PopeWatch: Trump Letter

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

 

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300

 

Pope Francis is not overly fond of Donald Trump, and now he is joined by a group of conservative Catholics who have published the following open letter:

 

 

In recent decades, the Republican party has been a vehicle — imperfect, like all human institutions, but serviceable — for promoting causes at the center of Catholic social concern in the United States: (1) providing legal protection for unborn children, the physically disabled and cognitively handicapped, the frail elderly, and other victims of what Saint John Paul II branded “the culture of death”; (2) defending religious freedom in the face of unprecedented assaults by officials at every level of government who have made themselves the enemies of conscience; (3) rebuilding our marriage culture, based on a sound understanding of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife; and (4) re-establishing constitutional and limited government, according to the core Catholic social-ethical principle of subsidiarity. There have been frustrations along the way, to be sure; no political party perfectly embodies Catholic social doctrine. But there have also been successes, and at the beginning of the current presidential electoral cycle, it seemed possible that further progress in defending and advancing these noble causes was possible through the instrument of the Republican party.

That possibility is now in grave danger. And so are those causes.

Donald Trump is manifestly unfit to be president of the United States. His campaign has already driven our politics down to new levels of vulgarity. His appeals to racial and ethnic fears and prejudice are offensive to any genuinely Catholic sensibility. He promised to order U.S. military personnel to torture terrorist suspects and to kill terrorists’ families — actions condemned by the Church and policies that would bring shame upon our country. And there is nothing in his campaign or his previous record that gives us grounds for confidence that he genuinely shares our commitments to the right to life, to religious freedom and the rights of conscience, to rebuilding the marriage culture, or to subsidiarity and the principle of limited constitutional government.

We understand that many good people, including Catholics, have been attracted to the Trump campaign because the candidate speaks to issues of legitimate and genuine concern: wage stagnation, grossly incompetent governance, profligate governmental spending, the breakdown of immigration law, inept foreign policy, stifling “political correctness” — for starters. There are indeed many reasons to be concerned about the future of our country, and to be angry at political leaders and other elites. We urge our fellow Catholics and all our fellow citizens to consider, however, that there are candidates for the Republican nomination who are far more likely than Mr. Trump to address these concerns, and who do not exhibit his vulgarity, oafishness, shocking ignorance, and — we do not hesitate to use the word — demagoguery.

Mr. Trump’s record and his campaign show us no promise of greatness; they promise only the further degradation of our politics and our culture. We urge our fellow Catholics and all our fellow citizens to reject his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination by supporting a genuinely reformist candidate.
Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence
Princeton University

George Weigel
Distinguished Senior Fellow and William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies
Ethics and Public Policy Center

and

Ryan T. Anderson
William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow
The Heritage Foundation

Stephen M. Barr
University of Delaware

Francis J. Beckwith
Professor of Philosophy and Church–State Studies
Baylor University

Mary Ellen Bork
Ethics and Public Policy Center Board

Gerard V. Bradley
Professor of Law
University of Notre Dame

Don J. Briel
John Henry Newman Chair of Liberal Arts
University of Mary

Brian Burch
President, CatholicVote.org.

James C. Capretta
Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Joseph Cella
Founder, National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

Grazie Pozo Christie, M.D.
The Catholic Association

Ann Corkery
Founder, Catholic Voices USA

Neil Corkery
Sudan Relief Fund

David Paul Deavel
Interim Editor, Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture

Mary Eberstadt
Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Eduardo Echeverria
Professor of Philosophy and Systematic Theology
Sacred Heart Major Seminary

Thomas F. Farr
Director, Religious Freedom Project
Georgetown University

Matthew J. Franck
Director, William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution, Witherspoon Institute

Anna Halpine
Founder, World Youth Alliance

Mary Rice Hasson
Director, Catholic Women’s Forum, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Stephen J. Heaney
Associate Professor of Philosophy
University of St. Thomas

John P. Hittinger
Pope John Paul II Forum, Center for Thomistic Studies
University of St. Thomas

Elizabeth M. Kelly
Managing Editor, Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture

Rachel Lu
Senior Contributor, The Federalist

Bruce D. Marshall
Lehman Professor of Christian Doctrine
Perkins School of Theology
Southern Methodist University

Robert T. Miller
Professor of Law and F. Arnold Daum Fellow in Corporate Law
University of Iowa College of Law

Kate O’Beirne
Former Washington Editor, National Review

C. C. Pecknold
The Catholic University of America

Robert Royal
Faith and Reason Institute

Deborah Savage
Professor of Philosophy and Theology
University of St. Thomas

Timothy Samuel Shah
Religious Freedom Project
Georgetown University

Nina Shea
Director, Center for Religious Freedom
Hudson Institute

Hilary Towers
Developmental psychologist and author

David R. Upham
Associate Professor of Politics
University of Dallas

Edward Whelan
Ethics and Public Policy Center

Stephen P. White
Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Titles and affiliations of each individual are provided for identification purposes only. The views expressed are those of the individual signatories and do not necessarily represent the views of any organization or entity.

Trump recently called himself a unifier.  Well, he certainly has unified Catholic conservatives and the Catholic left in opposition to him.

More to explorer

Eating Their Own

  News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   WASHINGTON, D.C.—Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is busy celebrating her victory over the

53 Comments

  1. Where is these conservatives’ letter about Obama being manifestly unfit for office?

  2. …..and run the risk of being labeled racist!

    Good point Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.
    Where indeed.
    Let’s give him a Nobel Peace prize.
    Yah. Great idea! He’s earned it?
    Call it affirmative action at the highest level.

  3. I now predict that Donald trump, if elected, will not be invited to Notre Dame for an official honoring ceremony.
    On the other hand, Hillary, a staunch supporter of taking life in the womb and selling baby parts, might well be invited to Georgetown, if they can handle the crowd of confused Catholics and their professors who will no doubt assemble to adoringly hear her trust-filled words of wisdom.

  4. “Donald Trump is manifestly unfit to be president of the United States. His campaign has already driven our politics down to new levels of vulgarity.”

    These folks have not published something about Hillary’s or Sanders’ fitness for office?

    I suspect most of these folks are Democrats because of their affiliations s.a. Notre Dane & Georgetown–not exactly bastions of conservative Catholics.

  5. “Several of the letter writers Paul I know as unremitting critics of Obama.”

    Obama is no longer running for office so their past criticism of him do not help the current situation we are in.

  6. “We urge our fellow Catholics and all our fellow citizens to consider, however, that there are candidates for the Republican nomination who are far more likely than Mr. Trump to address these concerns, and who do not exhibit his vulgarity, oafishness, shocking ignorance, and — we do not hesitate to use the word — demagoguery.”

    Just because political comments are stated “nicely” does not mean they are one bit less vulgar, oafish, shocking, or ignorant.

  7. “I suspect most of these folks are Democrats because of their affiliations s.a. Notre Dane & Georgetown–not exactly bastions of conservative Catholics.”

    You suspect wrong Barbara. Don’t make silly statements that you don’t have the facts to back up. At least do not do so, because I will not tolerate it.

  8. “Obama is no longer running for office so their past criticism of him do not help the current situation we are in.”

    Yes but Trump, an ignorant buffoon of a Democrat in Republican clothing is. Hence the letter.

  9. “Just because political comments are stated “nicely” does not mean they are one bit less vulgar, oafish, shocking, or ignorant.”

    Your statement is a non sequitur in regard to the letter. Trump is a vulgar, oafish buffoon of shocking ignorance. Deal with it. Note to all commenters:
    If you are going to defend Trump in regard to this post do so with hard facts.

  10. This will have the same effect as Romney’s speech. This group couldn’t be galvanized to protect us from 2 terms of Obama, but thinks Trump is the end of the Republic as we know it? Why then isn’t there a similar piece on the threat posed by a Hillary or Bernie! presidency? The answer is obvious. This group thinks reasonable people( self-described “Catholics”, the ones who gave a majority vote to Obama in the last 2 elections) can rationalize a vote for the candidate from the party of death. What this group can’t stomach is a vote for Trump the vulgarian. Well, I held my nose and voted for George Wiegel’s man, John McCain. In fact, I held my nose and voted for every Republican nominee since Reagan. I will also hold my nose and vote for Trump, if he’s the nominee, rather than put Satan in the White House.

  11. “This group couldn’t be galvanized to protect us from 2 terms of Obama, but thinks Trump is the end of the Republic as we know it?”

    Complete and utter rubbish. The signatories of this list have been unremitting critics of Obama. Trump shills will need to think up a better answer to this letter than that. Once again, supporters of the Trump fraud: come up with solid arguments against what is stated in this letter or do not bother commenting. When it comes to Trump I am tired of people who obviously know nothing about his record attacking people who have such knowledge.

  12. So, strawman arguments are a specialty? “This group” did not, in fact, come out as a group to write such a letter in National Review against either Obama candidacy as it did here. Singular efforts are not the same as coming together, in a group, to take a united position. That’s why I used that particular term as well as “galvanized”. Similarly, it would have been easy to include Hillary and Bernie! in the their piece. I mean, the hard work of getting the group together was already done. I will stand by my assessment as to who is a greater threat to the continued existence of the Republic. As far as not knowing anything about Trump’s record, please do not make uncharitable assumptions. I have made it quite clear in my postings that I am for Ted Cruz, and that I would only “hold my nose” to vote for Trump. If you fail to see the meaning of that phrase, I guess you are not as insightful in this instance as you usually are in your postings.

  13. Once again, please respond to the letter and address the arguments that it makes. This comment is meant for all who seek to criticize this letter. I have a full day of court hearings today and I will be unable to monitor this thread and I want a fruitful discussion, which is not what I have seen thus far in this thread.

  14. Folks – Barack Obama is (thank God) not running for president again. Both of the Democrats running for president are manifest champions of evil causes, and I think that Don, myself, and the signatories of this letter are fairly confident that almost none of the intended audience for this letter (as well as the readers of this blog) are even contemplating voting for either candidate. The Republican primary, however, offers viable alternatives to Trump, therefore the necessity of such outreach.

    Like Don said, address the substance of the letter, and quit with the (non-sensical in this context) strawmen and red herrings.

  15. The comments above that suggest that the signatories to this letter are or ever have been sympathetic to either Obama or Hillary are Exhibit A to Cruz’s characterization of Trump’s supporters as “low information.”

  16. Those criticizing the letter should provide an example of even one of the signers supporting Obama, Hillary, or Sanders. I do not recognize all the signers, but the ones I recognize have impeccable pro-life, pro-family credentials. All of whom opposed Obama.

    Obama, Hillary and Sanders never had support from conservatives. Trump somehow has pro-life conservatives lining up behind him despite a record of statements such as “I’m very pro-choice” and even after his alleged conversion “Planned Parenthood is a great organization.”

  17. It’s unfortunate that this letter, like the Chicago Trib column Don wrote about yesterday, didn’t come out six weeks sooner when it might have had more impact.

  18. I actually agree with much of the letter. What I don’t agree with is the implication that Trump represents some singular threat to the Republic such that this group only now became galvanized to address it. In the last 2 election cycles, prominent Catholics, even Catholic theologians, came out in favor of Obama. I would have thought that was a moment to be galvanized into giving direction to other Catholics who might equally be mislead into voting for our first black president. I mean, Obama had actually voted to deny care to babies born alive who had the misfortune of having a mother who wanted them dead. No, my suspicion is that it is Trump’s vulgarity, as much as anything else, that is driving this response. But, even if everything in the letter is true, the candidate from the party of death will be worse, in my humble opinion. As another poster, Phillip, noted, Hillary had the audacity to say that pro-life faiths needed to change their views on abortion. Kind of like Eve telling God he should change his views about not eating the forbidden fruit. In the end, I do not believe this letter will have any more, or different, impact than Romney’s speech. In the event the electorate is left with the choice of Trump or the candidate of the party of death, where does this group go? For me, and unless something changes, I will cast my vote for my party’s nominee.

  19. I have re-read the letter. I agree with the letter. That said, I would now like to see a similar letter by these signatories explaining why a vote for Sanders the radical socialist or for Hillary the murderous pathological liar is equally wrong.
    .
    Yes, I understand this letter is addressed to Republicans voting in primaries yet to be conducted. That is appropriate and correct. Yes, I understand that the signatories to this letter have opposed the advocacy of Democrats for the infanticide of the unborn and the sanctification of sodomy and lesbianism. They are to be commended for that.
    .
    However, if all they do now is issue a letter against Trump and do not follow up wth a letter against Sanders and Clinton, then people will think (come the general election) that voting for the Democrats is acceptable. Yes, the signatories were exact in their wording to say that there are other Republican candidates available. None of that will be remember this coming fall. All that will happen is liberal Catholic publications and blogs waving this letter to condemn voting for Trump (assuming he wins the nomination) and to support voting for a socialist or a murderess.
    .
    Once again, for the record: the letter is correct, but it needs follow up. And come this fall, if Trump is the nominee, then perhaps I shall vote third party – Constitution Party. I agree that party cannot win, but I do not like choosing between a philandering adulterous foul mouth playboy gambler, a commie pinko geriatric and a murderous pathological liar. At that point I think (in my pessimism however unjustified) that the Republic is doomed and that voting for the lesser of two evils is the wrong thing to do when there is a really good third party candidate available however remote his chances.
    .
    PS, I voted for Ben Carson in the SC primaries and he now supports Trump.. 🙁 God save us!

  20. the implication that Trump represents some singular threat to the Republic

    This is not a fair characterization of the letter. Again, the Democratic party – in the eyes of many reading this – is lost. The types of Catholics drawn to Trump in any way are almost certainly not even contemplating voting Democrat. Yet it is precisely because the Democratic party is such a desolate wasteland of anti-life, anti-freedom zealots, that is essential that the Republican party not nominate someone who mitigates the sharply-drawn differences between the parties, and whose unpopularity almost guarantees that one of these Democrats gets swept into office (and whose candidacy might be so deleterious that it even brings with it Democratic, anti-life majorities in both the Senate and House).

    It’s unfortunate, as you say, that many “Catholic” theologians and pundits backed Obama, and will likely do the same for Clinton or Sanders. I think the orthodox (or catholic) opposition to Obama was fairly manifest, even if there was no group letter. All of the above signatories, or at least a good chunk of them, were very vocal in their opposition to Obama. Once again, though, these are different circumstances requiring different tactics.

    Will this letter have an impact? I don’t know. But I believe that if one’s conscience dictates that one must speak out openly, then that’s what a person has to do. That is why I continue blogging, for instance.

  21. YES, I’m a low information nitwit.
    .
    I know a few things and they are all I need to know. Like 2008 and 2012, Hillary will get elected because of bu!!$#!+ like this. But, most importantly the lying harridan and the blindly idiotic socialist will be 100% worse (on the enumerated issues in paragraph one) than would be President Trump.
    .
    Our Catholic elites, like the loser-establishment GOP, are harsher in their attacks against Trump and his supporters than they ever were against on Obama, Hillary, Sanders, et al.

  22. I agree with Mike Petrik. If you don’t recognize at least 7-8 of these signatories as staunchly pro-life, anti-Obama, then you are a low information voter. You need to cast your reading net a little wider.

  23. So, what are the chances of a write in candidate being accepted and taking the elements we all despise out of this equation?

    Are they slim to none?

    I am anxious as to what we face come November. This is a hell of a nightmare playing out. The one ray of peace and hope is our Faith and love in God. In him and only him I’m finding comfort. There’s our write in candidate; Jesus. Is he available?

  24. Third party candidacies are basically futile, though this year there might actually be enough dissatisfaction with the two major party nominees that suddenly the improbable becomes possible. The question, though, is would a truly viable third party candidate step forward? It would have to be someone willing to risk his or her political career enough to not worry that a losing effort would essentially end their career in the given party. Even if sore loser laws didn’t apply in a few states, neither Rubio or even Cruz would take such a risk. Therefore someone like Rick Perry becomes one of the few real options, and even that sounds somewhat far-fetched.

  25. Thanks Paul Zummo.
    Thanks for giving me something to pray for, instead of cursing this dark primary season.
    Hope is alive.
    Even though it’s just a small slice of hope.

  26. Trump will be the Republican nominee and the next President because he has identified how the working man is getting screwed by free trade and illegal immigration and is willing to do something about it. We need smart trade and immigration.

  27. free trade and illegal immigration and is willing to do something about it.

    Like what? Which policy detail on which given day indicates Donald Trump is prepared to do something helpful on either of these issues. Please provide the specific policy change Donald Trump has proposed that you believe will make a positive change in either area. Remember – a specific policy detail.

  28. Paul,
    Trump is “flexible” and will “make deals.” I hope that is specific enough for you, because that is as specific as he has been on anything, aside from his emphatic promise to build a wall and make the Mexicans pay it.

  29. In 2008 and 2012, they gave Obama similar aid.
    .
    “. . . you don’t recognize at least 7-8 of these signatories as staunchly pro-life, anti-Obama, then you are a low information voter.” Please give me the links to their major hit pieces on Hillary, Obama and Sanders.
    .
    No! “Vulgarity;” “torture;” “shoot terrorists’ families.” Then, they poo-poo the working class’ economic travails. I re-read the letter. It could have been written by Mark-who in his saner moments. It tells me more about the signers than about Trump. They should have written that Trump is lying about his anti-abortion stance. It would have made sense. Why shove abortion to the curb and re-raise the same issues that sowed doubt and confusion and gave us Obama?
    .
    Re: the establishment GOP: They made Paul Ryan Speaker of the House and he did what? Pro-life – don’t make me laugh. The GOP has been in control and done little even to limit abortion. Since Ryan replaced worse-than-useless Boehner, he did nothing to cut/defund planned parenthood; pushed through another huge budget deficit, funded Obamacare and illegal executive orders, etc.
    .
    The feckless GOP majority can’t or won’t do anything. They cannot overturn a veto and are so cowardly as they can’t stand knee-jerk media lies over a government shut-down. .

    .
    The working class is in a tailspin. Walmart shoppers can’t afford to buy. The elites and establishment GOP and social justice warriors don’t care. The great unwashed, low-information American is being shoveled under. But, the low-lifes in huge numbers are coming out to vote. Either get with the program, or get out of the way.

    Trump hits the right notes that the establishment GOP refuses to, including addressing destructive, nation-busting immigration and bad trade pacts.
    .
    FYI: “You can have open borders and you can have the welfare state. But, you cannot have both.” Milton Friedman

    Illegal immigration isn’t social justice, it’s a crime.

  30. Paul. Like what? Who cares about policy detail at this stage. Policy goals are what we should expect not detailed plans which are always a matter of study and compromise.

  31. Who cares about policy detail at this stage

    Yeah, who cares about specifics? Just throw on a goofy hat, yell about making America great again, and huzzah!

    I’m going to be blunt in a way that might upset some of you, but this is why the people opposed to Trump want to tear their hair out. You want to to talk about cults? This is cult-like behavior.

    We’re talking about the future of our country, and the destiny that is being set forth for my children, and you want to throw your hands in the air and say, “Eh, who cares about details?” Do you not get how infuriating this is? You have been duped by a conman, and you don’t even have the common sense to realize it.

  32. So one more chance Michael, and any Trump backer for that matter: just name one specific policy idea that Trump has put forth that you agree with and which you believe will “make America great again.”

  33. “This is a cult like behavior.” PZ.

    Yes. A band of angry people willing to throw caution to the wind and back a phony.
    I am sick at the thought of Hillary or Haney at the wheel house. At best the ship will break up on the reef. Some will manage to make it to shore. At worse the ship will set anchor in hostile waters. Slaves to a historical transformation of a free people now in bondage. A communist America.
    Land ownership. Banned.
    Shared poverty. Accepted.
    Parents raise children. Banned.
    State Religion. Accepted.
    Speak up aginist government?
    Imprisonment.

    Fiction?

    Yes. For now.

  34. One may google donaldjtrump.com and discover his positions on healthcare reform, US-China trade reform, VA reform, tax reform, Second Amendment rights, and immigration reform.

  35. “You suspect wrong Barbara. Don’t make silly statements that you don’t have the facts to back up. At least do not do so, because I will not tolerate it”

    Well, Donald, in all sincerity I apologize for making a comment saying that these folks were probably Democrats–after reading your personal vouching for them. I did not read the entire strand in order–hence my relative comment. I am no Trump supporter at this time. If I have to, I will hold my nose & vote for him as I have for every general election R presidential candidate –except Reagan–for my entire life.

  36. “Yes but Trump, an ignorant buffoon of a Democrat in Republican clothing is. Hence the letter.”

    Trump scares me. Hillary scares me more.

  37. “Your statement is a non sequitur in regard to the letter. Trump is a vulgar, oafish buffoon of shocking ignorance. Deal with it. Note to all commenters:
    If you are going to defend Trump in regard to this post do so with hard facts.”

    I am not defending Trump. Though I have let several folks know that I felt they were self righteous in their religious pronouncements in re: to several R candidates across the board.

  38. Amici,

    A crowd of rebels in gangster land Chicago forced cancellation of a Donald Trump rally – the Democrat motto comes to mind: free speech for me and not for thee. One does not have to agree with Trump (I don’t), but at least the rioters should allow the man the same freedom of speech that they demand for ourselves.
    .
    This is why violence is coming. People are getting sick and tired of being shut down, and demonized. 🙁

  39. Paul–

    I bet on people not policies. And I happen to think Trump can do the job better than Cruz. That’s it, that’s all. And while waiting for Tuesday’s results how about we all just pray for all the candidates and the country that God will help us all find the right solutions to our problems and try to get along better.

  40. Oh yes these Catholic “leaders.” And what have they given us? When did thy EVER say anything as a group about the culture rot that Obama has presided over. NEVER say anything about Obama. What a joke. Ill vote Trump any day !

  41. “Cult like behavior.” If there’s any cult like behavior being carried out, it’s by Cruz’s supporters. His father, Raphael Cruz is holding rallies on behalf of his son around the nation. I attended the one in East Peoria, Il. this last Thursday. I thought I was at a revival meeting. The only things that were missing was snake-handling, speaking in tongues, and people going forward after the sermon. There was no attempt to appeal to logical thought at all. And since Raphael Cruz is a Pentecostal preacher, that explains why there’s no appeal to logical thought. Also Ol’ Raf believes his son’s candidacy was predicted in Biblical prophecy. He’s also a believer in a theological belief called Seven Mountain Dominionism. You can read about it here. http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh263.htm How any sane person could support Cruz after reading this information is beyond me.

  42. “Policy goals are what we should expect not detailed plans which are always a matter of study and compromise.”

    Michael Dowd, I understand what you were trying to say in that sentence Ronald Reagan was, after all, the supreme example of a president who did not micromanage but who did focus foremost on policy goals. It is not in itself a bad argument to make, but you argued it past the breaking point, and you applied it to someone who is certainly no Ronald Reagan.

  43. Again, Stephen, you rely on your creeped out feelings about Cruz’s dad while ignoring Trump’s personal behavior. But by all means, vote for the fascist because you don’t like the remaining sane candidate’s father.

  44. Last night in Chicago, we witnessed evidence of so much more than meets the eye in our formerly much blessed republic. Does anyone think that was a spontaneous event?

  45. “Oh yes these Catholic “leaders.” And what have they given us? When did thy EVER say anything as a group about the culture rot that Obama has presided over.”

    The people on this list have attacked Obama’s policies ceaselessly. What an amazingly ignorant attack on them.

  46. “The people on this list have attacked Obama’s policies ceaselessly. What an amazingly ignorant attack on them.”

    Absolutely right, Don.
    Yet, I could forgive the ignorance associated with simply being poorly read and therefore not having knowledge of these leaders or their histories. It is the ignorance associated with posting before investigating that is so amazing.

  47. Indeed, Mike, that is what is so infuriating about Trump’s supporters. At least with Ron Paul there was a real ideological pull (for the most part). Here we see a studied refusal to even engage with facts.

  48. MR. Zummo, there’s an old saying “Like father, like son”. Rafael Cruz is a shyster and a con artist. Go to the link I already gave, and these two links. calebsreport.com/ted-cruz-and a-Cuban-history-lesson/ and calebsreport.com/rafael-cruz-biographical-ruse-2/ BTW, calling an opponent a “fascist” is an old leftist smear when you can’t offer any real criticism. If you’re a right-winger, why are you using this tactic?

  49. “BTW, calling an opponent a “fascist” is an old leftist smear when you can’t offer any real criticism. If you’re a right-winger, why are you using this tactic?”
    Perhaps because the facts of repeated cases of violence involving Trump supporter, and the words of incitement by Trump himself, show that it is not a smear but rather the truth,

  50. BTW, calling an opponent a “fascist” is an old leftist smear

    When the shoe fits.

    At any rate, it’s an odd thing to obsess about one candidate’s father when the other candidate himself offers so much that is much more troubling. But I guess you can take the boy out of the cult, but not the cult out of the boy.

Comments are closed.