New Feminism

Daily Issues and Current Concerns

New Feminism

A Christian Response to anti-Trumpism

Posted on by

Opposition to the presidency of Donald Trump remains passionate. The recent march on January 21 2017 in DC pulsed with anti-Trump frenzy, quickly shedding its poor disguise as a “women’s march.” I heard “Not my President, not my President” chanted by diverse groups, from global warming enthusiasts to abortion advocates to Black Lives Matter protestors.

The marchers thoroughly enjoyed every sign, chant, or speech that trashed Trump. This week’s opposition to President Trump’s executive order PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES has stoked hysteria with fake news headlines decrying a Muslim ban in the United States and a religious test for immigrants.

Passion like this does not stick to the streets. Since I first publicly shared my interest in Donald Trump and his voters, I have received considerable criticism from some friends and associates. As my interest evolved into support for the Trump/Pence ticket, the criticism turned to denigration and even disavowal. On Inauguration Day, as I joined the celebrations in Washington, this text pinged me.

“I am so sad today, realizing that our friendship is really over. I am in mourning for our country and in mourning over us. … I do not want you part of my life.”

I plopped down and sighed. So my most treasured friend, with whom I’ve shared for decades secrets, sadnesses and joys, was dumping me over my support for Donald Trump. A few days later she added,

“Your “feminism” isn’t real, your beliefs are damaging the world. I have never felt so disappointed in someone.”

These remarks were beyond difference of opinion – they were delivered coldly and impersonally, without the benefit of a phone call or personal contact. More, my friend decided to unload her anti-Trumpism on me knowing that I was in the midst of a difficult and likely final visit with my failing mother. Whether my friend purposefully decided to be cruel to me or whether her anti-Trump passion seemed to justify such cruel behavior, I do not know.

I am not the only person suffering cruelty because of support for President Trump’s candidacy. Being from California, where many of the bereaved now seek to secede from the Union, I may have more of these stories to tell than some. But I doubt it. Friends have confided similar tales of unprovoked hostility and tension within families and between friends. Commentators like Pierce Morgan and celebrities like Steve Harvey report verbal attacks from people who object to their links to President Trump.

These attacks are painful – especially when they come from family members or people with whom we have substantial histories and whom we call friends. The vitriol can be breathtaking, even shocking as we recognize that our love and caring has been swallowed by hostility we did not know possible. This behavior challenges us to frame a response that does not set off or condone a cycle of attack and bitterness.

Here’s the guide I have developed for myself. Please share your own thoughts in the comments.

Prepare to forgive. Even as I was reeling from my friend’s attack, I knew that I had eventually to forgive her. This is both a matter of my faith practice and a practical reality. All long-term loves ebb and wan with our own changes in belief and opinion and physical capacities – my friend and I have differed many times and we have practice forgiving each other. I did not make her graduation from graduate school when I said I would and she was gracious and forgiving. We pointedly argued once over teenagers and their sex practices – but we moved on to a calmer subject. Even if her attacks turn out to be a grand finale to our wonderful, long relationship, I knew I would have to find a way to move on, free of bitterness and remorse. “Forgiveness,” Joyce Meyer reminds us, “is not a feeling – it’s a decision we make to do what’s right before God. It’s a quality decision that won’t be easy and it may take time to get through the process

Remain loving and charitable. I knew forgiveness would be easier if I did not muck up the situation with my own clever retorts, quips and volleys. Tempting as it was, I did not branch to the merits of Trump vs. Clinton; I did not question whether our friendship was ever real if so disposable; and I did not ignore her. Instead, I waited several days, prayed, reflected, sought advice and then, briefly, I reassured her of my “unconditional love” and asked her to pray for my failing mother.

Set boundaries. When my friend responded without a mention of my mother or concern for me, focused entirely on her disgust with my “agenda” and “damaging” beliefs, I was devastated. Could she really be so filled with anti-Trump passion that my mother’s decline and impending death meant nothing to her? Could she be purposefully ignoring my personal situation as “punishment” for having supported the Trump/Pence ticket? Surely, she knew that she was withholding from me the very essence of our friendship – the love and caring we have shown each over for decades especially in our dynamics with our families of origin. Ouch.

As my friend’s words continued to distract me and eat at me, I recognized that I now had a boundary problem. “One sure sign of boundary problems,” Dr. Henry Cloud has written, “is when your relationship with one person has the power to affect your relationships with others. You are giving one person way too much power in your life.” Boundaries are my way of taking charge of my own feelings – so that I do not reel and roil because another person, no matter how dear, has tried to impose their feelings and issues as my problem.

So I have returned the problem to my friend. I posed several questions for her to answer if she chooses, including “Have you actually abandoned me?” and asked that she communicate with me in person. I do not know if she will respond. Perhaps not. But the ball is her court – her passion and hostility are her problem, not mine.

Rabid anti-Trumpism in any other form would be considered hateful, intolerant, and prejudicial, like other emotional attacks based upon race, sex, religion, or sexual preference. Virulent anti-Trumpism seeks no dialogue, no understanding, and no rational exchange – it is as destructive and irrational as any other bigotry used to justify cruelty towards others.

Rational opponents of President Trump and his rapid-fire policy positions exist, embracing traditional forms of debate and disagreement to which we are all accustomed. Snarky humor, point-counterpoint, and appeals to law, codes of morality, and tradition characterize these exchanges. True to form, artist and Clinton supporter Jayne Riew of New York City undertook one of the most elegant of such interactions with her photo-essay project “She’s With Him.” Ms. Riew presents seven women who voted for Trump, women she sought out after the election when she was “repelled by the ugly stereotypes and facile theories about [Trump’s female] supporters.” She adds,

“In many parts of American, female Trump supporters knew that had to keep their voting intentions hidden, not just from pollsters, but from people close to them. That intrigued me. What else did they have to say?”

I’ve bookmarked Ms. Riew’s website so that I can return to it again and again. Some days, it’s my only reminder of the difference – the difference between opposition to Trump policies and the anti-Trumpism unleashed upon us.

Call to Women of Faith: Speak Up for Donald Trump and Mike Pence

Posted on by

With the election only days away, I remain puzzled by the disturbing silence and lack of leadership from Catholic and Christian women. As women of faith, we concur that the human being is never a “thing” or an object – each human being is a beloved creation of the Almighty worthy of divinely bestowed dignity. Critical issues of human dignity will be administered and guided by our next administration.

Many of our female leaders deeply object to Trump’s reported incidents of sexual objectification of women. Objectification of the human person occurs in many different forms, some which reduce the human being to nothing but an object. In Hillary Clinton, we see just such total objectification of the human person: a political objectification that reduces individuals and large swathes of the population to political pawns whose own worth and humanity she disregards, denigrates, denies and destroys for her personal political purposes. I suggest that we have allowed Trump’s incidents of sexual objectification of women to distract us and silence us from fighting a far more total, far more lethal form of objectification.

This is my call to women of faith: speak up for Donald Trump and Mike Pence.

Speak up despite your disgust with his sexual errors. I have read and heard many women express not just disapproval of his reported behaviors. Something more guttural, more unforgiveable, dominates the reaction to this man, expressed with words like “unprincipled,” “uncommitted,” “obscene” and “disrespectful.” These words attach not to particular occasions of mistake, sin and misbehavior, but to the very person of Trump himself- a deep-seated, formidably final judgment. No apology, counter-example, favorable experience, report or personal testimony registers.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, fits into patterns familiar to us: the stalwart, wronged wife who returns again and again to her sinful husband and the marriage her sacrifices hold together. While many women do not intend to vote for Hillary Clinton (due at least to her complete denial of humanity for the unborn child), there is empathy for her, sitting uncomfortably side-by-side with a gut-level repugnance for Trump.

Has this dissonance silenced women leaders who, without Trump’s sexual missteps, would champion the Trump-Pence ticket? Even the selection of Mike Pence, an absolute warrior for pro-life and impeccably credentialed Christian, has failed to evoke much enthusiasm for the ticket. Instead, I see many women of faith privately and in social media explaining their third party vote, their decision not to vote, or their support “down ticket” only.

“All human beings, in as much as they are created in the image of God, have the dignity of a person. A person is not something but someone” (CCC 66). From this principle, we, as women especially, recognize the harms and sinfulness of treating women as sexual objects. It is a fundamental form of disrespect for our person – and a disturbingly pervasive reality of modern culture.

From early adolescence, if not sooner, we become acutely aware of sexual objectification by entire industries as well as individual males. We struggle to build our own sense of self, independent of our sexual appeal. We shield our daughters and struggle to counteract the cultural sexual message. We labor mightily to educate our sons on sexual and verbal control, while learning the beauty and purpose of conjugal love.

But is it correct to conclude that Trump’s sins, his sins against the dignity of women, somehow reflect a complete personal disrespect for the human female? More, is it correct to conclude that this sexual objectification is a fundamental character flaw that, Hillary Clinton, in her role as steadfast, forgiving wife, does not herself suffer? I think not on both questions.

Hillary Clinton’s failures and sins against the dignity of the person take a different form than Trump’s. Her appetite and ambitions are starkly, ruthlessly, political in nature, not sexual. That she consistently encounters persons as political objects is beyond dispute.

Whether strategizing the denigration and demise of her husband’s lovers, characterizing the unborn child, justifying the drone-delivered deaths of innocents, managing the Benghazi deaths and their bereaved families, disregarding the travesty of globalization upon working American families or supporting the production and sale of baby parts by Planned Parenthood, Clinton’s sometimes shocking willingness to reduce human beings to political pawns includes fundamental breaches of human dignity, such as killing, maligning and lying. (Similarly, I do not personally believe that Clinton’s marriage is a sacred covenant blessed by her willingness to suffer, forgive and try again. I believe her marriage is a political arrangement.)

We do not have to compile, compare and argue Trump’s and Clinton’s failures, sins, mistakes and cruelties against human dignity. They are both flawed human beings and, while I personally find Clinton’s seemingly conscience-less political brutality far more offensive than Trump’s incidents of sexual objectification, we are not voting for Pope, preacher or priest.

Or are we? Are we as women of faith holding Donald Trump to an unattainable, unrealistic standard, an ideal that has no female corollary?

As one Catholic New Feminist observed in an article opposing Trump, “I do not know or recognize any of the men in my life when I see Donald Trump.” I believe her. I believe that she and many women of faith, especially our female leaders, do not recognize their men in Donald Trump. Since publishing my article “Trump the Guy” – in which I shared some of my own husband’s sinful moments of sexual objectification – I have learned from many women of faith that ‘their men” do not ever behave so crudely as Trump. Such incidents, these women insist, indicate an irreparable condition of “misogyny” much like eczema that will simply erupt no matter the remedies.

Whether our men of faith actually never err in their regard of women’s sexuality – or whether they are careful not to err in front of us – we hold them to a peculiarly high standard. This standard is set by our priests and male preachers who model respectful appreciation for the person of the female, as well as the dignity of every human person. It’s a standard most mere mortal layman would struggle to attain. It is a standard that is, in fact, holy.

But most men are not holy. They aren’t even close. Holding Donald Trump to the expressive and behavioral standards of a Catholic priest is neither realistic nor practical. More, when we expect our male politicians to be more like a priest or preacher than not, we lose the opportunity to advocate for our issues. This is a standard to which we do not hold other women – as evidenced by our lack of outrage with Hillary Clinton’s brutal, political objectification of the unborn, the disadvantaged and working classes, the immigrants trafficked across borders and the casualties of her political maneuvering and her husband’s lovers and sexual victims.

I call on my fellow women of faith to speak up on behalf of Donald Trump and Mike Pence. Our female community is sorely in need of leadership – leadership of discernment, thought and action. Will it be comfortable to speak on behalf of Donald Trump, whose sins and apologies have become the focus of conversation, debate and media coverage? For many, probably not. But remember you are speaking up for the unborn, for the innocents killed in the Middle East, for the workers displaced from their jobs, for Supreme Court Justices who value religion and religious values and, most importantly, for our Faith.

Trump & Children – Children Are a Gift From God

Posted on by

We have spilled much ink over Trump’s intemperate and offending comments about women, but there are other issues of grave concern in this election: our children.

As Ben Carson puts it, “There is no job more important than parenting. This I believe.” And so do many, many women who, like myself, identify as New Feminists and regard our children as the most profound work and measure of success in our lives. What is more satisfying, more sought after, more enriching – and more challenging – than launching healthy, successful children into the world?

On June 21, 2016, I attended a unique event: a gathering of Evangelicals in New York City to meet privately with Donald Trump. Originally intended for a few hundred invitees, the gathering grew to 1000, including a handful of Catholics.

I was one of them.

While Trump addressed scores of issues of concern to his audience, I found his comments regarding children remarkable and worthy of focused comment.

TRUMP’S CHILDREN

Even Trump’s harshest critics concede that Trump’s relationship to his children impresses. “At 69, he’s a father of five and grandfather to eight, and despite three marriages – two of which ended in tabloid frenzies – he has remarkably strong relationship with all of his adult children.”

So extraordinary is Trump as father, former Presidential candidate Michael Huckabee opened the June 21 meeting with the following observation and question, which I quote in length.

Before we go to the individual questions, there’s something that I want to say to you and ask you to respond to it. Because it’s something that I saw, in a way that most people would not have seen. Because if they weren’t on the stage during the presidential debates and also backstage, they would not have seen what I saw, what Ben Carson saw.

The relationship that you have with your family, the relationship and bond that you have with your adult children, is one of the most admirable I’ve ever seen from any father with children. People can fake it onstage — they can walk out and do a happy family moment — but you can’t fake that backstage, over and over again. What I saw was real.

And it was one of the reasons that I have had no hesitation endorsing you, supporting you, and enthusiastically encouraging people to get behind your candidacy. We’re going to talk about a lot of issues. But I want you to begin today by expressing: What is it about the relationship you have with your children that is so special? What is that bond all about?

Well known to the public, Trump, in fact, has five children: Donald Jr. (38), Ivanka (34), Eric (32), Tiffany (22) and Barron (10). Trump had the first of his three children with his first wife, Ivana Trump – who both supports and advises him in his run for President. Tiffany, Trump had with his second wife, Marla Maples. Says Maples, “He’s a wonderful father; he loves his children.” His youngest son, rising 5th grader Barron, receives the full attention of Trump’s current wife and Barron’s mother Melania. She “makes it clear that her main priority is being a mom. ‘Barron needs somebody as a parent, so I am with him all of the time.’ Although there’s a household staff, Melania says she does not have a nanny” (TIME, Donald Trump, p. 37).

Trump’s adult children are each credentialed and ambitious in their own right. Donald Jr. and Ivanka both graduated from the Wharton School of Business. Eric is a graduate of Georgetown. All three are married – Donald Jr. and his wife Vanessa have had 5 children over the last 7 years and Ivanka and Jared Kusher recently had their 3rd child. The latter family practices an orthodox Judaism that includes observing kosher rules. Tiffany, a student at the University of Pennsylvania, has released a music single “Like a Bird” and aspires to a music career.

All four children are “proud of [Trump] and praise him as a father.”

NO DRUGS, NO ALCOHOL

Trump’s first response to Governor Huckabee’s question at the June 21 Evangelical gathering was light-hearted. “I have really five wonderful children,” adding, “They were all very good students. I better knock on wood when I say all this stuff, because I’ll get a call – ‘Did you know about this?’”

Trump then grew deadly serious.

“[I would say] from the time they were little children – I mean, they didn’t even know what the words meant . . . ‘No drugs, no alcohol, no cigarettes,’ always. And it would drive them crazy. They’d say, ‘Dad, stop!’ . . . I’d drum it – Eric can tell you. I’d drum it into them because I’ve seen so many children who are as smart as you can get, the highest IQs, everything else. It’s over because the got hooked on something.”

Trump added, notably distressed, “If my children were hooked on heroin, they wouldn’t be with me now, they wouldn’t be doing well, and they wouldn’t know what’s even happening. Because I’ve seen it. It’s a horrible, horrible drug.”

CHILDREN IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

Trump’s concern for children became increasingly apparent as the June 21 gathering proceeded. Spontaneously, his comments turned to New Hampshire.

“When I won New Hampshire, I got very, very familiar with the people up there. I talked about it all the time. You see these beautiful valleys, these rivers and streams. It’s so beautiful as a place. And I said, “What’s your biggest problem?” They said, “Heroin.” And I said, “Heroin? It doesn’t match. Heroin doesn’t go with that stream.”

Trump seemed incredulous – and angry.

“We’ve got heroin pouring into this country that’s destroying the fabric of our children’s lives and lives beyond our children . . . We have to help those people get better because they’re so badly hooked. We have to stop this junk from pouring into our country.”

WALL AS A TOOL

Trump has taken endless grief for his call for a wall on the Southern border of the United States. But during his June 21 conversation, Trump brought up the wall several times – consistently in relation to protection of our children.

“Coming in through the southern border are massive, massive, massive amounts of drugs and lots of problems . . . There’s gotta be a border, a line, something to obey.”

Noting that Hillary Clinton herself supported a protective wall in the past, Trump acknowledged the controversy over his plan. But Trump remained adamant that only a wall could demarcate and enforce a border which would slow the flow of drugs into the United States – reinforced in his confidence by people who, he told us, know better than him.

“I received the other day, 60,500 endorsements from the border patrol guards. These are intelligent people who do their jobs, who I got to know by going down to the border, and I said to them, ‘So let me ask you, how important is the wall?’ And they said, ‘So important, Mr. Trump, you have no idea. We need the wall. It’s another tool and maybe our most important tool in stopping what’s happening with drugs and people coming illegally over the border.’ And I said, ‘Good — I feel good about it when you say that. Because if you didn’t say that, frankly, I don’t know what I’d do, because you people know better than anybody.’”

Throughout the June 21 gathering, Trump the candidate, Trump the father, Trump the results-oriented businessman restated his often stated intention: “So we’re going to build a wall.” Trump’s determination clearly stems from his own conviction – whether you agree or not – that “we are really in a very dangerous world right now, and we’re going to have to readjust our thinking very, very rapidly.”

Trump intends to take control of social influences – like drugs – which are impacting us, our children, and our families. He clearly grieves the impact of drugs on our youth – and values the role of parents, like himself, in setting boundaries within which our children thrive. He has provided remarkably effective parenting to his five children, and intends to bring that experience and those values to the Office of the President.

Much about Trump’s style of speech, choice of words and spontaneity still bother me. I personally prefer more polish and less fire in my elected leaders and more empathy and less aggression in men generally. But as Franklin Graham noted in his opening remarks at the June 21 meeting, “We’re all guilty of sin. There’s no perfect person – there’s only one, and that’s the Lord Jesus Christ. And he’s not running for President of the United States.”

Certainly the media is doing all it can to expose Donald Trump, the sinner.

But, as I learned on June 21, there is more, much more, to Donald Trump than his sins. His children – and his concern for our children – demonstrate that.

Pro-Life & Anti-Trump — The Hardball Moment

Posted on by

A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a
latae sententiae excommunication.

(1983 Code of Canon Law, sec. 1398)

On Thursday, March 30, 2016, Nassua County, NY police found 20-year-old Sharon Seudat bleeding profusely. After transporting her to the emergency room and learning that a pregnancy was involved, the police searched the home. They found a dead newborn – an infant girl – sealed into a black plastic bag. Seudat has been charged with murder and is being held pending a $750,000 bond.

Only one day earlier, on March 29, during a town hall meeting moderated by “Hardball” questioner Chris Matthews, this flurried exchange occurred with presidential candidate, Donald Trump:

MATTHEWS: I never understood the pro-life position.
TRUMP: Well, a lot of people do understand.
MATTHEWS: I never understood it. Because I understand the principle, it’s human life as people see it.
TRUMP: Which it is.
MATTHEWS: But what crime is it?
TRUMP: Well, it’s human life.
MATTHEWS: No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion?
TRUMP: Look…
MATTHEWS: This is not something you can dodge.
TRUMP: It’s a — no, no…
MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?
TRUMP: Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party and conservative Republicans would say, “yes, they should be punished.”
MATTHEWS: How about you?
TRUMP: I would say that it’s a very serious problem. And it’s a problem that we have to decide on. It’s very hard.
. . . .
MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman.
TRUMP: Yeah, there has to be some form.
MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What?
TRUMP: I don’t know. That I don’t know. That I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: You take positions on everything else.
TRUMP: Because I don’t want to — I frankly, I do take positions on everything else. It’s a very complicated position.

Unlike their non-reaction to young mothers criminally charged when they murder their newborns, many pro-lifers issued blistering attacks on candidate Trump for hesitantly approving a penalty for aborting mothers.

An exemplary list of pro-life and anti-Trump proclamations appears here:  the basic theme being that women who kill their unborn “deserve” compassion, love, understanding, empowerment, support, mercy, etc. – but never justice or accountability.

As Robert George summarized in First Things: “Most pro-lifers and the entire mainstream pro-life movement oppose, and have always opposed, punishing women who seek abortions.”

Sadly, most pro-lifers did not analyze the context of Trump’s blunder or Catholic Matthew’s obtuse defense of abortion; nor did they embrace Trump’s “yeah” as a teaching moment.

Yet, a teachable moment it was. Trump most certainly – and many of his followers – rank among the least experienced and knowledgeable of the nuances and divisiveness of the pro-life, pro-choice subculture. This vacuum could have created educational opportunity but only if Mr. Trump and his supporters were not summarily dismissed by established pro-lifers as “not one of us.”

It is not obvious to many people why pro-lifers insist that a woman who finds a way to kill her unborn child – whether legal or illegal, whether procured or self-induced – should never be punished. Is this merely a necessary strategy, critical to combat pro-life “opponents” who would “weaken the pro-life cause by tarring pro-lifers as punitive, vindictive people who would send women . . . to prison”?

In fact, there is an interesting and substantial legal history of restraint in prosecuting women who procure illegal abortions in favor of convicting illegal abortion providers, like the restraint shown in prosecuting prostitutes in favor of convicting pimps.

But this history and context were notably missing in pro-life reaction to Trump’s remarks. I found no calls, for example, for education or reasoned discussion in my pro-life Facebook community. Rather, I read that Trump is “toxic” and that, were I to suggest a woman be held accountable for aborting her unborn, I’d be summarily “unfriended.”

Trump has a knack for triggering strong, sometimes virulent, response – even from Catholics who, one would have hoped, might embrace an opportunity for charity, education and dialogue. Catholics might have embraced Trump’s confused, forced response for its worth: why does the Pro-life Establishment insist that women who intentionally abort are “victims” of their own decision?

Catholics’ canonical law imposes the single most severe canonical penalty – an automatic excommunication from the Church – upon a woman for the intentional, voluntary inducing, procuring, or participating in the death of her unborn child.

Is it unfair to expect that Catholics, whose law holds a mother accountable for killing her unborn child, might entertain Trump’s brief and awkward proposition as both a reasonable and moral proposition worthy of response?

Which brings us back to 20-year-old Ms. Seudat – charged with murder of her newborn daughter as tests revealed the child had drawn breath before Ms. Seudat (allegedly) suffocated her. Poor Ms. Seudat missed by only seconds pro-lifer’s calls for compassion, love, understanding, empowerment, support, mercy, etc. If only her baby had not drawn a breath – that breath which transformed Ms. Seudat from a victim to a responsible adult party, accountable at law for her decisions and actions.

Post Script: Though largely disregarded, Trump’s later confessed confusion, clarifications and policy statements immediately fell in line with established pro-life policy that all women who abort their unborn child are victims, like the child itself.

A Catholic Apology to Trump & His Voters

Posted on by

The God of Abraham asks us to turn our face outward to the world, recognising His image even in the people who are not in our image, whose faith is not mine, whose colour and culture are not mine, yet whose humanity is as God-given and consecrated as mine. ~Jonathan Sacks

On March 7, 2016, prominent Catholics Robert P. George and George Weigel published in the National Review “An Appeal to Our Fellow Catholics” to “reject [Donald Trump’s] candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination.” As a fellow Catholic to whom this appeal was addressed, I respond in this open letter, apologizing for both the purpose and language of this published piece.

While Professor George and Mr. Weigel opened their letter with a noncontroversial (if incomplete) statement of Catholic priorities, and a more questionable embrace of the Republican Party, they immediately shifted, not to a candidate-by-candidate, reasoned analysis, but to a direct and hostile attack on one candidate, Donald J. Trump. With no factual support for their assertion that Trump’s appeal rests upon racism and ethnic prejudice, George and Weigel fashioned a personal, conclusory, name-calling hit piece on this candidate whose voter base constitutes a culture distinct from the more polished, elite world in which the authors live.

Sadly, these authors cursorily urged Catholics to reject Trump’s candidacy because he is “manifestly unfit to be president of the United States” and because of “his vulgarity, oafishness, shocking ignorance.”

Many Catholics, myself included, were dismayed that these respected Catholic intellectuals drew upon the sort of language they disapprove of in the candidate Trump. This alone warrants an apology. I wish to assure candidate Trump and his voters that Catholics generally are called upon by Gospel and church law to respect people whose differences we might not understand and to treat all persons with dignity, even people with whom we most strongly disagree or don’t understand.

The Catholic laity is held to a higher standard than mere avoidance of hypocrisy. Our church law, and letters and directives from our popes, exhort us to engage our work in a manner that serves as ‘witness to Christ throughout the world.” (Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, 1965). This fundamental mission entails concern and care for the dignity of every person, not merely the promotion of the church as institution and enforcement of Catholic principles via legislation and political mandate.

The dignity of every individual includes good reputation. Catholics are admonished to avoid name-calling, gossip and other harm to a person’s reputation in the community. Canon 220 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law provides:

“No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses or to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.”

These rights inhere in “the exceptional dignity which belongs to the human person.” (Gaudium et spes, 1965). There is no exception to this Catholic precept because an individual says something “vulgar” or behaves awkwardly or selfishly – or because a person supports a candidate who speaks to them in familiar sentiments and language. To the contrary, one’s protection against intentional harm to his or her reputation by others is embedded as a right in their very humanity.

Catholics can – and should – take action in the world to witness Christ and the fundamental principles of our faith. We may act to “protect both the common good … and the Church itself … even though [we] might thereby damage someone’s reputation.” (New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 2000). Thus, for example, Church penalties are imposed publicly for wrongful behavior only as a last resort and Church law admonishes that “care must be taken so that the good name of anyone is not endangered.” (Canon 1717, sec. 2).

The concern for reputation imposes on all Catholics an obligation to avoid intentional attacks and harm to another in favor of rational dialogue, critique and even correction. Deal Hudson’s essay “Will Pro-life Catholics Vote for Donald Trump?” models how Catholics can and should dialogue with respect to all candidates. Professor George and Mr. Weigel could have, similarly, offered an analysis to fellow Catholics of their perspective of Catholic political priorities and how each of the Republican candidates might further such priorities, or not.

Their piece, however, was not a factual, reasoned analysis supportive of substantive conclusions; rather, their letter was a perfunctory, verbal assault to harm candidate Trump’s reputation. Notably, they also cast shame and intimidation on any Catholic who might consider voting for Trump with assertions that anyone of “genuinely Catholic sensibility” would agree with their attack.

Accusing a public figure (and, by extension, his supporters) of being oafish, vulgar, ignorant and unfit is language reserved for those anxious to express hostility and tarnish the reputation of the targeted individual. This is language which, I daresay, no ordained person would ever use with respect to another person; nor should any Catholic lay person.

Finally, the authors conclude with one final insult. They accuse Trump of demagoguery, adding for emphasis, “we do not hesitate to use the word.” Demagoguery – “an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side” – implicates the candidate as well as every one of the candidate’s supporters. Lest fellow Catholics miss their point, the authors urge a rejection not just of Trump but of those people who are supporting him. Such people, George and Weigel insist, are making emotional and prejudicial decisions, without reason or analysis.

I find this seemingly class-based bias most shocking of all. Are we to understand that the NASCAR, blue collar crowd’s objection to the apparent export and loss of their jobs; their objection to illegal immigration – that they believe is forcing down the wages of the jobs they do have, but fueling profits of big business; their objection to Free Trade — that they believe is gutting small town America, while fattening Wall Street; their objection to the exorbitant cost of health care and the phase out of benefits; their objection to the denigration of their sons and daughters who have served in the military, bled, and died … that these objections clearly articulated and addressed by candidate Trump are merely fears, prejudices and emotions? Are we to understand that their support of Trump is therefore without rational basis?

It is hard to fathom a more stinging insult to the dignity of Trump’s voter base. This base undoubtedly includes many practicing Catholics who, in trying to meet basic needs and protect and provide for their families in a climate the working class perceives as hostile, rejoice in finally having some voice in the political process and hope for their future. As Republican Kurt Schlichter recently wrote of the “Donaldites” at Townhall.com:

Immigration and free trade are generally good, but they impose real costs and our base is getting handed the bill. These folks have been asking us for help, and what was our response? Shut up, stupid racists.”

It is embarrassing that prominent Catholic voices have joined this chorus.

Mr. Trump, I do not know for whom I am going to vote. I have not personally determined the extent to which you will promote the Catholic values I cherish, though other Catholics believe our faith is consistent with support of your candidacy.

What I do know is that I am ashamed of the personal attack on you and your base by my fellow Catholics.

I apologize.

#RealWomenDontQuit

Posted on by

If you’re like me, your reactions this coming Wednesday’s “Day without a Woman”—the latest radical feminist protest on behalf of “the human rights of women and all gender-oppressed people”—may include one or all of the following:

  • Roll your eyes and throw up your hands in disgust.
  • Hurl something at the television as you watch yet one more biased news report claiming that all American females staunchly agree with the angry women involved in the so-called “Day without a Woman”.
  • Or, last but not least, simply pull the covers over your heads and go back to bed hoping that when you wake up Thursday morning the world will be somewhat back to normal, if that’s even remotely possible.

The main focus of event is to encourage women to walk off their jobs for a variety of reasons, including the promotion of leftist ideals and the continued protest of the election results. Since 1909, according to the United Nations website, March 8th has been set aside as International Women’s Day; it is meant to mark the contributions of women to society around the globe and “to affirm the principle of equality between women and men.” But apparently, according to the same group that brought us the ranting and raving of the likes of Whoopi, Madonna, and Ashley Judd on January 21st, this is a day about “rights” including “open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion and birth control for all people” and “our obligation to uplift, expand and protect the rights of our gay, lesbian, bi, queer, trans or gender non-conforming brothers, sisters and siblings. We must have the power to control our bodies and be free from gender norms, expectations and stereotypes.”

In other words, it’s another way to promote radical feminist causes, which always include abortion-on-demand and birth control at the top of that “rights” list.

So it is certainly understandable to have an exasperated or even angry response to what should be called “Day without Politically-Correct Women”. But there are several better ways to not only respond to the latest extreme lefty shenanigans.  The fact is, there have been some concrete, positive efforts by many real, positive women who believe that their authentic feminine identity is not wrapped up or directly tied to abortion, birth control, “gender issues”, or hatred for particular political leaders.

They are women who don’t want to take their concerns out on their employers or their children by abandoning their responsibilities for a day.  They are women who believe in the sanctity of life from conception until natural death.  They are women who believe in the dignity of all people and respect the variety of roles women serve in both the home and the world.

Here are two very constructive and dignified ways to speak up this week about true feminism and womanhood:

Women Speak for Themselves Gatherings: This wonderful movement is the brainchild of law professor and Vatican consultant Helen Alvare. The organization was established a few years ago as a response to the Health and Human Services mandate imposed on religious institutions and Christian business owners under the Obama administration—a mandate that many of these entities are still fighting in the courts.  The small group WSFT gatherings are designed to bring together women in a comfortable and non-threatening home setting to spread the truth about what Christ and his Church really teach and say about issues such as abortion, contraception, and marriage.  The idea is to speak the truth in love; it is based on the knowledge that many people don’t really know what the Church teaches, having often formed their opinions and reactions through media reports and secular accounts. WSFT even provides topics, questions, and recipes.  So, while others are  grabbing their protest signs and taking to the streets in defiance, grab some friends and a bottle of vino and engage in fruitful discussions.

Lady Day: “Pure Goodness at Work!”: Catholic blogger Colette Zimmermann came up with the idea of using the day to honor the Blessed Mother as well as to counter the upcoming feminist strike.  In a press release she raises some great questions that too many who are drinking the March 8th Madness Kool-Aid are choosing to ignore:

“But how many women can really skip work?  What about mothers?  What about nurses or any woman who works in society to help others?  We can’t skip work!  And furthermore, we don’t want to. Lady Day is a positive response, a day for us to celebrate God’s plan for women as pure and good.”

Suggestions for “Lady Day” include dressing up fashionably but modestly and heading out the door for tea with friends and then sharing thoughts and pictures of your tea time experience on Facebook and Twitter.

If you have another idea on how to productively spend National Woman’s Day, pass it on.  Perhaps you’re going to take your Mom out to lunch or visit women in a nursing home.  Maybe it’s a day to volunteer at the local pregnancy resource center or to pray outside a local abortion facility.  Speaking of abortion facilities, I wonder how many women will be walking off those jobs on Wednesday?

Whatever you do to counter the very destructive messages being promoted by radical feminists this week, remember St. Peter’s exhortation defend your faith in Christ with “gentleness and reverence” (1 Pet 3:15), and St. Francis de Sales’ reminder that we catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar—or, as the case might be, with wine, cheese, and a good cup of hot tea.

Update (March 7, 2017): Some ways you can participate in celebrating the true dignity of all women:

  • Use hashtag #RealWomenDontQuit on Wed. March 8th on Twitter and on other social media outlets.
  • Send Teresa Tomeo peaceful, dignified ways to promote women by commenting on her blog or Facebook page.
  • Tag Teresa Tomeo or direct message her your ideas on Facebook or Twitter.
  • Forward this Email to your friends and family.
  • Retweet #RealWomenDontQuit Tweets on Twitter.
  • Post & Share your thoughts about #RealWomenDontQuit on Facebook.
  • Pin the #RealWomenDontQuit image above on Pinterest and include the hashtag.
  • Post the #RealWomenDontQuit image above on Instagram including the hashtag.

Reprinted with permission from The Catholic World Report.

The “Pussyhat” Project

Posted on by

“We need to be remembered for our passion and purpose, not our pink pussycat hats.”~Petula Dvorak

In a heart-breaking negation of the core concept of January 21’s Women’s March in D.C., Jayna Zweiman and Krista Suh have launched a parallel project dubbed the “Pussyhat Project.” Zweiman and Suh aim to create “a powerful visual statement” at the Women’s March on Washington, D.C – a sea of pink “pussies” demanding “fair treatment” and “honoring the truth.” Their environmental visual seeks to eliminate the differences between the many diverse attendees and create a “community” of women all wearing matching, handcrafted “pussy” hats.

LI-88d-Pussyhat-620x424No doubt well-intentioned by the organizers and knitters, this project harms the March, as well as feminism, women and girls, and  victims of sexual abuse and feminism,.

“Pussyhats” compromise the mission and purpose of the March. The purpose of the January 21 March is to feature “diversity” and to “reflect our multiple and intersecting identities.” From its inception, the March’s design and leadership have sought to promote a wide variety of identity groups, “joined in diversity,” while equating “women’s rights” with all “human rights,” including the most marginalized in society. Empathy and love, often associated with the feminine, motivate the peaceful, nonviolence of the event, an event meant to be an obvious coalition of “diverse communities.”

Zweiman and Suh have organized a vast effort to mask this very diversity and create for every woman attending a bright pink “pussy” cap. This spectacle threatens to obscure the crowd’s diversity and upend the purpose of the March.

Worse, the “sameness” they seek derives from a vile, derogatory reference to women’s sexual organs. Creating a sea of “pussies” will dramatically change the impact of this event, giving commentators and the media an easy excuse to ignore the serious, often complex, issues motivating women to protest. Already, news outlets – like USA Today – seem sadly captivated with “pussyhats” rather than issues at the heart of the March.  Challenging women not attending the event to craft and donate thousands of these caps eclipses the opportunity to engage women everywhere in the issues targeted by each protester.

 “Pussy” hurts women. Did Zweiman and Suh consider how hurtful and bullying the term “pussy” is for multitudes of girls and women? Fresh off a widely broadcast, triggering, derogatory use of the term by the President-elect, many women sincerely fear the new administration. They genuinely worry that feminism’s gains face reversal, along with a reassertion of a primarily sexual role for females, one based upon a uniform, male-driven scale of beauty.

In the aftermath of this controversy, some women have reportedly suffered hate crimes, taunted by catcalls and intimidation with the word “pussy” and related epithets. One college took action and called a post-election posting “with the message ‘Suck it up, pussies!'” a “targeted act of intimidation and cowardice.” This threat to the worth and dignity of each individual female concerns all women collectively.

Rather than soundly rejecting this derogatory hate term of harassment and objectification – and affirm women’s worth as a gender critical to the well being of society – Zweiman and Suh join the male, deprecatory voice to the March. They specifically acknowledge that “pussy” is “a derogatory term for female genitalia” but rationalize its use as a “term of empowerment.” How can slanderous objectification and stereotyping of women ever “empower” them to oppose their oppression and stand firm for their dignity and worth?

Now as before, women must refuse to be meek and guileful, for truth cannot be served by dissimulation. Women who fancy that they manipulate the world by pussy power and gentle cajolery are fools. It is slavery to have to adopt such tactics. ~Germaine Greer

The organizers’ claim that use of this vile word “empowers” women denies and invalidates the experience of women victimized by male verbal and sexual abuse. Yet the organizers and knitters are creating a social pressure and expectation for full inclusion in this community of women that everyone should don a “pussyhat.”  The very women who have compelling personal reasons to participate in this March – women sexually abused by men – might reasonably stay home, rather than deal with a long, triggering day of “pussyhats” and “pussy power.”

“Pussyhats” normalize sexualizing females. If the March draws the hundreds of thousands of women it envisions, media coverage will be abundant. Saturday evening news and Sunday talk shows will echo with debates about the sexualizing, pink hats and with open, uncensured use of the offensive “pussy” and “pussies.” Inevitably, there will be quips and snickering and offensive innuendo.

By Monday morning, every girl in the English-speaking world will know the reference and “pussy” will be a normal way of referring to a female whether in our elementary schools, colleges or workplaces. The “pussyhat” movement will have destroyed decades of work by courageous women – including victims of verbal abuse – by normalizing the derogatory term and purposefully injecting it into mainstream media as an appropriate reference to the female.

Imagine the harm Monday morning, as women across the country return to their workplaces and male colleagues – you know who they are – chide, “So, where’s your pussy hat?” or “Did your pussyhat keep your head warm?’   or “Did you have your head up your pussyhat?” How can an employer, teacher or manager address such nasty, derisive, sexual innuendo when women themselves normalized the word?

Even as I write, the subtle process of normalizing is apparent. The organizers fail to denote the pejorative nature of the word, typically reflected by a refusal to reprint the word in it’s entirety, e.g. “‘Suck it up p***ies!’ sticky note mocking anti-Trump students being investigated — as a hate crime.” Practically, to discuss the project, commentators, like myself, are forced to use the word as simply another noun.

“Pussyhats” trivialize crucial women’s issues. Finally, it must be observed that the “Pussyhat Project” smacks of affluence and privilege, myopically claiming knitting and crocheting as “traditionally women’s crafts.” While these crafts may well be fashionable in the organizers demographic bracket, only 1/3 of women even know how to knit or crochet. More, the average working woman, juggling job demands, family needs and life’s everyday stresses, is far more concerned with issues impacting daily life, such as childcare, medical coverage and job availability. The image of women leisurely sitting in supportive female circles whilst  knitting and crocheting through an evening is pure fiction for most women today.

This image is also frankly frivolous compared to the dire, pressing social issues with which girls and women desperately need help and support. Consider the children and women in the District of Columbia who, while the “pussyhat” marchers demand “fair treatment”, are trapped in sexual slavery.

Right here in the nation’s capital, our most vulnerable residents — children — are subjected to sex slavery. Their stories don’t make the evening news or even warrant blurbs in your morning paper. But human trafficking is, and has been, a shadowy and seamy part of D.C. life.

Sexual assault remains rampant in the United States, with 1 in 5 women saying they had been a victim, according to a 2011 survey. “Pussy” for these women and children, sexually enslaved and sexually damaged, is not “clever wordplay,” as Zweiman and Suh callously assert in their mission statement. “Pussy” is an intimate, private part of their bodies, which has been violated, commercialized, abused and wounded.

Women largely voted for Hillary Clinton out of concern for their rights as women. While 42% of women did vote for Donald Trump (including myself), their vote by no means signals satisfaction with issues of concern to women. Whether, like me, you are appalled by the killing of unborn girls and sexual trafficking of children or by the objectification of women as sex slaves or commercial wombs for hire, or whether you have other issues of concern such as pornography, unequal pay, access to education, the March is an opportunity to express both our concerns and our serious commitment to activism. As columnist Dvorak so eloquently said, “We can’t make a difference with goofy hats, cheeky signs and silly songs. This is our chance to stand up, to remind the world how powerful we are and demand to be heard. . . . We need to be remembered for our passion and purpose, not our pink pussycat hats.”

I urge Zweiman and Suh to scale back this ill-conceived project and discourage protestors from wearing “pussyhats.” I urge groups of women marching together to say “no” to this project and march as the serious-minded, worthy individuals they are. Let women’s concerns and solutions issue forth from this March, not over-shadowed by a pink, sexualizing, stereotyping scheme that commands press coverage.

 

Women Vote: Bernadette Cudzilo (IL)

Posted on by

My name is Bernadette Cudzilo, I am a Roman Catholic, wife, mother and grandmother. I work for a non-for profit healthcare accrediting company.

On November 8th this year I will cast my vote for Donald Trump.

Trump was not my first choice in the Republican primary, but he was the majority’s choice. I feel we should support the democratic process and he was chosen. Yes, I am disappointed in the leadership of the Republican Party. I feel this election year will change it forever! People are not satisfied with what is happening in America; what is happening to our freedoms.

My decision to vote for Trump was influenced by several factors, including Donald Trump’s stand on pro-life. Remember that it was Bill Clinton who allowed partial birth abortion. Obama, an Illinois senator, supported this legislation. If Hillary Clinton is elected, this will only perpetrate the evil of abortion. Both Clintons were involved in supporting partial birth abortion: how can you be more against pro-life than aborting a baby at 8 months? This is the most horrific attack against innocence! I can only say that you must choose Trump if you are pro-life.

Also, Trump is correct about what makes a country. First, you have to have borders and, second, you must protect these borders. Like most Americans, my family is here because our grandparents left their homeland to come here for a better life; but they came here legally. What is going on in Europe confirms that when you have open borders, you don’t know who is coming and why they are coming.

I know that Trump’s temperament and language can be offensive, but he is not a polished politician. We must look beyond the image which is painted by the media and look at the essence of the individual. None of us are sinless and many would fail if we were put under such scrutiny by those who are against us.

Hillary Clinton is not a defender of woman. Today, she says every woman has a right to be believed when she has been sexually assaulted, but when Bill Clinton was assaulting women, she called them trailer trash and stood by her man. Why weren’t these woman allowed to be believed? I read the book, Crises of Character, written by a secret service agent. She has two faces and never really shows her true self.

Trump and Clinton are very different. Hillary Clinton, prochoice … Donald Trump, pro-life … Clinton, open borders …Donald Trump, controlled borders … Clinton, pay-to-play big government … Donald Trump, smaller federal government … Clinton, government economic stimulation …Donald Trump, business to grow the economy … Clinton, enrichment by selling favors … Trump, wealth through growing a business …Clinton, 100,000 Syrian Muslim refugees into the U.S.A. … Trump, concern for the 3% Syrian Christians who are being martyred.

There is only one choice for me, Donald Trump.

If you haven’t made a decision as to who you are going to vote for, please, consider voting for Trump because he will protect your freedoms.

 

Women Vote: Marjorie Dannenfelser (VA)

Posted on by

In our continuing series “Women Vote,” we interviewed Marjorie Dannenfelser. Dannenfelser is the president of Susan B. Anthony List, a national pro-life political organization. ~ Editor

Q. Have you decided for whom you are going to vote on November 8?

 Yes, I will be voting for Donald Trump.

Q. Was this a difficult decision for you?

When the race came down to two, there was no question of whom I would support. Donald Trump is a convert to the pro-life issue, as he has explained. Converts do not always use the same words as longtime activists, but they do speak with passion and conviction when faced with the reality of the horror of abortion.

Q. What factors most influenced your choice?

In this election we’re not voting for the most virtuous candidate, or the one with perfect character. As with every election, policy commitments are what will chart the course for the future. Each candidate’s approach to the Supreme Court will, far and away, have the most important implications for our nation’s future. That’s why policy is the main factor to consider when choosing whom to support.

Q. Which policy most concerns you, specifically?

Throughout the campaign, Donald Trump’s pro-life commitments have gotten increasingly stronger. He’s pledged to defund America’s #1 abortion chain Planned Parenthood, advance and sign into law the Pain-Capable bill, and protect the Hyde Amendment. Most importantly, he’s pledged to appoint pro-life Justices to the Supreme Court.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has promised the abortion industry she will be their advocate. She has doubled down on her support for abortion on-demand, up until the moment of birth, paid for by taxpayers. There is not a single unborn child she would protect from abortion.

Q. Many women have been offended by comments made by the candidate Trump about women, Mexicans and immigrants, What do you think of his temperament and language?

I cannot and will not defend many of the things Donald Trump has said on the campaign trail. His comments about women were horrifying and triggering for women and girls who have been victims of sexual assault and harassment. Similarly horrifying is Hillary Clinton’s treatment of the women who came in and out of her husband’s life, whom she sought to blame, shame, and ruin.

Q. Many women have been offended by behaviors of the candidate Clinton toward her husband’s lovers, including Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and others and towards people who have and do work for her, such as Secret Service agents? What do you think of her temperament and language?

Hillary Clinton has ignored, belittled, and defamed the women injured by her husband. She even defended a child rapist, and was caught on tape laughing at how she had helped him escape punishment. Her treatment of women is indefensible. In the face of two candidates like this, policy must be the deciding factor in considering whom to vote for.

Q. Many women are concerned with pro-life issues, especially recognizing the humanity and rights of the fetus. Which candidate do you find closest to your thinking on this issue. Why?

Donald Trump is, without question, the only pro-life candidate. He has pledged to defund the nation’s largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood, appoint pro-life Justices to the Supreme Court, advance and sign into law the Pain-Capable bill to end late-term abortion after five months, and to protect the Hyde Amendment which bars taxpayer funds from being used for elective abortion. Hillary Clinton is the abortion industry’s candidate. Planned Parenthood is spending $30 million to help elect her. In return, she’s pledged to always “have their back,” and to open wide the gates of taxpayer funding of abortion by repealing the longstanding Hyde Amendment and expanding abortion on-demand without limits.

Q. Are there other differences between Trump and Clinton which you view as fundamentally opposed?

Hillary Clinton has reduced to almost nothing the centrality of faith in day to day life. She has said that deep seated religious beliefs and cultural codes need to be changed.

Q. Is there anything else you’d like to say to women who are discerning how to vote on November 8?

I am hopeful that our first female president will embody values that we can be proud of as Americans and as people of faith. Being involved in politics at both the national and state levels, I am confident that the right woman will come along soon. There are many active, passionate women serving today in elected position – women who value the dignity and rights of the unborn. I look forward to supporting a pro-life female president in future elections. 

Susan B. Anthony List and its connected super PAC, Women Speak Out so far have spent more than $18 million in the 2016 election cycle, knocking on more than one million doors in battleground states to defeat Hillary Clinton and maintain a pro-life Senate. SBA List pursues policies and elects candidates who will reduce and ultimately end abortion.

 

Women Vote: Vicki Evans (CA)

Posted on by

My name is Vicki Evans and I am happy to be sharing with you how I discerned my vote for the Presidential election next week. I’m a CPA and have run a small business for decades. I’m also a pro-life activist with an advanced degree in bioethics.

I have watched our country’s ethically treacherous path accelerate under the Obama Administration.  I have dreaded Hillary Clinton’s rise as first female presidential nominee in this already ethically perilous environment. Her extremism on issues like abortion puts her completely out of touch with women on the ground. In her view of feminism, “reproductive rights” define women.

We are about so much more.

Labeling Hillary a hypocrite would be an understatement. She “plays the woman card” when it’s useful. Her every decision and stance is politically calculated. When it comes to having actual empathy for women, she does not. Her viciousness towards Bill’s paramours remains notorious. Today, that viciousness extends to all women, women like me, who do not share her extreme pro-abortion convictions. Like all other pro-life women, I fall into her “basket of deplorables.”

Similarly, in the pursuit of her personal goals, Hillary has blithely risked national security and ignored the rule of law. The Clinton Foundation has been involved for years in million-dollar “pay-to-play” transactions with foreign countries, many of which have no regard for human rights. Her email scandal appears far from over.

Compared to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump is fresh air. We need a populist candidate to stop the tide of political elites dictating our moral beliefs. I am confident that Donald Trump will roll back the extreme social policies of the Obama Administration – which would become even more radical under a Clinton Administration.

I know many are offended by Mr. Trump’s comments. However, I am offended by the political correctness that is required in today’s society. As an employer, I’m offended that ObamaCare requires employers, including religious ones, to facilitate no-cost contraception to their employees. I’m offended that our religious freedoms are fast becoming a thing of the past and that conscientious objection is now called discrimination. I’m offended that government regulations have reached into our schools to dictate bathroom use and that the federal government is intent on obliterating states’ rights by forbidding any curtailment of funding for Planned Parenthood, effectively ignoring its trade in fetal body parts. I’m offended that Hillary Clinton has now set her sights on forcing taxpayers to finance unlimited abortions both here and abroad.

Deciding to vote for Donald Trump and Mike Pence was not a difficult decision – they propose much that I believe in and offer hope for a nation in moral decline.

No candidate is memory has released a list of specific pro-life judges he would appoint to the Supreme Court. Donald Trump released two such lists. It’s safe to say that, beyond appointments to the Supreme Court, a President Trump would stop packing the circuit courts and courts of appeals with liberal judges intent on creating social policy.

No other candidate has ever promised to repeal the Johnson Amendment and return First Amendment rights to our pastors, allowing churches to more fully participate in the public square.

I see Trump as being honest and probably too forthright for his own good as a candidate. I live in the real world and I have heard much worse than Trump’s crude remarks – such as being called a bigot to my face for believing in marriage between a man and a women.

Please get out and vote, and vote for Donald Trump! Don’t let our children grow up in a world without ethics and our basic freedoms.