If you listen to Glenn Beck and other #nevertrump conservatives, you would think there is an ironclad guarantee that Trump will lose. As it turns out, this is wishful thinking on their part. On July 19, Victor Davis Hanson penned a piece in The National Review. In it he explains why Trump can win. Here are some highlights with a link to the full article below:
Marjorie Murphy Campbell at The Christian Review penned an outstanding response to the condscending Weigel/George hit piece on Trump and his voters in which she surgically attacked their hypocrisy. Holding themselves out to be Catholic experts, Weigel and George hurled unfounded accusations at Trump and attempted to malign and shame his voters.
Does this sound familiar? Don’t we experience this often as Catholic Trump supporters? Haven’t we encountered many Catholic #nevertrumpers who are quick to give all sorts of figures on the left, liberal bishops, and Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt no matter what questionable statements they make? However, when it comes to Trump and his supporters, these #nevertrumps feel as if the normal moral rules of charity do not apply. Instead, they seem to think that assuming the worst about these people is somehow acceptable. Why? Because Trump is “evil” of course, and his supporters are either evil or stupid. But are these the acts and words of devoted Catholics? Is it morally acceptable for Catholics to use the shame and scare tactics of the radical left to silence and pressure those they don’t agree with?
Campbell didn’t think so. Even though she was an undecided voter, she still thought the behavior from Weigel and George was so revolting that she owed Trump and his voters an apology on behalf of all Catholics. The following are some highlights from this excellent piece. It should be read in its entirety at the link below the quote:
Jack Kerwick over at beliefnet wrote an outstanding response to some of the repeated unfair criticisms of Trump bandied about by the neoconservatives. Sadly many conservative Catholics have been fooled by them over the past year Mr. Kerwick’s piece was in response to George Weigel (pictured above) and Robert George’s National Review piece which condescendingly lectured all Catholics that voting for Trump is immoral. In reality, voting for any non-establishment candidate is immoral to these men since they make a living off of establishment funding.
The piece deserves a full read at the link below, but here are some highlights:
There is an excellent, thoughtful, and well written review of Catholics 4 Trump by Maureen Mullarkey over at studiomatters.com.
Mullarkey writes:
Jackson’s initiative is addressed specifically to Catholics because so many of us are invested in the theater of ourselves as high moral theologians. Catholics twist themselves into hangman’s knots with deliberations on the lesser of two evils. Which is the lesser, Trump or Clinton? Catholics are enjoined from choosing any evil. If Trump is as horrid as Clinton, the principle of double effect does not apply. Should not commitment to right behavior keep us home and away from the shabby compromises of the voting booth? Do we not put ourselves in moral jeopardy voting for Trump?
Oh, please! There comes a time to grant a bit of credit to Mae West: “Between two evils, I always choose the one I haven’t tried before.”
The Catholic blogosphere is sodden with Prufrockery: Do I dare to eat a peach? Do I dare descend the stair? Dare disturb the universe of my own fine preferences? It is a masturbatory game destined to finish with the election of a vile, traitorous woman greedy for power and money. A woman with a squalid history of shady dealings, evidence gone missing, and lies with calamitous consequences.
Jackson is making the point that refusing to choose is, in fact, a choice. It is a self-admiring one that permits the chooser to gaze on his own clean hands instead of on the outcome of his decision-by-default. Abstention from this election is the vain choice of moral cowards.
AW Morgan writes:
I asked a friend who is a Catholic priest whether a Catholic can vote for Donald Trump without committing a mortal sin, given his political shifts, shakiness on abortion and the things he has said and done.
Answer: Yes, a serious Catholic can vote for Trump. And given what my friend said, I add this: anyone who cares about the unborn can safely vote for Trump because he will attempt to stop the immivasion of pro-abortion Democrat voters…
In a homily about papal infallibility, a priest at a distant church I attend occasionally said Donald Trump,not Pope Francis, held the true Catholic position on immigration. Catholic teaching does not demand open borders or unlimited immigration, as the pope and the bishops suggest, and the details about immigration policies are matter on which Catholics of good faith can disagree.
Anyway, more immigration means more abortion because immigrants vote for pro-abortion Democrats. But perhaps because so many of the bishops are leftists, as the story about the Reagan-Helms bill shows, that is fine.
Bottom line: If you’re Catholic and you care about the unborn, you can vote for Donald Trump.
Dinesh D’Souza’s new movie on Hillary Clinton’s America and the history the Democratic Party premiers this weekend. I urge you to go see it in the theater both to support D’Souza, an outstanding conservative filmmaker, and to get a preview of what life will be like for you and your family under a Hillary Clinton presidency. If this movie does not convince you to vote against her, I’m not sure what will.
Today, Glenn Kessler, “Fact Checker” for the Washington Post wrote an article entitled, “Donald Trump’s revisionist history of mocking a disabled reporter.” So right from the beginning you can see he intended to be completely fair and balanced. No, instead he repeated the same old party line on this story, gave Trump “4 Pinocchios” and moved on. Fortunately for you, we are here to hold him and the rest of the media accountable every step of the way.
The first thing to notice about the WaPo “Fact Check” is that it does not once show video of Serge Kovaleski, the disabled NewYork Times reporter. Instead, WaPo only shows you video footage of Trump impersonating a flustered reporter who Trump claims is trying to backtrack from his 2001 reporting. Note carefully what WaPo’s “Fact Checker” states about the video (emphasis added):
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén