When
asked what kind of justices she would appoint the words "fidelity to
the constitution" never left her mouth. She would appoint justices based
on their views of progressive policies. That is both dangerous and
unconstitutional. She would further skew the court in the direction of
decisions always favorable to socialistic progressive ideals. That
would be the beginnings of the death of our nation. Quote: "How come?
Because as Clinton said in the third presidential debate, "The Supreme
Court should represent all of us. ... And the kind of people that I
would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great
tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on behalf of our
rights as Americans." It sounds delightful, as far as rhetoric goes --
which isn't far. The Supreme Court's mission is assessing, weighing,
(SET ITAL) judging (END ITAL) -- according to constitutional, as opposed
to political, standards -- the claims of competing parties. It's a
different matter entirely from "representing," as Mrs. Clinton puts it,
the views of constituents -- a function that belongs to the legislative
and the executive branches of government. The court's constituency is
everybody: the strongest, the weakest and all in between. Did the lady
really graduate from Yale Law School with so little knowledge of the
judiciary's role in democratic government? Or, likelier, does she see
her job as significantly modifying that role?" http://townhall.com/columnists/billmurchison/2016/10/25/hillary-clinton-and-the-high-court-n2236584?
Think long and hard about
what this hard leftist has observed. Quote: "Even actress Susan
Sarandon understands that Hillary's record proves that a lifetime of
political experience means absolutely nothing if you make poor decisions
which costs lives. During an interview with The Young Turks, Sarandon
said Hillary "is more dangerous" than Trump. "She did not learn from
Iraq," said Sarandon, "and she is an interventionist, and she has done
horrible things ---- and very callously. I don't know if she is
overcompensating or what her trip is. That scares me. I think we'll be
in Iran in two seconds." Sarandon said voters were being "fed" a line
that Trump is "dangerous." http://townhall.com/columnists/susanstamperbrown/2016/10/25/a-dangerous-time-for-an-obama-third-term-n2236341?
Incredible, I know, but this actress who supported socialist Burney
Sanders understands that Hillary is an irresponsible, incompetent,
unethical and dangerous woman. She is absolutely right.
Nothing new here. Just
more evidence of how corrupt the political left/Democrats really are.
Quote: "This may be 100% coincidence, but it still stinks. According to
the Wall Street Journal,
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime member of team Clinton,
helped steer a total of $675,288 to the state senate campaign off Dr.
Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, the senior FBI official
who would become part of the team that would lead the probe into Hillary
Clinton’s use of a private email system.
McAuliffe’s PAC gave $467,500 to the state Senate campaign of the wife of Andrew McCabe, who is now deputy director of the FBI, according to the Wall Street Journal and an additional $207,788 came from the Virginia Democratic Party which is controlled by its governor, McAuliffe." http://eaglerising.com/37820/clinton-ally-contributed-675k-to-wife-of-agent-who-led-fbi-probe-of-hillary/ I do not believe this was a coincidence. It is just more of rampant Democrat party corruption.
This is the type person
Hillary hangs with and hires to do her dirty work. Quote: "Disgraced
Democratic operative Robert Creamer participated in daily calls with the
Hillary Clinton campaign, and worked directly with President Barack
Obama to organize “issue campaigns.” Creamer makes the admissions in
the latest undercover video release from James O’Keefe and Project
Veritas, which captured Creamer describing his activities."
Nasty must be her middle
name. Quote: Speaking of Hillary's well known penchant for nastiness
this woman writes, "No need to rehearse the infamous and numbingly
extensive evidence for said nastiness: the volcanic tantrums Shrillary has unleashed on numerous victims, whether her spouse or underlings; her “proud stan[ce]” with the ghoulish butchers of Planned Parenthood; her contempt for the women her husband has raped as well as for all who loathe a totalitarian State.
Far from castigating The Donald for noting such vileness, Clintonistas
should appreciate his restraint: he might have chosen far more
pejorative terms for Killary, several of them vulgar.
Given Trump’s penchant for calling it like it is, Clintonistas should
also thank him for focusing on Hitlary’s nauseating nature rather than
her criminality. Imagine the adjectives this shrewd businessman could
conjure to describe her endless corruption, shady dealing in Whitewater, murderous rampage at Waco, etc." https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/10/becky-akers/hillary-nasty-marxist/
As so very much evidence
proves, the Democrat party and its polling and media allies are far less
than honest. They are in fact woefully dishonest. This item
explains. Quote: "WikiLeaks
just dropped a Democratic Party memo demanding an "oversampling" plan
of all the demographic districts in the country. But "oversampling" is a
lie. All of statistics is based on "random" sampling, which
means that any voter in the population has an equal chance of being
sampled, regardless of their party affiliation. Without
random sampling, the fundamental math basis of statistics goes
kablooey. Oversampling one side or the other is an invitation to
make false conclusions, and any decent scientist or statistician avoids
biased sampling like the Black Plague. No scientific journal in the
world would accept an article based on biased sampling." http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/democratic_oversampling_is_a_dirty_trick.html
Please consider these undeniable facts and vote, just not for Hillary.
George Burns
No comments:
Post a Comment