2016 Election

A friend posted this on Facebook and is an interesting perspective 

"Presidential dreams are becoming increasingly dreary for Republican hopefuls. Currently, the primary field is so wide open (with 16 contenders) that, even with the GOP identity crisis aside, the establishment candidates are polling at record lows. Given the identity crisis of who the Republican party is and needs to be, this election is becoming more and more of an election for Hillary to lose, rather than the GOP's to win.

When November 8, 2016 rolls around, Hillary will start... yes, START... with a minimum of 247 of the 270 electoral votes she needs to win. This is due to the "Democratic Blue Wall" (Google It). As many political strategists will say, Hillary is almost guaranteed Colorado because of the rapidly growing Hispanic population. Gaining Colorado gives Hillary 9 more electoral votes, bringing her to 256. Hillary is also likely to take Virginia because of the influx of Northerners (the D.C. crowd) who lean very left. If she pulled this off she would be at 269. 

This would leave Hillary needing one vote. Yes, one electoral vote. Given that Republicans start every election with 191 electoral votes, the necessity to win the big toss up states (Florida and Ohio) leave the smaller states, of which Hillary needs one, untapped.

If Clinton doesn't need Ohio or Florida, though she would likely win at least one, she would just need Iowa, Nevada or New Hampshire to put her over the edge. And with a boatload of money and no real primary challenger, she'll have plenty of time and resources to lock up at least one of those states.

Let this sink in... 16 years of a Democratic President and 4 (I REPEAT 4) Supreme Court Nominations."

Regards

Jordan Letschert 

SUPREME COURT

Supreme Court Justice Didn’t Know Marriage Can’t Legally Involve Churches or Religion

With the first day of hearings taking place before the United States Supreme Court, an awkward happening occurred when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts found out that both religion and religious establishments have nothing to do with the legality of same-sex marriage.

The uncomfortable exchange began when Chief Justice Roberts asked famed gay rights lawyer Mary Bonauto why she believed that we should “force churches and religious leaders to preside over a homosexual wedding that, when taken as a whole, would offend their moral conscience.”

Although she seemed taken aback, Bonauto replied with little to no hesitation.

“Well, I’d cite the U.S. Constitution, previous Supreme Court decisions, and the Treaty of Tripoli.”

Chief Justice Roberts then asked Bonauto to elaborate on her answer.

Bonauto replied, “Thomas Jefferson clearly stated that the intent and function of the 1st Amendment was that the country could never establish any laws based on, or supporting, a specific religious view. He stated that ‘the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.'”

She then continued by stating that, “This court has ruled in this manner time after time, and even the Treaty of Tripoli, which was unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate way back in 1797, clearly stated that our government was not established on any specific religious tradition. Not to mention, priests and churches will not be forced to marry anyone.”

Bonauto concluded by accurately saying, “Indeed, it is a fact that all you need to get married would be another person, a trip to a courthouse, a witness, and a signed document. When people get married in a church, it isn’t recognized by the government without the legal documentation.”

It was at this point that those in the court witnessed Chief Justice Roberts begin to whisper to fellow conservative Justices Scalia and Alito. Justice Roberts then became visibly red in the face at this point and some reports even state that you could audibly hear Roberts say, “Really!?”

From www.youreadygrandma

Regards 

Jordan Letschert