g********2
发帖数: 6571 | 1 Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice
Wayne Grudem
Some of my Christian friends tell me they can’t in good conscience vote for
Donald Trump because, when faced with a choice between “the lesser of two
evils,” the morally right thing is to choose neither one. They recommend
voting for a third-party or write-in candidate.
As a professor who has taught Christian ethics for 39 years, I think their
analysis is incorrect. Now that Trump has won the GOP nomination, I think
voting for Trump is a morally good choice.
American citizens need patience with each other in this difficult political
season. Close friends are inevitably going to make different decisions about
the election. We still need to respect each other and thank God that we
live in a democracy with freedom to differ about politics. And we need to
keep talking with each other – because democracies function best when
thoughtful citizens can calmly and patiently dialog about the reasons for
their differences. This is my contribution to that discussion.
A good candidate with flaws
I do not think that voting for Donald Trump is a morally evil choice because
there is nothing morally wrong with voting for a flawed candidate if you
think he will do more good for the nation than his opponent. In fact, it is
the morally right thing to do.
I did not support Trump in the primary season. I even spoke against him at a
pastors’ conference in February. But now I plan to vote for him. I do not
think it is right to call him an “evil candidate.” I think rather he is a
good candidate with flaws.
He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his
statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the
families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He
can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and
rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He
has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his
marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are
disqualifying flaws in this election.
On the other hand, I think some of the accusations hurled against him are
unjustified. His many years of business conduct show that he is not racist
or anti-(legal) immigrant or anti-Semitic or misogynistic – I think these
are unjust magnifications by a hostile press exaggerating some careless
statements he has made. I think he is deeply patriotic and sincerely wants
the best for the country. He has been an unusually successful problem solver
in business. He has raised remarkable children. Many who have known him
personally speak highly of his kindness, thoughtfulness, and generosity. But
the main reason I call him “a good candidate with flaws” is that I think
most of the policies he supports are those that will do the most good for
the nation.
Seek the good of the nation
Should Christians even try to influence elections at all? Yes, definitely.
The apostle Peter says Christians are “exiles” on this earth (1 Peter 1:1)
. Therefore I take seriously the prophet Jeremiah’s exhortation to the
Jewish people living in exile in Babylon:
“Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to
the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (
Jeremiah 29:7).
By way of modern application, I think Christians today have a similar
obligation to vote in such a way that will “seek the welfare” of the
United States. Therefore the one overriding question to ask is this: Which
vote is most likely to bring the best results for the nation?
If this election is close (which seems likely), then if someone votes for a
write-in candidate instead of voting for Trump, this action will directly
help Hillary Clinton, because she will need one less vote to win. Therefore
the question that Christians should ask is this: Can I in good conscience
act in a way that helps a liberal like Hillary Clinton win the presidency?
Under President Obama, a liberal federal government has seized more and more
control over our lives. But this can change. This year we have an unusual
opportunity to defeat Hillary Clinton and the pro-abortion, pro-gender-
confusion, anti-religious liberty, tax-and-spend, big government liberalism
that she champions. I believe that defeating that kind of liberalism would
be a morally right action. Therefore I feel the force of the words of James:
“Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin
” (James 4:17).
Some may feel it is easier just to stay away from this messy Trump-Clinton
election, and perhaps not even vote. But the teachings of Scripture do not
allow us to escape moral responsibility by saying that we decided to do
nothing. The prophet Obadiah rebuked the people of the Edom for standing by
and doing nothing to help when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem: “On the
day that you stood aloof, on the day that . . . foreigners entered his
gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of them.” (Obadiah 1:
11).
I am writing this article because I doubt that many “I can’t vote for
Trump” Christians have understood what an entirely different nation would
result from Hillary Clinton as president, or have analyzed in detail how
different a Trump presidency would be. In what follows, I will compare the
results we could expect from a Clinton presidency with what we could expect
from a Trump presidency.
The Supreme Court with Clinton as president
Hillary Clinton would quickly replace Justice Scalia with another liberal
like Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. This would give liberals a 5-4
majority on the Supreme Court even without Justice Kennedy, and 6-3 when he
votes with them.
But that is not all. Justice Ginsburg is 83, and she has had colon cancer,
pancreatic cancer, and has a heart stent. Justice Kennedy is 80. Justice
Breyer is 78. A President Clinton could possibly nominate three or four
justices to the Supreme Court, locking in a far-left activist judiciary for
perhaps 30 or more years. She could also add dozens of activist judges to
federal district courts and courts of appeals, the courts where 99% of
federal lawsuits are decided. Judicial tyranny of the type we have seen when
abortion rights and same-sex marriage were forced on the nation would gain
a permanent triumph.
The nation would no longer be ruled by the people and their elected
representatives, but by unelected, unaccountable, activist judges who would
dictate from the bench about whatever they were pleased to decree. And there
would be nothing in our system of government that anyone could do to stop
them.
That is why this election is not just about Hillary Clinton. It is about
defeating the far left liberal agenda that any Democratic nominee would
champion. Liberal Democrats are now within one Supreme Court justice of
their highest goal: gaining permanent control of the nation with a five vote
majority on the Supreme Court, and then relentlessly imposing every liberal
policy on the nation not through winning elections but through a relentless
parade of one Supreme Court decision after another.
Even if Clinton were to drop out of the race (perhaps due to additional
shocking email disclosures, for example), our choice in the election would
be just the same, because any other Democratic nominee would appoint the
same kind of liberal justices to the Court.
Abortion
On abortion, a liberal court would probably find the ban on partial-birth
abortion to be unconstitutional (it was upheld by only a 5-4 majority in
Gonzalez v. Carhart, 2007). In addition, the court could find an absolute “
right to abortion” in the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and
then sweep away with one decision most or all of the restrictions on
abortion that pro-life advocates worked for tirelessly over the last 43
years, including ultrasound requirements, waiting periods, parental consent
requirements, and prohibitions on non-doctors performing abortions.
Voters should not doubt the power of the Supreme Court to abolish all these
laws restricting abortions. Think of the power of the Obergefell v. Hodges 5
-4 decision in June, 2015. It instantly nullified all the work that
thousands of Christians had done over many years in persuading the citizens
of 31 states to pass constitutional amendments defining marriage as the
union of one man and one woman. But no one is campaigning for such laws or
amendments anymore, because it would be futile. The Supreme Court has spoken
, and therefore the issue is settled in the political system of the United
States. We lost – not at the ballot box, but because we had a liberal
Supreme Court that nullified the democratic process regarding the definition
of marriage.
So it would certainly be with any efforts to place legal limitations on
abortion. Nobody would campaign any more for laws to limit abortions,
because any such laws would be unconstitutional. The legislative lobbying
work of pro-life advocacy groups would be totally and utterly defeated.
Millions of unborn children would continue to die.
Religious liberty
The current liberal agenda often includes suppressing Christian opposition
to its views. So a liberal court would increasingly nullify rights of
conscience with respect to forced participation in same-sex marriage
ceremonies or expressing moral objections to homosexual conduct. Already
Christians are being pushed out of many occupations. Florists, bakers, and
professional photographers have had their businesses destroyed by large
fines for refusal to contribute their artistic talents to a specific event,
a same-sex wedding ceremony to which they had moral objections.
Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran in Atlanta was removed from his job because of
self-publishing a religious book that briefly mentioned the Bible’s
teachings regarding non-marital sexual conduct, including homosexuality,
amidst a host of other topics. His situation holds ominous implications for
any Christians who hold public sector jobs. In our military services, many
high-ranking officers have quietly been forced to resign because they were
unwilling to give support to the homosexual agenda.
Mozilla/Firefox CEO Brendan Eich was pushed out from his own company merely
because he had donated money to Proposition 8 in California, supporting
marriage between one man and one woman. This event has troubling
implications for Christians in any corporate executive role who dare to
support a political position contrary to the liberal agenda.
Last year Boston urologist Paul Church, a Harvard Medical School faculty
member, lost his hospital privileges at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
because he had expressed concerns about the medical dangers associated with
same-sex activity.
Are my predictions about this kind of loss of religious liberty too grim?
The three conservative justices still on the Supreme Court expressed similar
concerns just last month. The case concerned a Washington pharmacy that has
been owned for 70 years by the Stormans family, who are committed
Christians. They will likely now be put out of business by the Washington
State Pharmacy Board for refusing to dispense an abortion-causing
prescription drug. On June 28, 2016, the Supreme Court refused to hear the
Stormans’ appeal, in spite of the strong dissent written by Justice Alito (
joined by Roberts and Thomas):
“At issue are Washington State regulations that are likely to make a
pharmacist unemployable if he or she objects on religious grounds to
dispensing certain prescription medications. . . . . there is much evidence
that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to
pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are
out of step with prevailing opinion in the State . . . . If this is a sign
of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those
who value religious freedom have cause for great concern.” (italics added)
Christian business owners
If Clinton appoints just one more liberal justice, it is likely that many
Christian business owners will be targeted. Hobby Lobby won its 2014 Supreme
Court case (again 5-4), so it was not compelled to dispense abortifacients
to its employees, but that case could be reversed (the four liberal justices
in the minority, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, are still on the
court). If that case is overturned, it would force Hobby Lobby out of
business, because the Green family had said they would shut down the company
of 23,000 employees and over $3 billion in annual sales if they lost the
decision. The implications for other Christian business owners with pro-life
convictions are ominous.
These incidents show that it is not an exaggeration to say that, under a
liberal Supreme Court resulting from Hillary Clinton’s election, Christians
would increasingly experience systematic exclusion from hundreds of
occupations, with thousands of people losing their jobs. Step-by-step,
Christians would increasingly be marginalized to the silent fringes of
society. Is withholding a vote from Donald Trump important enough to pay
this high a price in loss of freedom?
Some Christians have even hinted to me that “persecution would be good for
us.” But the Bible never encourages us to seek persecution or hope for it.
We should rather work to prevent such oppression of Christians, just as
Jesus taught us to pray, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
evil” (Matthew 6:13). Paul did not encourage us to pray that God would give
us bad rulers but good ones who would allow us to live a peaceful life:
“I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be
made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we
may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” (
1Timothy 2:1)
Christian schools and colleges
A liberal Supreme Court would also impact education. Christian colleges
would likely be found guilty of “discrimination” if they required
adherence to the Bible’s standards regarding sexual conduct, or even
required affirmation of primary Christian beliefs. Campus ministries like
Cru and InterVarsity have already been forced off of many university
campuses following the 5-4 Supreme Court decision CLS v. Martinez (2010),
which upheld the exclusion of the Christian Legal Society from the campus of
Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. And now California’s Equity in
Higher Education Act (SB 1146), which recently passed the California state
senate and will likely become law, would prohibit Christian colleges from
requiring students or employees to hold Christian beliefs or abide by
biblical moral standards regarding sexual conduct, and would prohibit
colleges from assigning housing based on a student’s biological sex if a
student claimed to be transgender. Colleges like Biola and Azusa Pacific
could not long survive under those regulations.
With regard to elementary and high schools, laws promoting school choice or
tuition voucher programs would likely be declared unconstitutional if they
allowed such funding to go to Christian schools. A tax credit program for
scholarships to private schools, including Christian institutions, was only
upheld by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Arizona Christian School Tuition
Organization v. Winn in 2011, and all four liberal justices who voted
against it are still on the court. Another possible target of the liberal
agenda would be laws that allow for home schooling, if the secular/ liberal
governmental hostility to home schooling in European countries is any
indicator.
Churches
Churches would not be exempt from the impact of a liberal Supreme Court. The
court could rule that any school district is allowed to ban churches from
renting school buildings on Sundays, an action that could severely hinder
the work of small churches and church planting in general. (This was already
the ruling of the Second Circuit in the Bronx Household of Faith case
regarding New York City public schools.) And some churches in Iowa have now
been told that they have to make their bathrooms open to people on the basis
of their “gender identity” if the churches are going to be open to the
public at all.
Freedom of speech
Freedom of speech would be increasingly restricted in the public square. In
2014, the Supreme Court ruled that prayers of visiting pastors who prayed “
in Jesus’ name” when they opened a city council meeting were allowed under
the Constitution, but again it was a 5-4 decision (Town of Greece v.
Galloway) and all four liberals who wanted to restrict such prayers are
still on the court.
Criminalizing dissent
Another troubling possibility is that liberal activists, once in power,
would further entrench themselves by criminalizing much political dissent.
We have already seen it happen with the IRS targeting of conservative groups
and with some state attorneys general taking steps to prosecute (!) groups
who dare to disagree with activists’ claims about the danger of man-made
global warming.
“But my conscience won’t let me vote for Donald Trump,” some have told me
. But I wonder if their consciences have considered the gravity of these
destructive consequences that would come from a Clinton presidency. A vote
for Trump would at least be doing something to prevent these things.
In addition, I think there are several positive reasons to vote for Trump.
The Supreme Court with Trump as president
Trump has released a list of 11 judges to show the kind of nominee he would
appoint to the Supreme Court. A lawyer familiar with many of these names has
told me that they constitute a “dream list” of outstanding judges who
would uphold the original meaning of the Constitution and would not create
new laws from the bench. Trump has said he would rely primarily on advice
from the Federalist Society, the organization that promotes the “original
meaning” view so strongly exemplified by Justice Scalia before his death.
If Trump would appoint a replacement for Scalia from his list of 11, and
probably one or two other Supreme Court justices, then we could see a 5-4 or
even 6-3 majority of conservative justices on the Supreme Court. The
results for the nation would be overwhelmingly good.
Such a Supreme Court would finally return control of the nation to the
people and their elected representatives, removing it from dictatorial
judges who repeatedly make law from the bench.
Abortion
Such a court would likely overturn Roe v. Wade and return abortion laws and
the regulation of abortion to the states.
Religious liberty
A conservative court would vigorously uphold the First Amendment, protecting
freedom of religion and freedom of speech for Christian colleges, Christian
ministries, and churches.
Such a court would likely overturn the horribly destructive decision in
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) that changed the meaning of the First Amendment and
ruled that a government action “must not have the primary effect of either
advancing or inhibiting religion” (note: not a specific denomination but
“religion” in general). A conservative court would likely declare that the
First Amendment was only intended to prohibit the establishment of a state-
sponsored church or denomination.
Such a decision would once again allow the nonsectarian affirmation of
personal belief in God in public schools, would once again allow coaches to
pray with their football teams before a game, and would allow visiting
clergy to be invited to give a prayer at high school graduation ceremonies.
It would also imply that nativity scenes without Santa Claus and Buddha
should be allowed in government-owned parks and buildings at Christmas time.
It wouldn’t require these things, but would allow them if local officials
chose to approve them. It would restore true freedom of religion as the
First Amendment intended.
It would also protect freedom of conscience for Christians who object to
participating in abortions, or dispensing abortifacient medicines, or who do
not wish to participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies. It is also possible
that a conservative Supreme Court would eventually return control of
marriage to the states.
Freedom for Christian influence in politics
Significantly, Trump has pledged to work to repeal the 1954 Johnson
Amendment to the IRS code, which has been used for 62 years as a threat to
silence pastors from speaking about political issues, for fear of losing
their tax-exempt status. This would be a great victory for freedom of
religion and freedom of speech.
In short, a Trump-appointed Supreme Court, together with dozens of lower
court judges appointed by him, would probably result in significant advances
in many of the policy areas important to Christians. It would also open the
door to huge expansion of influence for the many Christian lobbying groups
known as “family policy councils” in various states, especially enabling
them to work for further legal protections for life, for marriage and family
, and for religious liberty.
How can we know that Trump won’t change his mind?
“But Trump has changed his mind in the past,” a politically-minded friend
said to me. “How do you know that he will do what he has promised? Maybe he
’ll betray you and appoint a liberal Supreme Court justice.”
My reply is that we can never know the future conduct of any human being
with 100% certainty, but in making an ethical decision like this one, we
should base the decision on the most likely results. In this case, the most
likely result is that Trump will do most or all of what he has said.
In the history of American politics, candidates who have been elected
president have occasionally changed their minds on one or another issue
while in office, but no president has ever gone back on most of what he has
promised to do, especially on issues that are crucially important in the
election. In this election, it is reasonable to think that the most likely
result is that both Trump and Clinton will do what they have promised to do.
That is the basis on which we should decide how to vote.
And notice how Trump has changed his mind. He continues to move in a more
conservative direction, as evidenced by his list of judges and his choice
for vice president. Just as he succeeded in business by listening to the
best experts to solve each problem, I suspect that he has been learning from
the best experts in conservative political thought and has increasingly
found that conservative solutions really work. We should applaud these
changes.
His choice of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his vice presidential running mate
is an especially significant indication that he will govern as a
conservative. Trump could have picked a moderate but instead picked a
lifelong solid conservative who is a thoughtful, gracious policy wizard.
Pence is a lawyer and former talk radio host who served 12 years in Congress
and had significant congressional leadership positions, so he will be
immensely helpful in working with Congress. He is a committed evangelical
Christian. He is a former board member of the Indiana Family Institute, a
conservative Christian lobbying group in Indiana.
However, the Supreme Court is not the only issue at stake in this election.
While I disagree with Trump on a few things (especially trade policy), on
most important issues, Trump will likely do much good for the nation.
Taxes and jobs
Trump has pledged to cut taxes significantly, while Clinton wants to raise
them. Trump is advocating a 15% tax rate for corporations rather than the
current 35%. Lower corporate taxes would lead to business expansion and a
massive increase in available jobs and higher pay levels. For individual
taxpayers, Trump favors a top rate of 25%, but for Clinton it’s 45%. Most
small businesses file under this individual rate, so once again Trump’s
lower taxes would result in substantial expansion of businesses and many
more jobs. Finally our economy would snap out of its eight years of anemic
growth.
In my judgment, Christians should support lower tax rates that would lead to
more jobs, because Obama’s economic policies for the last eight years have
hurt lower income and low-middle income families the most. Many can’t even
find jobs, and others can’t find full-time jobs. Those who have jobs
struggle to survive with no meaningful pay raises year after year. It is no
surprise that these are the people who are supporting Trump in overwhelming
numbers.
Tax rates are also a good indicator of government control. Higher tax rates
mean greater government control of our lives, while lower tax rates indicate
greater freedom.
Minorities
Two of the deepest causes of poverty among minority groups and racial
tensions in our country are failing public schools in our inner cities and
lack of available jobs. Trump expressed a commitment to solve these problems
at several points in his acceptance speech at the Republican convention. He
pledged to reduce taxes and regulations, leading to many more jobs. And he
said:
“Nearly 4 in 10 African-American children are living in poverty, while 58%
of African-American youth are not employed . . . . This administration has
failed America’s inner cities. It’s failed them on education. It’s failed
and on jobs. It’s failed them on crime . . . . Every action I take, I will
ask myself: does this make life better for young Americans in Baltimore,
Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson who have as much of a right to live out their
dreams as any other child in America? . . . . We will rescue kids from
failing schools by helping their parents send them to a safe school of their
choice.”
By contrast, Clinton will bow to the teachers’ unions and oppose school
choice at every turn, and she will continue to strangle businesses with high
taxes and regulations, preventing job growth.
The military
Trump has promised to rapidly rebuild our depleted military forces, but
Clinton would continue the liberal policy of eviscerating them through
denying funding. This is dangerous in light of increasing threats from China
, Russia, Iran, and ISIS.
Borders
Trump has repeatedly promised that he will finally secure our borders, an
urgent need to protect the nation from ever more terrorists and drug
smugglers. Clinton will not do this but will continue to allow in what she
thinks will be thousands of future Democratic voters.
ISIS and terrorism
Trump has pledged to aggressively attack and utterly defeat ISIS. Clinton
will continue the anemic Obama policy of periodic bombing runs and drone
attacks, under which ISIS has continued to thrive.
China and Russia
Trump will not let China and Russia and Iran push us around anymore, as
Obama has done, with Hillary Clinton’s support when she was secretary of
state. If Trump is anything, he is tough as nails, and he won’t be bullied.
Israel
Trump has promised to vigorously defend and support Israel, while Clinton
will most likely continue the Obama administration’s criticism, snubbing,
and marginalization of Israel.
Energy
Trump has said he will approve the Keystone oil pipeline and grant more oil
drilling permits leading to lower energy costs and providing thousands of
jobs. Lower energy costs help everybody, but the poor most of all. Clinton,
by contrast, will make fracking nearly impossible and essentially abolish
the coal industry, causing energy prices to skyrocket.
Executive orders and bathrooms
Trump has promised to rescind many of the most objectionable executive
orders given by President Obama, so he will likely end the compulsory moral
degradation forced on us by a liberal agenda, including orders forcing
schools to allow boys in girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms, in defiance of
the will of the vast majority of Americans. But Hillary Clinton would likely
perpetuate and expand these policies.
Health care
Trump will work to repeal Obamacare, which is ruining the nation’s health
care system, and replace it with an affordable free market system in which
companies have the ability to sell insurance across state lines, thus
substantially lowering insurance prices especially in those states that
currently allow only high-priced “Cadillac” insurance plans. But Clinton
would continue to work relentlessly toward federal government control of our
entire health care industry.
The unprotected
Trump will finally begin to recognize and protect what Wall Street Journal
writer Peggy Noonan calls “the unprotected” in America -- people in lower
income areas who cannot find good jobs, cannot find good schools for their
children, do not feel protected from crime, and find their retirement
savings are not enough because for years they have been earning no interest
in the bank. Trump said in his acceptance speech, “Every day I wake up
determined to deliver for the people I have met all across the nation that
have been neglected, ignored, and abandoned . . . I have joined the
political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that
cannot defend themselves.”
These American citizens recognize that Trump has built a business career on
listening to experts, solving problems, and getting things done. They
realize that Trump didn’t earn $4 billion by being stupid, and their
instinct says that he might be exactly the right person to solve some of the
biggest problems in a nation that has for too long been headed in the wrong
direction and stuck in political gridlock.
They may not have college degrees but their old-fashioned common sense tells
them that America would be a much better place if we no longer had to be
afraid to say “Merry Christmas,” or that boys are different from girls, or
that Islamic terrorists are Islamic terrorists. They’re sick and tired of
being condescended to by the snobbish moralism of the liberal elites who
dominate the power centers in our nation. That is why they cheer when Trump
repeatedly violates the canons of politically correct speech. They have
found in him someone who gives them hope, and they are supporting him by the
thousands.
Does character matter?
“But are you saying that character doesn’t matter?” someone might ask. I
believe that character does matter, but I think Trump’s character is far
better than what is portrayed by much current political mud-slinging, and
far better than his opponent’s character.
In addition, if someone makes doubts about character the only factor to
consider, that is a fallacy in ethical reasoning that I call “reductionism
” – the mistake of reducing every argument to only one factor, when the
situation requires that multiple factors be considered. In this election, an
even larger factor is the future of the nation that would flow from a
Clinton or a Trump presidency.
To my friends who tell me they won’t vote for Trump because there is a
chance he won’t govern at all like he promises, I reply that all of
American presidential history shows that that result is unlikely, and it is
ethically fallacious reasoning to base a decision on assuming a result that
is unlikely to happen.
Consider instead the most likely results. The most likely result of voting
for Trump is that he will govern the way he promises to do, bringing much
good to the nation.
But the most likely result of not voting for Trump is that you will be
abandoning thousands of unborn babies who will be put to death under Hillary
Clinton’s Supreme Court, thousands of Christians who will be excluded from
their lifelong occupations, thousands of the poor who will never again be
able to find high-paying jobs in an economy crushed by government hostility
toward business, thousands of inner-city children who will never be able to
get a good education, thousands of the sick and elderly who will never get
adequate medical treatment when the government is the nation’s only
healthcare provider, thousands of people who will be killed by an unchecked
ISIS, and millions of Jews in Israel who will find themselves alone and
surrounded by hostile enemies. And you will be contributing to a permanent
loss of the American system of government due to a final victory of
unaccountable judicial tyranny.
When I look at it this way, my conscience, and my considered moral judgment
tell me that I must vote for Donald Trump as the candidate who is most
likely to do the most good for the United States of America.
http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564 | g********2
发帖数: 6571 | | M*******d
发帖数: 300 | 3 他怎么没提这段，选择性失忆是基督徒的拿手好戏
「我实在告诉你们，富人难进天国。我再告诉你们：骆驼穿过针孔，比富人进天国还容
易。」 |
|
