran nuclear agreement, rejecting third-party solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict forced on Israel, and opposing Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions efforts levied at Israel.

The ACLI letter was signed by Evangelical leaders representing diverse groups and denominations including Hispanic and African-American Christians; among them Dr. Jerry Johnson, CEO- National Religious Broadcasters; Roberta Combs, President-Christian Coalition; Rev. Dr. Sam Rodriguez, President-National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; Penny Nance, CEO-Concerned Women for America; Rev. Harry Jackson, Presiding Bishop-International Communion of Evangelical Churches; Jane Hansen Hoyt, President-AGLOW International; Dr. James Dobson, President-Family Talk Radio; Janet Parshall, nationally syndicated talk show host; and Jim Showers, Executive Director-The Friends of Israel.

In a meeting on September 25 with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at Trump Tower, the Republican presidential candidate already declared, “If I’m president, I’ll recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital.”  Then on October 26, in a video at a Republican event in Jerusalem, Trump commented, “My administration will stand side-by-side with the Jewish people and Israel’s leaders to continue strengthening the bridges that connect, not only Jewish Americans and Israelis, but also all Americans and Israelis. Together, we will stand up to enemies, like Iran, bent on destroying Israel and her people, together we will make America and Israel safe again.”

The policies Mr. Trump has agreed to will enhance Israel’s standing in the world and directly benefit the United States in security, innovation, technology, and intelligence.

Secretary Clinton is yet to respond to the ICEJ’s request to agree to the five key principles guiding a strong US-Israel relationship.

I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to all of our supporters who signed onto this important initiative and did their part to ensure the future Israel-US relationship grows in strength during the next White House administration.

For Zion’s sake,

Susan Michael
ICEJ USA Director

Share
Tweet
Forward

Guiding Principles for the Presidential Candidates:

✔ Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US Embassy there

✔ Renew the ten-year Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Israel which provides aid in response to Israel’s growing security needs

✔ Oppose the global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel

✔ Sanction Iran’s relentless actions as the world’s leading sponsor of terror

✔ Reject third-party solutions to the Israeli – Palestinian conflict not negotiated by the two parties

Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei Finally Gets Something Correct About The U.S.

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF CNS NEWS AGENCY)

Ayatollah Weighs in on US Presidential Nominees: ‘Spirituality and Faith are Lacking’

By Patrick Goodenough | October 19, 2016 | 5:50 PM EDT

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks to university students on Wednesday, October 19, 2016. (Photo: Office of the supreme leader)

(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. presidential campaign and issues raised by nominees Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are evidence that “spirituality and faith are lacking among those in power” in America, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared on Wednesday.

Speaking to university students, Khamenei addressed what an official website paraphrased as “the difficulties and problems perplexing mankind today, and the dead-ends that materialistic thought patterns sustain.”

He told his audience, “The campaigns held during presidential elections in the U.S. and the worries conveyed by the two candidates are a clear example that spirituality and faith are lacking among those in power.”

“Within the next few weeks, one of these two dueling candidates in the U.S. election – whose status and words you can observe – will become the president of a country which holds the world’s most power, wealth, nuclear weapons, and media,” the ayatollah added.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton speak during the second presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Sunday, Oct. 9, 2016. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

He made the observations about the election campaign hours before the third and final debate between Trump and Clinton. The last one saw Clinton accuse Trump of debasing women, while the GOP nominee highlighted accusations of sexual wrongdoing by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Khamenei regularly speaks reprovingly about Western morality and ethics, painting them as deeply deficient as he extols Islamic values.

At the same time, he heads a regime which the U.S. government says is the world’s number one state-sponsor of terror, and whose human rights record draws sharp criticism from experts and rights campaigners.

In his speech Wednesday, Khamenei also reprised complaints about U.S. policy in the aftermath of the nuclear accord which came into effect last January. When Iran makes concessions on one issue, he said, the U.S. simply moves on to demanding concessions on the next one, and so forth.

A raft of sanctions linked to Iran’s suspect nuclear programs have been eased or lifted under the nuclear agreement, but some relating to other conduct, including its ballistic missile activities and support for terrorism, remain in place.

Khamenei told the students that, “if you withdraw on the nuclear issue, they will raise the issue of missiles.”

“And if you continue to withdraw, they will raise the issue of supporting ‘Resistance,’” he continued, using Iran’s term for terrorist groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. (The official website said Khamenei was drawing attention to “the animosity revealed by satanic powers against any oppositional movement.”)

“And once you withdraw from that,” Khamenei went on, “they will raise the issue of human rights.”

And if Iran accepts U.S. standards on human rights, he added, then the U.S. will then move on to demanding the removal of “religious values” from Iran’s government.

Khamenei’s office indicated that he was referring to a recent interview in which Secretary of State John Kerry said that the U.S. was trying to help Iran benefit from sanctions easing, but that the regime’s behavior wasn’t helping.

“[I]t’s very difficult when Iran is engaged in Yemen and supporting Assad and supporting Hezbollah and firing missiles that people deem to be threatening and so forth. That hugely complicates efforts to move forward rapidly,” Kerry told the Council on Foreign Relations’ publication, Foreign Affairs.

In earlier Iranian response to the Kerry interview, Iranian armed forces spokesman Brig Gen Massoud Jazayeri declared that U.S. “hegemony” is the root cause of all the problems in the region.

“The U.S. presence in the region is a malignant cancerous tumor and the only way to treat it is to remove this infected tumor and kick the U.S. out of the region,” he said.

Being A Moderate In Extremist America

 

I am going to use this first paragraph to try to qualify to you where I stand on a few issues facing every person in America and in deed I think in every country. Personally I am a fundamentalist Christian but by no means am I a perfect person and I do not expect anyone else to be able to be perfect either. Politically I consider myself to be a moderate conservative. In a perfect world I would probably line up behind the ‘Tea Party’ on most issues, but we do not live in a perfect world here in America nor anywhere else. I consider the Tea Party to be the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party so much so that the Conservative Republican base considers them to be extremist. Personally I believe that the Tea Party should be expelled from the Republican Party forcing them to run as a third Party. The Democratic Party has this same type of issue if you consider their Party to all be a bunch of liberals even to the point of people like Senator Bernie Sanders who is really an Independent as he is far to ‘the left’ of the Democratic platform. I believe that Senator Sanders who is a ‘Independent’ should split from the Democratic Party and that he should run as an Independent in the November Presidential election.

 

Here in the state of Kentucky registered Independents can not exercise our Constitutional right to vote in the ‘primary season’, this is how it was when we lived in the state of Florida also. Yet when the main elections roll around in November both Party’s vigorously court the ‘Independent’ voters. During the 2012 Presidential elections Republican Mitt Romney made the comment about ‘48%’ of the voting public whom he had no chance to woo over to his side of the divide and the American Media railed against him for that comment even though he was correct in that evaluation. There are about 48% of the Democratic electorate who would rather not vote at all than to vote for a Republican. There is a flip side to this equation though, there are about 48% of the voters who vote Republican that would never vote for a Democrat. This leaves about 4% of Independent voters that the election is all about, whoever gets the majority of us Independents wins the Presidency. The term that has been used a lot in the Media for this situation is the ‘polarization’ of America.

 

Here in America the people of our country gripe a lot about how the politicians in DC never seem to get anything positive accomplished and I believe this is a fair belief. The Democratic leadership forces their members to vote a ‘far left’ agenda and the Republican leadership forces their members to vote to a ‘far right’ agenda. This reality means that nothing constructive ever gets done. There is also the issue that each Party wants all the credit on a bill if it is something that is actually a positive issue, they both vehemently do not want to share any ‘credit’ with the other Party. Because of these Politicians being so pious and egotistical they are destroying America from the inside and it is obvious that they really don’t care about the American people as a whole.

 

I am going to use my Father-in-law as an example of non-thinkers, (sorry Dad). He is a Tea Party type of believer, he hates all Unions and believes that America would be better off if there were no Unions at all, he thinks they are destroying our Country. He hates the Democrats and he wants the Republican agenda’s to be made law. Yet he is like most folks who believe that the Congress is a do nothing Congress. He doesn’t want to compromise on the issues yet he wants the Congress to get off their butts and get our Country moving again. Where Dad and I differ is that even though I wish the Country was living in a true Christian manner I know that this is not going to happen until after the Tribulation. In the mean time we must compromise with each other by working toward the middle and get at least some things accomplished for the good of the people (the Country). By the way, to my wife and I Dad’s position on Unions is really flawed, this is because he retired from two different Union Factories. Because these two factories were Union he now survives financially from two different retirement checks he gets each month. If it wasn’t for those Unions he and his wife would be in the poor-house or having to live in our basement.

 

I call myself a moderate conservative because I know that the Tea Party agenda has no chance of happening. I want to make mention that I am not a fan of everything the Tea Party leaders want as not everything they want would be something that would qualify as “Christ like” policies. I believe that if the Politicians do not get off of their ‘high horses’ they are either going to destroy our Country or the people are going to rise up and destroy these pious bought and paid for frauds. Personally, I am a fan of the NRA even though I do not like some of their policies, for example I believe that ten-round clips are big enough as long as the amount of clips and bullets a person can own should have no limits. Personally I am for many things that the Democratic Party wants to pass into law just as I am for many things the Republican Party stands for. The issue is that I am also against many things that both Party’s want to pass into law. We as a people must wake up and learn to work with each other or we as a Country are going to implode.

 

Why Should Hillary Clinton ‘Not Be’ Executed For Treason?

 

Treason during war-time is punishable by execution, usually by a firing squad. Hillary Clinton via her actions during her term as our Nations Secretary of State did commit treason with what she did with her private email server. I believe that the only reason that Ms. Hillary is not in a federal maximum security prison right now is because of there being a democrat sitting in the White House. I am a registered independent voter who has no love loss for either of the two main political parties as I believe that neither one cares about our country, only their political games. Ms. Hillary in my old military mind-set believes that she should have been in a Federal Prison like Leavenworth Kansas for at least the past three years. There is a very good argument that she should have been fired seven years ago by President Obama and his ‘Justice Department’ should have brought her up on treason charges at that time. If she can’t be trusted at all as the Secretary of State just how in the bleep can we expecting her to be trustworthy as the President? Yesterday when the report came out from the State Department condemning her on many counts of what does amount to ‘treason’ our current sitting President Mr. Obama should have ordered her arrest, but of course that did not happen. Does this make President Obama complicit in Ms. Hillary’s treason? The simple thing I am getting at in this article is the fact that she is part of the untouchables in our society, nothing will happen to her at all! The same as if President Obama were to  be charged with aiding her in her “criminal acts”, nothing will ever happen to him (legally) either. They are above the laws that were written to protect we the people. What makes me sick is seeing this Country that I love being ran by ‘political traitors’.

Don’t Say Your A ChristianThen Be Cold-hearted: Fore One Cannot Be The Other

 

In a recent Presidential Debate one Candidate said that if he were the President that people wouldn’t be dying on the streets because they couldn’t afford healthcare, I’m pretty sure that is a word for word quote. The Candidate that was to his left quickly spat out a comment about “and how are you going to pay for that”? Reasonable question isn’t it? Yet there is one fact that keeps bothering me about this situation and that is the players. Speaker #1 is a successful cold-hearted business person whom has made billions of dollars by exploiting loopholes in our political system and taxing system. His actions were done to maximize his profits at the direct cost to the American economy and workforce. You would think that this man would not care less if people are dying on the streets. Which is the book and which is the cover?

 

Candidate #2 has as the major theme of his Candidacy that he is a Christian and that he is very conservative when it comes to spending ‘other people’s money’. Has #2 become known as a liar during this Campaign? There has been several times that his actions have proven himself to be such, yet he keeps on trying to tell real Christian people that he is one of them, I believe for the sole purpose of conning them out of their vote. I have a question for #2, how would you see to it that the poorest of the poor could get medical care or funeral rites?

 

What I am getting at is simple, if you consider yourself to be a conservative Christian, have you let the dollar-bill become you God? #2 is known for being hateful then he chose a running mate who almost always has a scowl on her face whom is known for being hateful and whom also loudly confesses their Christianity. So, hate filled personas and know for being a liar, and they are supposed to be the good guys? Are they not suppose to be Christian examples? Lukewarm water is not a good example.

My Wife’s Tirade About Kentucky’s Unconstitutional Law That Refuses Registered Voters From Being Allowed To Vote!

Ok, so I have ALWAYS registered as an Independent, only to find out that Kentucky doesn’t allow Independents to vote in the primary. That COMPLETELY makes me an irrelevant voter. Let’s face it both parties have always had crooks and liars presented to us as candidates. That’s the whole point of voting as an independent. I don’t want to be forced to vote Republican or Democrat. I want to be able to make my own decision as to who to vote for. Now the only thing I can do as an Independent voter is choose between whichever crook and liar the two parties put before us in November. POINTLESS!!!

 

One person one vote? No, I don’t believe that it is true in politics here in America today. My wife, son and I are registered voters as Independents, this is supposed to mean that you are not tied to any party, you can vote for whomever you choose. Florida was the first state I personally came across that did their political system like Kentucky does. I leave you with this thought. Some people defend their right to not let you vote during a primary because you have to be a registered member of their party don’t you know. Otherwise it wouldn’t ‘be fair”, really? Here is the irony of this fraud voting system, we Independents can vote in the main election this November 1st. After the DNC and the RNC have figured out which one of their people who ‘we the people’ are going to be allowed to vote for. How come I can’t vote for Bernie Sanders today but if he is on the ballot this November 1st representing the Democratic party, I can vote for him then? What I am saying is that I believe this current system is illegal as in Unconstitutional. Every person must be allowed the opportunity to vote equal times otherwise the State is not acting legally just as the RNC and the DNC are doing and being sanctioned by some of the States to do it. One person one vote, no not in Kentucky!

America Has Had 16 Years Of Clinton Policies Does She Deserve More Oval Office Time?

 

I am not going to argue one way or the other about if Ms. Hillary should or will become our next President here in this post today. What I am going to do today is to simply ask you the question of, does she deserve more time inside the Oval Office? You may well say that she has never had the job of President so what do I mean by the 16 years in office statement? In her campaign speeches she touts the things she will do as President for our country and the world, as if the world is in a mess and only she can fix it, if only we the people will give her the chance to do so. She brags about her husband Bill as being a great former President and of course she had 8 years sitting on his lap so she should get some credit for his policies. Is that fair to connect her with Bill’s accomplishments back in 1993-2001? Only you can decide that issue in your own heart and brain. Should any First Lady ever have the influence inside the White House that Ms. Hillary had while Bill was our President?

 

For those of you who are new to this site you may be thinking right now that I am a Republican and I am just dumping on Ms. Hillary, but those who do follow my posts you know that is not at all correct. I am a registered Independent because I have no use for either of these crooked to the core political party’s. Now back to the issue in today’s title. Ms. Hillary resigned her post as President Obama’s Secretary of State at the end of Mr. Obama’s first four-year term. Pretty much everyone in America knew that she was doing this (resigning) because she knew that President Obama had made a whole lot of enemy’s and that he might not win a second term and if he didn’t win and she was in her ‘position’ that she would be soiled along with him and that would hurt her when she ran for President in 2016. Plus there is the fact that both Clinton’s hate both Obama’s and that the hate was/is mutual. She had nothing to lose and everything to gain by getting off of President Obama’s ship. Whether Mr. Obama won or lost in the 2012 election Mrs. Clinton would be a winner if she took that next four years to get her Democratic Party engine in high gear for this current 2016 election.

 

Because of the long-standing hate the Obama’s and the Clinton’s have for each other Mrs. Clinton for about three of these years she was trying to distance herself from President Obama’s policies because she didn’t want to be associated with him. About one year ago you could easily see her shift in direction when she realized that there was no way to separate herself from Mr. Obama and his policies. There was no way that she could run against the Presidents policies and still win the Black vote that she absolutely has to have to win this November. So, even though she hates President and Mrs. Obama she had no choice but to run toward the President’s policies if she wanted to win the Democratic nomination. So, now on the political ‘stump’ she brags up the 8 Clinton years of her husband and the 8 years of the Obama Administration and how much more she can get done if we will just elect her for our next President. My personal biggest negative I have about Ms. Hillary is the well-known fact that she never seems to have a clue about what the truth is when she opens her mouth. In other words I have trouble ever believing what she says, when she says something can you honestly believe her?

 

A question I have for her is, since your people (her husband and Mr. Obama) have been sitting in the Oval Office for 16 of the last 24 years, why haven’t they already done these things she says need to be done? She has had her butt sitting in the Oval Office for 12 of those 16 years, what she is saying now is that those 16 years were/are a failure because they didn’t get ‘her agenda’ accomplished, why not? Why should we the people of America believe her on her ‘agenda’, is it really her agenda, or is it just more smoke she is blowing up her panties? Do not get me wrong by thinking I was pleased with the buffoon we had in that Office for 8 years between these two Democrats. I personally believe that because of President George W.’s Iraq policies that he, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld are without a doubt, War Criminals. As I said earlier, I am a registered Independent and I do vote that way. So, what do you think, should we the people of America give Mrs. Clinton and her beliefs (if she has such a thing) another 4 or 8 years? After those five state primaries last evening it does look like on November 1st we are going to have the choice between two people for our next President, Mr. Teflon Don and Ms. Hillary, which one will it be?

If I Dislike What You Do: That Means I Hate You; Right?

 

I make these observations from sixty years of life, with thirty plus behind the wheel of a truck roaming the lower 48 States and all Provinces of the beautiful country of Canada. These are just a few thoughts, don’t mean that I agree with any or all of them, how about you?

  1. Being I don’t care anything for the game of Hockey: That must mean that I am anti-Canadian, right?
  2. I really don’t care anything for the sport of Basketball: So you know, I’m prejudice toward tall folks.
  3. I don’t care anything about Horse Racing: That means I must be anti-short people.
  4. I really don’t care much about Car Racing: Does this mean I’m anti-Hill Billy?
  5. I care nothing about the game of Soccer: So, that means I gotta be anti-rest of the world, right?

 

I am anti violence, what does that make me? A target, a patsy? Only a fool breaks into another man’s house to find to see if they will be carried out.

I am anti-hate, anti-racist, what does this make a person? Does this make one naive, or, maybe more Christ like?

If one is anti-Democrat does it then make them minorities and poor folk haters? Maybe a person just can’t personally back a ‘Party’ who is responsible for the death of millions of babies each year!

Of course if one is anti-Republican it must mean you hate grumpy, old, rich, white guys? Isn’t self-absorbed politicians of our time, whether they are Republican or Democrat enough to make the “system’ puke out a 3rd, 4th, or even 5th ‘Party’?

Bernie or Trump, these two ends don’t attract each other, yet millions are flocking to them, for what, hope?

Anti-Islamic terrorism ideals are not anti-Muslim or anti-Persian, to not be so is, anti-humanity and anti-God!

What can people do when you are hated by millions? Do you let them stay and kill you? Do you physically remove them from your living area? Do you let them stay and you also stay and try to live with them, or maybe convert them?

Like I said at the beginning this article like most of my articles are for the reason of creating thought, hopefully among many, hopefully thoughts of caring about each other when possible, hopefully eliminating hate some day.

This blog, trouthtroubles.com is owned, written, and operated by oldpoet56. All articles, posts, and materials found here, except for those that I have pressed here from someone else’s blog for the purpose of showing off their work, are under copyright and this website must be credited if my articles are re-blogged, pressed, or shared.

—Thank You, oldpoet56, T.R.S.

Bancha Kimavaha ( hooksamui)

This WordPress.com site is the bee's knees

GoodVibesNation.

Let's build a Nation of good faith, and overcome evil! The Door has been opened! May God Bless You, your friends, and family!

Treasuring Bittersweet Lane

Tasting the words of life

Le paradis de Noémie

les pieds dans l'eau

Newine Pouring

Dreams, Visions, and Prophecy.

Lamb Of Grace

Be Merciful and Gracious to all in word and actions

Trumptimestamp

How Trump develops his ideas

Happy Journey

I write pretty much about everything but mostly about my daily life plus my opinion. Love everything indie at the moment.

Adina Kutnicki

A Zionist & Conservative Blog

%d bloggers like this: