Trump Says He’d Consider Bill Pryor for Supreme Court, AG Who Prosecuted ‘Ten Commandments’ Judge

Pyror Moore II-compressedCHARLESTON, S.C. — During Saturday night’s Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, Donald Trump said that if he were to nominate a judge to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, he would consider Diane Sykes or Bill Pryor, the latter of which prosecuted “Ten Commandments Judge” Roy Moore.

“If I were president now, I would certainly want to try and nominate a justice. And I’m absolutely sure that president Obama will try and do it,” he said in light of Scalia’s sudden death Friday night. “I hope that our Senate, Mitch and the entire group, is going to be able to do something about it in terms of delay.”

“We could have a Diane Sykes or a Bill Pryor,” he added, providing examples of who he would nominate if he were president. “We have some fantastic people.”

Bill Pryor, the former attorney general of Alabama, prosecuted Roy Moore in 2003 over his refusal to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court. Pryor’s comments to Moore during his trial focused more on Moore’s refusal to stop acknowledging God as chief justice.

“[Y]our understanding is that the federal court ordered that you could not acknowledge God; isn’t that right?” Pryor asked. “And if you resume your duties as chief justice after this proceeding, you will continue to acknowledge God as you have testified that you would today?”

“That’s right,” Moore replied.

“No matter what any other official says?” Pryor asked.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Absolutely,” Moore stated. “Let me clarify that. Without an acknowledgment of God, I cannot do my duties. I must acknowledge God. It says so in the Constitution of Alabama. It says so in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It says so in everything I have read.”

“The only point I am trying to clarify, Mr. Chief Justice, is not why, but only that, in fact, if you do resume your duties as chief justice, you will continue to do that without regard to what any other official says; isn’t that right?” Pryor asked.

As Moore continued to stand his ground, he was ordered by Pryor to be “removed from his position of Supreme Court justice of Alabama.” Moore was re-elected to serve as chief justice in 2012.


Wanda Skyes, Trump’s other selection, wrote the majority opinion in a 2013 case that barred the state of Indiana from defunding Planned Parenthood. She was nominated to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by then-President George W. Bush.

“The defunding law excludes Planned Parenthood from Medicaid for a reason unrelated to its fitness to provide medical services, violating its patients’ statutory right to obtain medical care from the qualified provider of their choice,” Sykes wrote.

She then stressed the court’s belief in the “right” to abortion, and advised that the state must be careful to not indirectly limit access to abortion while simultaneously withholding taxpayer funds from known abortion providers.

“It is settled law that the government’s refusal to subsidize abortion does not impermissibly burden a woman’s right to obtain an abortion,” Sykes stated. “If a ban on public funding for abortion does not directly violate the abortion right, then Indiana’s ban on other forms of public subsidy for abortion providers cannot be an unconstitutional condition that indirectly violates the right.”

Trump has also stated in the past that his sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, who serves on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, would make a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice. Barry has issued pro-abortion rulings, stating regarding a New Jersey law that “a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion would be impermissibly chilled.”

“I think she’d be phenomenal,” Trump told Bloomberg in August. “I think she’d be one of the best. But frankly, we’d have to rule that out.”

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Josey

    I don’t like Trumps picks for sure, he sure went down in my opinion of him!

    • afchief

      I have never had a good opinion of Trump. This man has NO morals. He cannot be trusted.

      • Ssee

        have you ever trust a politician?

        • afchief

          Ted Cruz, George Bush, Ronald Reagan

          • gizmo23

            Georgo Bush ?????

          • afchief

            Absolutely!!! And still do

          • gizmo23

            After he lied about wmds and got 4000 servicemen killed?

          • Steve

            Go to the NYTIMES, they say there were WMDs. SO he did not lie and on top of that congress approved it

          • uglytrout

            You believe the NYT? Moron.

          • Steve

            You don’t? Why call names?

          • Patti Hannah

            Your source is the NYTIMES? My source was the actual transcript of the Committee that held a hearing to determine if GWB was mislead with CIA intel.

          • gizmo23

            So you believe everything in the NYTs.
            Bush , Chaney, Rumsfel are war crimminals and should be in prision

          • Steve

            And Clinton and Kerry? They voted on the war.

          • gizmo23

            They were duped just like many others

          • afchief

            Liberalism! More proof that it is a mental disorder!!!!!

            Who Lied About Iraq?

            Do not believe that post-invasion intelligence invalidates our justification for using military force against Saddam’s Iraq. The truth is the exact opposite. The US was fully justified to use military force against Iraq, even knowing what we know now — especially knowing what we know now. We should not allow the false story — almost accepted as fact — as we head into a Presidential election, to go unchallenged.

            The False Story

            “The United States invaded Iraq based on false premises. The administration orchestrated a public relations drive to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and connections to the 9/11 terrorists – both proved false.” USA Today

            While these two sentences came from USA Today, they describe the words behind the music of the “Bush lied, people died” meme echoing throughout the media chambers since at least 2004. The lies in just these two sentences are almost Shakespearian in their layered texture. The statement even lays out a false premise in accusing the Bush administration of using false premises. If lying is an art, our media have mastered it.

            The Premise

            Our invasion of Iraq was not based on a public relations drive; it was based on Public Law 107-243, otherwise known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, passed by the 107th Congress in October of 2002 . (Herein referred to as the “Authorization”.) It passed the House with a vote of 296 to 133 (by 69%) and the Senate with a vote of 77 to 23 (by 77%), including 58% of Senate Democrats. In short, it was overwhelming; it was bipartisan; and it was law.

            Did the Authorization try to “prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction”? Was that proved false?

            No and no.

            The Authorization has 23 “whereas” clauses, or reasons to justify military invasion, only some of which mention WMD. Here is a prime example.

            “Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated.” [Emphasis added.]

            There are several things to notice in that clause. First is the tense of the verb “had.” The clause does not claim that Iraq has WMD now (in 2002), but that it at one time had them. Secondly, the only stockpiles mentioned are of chemical weapons. Of biological and nuclear weapons it mentions only programs. At no place does the Authorization say that any WMD are current (post-1991).

            Another clause states Iraq continues “to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability” (my emphasis). Again, capabilities and potential capabilities are mentioned, but not ready-to-use weapons or even weapon programs, much less large stockpiles of modern WMD.

            Feel free to read all 23 clauses. The Authorization never claims that Iraq had large stockpiles of modern WMD in 2002, which later became, for no good reason, the threshold used for validation by the media and administration critics. (The logical fallacy employed by Bush’s critics here is the “straw man.”)

            Am I being hyper-technical in parsing the grammar of the Authorization — wallowing in what the meaning of “is” is? No.

            It is the media that is spinning by demanding that only finding large stockpiles of modern WMD would legitimize the war. I am using the actual law as clearly stated. Such an authorization, passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President, was not just cobbled together willy-nilly. It was the law of the land — carefully crafted, debated and passed. Words matter.

            So what was found post-invasion? The Duelfer Report noted that 53 chemical weapons were found.

            “Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered.” (Found on page 97 of Annex F of Volume 3.)

            That number later grew to over 500 chemical weapons. You can now check the “large stockpiles of chemical weapons” off your checklist (even though the Authorization did not claim they existed in 2002 or later).

            What about biological and nuclear programs?

            “Initially, Saddam chose to conceal his nuclear program in its entirety, as he did with Iraq’s BW [Biological Warfare] program. Aggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender components of the program. In the wake of Desert Storm, Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and preserve what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community.” [Emphasis added.]

            You may now also check the biological and nuclear weapons programs off your checklist. At one time he had them. The only question was how active such programs were in 2002. But we know that he had them at one time and that he also concealed them later. Were these programs still active, but concealed, in 2002 or had he put them on hiatus? For the purpose of the Authorization, the answer doesn’t matter, but let’s examine it anyway.

            As to concealment, note the following Duelferisms.

            • The word “conceal” is found 57 times in Volume 1 alone.

            • “Many locations associated with previous WMD programs and sites under monitoring by the United Nations have been completely looted… Often there is nothing but a concrete slab at locations where once stood plants or laboratories.”

            • “We cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war.”

            • “ISG technical experts fully evaluated less than one quarter of one percent of the over 10,000 weapons caches throughout Iraq.”

            You can make what you will of those statements. What I make of them is that Duelfer and his fellow inspectors really have no idea what happened with Saddam’s WMD, facilities or programs. They didn’t look everywhere. Where they did look was mostly “looted,” where “looting” could mean cleaned out to conceal evidence. Saddam consistently concealed what he was up to. And Duelfer cannot make a statement about what might have been transported out of Iraq.

            The Duelfer Report is three volumes of “I don’t know.” Post-invasion intelligence is no more trustworthy than pre-invasion intelligence.

            In any case, Duelfer makes clear that Saddam had every intention of restoring the programs as soon as he could get sanctions lifted. His very first finding, echoed often throughout the report, states his fundamental conclusion.

            “[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted.”

            In short, the Authorization did not try to “prove that Iraq had WMD.” Inasmuch as the Authorization mentioned WMD, such statements were fully validated by post-war intelligence. And Duelfer went even further than Authorization claims by finding that Saddam had every intention of reconstituting his WMD has soon as he could bribe his way out of sanctions.

            Did the Authorization try to “prove that Iraq had connections to the 911 terrorists”? Was that proved false?

            Again, no and no.

            The Authorization mentions the September 11 attacks in five of the 23 “whereas” clauses. Here is what it says in three such clauses, with the other two being repeats of the same sentiments.

            • “Members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for the attacks … are known to be in Iraq.”

            • The “attacks… underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of WMD by international terrorist organizations.”

            • “… necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those … who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

            One clause mentions 9/11 only to provide a background of the gravity of the situation. Another clause explicitly says that all terrorists are to be targeted, noting that the 9/11 terrorists are only a subset of that larger threat.

            There is only one statement in all of the Authorization that connects Iraq with al Qaida and the 9/11 attacks, and then only indirectly. All it says is that some al Qaida members were known to be in Iraq.

            Note that nowhere in the Authorization is there any claim of even a logistical, training or strategic relationship between al Qaida and Iraq, much less an operational or planning one for the 9/11 attacks in particular. Again for no good reason, this latter claim became the only legitimate threshold for military action per administration critics.

            Were any al Qaida members in Iraq at the time of the Authorization? Yes, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his cell. The most recent Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on the matter concluded the following .

            “[Pre-war administration] statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa’ida-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments. Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country.

            “Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al-Qa’ida was present in northern Iraq.”

            This report is the product of a Democrat-controlled Senate committee, chaired by John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), in a Democrat-controlled Senate. Moreover, more extensive Iraq-al-Qaida links have also been substantiated. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report,

            “One of the reported contacts [between Iraq and al-Qa’ida before the war] has been confirmed, and two other meetings have since been identified.”

            Judge Harold Baer ruled in Federal court that Iraq was indeed partially responsible for the September 11 attacks, enough so that the plaintiffs could be awarded damages against Saddam’s Iraq . The judge ruled there was “a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences”

            “that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda…. Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda’s terrorist acts of September 11… Iraq provided materiel support to al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda’s criminal acts.”

            Judge Harold Baer is not some 10-Commandment-Displaying Reaganite; he was appointed by President Clinton. Significant testimony in the case came from James Woolsey, President Clinton’s CIA chief from 1993 to 1995.

            In short, not only was the language of the Authorization validated, but significantly more involvement between Iraq and al Qaida has been substantiated by a Democrat-controlled Senate, a Clinton-appointed federal judge and a Clinton-appointed former CIA chief.

            So what was the terrorist-WMD reason for military action in Iraq?

            The September 11 attacks demonstrated to all of us that terrorist threats are not empty. Those of us who doubted the seriousness of such threats (and I was one of them) had our heads cleared on 9/11. Moreover, the attacks demonstrated just how deadly terrorists could be with only box-cutters and other low-tech tools. Between their words and their actions, we knew we could not let terrorists get their hands on WMD.

            On the other hand, hostile states could use terrorists as covert or plausibly-deniable WMD delivery devices. The nightmare nexus would be a hostile state with both WMD and terrorist connections.

            Iraq had both WMD and terrorist connections. In short, as the Authorization puts it in its sixth “whereas,”

            “Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.”

            It was also not obvious that Saddam would not use WMD himself, without resorting to terrorists as middlemen. He had already used them “against other nations and [his] own people.” He had expressed his hatred of the US in word and deed by, among other things, attempting “to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces.”

            What are some of those “other things” that made Iraq in “materiel and unacceptable breach of its international obligations”?

            • Iraq agreed to a cease-fire when it surrendered in Desert Storm in 1991. It was in “direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire.”

            • Iraq agreed to eliminate its WMD programs in 1991. It was later caught continuing those programs, concealing them and thwarting weapons inspectors to the point of kicking them out of the country.

            • Iraq agreed to “end its support for international terrorism” in 1991. It continued to “aid and harbor” international terrorist organizations, including those “that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens.”

            • Iraq “engaged in brutal repression of its civilian population.”

            • Iraq refused “to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman.”

            • Iraq failed “to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait.”

            • Iraq attempted “to assassinate former President Bush.”

            • Iraq fired “on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.”

            • Iraq persisted in violating multiple United Nations resolutions. Congress authorized the President “to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 674, and 677.”

            If Saddam’s Iraq was not an “outlaw regime,” then there is no such thing.

            Regardless of the careful wording of the Authorization, did the Bush administration orchestrate a “public relations drive” that was “proved false”?

            Inasmuch as a public relations drive was mounted, it was examined by a Democrat-controlled Senate Committee on Intelligence and largely found to be “substantiated by intelligence.” This biased report from Chairman John Rockefeller’s committee analyzed various statements by Bush administration officials and compared them to post-war intelligence. Here is what they found (emphasis added).

            • “Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.”

            • “Statements … regarding Iraq’s possession of biological agents, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information.”

            • “Statements … regarding Iraq’s possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information.”

            • “Statements … regarding Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence information, though many statements made regarding ongoing production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves.”

            • “Statements … regarding Iraqi ballistic missiles were generally substantiated by available intelligence.”

            • “Statements … that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles that could be use to deliver chemical or biological weapons were generally substantiated by intelligence information, but did not convey the substantial disagreements or evolving views that existed in the intelligence community.”

            • “Statements … regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qa’ida were substantiated by intelligence information.”

            • “Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa’ida-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments.”

            Substantiated, substantiated, substantiated by the intelligence. And these conclusions from some of the most ardent Bush-bashers in the Senate. About the worst they could come up with was that the Bush administration made claims with more confidence than seemed warranted by the intelligence community.

            Tell me, if military action is considered necessary and legal, by both Congress and the Executive branch, is it OK for the President to muster domestic and international support for such action by using rhetorical persuasion? I dare say, he would be negligent if he didn’t.

            The True Story

            The Bush administration did not lie. Saddam’s Iraq was a threat to the US that demanded the use of military force. That was not just Bush’s “cowboy” opinion; that was the written law, passed by huge and bipartisan margins in both houses of Congress. That opinion was supported by both pre-war intelligence and post-war intelligence.

            Moreover, the “legal case” was solid and Iraq was given chance after chance after chance.

            • The authorization noted at least 10 UN resolutions, spread out over a decade, to justify the use of US military force.

            • The Authorization noted that “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in … Public Law 107-40.” [Emphasis added.]

            • The Authorization noted Public Law 105-235 (passed under President Clinton) that urged the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.”

            The invasion of Iraq was arguably the most justified case of military action the US has ever taken in its history, based on national defense, validated intelligence and legal authority, not to mention morality. Articles of impeachment would have made more sense if Bush had not invaded.

            That the exact opposite story is what a majority of Americans appear to believe, and a super-majority of non-Americans, is a scary thought. The truth has been sabotaged, and not by President Bush or his allies.

            Read more: http://www.americanthinker. com/articles/2008/08/who_lied_about_iraq.html#ixzz3QD61ZYKv

          • gizmo23

            Just because we passed a law doesn’t mean it was done with the correct intention or evidence.
            Bush is responsible for thousands of wasted lives and vast sums of money. I feel badly for people that were killed, wounded, or had lives destroyed for nothing other than to make some people wealthy and gain politically. His gang was evil. Veterans should demand his arrest and trial.
            Just what did his stupid war accomplish?

          • afchief

            Ahhhh the BDS or “Bush derangement syndrome” which is more proof of that mental disorder we call liberalism!!!!! I’m a veteran and was in Iraq and lost friends. We had no problem being there. It was our job and we would ALL DO IT AGAIN!!! You liberals do not understand loyalty, integrity and sacrifice. Every single Demon-crat voted for the Iraq war. The American people were behind it. Remember this?

            Nine days after 9/11 President Bush addressed both houses of Congress to outline his response to the terror attacks. This is what he said about states that harbor Islamic terrorists, like Yemen and Syria:

            We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

            When Bush decided to take on the terrorist-supporting, UN-defying regime of Saddam Hussein, Democrats went into full war mode against him, against the “war on terror” and against America’s mission to defeat the al-Qaeda armies that had assembled in Iraq. Their sabotage of the war went on for five years, making it impossible for Bush to take on the terror-supporting regimes in Syria, Iran and elsewhere.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Really, we were justified in invading Iraq? Bull. Look at the mess it made over there. One million dead Iraqi’s and one thinks that there are not going to be repercussions. That country is now afflicting us again, investors poured billions into it only for the money to be taken or destroyed by ISIS. I ran across a video not long ago Ken Peters. He made the statement that countries that the U.S. invades without the LORD himself’s permission will be afflicted by those countries and the LORD will allow it because he considers it encroachment. Korea, Vietnam, and some others are going to come back to haunt us. The war mongering of this country is another act that is about to bring Gods wrath upon this nation so keep that in mind.

          • afchief

            Were your liberal friends lying?

            “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

            –Sandy Berger, Clinton

            National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

            “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missiIe strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by: — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

            “Saddam H u s s e i n has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

            -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

            “H u s s e i n has … chosen to spend his money on building weap0ns of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

            — Madeline Albright, Clinton

            Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

            “There is no doubt that … Saddam H u s s e i n has reinvigorated his weap0ns programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missiIe program to develop longer-range missiIes that will threaten the United States and our allies.”

            Letter to President Bush, Signed by:

            — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

            “We begin with the common belief that Saddam H u ss e i n is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. Hehas ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weap0ns of massdestruction and the means of delivering them.”

            — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

            “We know that he has stored secret supplies ofbiological and chemical weap0ns throughout his country.”

            — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

            “Iraq’ssearch for weap0ns of mass destruction hasproven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for aslong as Saddam is in power.”

            — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

            “We have known for many years that Saddam H u s se I n is seeking and developing weap0ns of mass destruction.”

            — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

            “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq inOctober of 1998. We are confident that Saddam H u s s e i n retains somestockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarkedon a crash course to buildup his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”

            — Sen. Robert K K K Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

            “I will be voting to give the President of theUnited States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hu s s e i n because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weap0ns of mass destruction in his hands is areal and grave threat to our security.”

            — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

            “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam H u ss e i n is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons ofmass destruction.”

            — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

            “He has systematically violated, over the courseof the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that hedisarm and destroy his chemical and biological weap0ns, and any nuclearcapacity. This he hasrefused to do”

            — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

            “In the four years since the inspectors left,intelligence reports show that Saddam H u s s e i n has worked to eebuild hischemical and biological weap0ns stock, his missiIe delivery capability, and hisnuclear program. He hasalso given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam H u s s e i n will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weap0ns.”

            — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

            “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam H u s s e i n has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”

            — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

            “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam H u ss e i n. He is a brutal, murd3rous dictator, leading an oppressive regime …He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weap0ns of mass destruction …So the threat of Saddam Hu s s e i n with weap0ns of mass destruction is real…”

            Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

            “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weap0ns of mass destruction and the missiIes to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”

            –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

            “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

            –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

            “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weap0ns against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”

            –Madeline Albright,

            Feb 18, 1998

          • gizmo23

            Yes they were stupid. Happy now Mr cut copy paste?

          • afchief

            The truth always offends!!! Does it not?

          • Lauranne Wood

            Thank You! Good Job! You think THEY will be convinced?!?

          • Lauranne Wood


          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            As an investor I will say this, the only reason Bush went into Iraq was because Saddam was planning on selling oil in other currencies rather than the U.S. dollar. The gov’t knew that this monopoly could threaten its hegemony and invaded the country. Well guess what, it backfired and many other countries are turning to other currencies to conduct trade, including oil trade.

          • afchief

            You are proof of how easily manipulated a liberal is from the lies of the liberal press! As for someone who was there, we DID FIND WMDs!!! If you check the true facts on your statement, then I guess the House lied, the Senate lied, England lied, Italy lied, Israel lied, and Germany lied since they all had the exact same intel that President Bush had and with the UN who also had the same intel. Congress and the Senate agreed to the war, but I guess these facts don’t play into your wrong view of the events that sent me and a lot of my friends to war and came back disabled. I don’t blame President Bush, I blame Libtards Dumbocrats who were for the war before they were against the war.

          • gizmo23

            Bush and gang should be in prision

          • afchief

            For what? What laws did Bush break? You are another example of an easily manipulated liberal to believe liberal media lies!!!

            El Residente Dingle Barry should be in prison and I can list dozens of laws this man has broken

          • Lauranne Wood

            For Sure…too many to put here!

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Violated international law, and much of Europe is still pissed at us because of it.

          • afchief

            More proof that liberalism truly is a mental disorder!

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Nope, all the more proof that conservatism is based on total ignorance.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Sorry, but have relatives in Europe and they prefer Obama. As far as liberalism being a mental disorder, perhaps some people should look at conservatism as being one too.

          • afchief

            Liberalism is a mental disorder!!!! Progressive (Liberal Democrat) definition:

            Any person or group that believes people should be given special treatment based on ethnicity, gender or sexual preference.

            Any person or group that believes people should be treated as more valuable under the law due to ethnicity, gender or sexual preference.

            Any person or group that believes human life does not begin at conception and will push for killing a baby up to and after live birth.

            People who support philosophies relating to or in support of Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Atheism, Collectivism, LGBT activism, pro-abortion fanatics, radical feminists, normalization of pedophilia, radical environmentalism, racialism and any person or group who does not believe in upholding the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

            In addition to the above group memberships and ideals Progressives as a group will knowingly lie, cheat, break laws, deny a person or a group’s Constitutional rights and deny referenced facts that do not support their Progressive agenda. Progressives often resort to intense physical attacks, bullying and baseless slander when confronted with a set of facts or beliefs that oppose their agenda. Progressives seem to be unbound by any moral imperative and also display many or all the traits of a sociopath and or a psychopath while pursuing their deviant agenda.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            No they did not find WMD. If Saddam had them he would have used them. This state is pure and utter nonsense.
            PS I have met Donald Trump, long before this presidential race was even a thought. Despite his ego, he does genuinely care about America and its future. Trump would do what he had to to make us stronger again.

          • Lauranne Wood

            You are way behind…there WERE weapons! Get a Clue!!

          • Lauranne Wood


          • Gott Mit Uns!

            Cruz would be a new Hitler, or at the very least a new McCarthy.

          • Steve


          • uglytrout

            McCarthy was right, he didn’t go far enough. The existence of all of the marxists in our country, openly destroying the constitution, is proof of that.

          • uglytrout

            Cruz, really? His campaign’s behavior during the Iowa caucus was moral? I think not. He didn’t even have the moral strength to condemn or fire those responsible. No, Cruz is just another politician. Bush? Again, his lack of moral strength is apparent in all he did as president.. Homeland Security, TSA…. you find their abrogation of your rights to be moral? And Reagan? Really. Frankly, he signed a sweeping violation of our second amendment rights into law, among other things, and people need to stop idolizing him. At least with Trump there’s no facade. What you see if what you get.

          • Lauranne Wood

            AMEN to ALL 3!

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            George Bush hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahaha

      • The Skeptical Chymist

        For once, I agree with you!

      • Lauranne Wood

        We evidently saw right through this shallow person!

    • Patti Hannah

      Josey, exactly who are your picks so I can see if my opinion will go down or up for you? Or do you need to wait until the author Heather Clark googles and chooses one to manipulate you with over her personal choice and opinion, one I doubt you will ever see until her candidate of choice says which one he wants.

  • It sounds like Mr Trump’s strong suit is not really calling spades spades, but protecting the club of liberal clubs. If two suits are trumps, then that’s no trumps.

    • JosephineSouthern

      No it does NOT you just made that up or is that a democrat, rhino talking point?

  • Deborah8050

    I think Trump would be the most likely of all the candidates to listen to the wishes of the people and actually weigh them in his decision, whereas the other candidates would make the decision based on their own opinions and beliefs. I would prefer a candidate who will represent me rather than representing himself, however well-intentioned he might be.

    • Don R Mallonee

      I think you have that entirely backward’s, Trump has so much power he is used to having his way and i think he is going to do what he thinks is best whether we like it or not, once he is in office the only option we have is to like it or lump it

      • JosephineSouthern

        Well it is very likely that some people will not like it, you included, but Trump will make this country great again and he will restore us financially. Trump graduated from the Wharton School of Finance, the very best in the country at the top of his class. He will not owe any donors so it will be full speed ahead. Look at some of the scenes on the tv of other countries, look at Mexico while the Pope is visiting, the roads look better than ours, the buildings look fine and the people are smiling. Elect Trump and b ring our country back! I am vote TRUMP2016.

        • rdonal

          Have you ever been to Mexico? Really, you must be a lovely, sweet lady but when the news is showing you their piece they scout out the prettiest parts of the location. I have been to Mexico and Latin America and South America more times than I can count. There is rampant poverty….on the very fringe of the center of the main tourist city. The houses are made of salvaged tin and have dirt floors. The roads are pocked with deep holes and outside of the cities many are not paved.

          He may not ‘owe’ donors but he has hijacked the media to give him free air time. Clever but not really honorable.

          Mr. Trump thanks you for buying what he’s selling. He will now go to the bank with your money.

          • oneParty

            So how high can you count? Twenty? Fifty?

          • rdonal

            or maybe you like these numbers better….”Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that “all men are created equal.” Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure.”

            We have lost our way from both of those examples of numbers. I am not the stupid one….just one of those who won’t be lead by the nose following the rotten smell of Donald Trump’s putrid and twisted idea of democracy.

          • Lauranne Wood

            It’s like a cult! Like the Zombies are in some kind of trance where they lose all reason! Wish the media would just stop covering T! Boring!

          • rdonal

            For sure…..and now….Trump is preparing to do what he left the door open to do. I firmly believe he doesn’t want to be President at all. It will interfere with his business and making huge $$ deals. That said, when he said he would run as an Independent if he wasn’t treated “fairly”….well….that’s his latest schtick. Because he needs a perfect reason to fold, he can claim that and walk.

            He also knows that he has accomplished more than he imagined. He not only proved that he could play everyone and make people follow him into that dark hole of hate but he proved that he could make the media pay for his campaign (game of charades) and at the same time he could completely unravel the Republican party. He will have bragging rights forever.

            As an Independent he knows he won’t win….but he has upended the Republican party and he walks away clean. He never wanted to be President anyway. What a con man. Now we have to clean up the mess.

          • Lauranne Wood

            I think Trump is a DEM PLANT! He knows NOTHING!!! You have great thoughts too! Makes sense!

        • Dakra

          He most certainly did not graduate “at the top of his class,” he didn’t even graduate with honors. Do some independent research before accepting anything a bully billionaire who does not care about the middle class and poor.

          • oneParty

            Yeah, and you keep fighting for president Clinton. Keep it up.

          • Stephen Bogan

            Trump is not running against Hillary yet. He is running against real conservatives whocan beat him. I don’t think he or his zombie followers realize that.

          • Patti Hannah

            Real Conservatives? What EXACTLY is your idea of a real conservative? I am livid to hear this one Stephen. Please entertain us and be sure to include the “test” that use to grade someone whether they are conservative enough for you.

          • afchief

            One who upholds the law. One who believes in, supports, and defends our Constitution. One who will stop spending. One who lower the debt.

            SOCIALISM is the enemy of every man, woman and child in our country

          • iitywybad

            Yeah right!! That’s why he has a 20 point lead in South Carolina as well as the endorsement of Jerry Falwell Jr., Dr. Jeffress of Dallas, and televangelist Murdock whose followers comprise about 70% of evangelical voters.

          • Lauranne Wood

            It’s amazing to me that ANY Evangelical can support Trump. He spews awful language and makes fun of the handicapped! Those 2 things alone would keep me from supporting him. He’s definitely not Christian!

          • sandra-paquette-

            And how many are truly Christians and don’t tell me Ted Cruz as I have read things on him to so you tell us who else is worthy and smart enough to bring in job and deal with the problems.

          • Dakra

            You presume facts not in evidence. I will vote for the candidate who does more of what Jesus talked about in the Bible, which was healing the sick, fighting poverty and helping your fellow man (and women). So far, none of the Republican candidates are sounding like they much care for the poor, the sick and the injured. Therefore I might vote for a Democrat like Sanders or Clinton, as I’m more of a Goldwater Republican than any of the current crop of Republican candidates. There’s a reason why church and state should be kept separated, otherwise you’d end up with a Christian version of Iran. This is what Goldwater was talking about when he lamented religious extremists taking over the Republican party. A theocratic state does not protect the civil rights of all.

          • oneParty

            Government exists to protect our inalienable rights, not to heal the sick and feed the poor. Wow, can’t believe I had to explain that. Grow up and stop stealing the hard earned wages of others.

          • Dakra

            ^ Maybe you don’t think the government should heal the sick and feed the poor, but the vast majority of people do think that, both here and around the world. It’s part of the social contract we all have for living in our society, and it’s the Christian thing to do as well. By the way, why are you so in favor of corporate welfare but not in favor of welfare for the people? The average American taxpayer spends $4,000 a year subsidizing corporations with tax breaks and lower taxes, but spends $131 a year on food stamps. Why are we talking about helping the poor, which is a fraction of the total federal budget, instead of fixing the system so the wealthy pay their fair share? Right now, the average billionaire pays a lower percentage of their income in federal taxes than the average middle class American family. How is this possible? We get outraged over the perceived abuses in food stamps and Medicaid, which make up less than ten percent of the total federal budget, but we don’t flinch at spending $700 billion a year on the world’s largest military, by far. We spend more than the next ten nations COMBINED. In fact, for the price of one of the twelve aircraft carriers we have right now, we could fund college education for every American between 18 and 22 years of age.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Thank you very much, I appreciate this truthful comment.

          • 1G25

            Most Americans 18 – 22 years of age don’t have the brains to go to college, and they damn sure shouldn’t have the right to vote.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Really, the government taking money from one and giving it to another. Ha, for one the government takes the money and puts it in their own pockets, second social programs such as education and healthcare are way less responsible for our national debt than the military industrial complex which has racketed up 88 percent of the national deficit. Taking our tax dollars and handing it over to Iraq, so they can blow it all to hell, I don’t think so. 5 trillion dollars down the crapper in the Middleeast alone is the problem, not social spending.

          • Lauranne Wood

            Clinton?!?!? Sanders!?!? Gotta be kidding! Criminal Clinton and Nutjob Sanders???? Hopeless!

          • Patti Hannah

            Wow, the Cruz campaign has manipulated you very well. Cruz didn’t graduate “at the top his class” and he didn’t even graduate with honors. On this note: think before you use double standards. That is what most liberals do. LMAO

          • Dakra

            Um, a liberal wouldn’t support Cruz, ever, and neither do I, but thanks for playing. And, I’m fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

          • Lauranne Wood

            IF you are correct, Cruz has surpassed expectations! Who really cares about a grade point? Do the research and see what ALL Cruz has ACCOMPLISHED! Way too much to put here. His resume is Phenomenal! Most Intelligent MAN on the stage!

          • sandra-paquette-

            What a laugh

          • sandra-paquette-

            And he is (which has never be mentioned for the agenda 21) his wife helped Bush one this one. You know secret things going on under the tunnel. Then when they get in Surprise!

        • Stephen Bogan

          It’s not even possible for Trump to make America great again. America’s greatness never came from the Presidency. America’s greatness comes from “We the People.” I don’t think Trump or his zombie supporters understand that.

          • Patti Hannah

            I take it you didn’t read Trump’s website where he specifically stated what you just wrote? Trump or his zombie supporters? If Trump wins the nomination I bet you will be one of the Cruz zombies that won’t vote for Trump and help the Democrats win. Right?

          • etowah

            I guarantee you that he won’t build any fence either, what a stupid idea. WE have had an open southern border forever. We have only stopped armies from crossing. We need the National Guard down there to stop people from coming in and given the authority.. they can certainly do it. A wall will do nothing, besides like I said, there will be no wall. It is pointless. The Mexican heroin coming into NH is coming across the Canadian border. What a stupid idea. Populism is BAD NEWS.

          • iitywybad

            Then you have your head up your … and don’t listen. All his rally talks are about “WE” not “I” and how it’s a movement of “We the People” – that it’s not about him but the masses that attend his rallies.

          • Charlie Benghazi Blake

            Zombie supporters??? grow up

        • afchief

          I can’t believe Christians are voting for Trump. This man is a narcissist. He has NO morals. He is a salesman and has even Christians duped to vote for him. Trump would be like no president before him.

          o The first to be married three times, cheating on the first two (and probably the third).
          o The first whose wife appeared nude in a magazine.
          o The first to boast of his sexual proclivities, claiming to have had sexual relations with some of the “top women in the world.” (This is who Sarah Palin is supporting?)
          o He will be the first that has owned casinos with strip clubs.
          o To proudly proclaim that he will seek revenge against his personal enemies “as viciously and as violently as you can.”
          o His wife will be the first first lady that has posed for lesbian porn.

          And with that last bullet in mind, do you really think for a minute that Trump opposes gay marriage?

          Here is another man in the race who:

          o is not afraid of Congress,
          o stands up to bullies,
          o is actually a committed evangelical believer,
          o holds the views that has made Trump the forerunner in the race,
          o will destroy ISIS,
          o will confront radical Islam,
          o will tear up the Iran deal,
          o will repeal Obamacare,
          o will deal with illegal immigration

          Plus, unlike Trump, he will stand with Israel as a principled issue, whereas Trump will stand with Israel unless the Arabs make him a better deal.

          Yes, he is the ultimate deal-maker. Don’t make a deal with the devil. I am voting for Ted Cruz.

          • Lauranne Wood

            Achief! WHOO HOO! GOOD FOR YOU!!!! CRUZIN’ here too!

        • Lauranne Wood

          The DEALS he will make is a real concern for me. Wish I had a dollar for every time he has spoken the word! It will take prayer in order to save America and it will not be with Trump.

        • Shari L Childers Thomas

          Can you show me his transcripts? The last I looked, they weren’t online.
          Can you tell me how he will restore us financially?

      • MarvinTheParanoidAndroid

        You have a third option now?

      • Patti Hannah

        Did the Cruz campaign tell you that or do you personally know Donald Trump?

    • JosephineSouthern

      I agree Deborah, Mr. Trump is putting himself out there for all of us at his own expense.
      Many times since August I have held my breath that he would retain the lead; it is a roller coastal ride when he has said some of these things, but he then is proven RIGHT and they have not been able to touch him. I have for a long time thought the Iraq War was the wrong thing to do. But if you are going to make war on somebody well do it and not pussy foot around about it. Just take the oil and pay yourself for the high cost of this war. Too many nations having a say with no skin in the game; kick them out of New York and go about our own business, cleaning up our backyard.

    • wisegal1958

      I think you’d be very very wrong. When Trump says jump, he will expect the people to say “how high.”

    • Stephen Bogan

      Actually, we need someone that will obey the Constitution.

    • Boommach

      I suspect you’re right. Donald Trump seems to live for the “deal”. I think the man lives to be cheered and he will make whatever deal he needs to make to get the cheers he craves and avoid the booing. He won’t be so prone to let any principles get in the way.

    • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

      Strongly agree.

  • Don R Mallonee

    I have the feeling that we are going to regret it if Trump becomes our president, i keep asking how a person can be a liberal all their life and suddenly decide they want to be president and suddenly become conservative, me thinks there is a wolf in sheep’s clothing or as it is more common to say, a RINO

    • Henry Claymart

      He’s not. 69 years on earth and he’s suddenly “changed.” No, he has not. He’s extremely unprincipled. Any “change” is nonsense.

    • Patti Hannah

      The only thing you will regret is if you continue to spread lies about Trump. One he has not been a liberal all his life. He was “independent”. Two, he switched to Republican in 1988 and has voted Republican ever since. You would know this if you would have looked at the actual evidence that the New York Election commission released. Three, you would do better to stop allowing other candidates or the new media to manipulate your vote.

  • EscondidoSurfer

    Did you see Trump during the moment of silence for Scalia? Head high and proud while others bowed. What an arrogant jerk.

    • NewWest 123

      I believe the arrogance is really a very insecure individual with one hell of a temper!…. No thanks!

      • oneParty

        Sweet. Keep fighting for president Clinton.

        • Neena Lane

          Silly rabbit.. you honestly believe there’s a difference between Trump and Killary.. how cute…

          • thelordlives2011

            You have that exactly right.

          • Ray Turley

            There is only a startling difference if you look at it from a bad to worse scenario. Trump has no morality and is clearly a sociopath which is why he does not need forgiving for the lives he has ruined. He therefore not be trusted to do anything he says and would care less about the lives he would destroy and that is more dangerous than Hillary. At least with Hillary we know what she will do within reason as her ideology dictates her path. Donald has no ideology and there are worse things than socialism when you are controlled by a madman.

        • Ray Turley

          I would see a POTUS Clinton before I would let Trump in the White House.

    • wisegal1958

      Yup. I watched him do the same thing when he did his “photo op” thing where they were praying over him. They all had their heads bowed in prayer, but Trumps was not, and he even opened his eyes and looked right at the camera, yet the headline of that basically said “look what Trump doesn’t know we caught on camera, blah blah blah.” He LOOKED RIGHT AT THE CAMERA. Didn’t know, my foot. And he didn’t even bow his head for God and prayer, so I’m not surprised he didn’t for Scalia. This man is so haughty!

      • Patti Hannah

        What is a “photo op” thing? And can you share the link to the story that you claim this happened. If you haven’t heard. There are tons of fakes sites that are being ran anonymously that have been linked back to Glenn Beck who has been contracted and hired by Ted Cruz to trash Trump and the other candidate.

      • Lauranne Wood

        Haughty is a nice way to put it!

    • Patti Hannah

      No, YOU saw only what you were brainwashed to see. I seen Kasich and Trump with their eyes closed during a moment of silence. Just because you do a certain thing during a moment of silence doesn’t mean there is law to do it your way and nobody else. And I am not going to call you a name, I am more Christian than that.

      • QuoVadisAnima

        He does not ask for forgiveness nor does he bow his head when he speaks to God. I’m not judging his soul, but I’m not about to gamble my country on his sincerity either. Especially, given his past of verbal abuse, adultery, lying and stealing.
        He’s just the NYC business version of a DC politician.

        • Lauranne Wood

          Trump-More like a LIB/Dem!

        • sandra-paquette-

          Obama bows his head and so did Michelle and look at them. But they do not worship the same God as we do. I’ve seen Joe Biden use the same language speaking to Obama. Stealing what the media does not print the truth. Who would you consider worthy?

      • Lauranne Wood

        How could a Christian follow Trump? He spews horrible language and makes fun of the handicapped. Those two things alone make him unfit for the Presidency. Then there are the lies of which he’s been caught in. He never remarked about Iraq War prior to going there. It was 18 mos later! Many have caught on to him; wish others would wise up!

    • Lauranne Wood

      Trump is a JERK and more. He’s abut the lowest of low class candidate ever. HAS NONE! Wish his sheep would wise up! It’s almost like a cut!

      • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

        At least he says it like it is, not like the rest of these weakling candidates who have no spine to go against the establishment. Remember, the founding fathers were not politicians and founded the greatest nation on Earth. If anyone can make this country great again it’s Donald Trump.

        • sandra-paquette-

          Of course the politicians are not going to go against the establishment. It’s like a family circle keep the pay-offs coming, in the money all the good stuff we can get our hands on. Trump is the only one to brake it.

  • Akhabue

    Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and lean not unto your own understanding.
    6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths.
    7 Be not wise in your own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
    8 It shall be health to your body, and strength to your bones.

  • NewWest 123

    I don’t know who is advising him if anyone, cause every time he speaks, he digs a deeper hole in his grave….My guess is that he is now going for majority liberal votes realizing the conservative base is far bigger than anyone thought and he just doesn’t do well with them…’why? Cause he is a polar opposite Lib!

  • Pastor D

    From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The more a person speaks the more they reveal what they truly believe.

    • oneParty

      You’re a master of obfuscation.

      • Boommach

        It’s a paraphrase of Luke 6:45. Why would you call this ‘obfuscation’?

        • oneParty

          Nice scare quotes, lol.

          • Boommach

            I did not say anything humorous. It was a statement of fact. Feigning laughter masks nothing; least of all your fear and ignorance.

        • oneParty

          What you said has no meaning. It’s neither helpful nor instructive.

          • Boommach

            That’s certainly a stupid assertion. You are not anointed to ascribe or detract meaning from anything; least of all Holy scripture. The purpose of scripture is wholly instructive.

      • Pastor D

        How so?

  • NewWest 123

    A lot of people have him in the Whotehouse! He will not beat any of the left wing loons… They have too much in common… And why the left is pushing him.. An erratic Romney per say! God, they picked the guy that had the exact same thing as Obamacare to run against Obama!!L Then there was Pro Amnesty McCain…Now Trump the Lib!!

  • sammy13

    Trump is not for me. Trump apparently is for Trump, and the money he can make from his deals. The more he talks/whines, the less I like him. Actually, in grade school in the 1950’s, I was taught to avoid such people. He will not get my vote anymore than Clinton would get it.

    • Patti Hannah

      So in other words, if Cruz doesn’t win the primary and Trump does you are going to let Clinton win the White House because you will not vote for Trump. Got it.

      • Lauranne Wood

        If Justice prevails, there won’t be a Clinton to run against!

    • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

      Actually, i met Donald Trump at a wealth expo in 2007. While he has a huge ego, and I mean huge, he does genuinely care about America and the direction it’s heading.

  • Gott Mit Uns!

    Pryor would be a good pick.

  • Nikkiw

    Pretty sure you meant Diane Sykes, not Wanda Sykes. The latter is a commedian.

    • AndrewDowling

      No, a comedian is funny, and she isn’t.

  • Molly Pitcher

    The author may want to make a correction. The article begins with a mention of Diane Sykes, a Federal Judge, but continues on to mention Wanda Sykes, a black, lesbian comedienne.

  • bigsal175

    Trump, Ovamit, Bernie, Hildabeast: they’re all POSs.

  • TurboMan

    Donald has already moved on from capturing the extremist on the right to the general election. Of all the remaining primaries, he would only lose Texas to Raphael but win all the others. So he is preparing to come back left to where he has been all his life to get some votes.

  • oneParty

    These so called conservatives sure do fight hard for a president Clinton. Keep it up!

    • afchief

      Clinton for prison 2016!!!!

  • Martin Rizley

    And there are still self-styled conservatives who want to delude themselves into thinking they have found in Trump a man who will defend the Constitution, religious liberty, and conservative principles across the board? There is such a man in this election, but it is Cruz, not Trump. As Rush Limbaugh put it, if conservative principles are what drives your voting, you really have no other choice in this election but Cruz. He is the only across the board conservative in this election who will fight tooth and nail to undo the damage done to our country by this president and his far left progressive cronies who believe themselves to be above the rule of law. He will fight to defend the first, second, tenth amendments, and all the rest, and he has the proven intestinal fortitude to be unpopular and to refuse to compromise when Constitutional principle is at stake. That is the type of president we need at this crucial juncture of our nation´s history, with so many compromising RINO´s ready to give the enemies of freedom anything they want on a silver platter.

  • JohnBoy

    I’m commenting on your special message about Bibles for Iraq displayed above. I think virtually all Syrian Kurds must be illiterate in biblical Kurdish, because their dialect is Kurmanji, and all Kurmanji Bibles and bible portions are printed in Latin script, read in Turkey, but not in Syria or Iraq. Iraqi Kurds speak Sorani dialect, which is written in Arabic script – I have seen Sorani portions in that script, So Kurdish illiteracy may not be as high amongst Iraqi Kurds.

  • Lemon Lyman

    Wanda Sykes is a moderately successful comedian and actress. The Honorable Diane Sykes is a judge on Seventh Circuit. Any person who can’t tell he difference is unqualified to assess candidates for the bench.

    In the off chance that anyone on here can handle big words and moral nuance, I encourage you to look up Judge Pryor’s article “Moral Duty and the Rule of Law.”

  • Rod Patrick

    At least he’s honest. Care thinking about Roberts? LOL! Care thinking about those Christians killed by Baghdad bombing in 2003 and the surge? Care about the installation of Obama due caused by the odorous politics of Bush? But Obama continued Bush policies in Iraq by at least 80% Still ISIS came out. All Christian chapels and christians themselves in Iraq and vicinities were now decimated by ISIS. You think that you who supported the War and until now, repentant, are people without sins? Wow. I am Christian Conservative but Christian first. My common sense tells me that Bush and Establishment are more murderous compared to Businessman Trump.

    And stop talking about Ted. He’s Christian Lawyer that always lies against his political enemies. Ow. that’s an oxymoron.

    Those who throw stones toward Trump are the real hypocrites!

    TRUMP 2016! Most honest! He didn’t even lie about his rage against the War and shouted Bush lied, in front all Republicans and Conservative who, until now, couldn’t go to church and repent for their support an evil war.

  • Rod Patrick

    By the way, Planned Parenthood is not 100% abortion if you, blind conservatives, must know. 85% of the funds goes to women’s health care including free advice on almost everything, pre-natal check-up, check-up for the elderly, HIV testing, cancer testing, etc. for those women who don’t have HEALTH CARE.

    Are you all Christian? What blame the poor for being poor because they are not “competitive” and wise enough, and lucky enough to save for their health care plan? Yeah. Very conservative of supporting “individual responsbility”, which is the general policy.

    But I’m not sure if the Bible have that the same “small government” policy for not caring “the old people” and the poor.

    TRUMP IS RIGHT! PP has good social contributions …, removing abortion would make it fit to the “usual” mantra of Christian Conservatives, right? By the way, Trump consistently said he hates ABORTION.

  • boldaq

    Need anymore proof that trump is a democrat?

  • Herb Planter

    but I thought Trump said he was for restoring christian values….

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    This man, despite the vulgarity is the best man for the job. He understands economics more than the others and wants to keep us out of everyone else’s business.

  • peanut butter

    Pray fervently that Trump doesn’t get the nomination. Vote Cruz if you want things to go back to how they used to be, One Nation Under God.