jump to navigation

Bishop Gracida: Between Hillary and Trump, Vote None of the Above    July 26, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, catachesis, contraception, episcopate, General Catholic, Restoration, scandals, secularism, Society, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.

I’ve long had a great admiration for Bishop Emeritus Rene Gracida of Corpus Christi.  To me, there has been no more orthodox, tradition-embracing bishop in this state in the past 30, possibly 40 years.  I have quite a bit of respect for his opinions, though I do not necessarily agree on every point.  I give a good deal of weight to what he has to say.

Bishop Gracida has posted a pretty explosive opinion piece regarding the upcoming presidential election. I think this is one of the few times I’m not fully in agreement with what Bishop Gracida had to say.  I don’t disagree with his broader point – Hillary and Trump both so offend against good morals that supporting either is problematic, at best, if not entirely impermissible – but I do think his reasoning for finding Trump morally objectionable is not entirely correct. Bishop Gracida finds both candidates so wanting that he recommends either a no vote or a write-in.

With regard to the latter, reader TE does bring up one  very important point regarding Bishop Gracida’s recommendation below, however – votes for write-in candidates that are not on the list of candidates approved by the State of Texas ARE thrown away.  That is, they are not counted.  It is just as if one does not vote.  That’s an important consideration.  An equally important consideration is that the Constitution Party candidate, Darrell Castle, looks like he’ll make it as one of the accepted write-in candidates in Texas and does provide a morally acceptable alternative for a Catholic.  In fact, probably no party corresponds better to the Doctrine of the Faith, overall, than the Constitution Party, though it is by no means perfect.

At any rate, Bishop Gracida’s commentary (my comments):

No one, especially a Christian, can ever choose evil, however small. Everyone, especially a Christian, must choose good however small. In my opinion the evil in both Hillary and Donald so far outweighs the good in them it is impossible for a anyone, especially a Christian, to vote for either of them. Instead, write in the name of a person you judge to be more good than evil… …If we make our choices without reference to what Jesus Christ has taught us, we are no different than our first parents in choosing to call evil good and good evil…….

……… Some would argue that when faced with an important situation we are allowed to choose the lesser of two evils. But the Church magisterium has always taught that one can only choose the lesser of two evils in cases of ABSOLUTE NECESSITY, such as whether to save the mother or the child in cases of an ectopic pregnancy. [To me, this is the core of the piece, and the most important point made.  It’s an incredibly important point, and I think the fact that both of these candidates have not only held gravely immoral beliefs, but committed seriously immoral acts (and shown no remorse for same) has sort of been shoved aside in the push for an expedient method to stop Hillary’s election.  I view Hillary as practically a demon incarnate, but Trump has his own warts.] In the present case no person can say that IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY THAT THEY VOTE FOR EITHER DONALD TRUMP OR HILLARY CLINTON. [Given that, from a practical standpoint, one of the two will win, and one might be markedly preferable to the other, even though still egregiously bad in many regards, is there not a sufficient difference to merit support? Bishop Gracida says no.  I’d love to hear more opinions from well-formed authorities in the traditional wing of the Church. Does the SSPX have anything to say on this election?] Yes, Hillary Clinton favors abortion which kills unborn children, but Donald Trump will (in my opinion) cause America to go to war which will kill not only unborn children but men, women, boys and girls AND UNBORN CHILDREN. I do not believe that any human person can decide which of the two, Clinton or Trump, is the LESSER of the two evils. [Now many may argue with that. I’m not certain where Bishop Gracida gets this notion that Trump will put us in a war, which seems to be the basis on which he concludes that Trump is as evil as Hillary.  We’re already at war, and have been for 15 years.  Does he mean beyond that?  He has to be speaking of a total world war, even a nuclear war, otherwise, even a fairly major regional war killing thousands would not be nearly morally equivalent to abortion, which kills over a million a year.  On what evidence does Bishop Gracida foresee this calamitous war happening? Trump has spoken of breaking decades-old alliances to keep us OUT of wars, but then has also spoken of bombing the crud out of those who attack us.  I don’t think anyone can definitively say what he’ll do in this regard, if elected.  I don’t think this an adequate basis upon which to establish a moral equivalence between Hillary and Trump. For me, that equivalence exists more because of his unrepentant immorality and his conservatism of convenience he’s developed in the past year or two.  He’s done some things to reassure me on the latter, but his total lack of Christian faith and his personal immorality remain huge issues.] They are both so evil in their actions that no Christian (especially Catholics who have the benefit of the magisterial teaching of the Church, e.g. VERITATIS SPLENDOR) can play God and decide which is the lesser of the two evils.

What is important is how they must answer to God for their choice. [I know we all despise Hillary and the demonrat party, but we must keep this in mind] My advice is for a perplexed Catholic to vote for all other offices on the ballot but to abstain from indicating a choice for President. If a Catholic is not happy with that solution, then that Catholic should write in the name of any good person for President.

Again, while I think the specific arguments advanced and conclusions reached may be a bit unfair, but the overall point remains valid: is there sufficient distinction between Trump and Hillary, from a moral perspective (not a political one), to permit Catholics to support him?  On a political and personal basis, a few months ago, I was convinced the answer was no.  Since then, Trump has specified some policy positions (including a quite solid list of likely Supreme Court nominees) that has caused me to find him less objectionable, politically. Personally, his massive warts remain, the convention doing nothing to allay my concerns in that regard.  I still lean against Trump, though not as strongly as, say, last spring.

Last major point: my understanding of the Church’s thinking on such matters is that we should support the most moral option/option most in accord with the Faith, period, not the most moral option we believe has a chance of winning, but I’m open to correction from magisterial sources.  Darrell Castle will likely be on the ballot in most if not all states by November 8.

As I said above, I would very much appreciate hearing more counsel from good priests and bishops on this subject – even though that might mean a violation of the Johnson Amendment!  There hasn’t been enough clear moral direction on this most conflicted of presidential campaigns, yet. I greatly appreciate Bishop Gracida’s commentary, even if I’m not entirely on board with it.

Fortunately, I still have several more months to sit back, observe, and see what develops.  Perhaps a miracle will occur, Trump will convert and become a stalwart, fiery Catholic, dump his concubines, and advance a platform totally in concert with the Doctrine of the Faith.  I won’t hold my breath, but one can always hope.

I have been very glad to see that the very heated exchanges that often surround discussion/criticism of Trump on other conservative sites have been almost entirely absent here.  Instead, the discussion has been quite edifying and reasonable, for the most part. Please let us keep it that way!

h/t reader MFG


1. Brian Springer - July 26, 2016

I was a little disappointed in the Bishop’s article. I agree that neither candidate is ideal, though one of them, at least if you’re going by words alone, is no where near as bad as the other. I’m voting for Trump this election, though my biggest concern with him is that I’m not entirely confident that he even knows how he’s going to implement his campaign promises in the first place.

I get that just about every candidate has promised things they can’t deliver, but I’d like to see some more details from Trump on how he’s going do half of what he says. I also don’t trust his conservative credentials, but he has taken some steps to address that by appointing Pence as his VP and giving a list of Supreme Court Justices he’ll appoint. The latter, as of right now, makes up the majority of my investment in this race. I believe, as many do, that if this election is won by Hillary, we’ll lose the Supreme Court for a generation, which means that the Church will be actively persecuted.

So, yeah it’s a shame that the situation in our country has gotten to this point, but it’s wrong to claim that voting in this election is immoral. That kind of thinking is dangerous, because it encourages people to not take action (when they should) by laying claim to some false moral high ground.

2. DM - July 26, 2016

I have to completely disagree with the good Bishop here. As far as I’m concerned, it would be immoral for anyone to NOT vote for Hilary’s opponent, given how absolutely evil she is and the destruction she would inflict on society for a generation. She is that dangerous. Trump is far from perfect, but is so much better than Hilary this isn’t even a decision in my opinion.

The (albeit small) possibility of Trump converting is something I have thought about for a while now, and will pray for. Imagine how much good he could do in his position, and as charismatic as he is to many people. As far as I’m concerned, this is one of the only ways I can see God saving America from its nearly inevitable destruction at this point: for Trump to win, first of all, and then convert by some miracle. His tiny attention span would probably be the main obstacle to this happening.

Richard M - July 27, 2016

As far as I’m concerned, it would be immoral for anyone to NOT vote for Hilary’s opponent

That’s just not a sustainable proposition under any pre-conciliar moral theology. No candidate is owed your vote.

A German Catholic who refused to cast a vote in the 1932 German presidential election because he was unwilling to vote for either Adolf Hitler or the Communist Ernst Thalmann, or even the anti-Catholic junker Paul von Hindenburg, was not responsible for Hitler’s crimes.

It’s one thing to say it’s morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for Trump under certain conditions. It’s another to say that he or she MUST vote for Trump.

Margaret Costello - July 27, 2016

Well Trump isn’t a Communist nor anti-Catholic. He chose a “Christian” VP and has a string of promises that seem to line up with Catholic teaching. Much different case…apples and oranges. Not voting for anyone or voting for someone you know would not win IS a vote for Mrs. Clinton. Check out Chris Jackson’s piece over at the Remnant. He does a much better job than me in explaining things:+) God bless~

3. Mary Ann Parks - July 27, 2016

Bishop Gracida is wrong in his understanding and use of Church teaching. We may never choose evil at all. We may choose to do something good or indifferent that has two outcomes, one good and one evil but unintended, but only under certain clear conditions (which I will not go into). We may never choose even the lesser of two evils. However, even this teaching concerning double effect does not apply in this case of voting. We are talking not about choosing good or evil actions, but about choosing persons. Persons are never evil per se. They may be devoted to evil, but we are not judging them as persons but as public actors. Voting is an endorsement of the person’s public intentions and choices, not of the person’s character, though the character enters into our analysis of whether the person will carry through on the intentions and policies. Choosing the person whose policies have less evil than the other candidate’s is permissible, as long as we don’t intend the evil. Equating the moral quality of the intentions and policies and effects of policies of Clinton and Trump is absurd. She is devoted to intrinsic evil, he has obnoxious qualities and has committed public acts against marriage. There is a big difference.

4. Dismas - July 27, 2016

The Constitution Party has received my vote in Presidential elections for many years now, excepting Ron Paul’s candidacy with the Libertarians in 88.

Friends have always told me I was throwing my vote away, and then these same friends would go on to complain about the awful choices the major parties offered up. I figgered it was they who were discarding their rights of suffrage by voting for Tweedledee vs. Tweedledum.

I am pretty much in agreement with the likes of Ann Barnhardt that the whole thing is theatre and a waste of time anyway. I strongly suspect the fix is in regardless of the electronic box we check.

The fix was definitely in for Barry Soetero.

But this time I have a different sense. I’m probably under the influence of the Kool-Ade (Flavor-Ade actually it was, but I digress)
but this time it seems to me like one evil is notably different from the other. Seems to me like Tweedledee vs. Tweedleohmy goshcanthisactuallybehappening?.

I can vote for the Trumpster and see how things go or watch the Creature From the Black Lagoon ascend, make a good confession and head for the hills.

You know, it was never supposed to be like this. The Presidency has always been important, but it has assumed the status of Emperor. In the days when Federalism meant anything the States had some importance and Congress was other than a collection of professional politicians securing their own material security the heck with the Country. No comment here on the Supremes.

I think for once, for whatever good it might do, I’ll vote against the Queen in the only practical way that can be done. And leave it in God’s hands.

Authentic Catholicism is where it’s at. And Authentic Catholicism preaches Subsidiarity, which is nearly a synonym for true Federalism. This is why I remain a proponent of Texit. Move the chicken-coop closer to home so that we can keep the foxes at arm’s-length.

Tantumblogo - July 27, 2016

Now this I can understand, if not agree with. Read comments in reverse order. Bad habit. Still, let us be a bit kinder to Bishop Gracida, he is not deserving of some of the things being said. He’s not perfect, he has his warts, he has made mistakes, but he’s no closet Hillary supporter.

5. Janet Kilb - July 27, 2016

I agree wholeheartedly with the Bishop! I have been a New Yorker for longer than Trump so am very knowledgeable of his malicious ways n having a Masters in Family Counseling I have the diagnostic ability to ascertain psychological disorder n my conscience would never be comfortable voting for this man!

6. Baseballmom - July 27, 2016

As I have said elsewhere…. Trump is a crap shoot, with Hildebeast we know the evil we will get. SCOTUS is the big prize, and she has her eye on that prize. If Trump keeps his promise on appointing constitutionalist jurists then it will have been worth voting for him

7. Ann Malley - July 27, 2016

The bishop seems like a closet Hillary supporter. Seriously. The argument to just toss off your vote – the same that was purchased for us by the blood of others – is not okay. It is certainly NOT principled when Hillary has stated outright that Churches must be made to change their “opinion” on abortion.

Perhaps the fathers should spend more time on doing their job and let the people discern from faith filled hearts – hearts tilled by the shepherds – to make political decisions.

Dismas - July 27, 2016

Mrs. Malley, we are of a mind.

Tantumblogo - July 27, 2016

I’m surprised to hear you say this, in light of your severe opposition to Romney in 2012 and unwillingness to vote for him. We had some pretty strong disagreement back then when I was on the opposite side – basically repeating the arguments of the pro-Trump crowd today, that Hillary is SOOO bad that to not vote for her opponent is immoral. Back then, it was Obama is so bad that to not vote for Romney would be a really bad thing.

Now Bishop Gracida is a closet Hillary supporter for opposing Trump? (admittedly, for some specious reasons, but there are others that are much better) I find that incredible, especially given the man’s record.

Back then, it was “we cannot support a candidate whose past positions are not in line with current rhetoric and who has not been a long time conservative/supporter of the moral order.” Now it’s all expedience.

In charity I warn folks casting this aspersion on Bishop Gracida, these comments are treading near calumny. I know Bishop Gracida fairly well through his writings, constant efforts, and some personal interaction. The idea that he is a closet democrat or Hillary supporter is so false as to be unbelievable, as even a cursory review of his blog would make perfectly obvious. Bishop Gracida, along with a few others, and in the face of really nasty attacks from the Texas Catholic Conference, prevented some very bad end of life legislation from being enacted in Texas, in spite of the full support of the active bishops. That’s just one example of many I could give of his commitment to the pro-life cause, among numerous other moral issues. How fickle we are.

Baseballmom - July 27, 2016


Edison Frisbee - July 27, 2016

Agree….I have to wonder if the immigration issue figures into the bishop’s stance.

Judy - July 27, 2016

My thoughts exactly. Only two candidates have a reasonable chance of winning this election. We know the evil Hillary and her lecherous husband will do to this country. I’ll vote for Trump and pray for his conversion.

8. Trump voter & DFW Catholic - July 27, 2016

A distant relative of mine was tied with a dog collar, raped and killed in her home last year in the Cleveland, Ohio area. Articles summarizing are below.

I’ve been a pro-life volunteer for a quarter of a century.
But sometimes it just comes down to the fact that pro-life begins at home.

Time to put American first. On the borders and national security, Trump is more pro-life than the bishops. I choose to believe him when he says to Build That Wall, and says he is for doing away with “sanctuary cities.” Is he lying ? I hope not. At least he is speaking up. Maybe around here we have grown cold to borderless violence, and are accustomed to rewarding lawless behavior with offers of material aid and potential amnesty. Thank God the rest of the country is still rightly shocked by predatory migration/invasion.



“Funeral Mass for Margaret “Peggy” (nee DeVan) Kostelnik, 60, of Concord Township, will be 10 a.m. Saturday at St. Mary’s Church, 242 N. State St., Painesville. (Friends are asked to meet at the church.) Fr. Chris Zerucha will officiate the Mass…”

Last year – Huffington Post:


March 2016:

“He grabbed her. He tied her up with a dog collar. He forced himself on her. He shot her three times with the rifle,” he said. Razo left her to die. “He said he shot Margaret Kostelnik because she wouldn’t voluntarily give him sex,” Coulson added.”

(He also prior to that attempted to rape his own niece, and afterwards to kill again.)




9. Terri Bradley - July 27, 2016

This election, I do believe, is like NO OTHER election in the history of this nation. The Bishop is correct in one respect, in that neither candidate is attractive, to say the least. However, you MUST discern which one will cause the lesser evil, if you are to do what is morally right. I don’t agree with him at all in his assertion. It’s really terrifying that Hillary and Co. (Democrats) will not even acknowledge that we are already at war with Islamic extremists, therefore, will do NOTHING basically to defend ourselves. Clearly, Hillary also worships at the altar of abortion, which is the FIRST AND BASIC human right. She DOES NOT believe in religious freedom, of which Trump in fact DOES (or at least he SAYS he does) Hillary is at least as dangerous as Obama if not more so, and yes Trump is also pretty scary, but I believe is somewhat more in line with basic moral values. It’s a terrible decision to have to make, to go into that voting booth and pull the lever for Trump, but as far as I’m concerned, I have no choice. Trump did say that he would repeal the Johnson Amendment, which would free up Pastors to voice their political opinion…….to me, that would be an interesting development should it ever come to be. It would definitely show the true colors of Pastors and where they stand politically and even morally. Even greater separating of the sheep from the goats. A very sad situation this country is in for sure.

10. Peter - July 27, 2016

As you do your moral analysis, keep in mind that congress declares war, not the president. As for the libertarians, they are generally “prochoice.” Just some points to throw into the mix.

Judy - July 27, 2016

The libertarians I have met are also for same sex marriage.

Tantumblogo - July 27, 2016

Not a fan of the libertarian candidate, he is a pro-abort and embraces other immoral positions. Will not get my support.

11. MFG - July 27, 2016

I agree Tantum, in principle the Bishop is right but he needed to provide more sound reasoning to reject Trump (ie his lack of maturity; poor character, liberal positions).

Ultimately should Trump win and accept to be inaugurated; his presidency will resemble Pope Francis’ pontificate. He might repeal the Johnson amndt., restrict immigration, or even tell states to ignore Roe v. Wade but will probably let homosexuals promote all sorts of new policies (accelerating the persecution), raise taxes and min wage. Any victories will come at a high price.

For me, the ends don’t justify the means. I won’t vote Hillary but if this country can’t tolerate 4 years of Hillary, then it’s very weak and we should consider dissolveing the republic rather than save it.

Do we conservatives really think at this point we’ll eliminate the debt, shrink the government, close agencies, overturn Roe, reform the tax code?

It might be better to just have an amicable divorce and move on.

Tantumblogo - July 27, 2016

Thanks for the comment MFG. Interestingly, the more pro-Trump argumentation I read on here, the less attractive I find him. Not entirely certain why that is, but I’ve noted it a few times now.

c matt - July 27, 2016

He might repeal the Johnson amndt., restrict immigration, or even tell states to ignore Roe v. Wade but will probably let homosexuals promote all sorts of new policies (accelerating the persecution), raise taxes and min wage.

If he does exactly as you say, it would still be better than what the Hildebeast would do. We would get all of the latter without any of the former. We would still pay a high price, with zilch to show (that may come to pass regardless, but at least we could claim we were lied to). If we can survive 4 years of Hildebeast, we can survive 4 years of Trump.

12. Angelic Doctor Games - July 27, 2016

I agree with the bishop on this point and in part because I have been repeating his sentiments for quite some time now and for many of the same reasons. I fancy myself more libertarian than many, however, based on similar reasoning, I cannot in good conscience and as a Roman Catholic commit a vote for Johnson and Weld. I’d rather we return to a Catholic monarchy before I’d see any of these clowns sworn into office. With respect to Trump and his predicted stance on continuing open warfare, it is enough that I do not trust him to go out of his way to keep the Union out of it. Further, he runs as the leader of the Republican party and they have done well enough to show their position on this matter. My eldest son and daughter are of serving age, so my motivations go beyond mere hypothesis at this point.

13. c matt - July 27, 2016

but Donald Trump will (in my opinion) cause America to go to war which will kill not only unborn children but men, women, boys and girls

This seems to be the factual assessment upon which his opinion lies. If it is inaccurate, then it appears his only remaining basis is that Trump possesses moral failures that makes him objectionable. I do not disagree with the fact Trump possesses moral failures. The question though is are those moral failures translated into the actions of the political office he seeks? That is not so clear. Undoubtedly, it will have some effect, but will it have a sufficient one?

I do not agree with the factual assessment that Trump is more likely to bring us to war. If anything, he is less likely: he has made reasonable overtures to Russia, unlike the current administration of which Hildebeast will be merely a continuation. As for the Muslim problem – Padre, we are already at war. As others pointed out, I think he is a bit biased because of the immigration issue, which is a touchy subject in South Texas.

However, having said that, his position is not without some reason. But I think whether one can vote for Trump is a question upon which reasonable Catholic minds could disagree.

Tantumblogo - July 27, 2016

Well, to that I would add, while he’s made up some ground of late regarding fleshing out some real conservative opinions/policy objectives, I remain quite skittish as to whether he may not rule a lot more left than he’s running. He’s so very much all over the map, he’s prone to over-reaction, and tends to take a very simplistic view of things, which regard to domestic affairs could be a benefit but with regard to foreign policy could end in much sadness. How much of this is calculated and how much is just off the cuff meandering I really don’t know.

While I’d very much like to see the US restored, I’m also not entirely convinced that it’s possible at this point. In fact, I tend to lean the other way. We all know the problems. But I would not vote other than Trump because of that. I’m still trying to figure out what is best for this country and vote for those people, in line with my conscience and the Doctrine of the Faith.

I sure don’t think not voting for Trump means a trip to the confessional, however. That gets back to what I said regarding making the prudential dogmatic.

14. Edison Frisbee - July 27, 2016
15. Missy Farber - July 27, 2016

You mentioned wondering what the SSPX had to say about voting. Here is a link to an archived article: http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/catholic_principles_for_voting.htm

16. James G - July 27, 2016

As an SSPX goer, I asked my priest a year ago, when it looked like anyone but Trump was going to win,mhis remark was you you can’t vote for Clinton. After the RNC I asked him again, and he remarked a Catholic can’t vote for either. Both have supported same sex marriage ( and Trump has dropped several hints he is still for it, especially in regards to the NC law), both are for abortion (as he said, He publicly says he’s against it, but judging by his promises, if you believe that I have a tower in Columbus Circle to sell you), both have (and Trump with his businesses) have defrauded the poor, widows, and workers of their wages. He said, write in or a third party, because both candidates support sins that cry against heaven and we don’t want that on our soul. In the mean time, add a petition at the end of each Rosary to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Conception for America.

Tantumblogo - July 27, 2016

Thanks very much. Good stuff. I’m not surprised to read this. I have forgotten to mention Trump’s still-extant stand in favor of pseudo-sodomarriage.

17. Margaret Costello - July 27, 2016

God bless Bishop Gracida but this is the same Bishop who blamed the evil insanity in the USCCB on the introverts letting the extroverts run the show. The idea is stupid and what a whitewash of the depravity of the USCCB. And what war exactly is going to happen if Trump is elected? And if the war is just, how is that just as bad as killing innocents? He sounds like a “seamless garment” liberal when he states this.

I don’t think Trump is moral but neither were many of the Presidents and nominees of the past. Reagan was on his second marriage. Both Bushes were supposedly pro-abort before switching over. So the idea that the candidate has to have a moral life to vote for him is hogwash.

I don’t like Trump but at least he chose a supposed Christian as his vice president, wants to end the Johnson amendment, picks pro life Supreme Court candidates, has a spine and wants to build a wall.

So it’s between the witch who will actively persecute Catholics and the wishy washy morals of a guy who appears to uphold conservative values…with a decent shot at a Christian holding office a heart beat away.

Yes, I think Trump could care less about sodomite “marriage” but he does want to uphold religious freedom rights.

In the end, it’s really about not wanting all out persecution of Catholics/Christians to begin. Because if you don’t vote for anyone, or vote for a candidate you know won’t win, it’s essentially voting for Hillary…and then let the insanity and persecution of Catholics/Christians start. Call me crazy, but I’d like to hold off being put in prison for another four to eight years if I can swing it.

At this point, I’m voting Trump. Weird because a few weeks ago I wasn’t voting at all. But after his VP pick, wanting to end the Johnson amendment and reading Chris Jackson’s piece at the Remnant, I’ve changed my mind. Granted if Trump does something stupid I might go back to not voting at all…but until then:+)

God bless~

Margaret Costello - July 27, 2016

Please forgive me if my comments regarding Bishop Gracida seemed uncharitable. I was only commenting on his words and ideas. I don’t not think he is in any way a liberal or Hillary supporter…and am grateful for the work he has done to uphold life in the state of Texas:+) God bless~

Margaret Costello - July 27, 2016

Whoops! It’s “I don’t think”…not “I don’t not think”. Sorry:+( God bless~

18. pjkizer - July 28, 2016

While I will vote in November, it is likely that my ballot will have a lot of blanks on it – most esp the Presidential race. True, one of the candidates may be the lesser evil, but there is no way to know that before January; and may be no way to know that eight years from now. Both candidates are evil and I cannot vote for either. However, given the power that the Democrat Party has amassed over the past eight years, and the continuation of the Clinton Dynasty, I think the Republicans will have the most success in slowing down this handbasket ride to the hot place. I have to remind myself, as much as I love this country and as much as I want my children to live in this country, the seven churches that St Paul founded are no longer with us.

19. Angelic Doctor Games - July 28, 2016

I wouldn’t characterize his post as ‘explosive’ but then again, I’ve been of similar opinion for some time now.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: