Gary Johnson sees no value in religious liberty and implies that Mormons want religious liberty so they can shoot people dead

Posted on by

I wish I were making this up. Long-time readers know that I am an economic libertarian. I was planning on voting for Libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson. No longer. Johnson has a long history of left-wing activism on various social issues (he is virulently pro abortion and pro drug use and pro gay marriage). I was willing to forgive all that because the other choices are Hillary and Trump. No longer.

UPDATE FROM JOHNSON CAMPAIGN: THE CANDIDATE RESPONDED TO HIS COMMENTS, AND YOU CAN READ HIS RESPONSE HERE.

Please read this.

—-ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY—-

Do you think New Mexico was right to fine the photographer for not photographing the gay wedding?

(Johnson)”Look. Here’s the issue. You’ve narrowly defined this. But if we allow for discrimination — if we pass a law that allows for discrimination on the basis of religion — literally, we’re gonna open up a can of worms when it come stop discrimination of all forms, starting with Muslims … who knows. You’re narrowly looking at a situation where if you broaden that, I just tell you — on the basis of religious freedom, being able to discriminate — something that is currently not allowed — discrimination will exist in places we never dreamed of.”

Can the current federal RFRA be applied to protect things like the wedding photographer and the Little Sisters of the Poor?

(Johnson)”The problem is I don’t think you can cut out a little chunk there. I think what you’re going to end up doing is open up a plethora of discrimination that you never believed could exist. And it’ll start with Muslims.”

In a year when conservatives are being turned off by Donald Trump, do you worry that you’re turning off conservatives who might come to the Libertarian Party?

(Johnson)”It’s the right message, and I’m sideways with the Libertarian Party on this. My crystal ball is that you are going to get discriminated against by somebody because it’s against their religion. Somehow you have offended their religion because you’ve walked in and you’re denied service. You.”

You think it’s the federal government’s job to prevent—

(Johnson)”Discrimination. Yes.”

In all cases?

(Johnson)”Yes, yes, in all cases. Yes. And you’re using an example that seems to go outside the bounds of common sense. But man, now you’re back to public policy. And it’s kind of like the death penalty. Do I favor the death penalty. Theoretically I do, but when you realize that there’s a 4 percent error rate, you end up putting guilty people to death. I think this is analogous to hate crime. Convict me on the act of throwing a rock through somebody’s window. But if you’re going to convict me on my motivation for doing that, now you’re back to religious freedom. I mean under the guise of religious freedom, anybody can do anything. Back to Mormonism. Why shouldn’t somebody be able to shoot somebody else because their freedom of religion says that God has spoken to them and that they can shoot somebody dead.”

That doesn’t seem like the distinction that a libertarian typically makes. Shooting is an initiation of force, versus deciding what ceremonies to participate in.

(Johnson)”Well, they bring out this issue, which I realize it has happened. But the objective here is to say that discrimination is not allowed for by business …”

(Johnson)”I just see religious freedom, as a category, of just being a black hole.”

Folks, that is easily the most offensive thing any presidential candidate has ever said about Mormons. He really does seem to think that Mormons want a religious excuse to shoot people dead.

Religious liberty has been an easily understood and noncontroversial precept of the Republic since its founding. The first amendment made it that clear. Many well understood and accepted court cases have carved out exceptions for various religious practices. The Amish, for example, are exempt for the draft and don’t pay Social Security taxes. The Supreme Court has protected the religion of Santeria in Florida against laws intended to end that religious practice.

With the recent explosion of culture war cases intended to impinge on religious liberty, the Church has made is position clear:

“The religious community must unite to be sure we are not coerced or deterred into silence by . . . intimidation or threatening rhetoric”

(The above is from Elder Oaks here).

“Religious freedom is indeed under attack,” Elder Christofferson told an audience in the Marriott Center at Brigham Young University. “I am convinced that those who question the value or even the legitimacy of religious freedom do not understand that it is woven into the very soul of America. Religious participation in public life is not only part of American history and a constitutionally protected freedom, it’s also good for our nation. All laws and government policies are based on values — religious or otherwise.”

(The above is from Elder Christofferson’s talk just a few days ago.)

Gary Johnson has absolutely no understanding of religious liberty, and in fact he has a very shallow understanding of libertarianism. The vast majority of libertarians believe in “freedom of association,” which is implied by the Bill of Rights and means you and your business can associate with whomever you want. In my opinion, there is always a balancing act between freedom of association and religious liberty. For example, an anti-discrimination law that prevented discrimination on religious grounds because of public accommodation of scarce resources might make sense. So, if you were the owner of the only flower shop for 300 miles around and you didn’t want to sell your flowers for a gay wedding it may made sense for the government to compel you. But if your flower shop was one of 10 flower shops in a five-block radius, of course it makes no sense for the government to force you. Gary Johnson would compel you at gunpoint to sell to whoever he thinks is appropriate. (And by the way, Hillary and Trump probably would too).

At this point, I and many other Mormons are simply left without alternatives in this election. Hillary and Trump are too horrible to vote for, and Gary Johnson has just disqualified himself. It seems to me there are only four logical options: vote AGAINST the most reprehensible candidate (in my opinion, that is Hillary). Vote for another third party. (The Constitution party is at least in favor of religious liberty). Write in another candidate such as Ron Paul, the best presidential candidate in recent history. Or don’t vote for president at all.

This entry was posted in General by Geoff B.. Bookmark the permalink.

About Geoff B.

Geoff B graduated from Stanford University (class of 1985) and worked in journalism for several years until about 1992, when he took up his second career in telecommunications sales. He has held many callings in the Church, but his favorite calling is father and husband. Geoff is active in martial arts and loves hiking and skiing. Geoff has five children and lives in Colorado.

100 thoughts on “Gary Johnson sees no value in religious liberty and implies that Mormons want religious liberty so they can shoot people dead”

  1. Had Austin Petersen been the Libertarian nominee, I would have considered voting for him. Right now, Darrell Castle seems the only viable option for me.

    However, just remember that any vote not for Hillary Clinton is really a vote for Trump. (Isn’t that the proper corollary for all those who seem to think that any vote not for Trump is really a vote for Hillary?)

  2. Very strange. You would think that being a Westerner he would have a better knowledge of Mormons. Could he be thinking of the crazy Bundy clan and their religion-tinged anti-government threats? Or maybe he got the idea from reading 1 Nephi chapter 4? He should have been better informed that most Mormons have nothing to do with crazy fundamentalism or the violent fringe.

  3. I think the standard letter from church leaders is to vote for the person who best represents your values, sort of implying that not voting at all is not an option. I haven’t figured out if I’ll factor in the “I’m throwing my vote away” aspect when I go to the polls or not. I don’t think the world will immediately end if Clinton or Trump are elected, but I think long term, Clinton will do more damage than Trump.

  4. The difficulty is in the lack of any track record on Trump in elected office. We are being asked to trust that he is telling the truth, when the only rational thing to do is to take everything he says with lots of NaCl. The simple fact of the matter is that we have no idea how he’ll perform as a president, but the manner in which he runs his businesses are troubling, to say the least.

  5. To me Trump’s saving grace may be that he surrounds himself with people who will do well. He will have the opportunity to appoint (per congressional approval in some cases) high level cabinet leaders, Attorney General, Secretary of State. As bad as he may be on a personal level, I’m hoping that the people he’s looking to appoint have some sense of decency. I don’t have that same impression when it comes to Clinton.

  6. Every four years after the election, I say to myself that somehow I will find a way to pay the $600 fee to the government to become a US citizen and vote. I have been a legal resident for 26 years. But I never have that extra $600–for that. This year, I am not THAT disappointed about not voting in this adoptive country that I love. Reasons:
    Historic: a pseudo-feminist, pseudo-just-about-everything who protected her perverted, lying, womanizing husband while he was president, a woman with an agenda that will destroy everything decent in our society, a liar herself, an insult to our intelligence and to the founding fathers and mothers… is the Democratic nominee.
    Historic #2: the Republican Party nominated a man with a serious personality disorder (acute egotism and arrogance) who courts at the same time conservative Christians, gay activists, and angry, undiscerning white voters.
    What’s a conservative, Constitution-loving voter to do? Trust Mike Pence and Ben Carson in their judgment or Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, and Mitt Romney in their judgment?
    My guess is that Trump will win, that’s number one. Number two… there are unfortunately a lot of unknows. How will it unfold? Will he be presidential once he is “it”? Is there a way to talk him out of running for a second term? Do we have to put up with attempts or temptations (among the elite AS WELL AS among the people) to establish a dynasty (like the Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, and numerous examples in other countries)? Social conservatives, economic libertarians, compassionate capitalists, we have our work cut out. Our voice, our participation in these last days… Our prophets speak on the issues.

  8. And yet he hasn’t demonstrated that in his campaign, and arguably hasn’t done that in his businesses either. Again, there’s no record to suggest precisely who he would pick. I hope a President Trump surprises me, but I’m not holding my breath.

  9. IDIAT:

    The September 11, 2008, First Presidency letter says: “Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest.” What if I can’t find any 2016 presidential candidates that I think are wise, good, and honest?

  10. MD – you have a point. I haven’t dug into Trump’s many business ventures. It appears Trump U was a flop, but I think he’s got other stuff that runs okay. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be as wealthy as he is. Doesn’t mean he didn’t make his money by lyin’, cheatin’ and stealin’, but I assume at some point he must be doing some things right or he’d be sitting in jail.

  11. Does anybody here disagree with the Trump Campaign’s statement on Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech? (by Stephen Miller, Senior Policy Advisor):
    “Hillary Clinton’s speech was an insulting collection of clichés and recycled rhetoric. She spent the evening talking down to the American people she’s looked down on her whole life.
    Hillary Clinton talks about unity, about E Pluribus Unum, but her globalist agenda denies American citizens the protections to which they are all entitled – tearing us apart. Her radical amnesty plan will take jobs, resources and benefits from the most vulnerable citizens of the United States and give them to the citizens of other countries. Her refusal to even say the words ‘Radical Islam’, or to mention her disaster in Libya, or her corrupt email scheme, all show how little she cares about the safety of the American people.
    It’s a speech delivered from a fantasy universe, not the reality we live in today…”

    Not that long, but I did not want to paste the whole thing here, this is not an endorsement : )
    “We” (including non-voting legal resident political junkies like myself) might have to endure rather than endorse the candidate.

    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/trump-campaign-statement-on-clintons-acceptance-speech

  12. NW — I think the more recent letters are phrased differently. I don’t know if any high elected official is wise, good and honest:)

  14. If you vote for Johnson it’s purely a protest vote. Rumors are Romney is going to endorse Johnson next week to help ensure Trump loses Utah.

    My own view is that all of the candidates this year are horrific. I hate all of them. But as bad as Clinton is Trump is far worse. If it’s a close election in Utah I’ll be voting Clinton. If Clinton is comfortably ahead (dubious) I’ll vote Johnson.

    My feeling is that if Trump wins, you can kiss the conservative movement goodbye. He’ll destroy it as the leader of the GOP. If Clinton wins it’ll suck and we’ll lose SCOTUS but at least the conservative movement can restructure itself. While the GOP even before Trump was a mess, he’s just so horrific it’s hard to underestimate what he’ll do.

  15. It’s weird when he said “Back to Mormonism”. I think it was a misquote, the conversation started with Muslims, and he knows Mormons, and he knows no elements (or fringe elements) think they can shoot people. I’d bet money (if I were a betting man), he goofed and meant to say “Back to Muslims”. Then the context makes sense. Some fringe elements of Muslims do think that. Mormons do not.

    Back to his quote, if Gary Johnson thinks you just can’t let religion be a free pass to do whatever you want, and he highlights it with an extreme example, I don’t think it’s that threatening. It’s not talking about finer points like the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Case or making a religious institution offer healthcare that gives out contraceptives. It’s just “Can I kill someone if my religion says I can”, and he says “Obviously no.” That doesn’t bother me.

  16. Johnson is famous among libertarians for saying that Jewish bakers should be forced by the government to bake cakes for Nazis. So, yeah, I think his understanding of the basic tenets of liberty is pretty weak.

  17. Just to give readers an idea of what you have to deal with if you write regularly for a blog (an unfortunate number of stalkers, for one), we just had a commenter post that I am “clueless” for not knowing that the Constitution party platform clearly is against religious liberty. I have some problems with the Constitution party, but this is not one of them. (For the record, I will not be voting for the Constitution party, but I can understand why some others would make this choice). My point is that commenters will accuse you of being “clueless” when they are 100 percent wrong. Here is what the Constitution party platform says about religious liberty:

    “Religious Freedom
    Article I of the Bill of Rights reads:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
    Note: Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.
    We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised.
    We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted.
    We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America can determine their own membership, volunteers and employment based on their oaths and creeds.”

    It seems to me the Constitution party is the only major party that actually understands and supports religious liberty (but let me say again I will not be voting for them because I have some issues with other areas of their platform and they don’t stand a chance of winning).

  18. *Sigh.* This is what I’ve been trying to tell people about the Libertarian Party for years.

    Johnson is the poster boy for the Libertarians whose successes all seem to be in the areas where they overlap with modern liberals, and never in the areas where they overlap with conservatives.

  19. Kent, most libertarians strongly disagree with Johnson on this. He does not represent libertarianism at large with his perspective on this issue.

  20. To be honest, it looks like he just misspoke. He was talking about Muslims then went “back” to Mormons by accident and didn’t realize what he said. Not that this improves things any.

  21. Just as Republicans screwed up in making Trump their standard bearer, so too did the Libertarians. It seems in both cases, the voters would rather have someone who takes the liberal position on one hand and a fascist position on another, while jettisoning the conservative ones.

  22. IDIAT:

    The same sentence was used in the October 9, 2014, First Presidency letter. I can’t find any more recent FP letter containing the word “candidate”. In any case, I’ve just discovered that there’s a high school band teacher in Alaska who’s declared himself a write-in presidential candidate in Utah, so rather than leaving that part of the ballot blank I’ll write him in unless somebody better comes along.

  23. Vote for Trump.

    Impeach (and convict) him.

    Result: we get Mike Pence as Pres.

  24. Bookslinger, that assumes he can’t do tons of damage before impeachment and that impeachment would work.

  25. Weak mudslinging.
    The first time he says “Mormonism” is when he said “Back to Mormonism”. They weren’t talking about Mormons, they were talking about Muslims. Are we absolutely sure this wasn’t some slip-of-the-tongue that the interviewer didn’t catch him on? Because if you swap out “Mormon” with “Muslim” the conversation flows naturally.

  26. Um, I am fairly certain that Johnson’s comment was in regard to Mormons being shot by others because God told them to. This is in reference to Govenor Boggs of Missouri passing tge Mormon Extermination Act, making it legal for citizens in the state to kill Mormons to drive them out. The law was passed in 1838 and was not rescinded until 1976. I find it highly suspect that this article comes to light around the same time that it is announced that Mitt Romney is considering ebdorsing Johnson.

  27. The interview seems very poorly reported. Elsewhere, Johnson was quoted as saying that he supports the death penalty in principle, but that “when you realize that there’s a 4 percent error rate, you end up putting guilty people to death.” That statement only makes sense if he said “innocent people”. Either Johnson has a habit of mixing up his words, or else whoever transcribed his statements did a very careless job.

  28. Yeah, he meant Muslims. He must have had Mormons on the brain. Since he said “back to” and we were reading the dialog from the beginning… yeah, just a slip of the tongue. And the guilty vs. innocent callout was also… another flub.

  29. Satan has offered us his candidates.

    Not checking a stupid box on the piece of paper or computer screen is not the same as not voting.

    It is a vote of no confidence.

    Who you vote for means more to God than people think.

    Zion or bust.

  30. Actually, if there all candidate are evil, then we are not to vote for any of them. Instead, we are to write in a person that we know will do the right thing, even though we know that they won’t win. By voting for any of the candidates that are evil, we are contributing to their cause.

    To me, no matter if Trump, Clinton or Johnson gets in the United States and probably also the whole world would be chaotic.

    Read Daniel chapter 11 starting with verse 14.

    Brethren and Sisters. These are the very last days and world is in chaos. The time is getting very close for those scriptures to take place.

    Don’t vote for wickedness, even though they’re going to be elected anyways. Stay on the Lords side. Not Lucifer’s. The Angels above are taking notes. The Lord knows who will vote for wickedness, or who will find a person who is not, and vote for him, even though he will not win.

    Remember on what happens in the Book of Mormon in the Government. Do not vote for wickedness.

  31. I am a high school band teacher in Alaska and I am a write in candidate for President of the United States of America. I can’t in good conscience vote for anyone I found running, so I will run myself. Our country needs more people willing to serve that have integrity. If you want to know more check out Burton & Neves 2016 at https://www.facebook.com/Burton-Neves-2016-311707205833461/?fref=ts

    You may not agree with all of our positions, but we are regular working folks that try and act with integrity, compassion, and a respect for the Constitution.

  32. I had planned to vote Libertarian, hoping to add a third party to the mix, sine the two party system has not worked for some time now. The losing party, whichever one it is, just digs in their heels & waits “for the next cycle” , & nothing gets done.

    Thank you for covering this. I have forwarded it to family to read, & am looking at the Constitution Party next. I know they are not on the ballot in all 50 states, but if the platform & the candidate are good, it’s a starting place. I want to vote “for”, not “against”.

  33. I think this Mormonism comment is a misquote or error in audio to text. It doesnt even fit into the rest of the conversation.

  34. Johnson is not a perfect candidate. But I do agree with him on 75% of issues, He will be regulated by a moderate to conservative Congress, so we will be safer than with Hillary or Donald.

  35. Is it not possible that Johnson simply misspoke, meaning to say Islam rather than Mormonism? Doesn’t the context suggest this is plausible?

  36. Perhaps, but Johnson is a far more articulate speaker than Trump, for instance, & if he misspoke, then he should have clarified later, which he did not. In spite of trying to research him for a while now as a candidate, I was completely unaware of his views on religious liberty. For me, that is a deal breaker.

  37. Silly children. He can’t “go back” to talking about Mormons if he wasn’t talking about them in the first place.

    Obviously he was discussing Muslims, because a) he had just mentioned them, and b) a whole branch of Muslims believe that it’s perfectly fine to carry out Jihad on unbelievers, as we have witnessed in the past eight months.

    So either a slip of the Tongue, or a slip of the Pen.

  38. This is just irresponsible journalism. This came from a summarized/edited rendition of an interview with a reporter from the Washington Examiner. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gary…/article/2598088
    The original comment and scenario were not included anywhere so we don’t know the circumstances being referred to here. What we do know is that what Gary Johnson is expressing is consistent with Doctrine and Covenants Section 134.
    I really hope you will compare Gary Johnson’s views to Section 134 and see how closely the Libertarians line up with the early leaders of the church. This article qualifies as drive by media, because making accusations (even without facts) does harm.

  39. Very disappointing and very un-Libertarian. I don’t know who I’ll vote for now. Before this Inthink he actually had a chance in Utah. But I think he lost any chance of getting Mitt Romney’s and Mike Lee’s endorsement.

  40. It seems as though he took a limited knowledge of the LDS church (receiving revelation) and combined that with people who commit crimes stating that their God told them to. It was a bad example, but I do not feel like he was saying all Mormons shoot people in the name of Heavenly Father. I believe his point was that everyone has the right to practice the religion of their choice peaceably, but they do not have the right to commit crimes against other people in the name of religious freedom.

  41. Does no one else realize that he meant Muslims? He is taking about muslims the whole time and goes back to that example. Either he slipped up or the writer did but he’s talking about Muslims.

  42. This article is an example of politricks. Very misleading.
    The group Johnson was talking about was Muslims, not Mormons. Looks like a transcription error that replaced “Muslims” with “Mormons.”

    But the point is still the same. Everyone has a right to peacefully practice their religion. People don’t have a right to use religion as an excuse to harm others. Is the author trying to position that LDS disagrees with that stance? Because that’s not true.

  43. Are there any New Mexico citizens here who can comment on his gubernatorial record? He can talk all he wants; it’s an election year. But what’s his record? Pros and cons would be awesome.

  44. I strongly suggest that folks do not rush to judgment. I am sure the Johnson will clarify the remark. The interview was not very formal and such a casual remark out of context doesn’t make sense. In contrast you have 100s of questionable statements by Clinton and Trump.

  45. Even if he meant Muslims (which is debatable), the larger point is that Johnson is no fan of religious liberty and will work to undermine it.

    Acting as if “he really meant Muslims” refutes every other criticism of Johnson is somewhat disingenuous.

  46. I don’t believe one can really say that his point was that everyone can practice their religion peaceably, when he sides with the government to force the inclusion of birth control in the health benefits for an order of nuns. Not having access to birth control as a nun, when nuns take a vow of chastity, is certainly not a crime, yet Johnson sides with the government mandate to force them to carry it, per his comments.

    His comments in this interview reveal a side of him that has zero respect for religious conscience.

  47. Of note, the Johnson/Weld HQ is in Salt Lake City. Johnson is surrounded by LDS campaign consultants.

  48. Having checked on the original article — he only refers to Muslims prior to saying “Getting back to Mormonism” — it was either a mistake of the writer or some kind of freudian slip, imo.

  51. Regardless of his intent, the Book of Mormon actually teaches the doctrine he refers to. There are several places where it specifically teaches that killing another person is acceptable if sanctioned by God.

    Instead of freaking out, maybe try to understand what he was trying to say. The point is that there can’t be full religious liberty. Because where does it end? If someone says that killing someone is part of their religious observance should they have the religious freedom to do it? There has to be a balance between religious liberty and discrimination.

    His comments are actually in line with what Elder Oaks has said on the subject.

  52. Can we think about this rationally? Here has referenced Muslims more than one before making this statement. Don’t you think is possible it was a slip and he meant to say Muslims, not Mormons?

  53. What I am not understanding is why he said “back to Mormonism”? He wasn’t talking about Mormonism before. Did he mean Muslims? Or was he talking about Mormonism before and that wasn’t the quoted in this article? Either way, what he is saying is ridiculous!

  54. Please, before you continue to advise people to not vote or to write in someone who isn’t even running, check out Darrell Castle from the Constitution Party.

  56. I have been expecting nothing less than a full out offensive to try to swing Utah’s vote to Trump since it is one republican stronghold that is definitely up for grabs. This is so weak. Seriously. In the face of everything in this election, this is the deal breaker? Wow. There is pretty much never a perfect candidate, but if this little off the cuff conversation (his comments would undoubtedly have been very different if they had been prepared and vetted) is the best argument to get Mormons to support Trump over Johnson, I think that makes a pretty good case in the other direction. People, please don’t fall for this. It is weak!

  57. Wow!! Nothing like jumping on a bandwagon… I realized when I read the statement the point he was tring to make. And I believe he is right about religious freedom It has to be without reservation for ALL PEOPLE… and like most Libertarians, they vehemently support individual choice and accountability. Sounds like agency to me!! His statment on discrimination being enforced by government IS a bit sideways of many Libertarians, but until people become more perfect ….

  58. “Statement from Gov. Gary Johnson regarding comments reported in Washington Examiner column:
    “My reference to the LDS church, made during an impromptu conversation, was an admittedly very imprecise reference to the violence that accompanied the Mormon’s early history in the 1800s– violence that was prompted by the persecution of the Mormons themselves by both the federal government and others. Absolutely no offense was intended, and I regret any that has resulted.
    My point, made with an unfortunate example, is that religion has been used too many times to justify discrimination, persecution and, yes, violence. Acts of violence and aggression can not be excused by religion and all people must be held accountable for their own actions.
    Few in America have experienced that persecution more than Mormons, and I understand and respect that. The LDS church and its historical struggles with the government are perfect examples of the need for true religious freedom, not selective freedoms legislated and created by politicians. I consider many of the LDS faith to be my closest of friends including National Campaign Manager Ron Nielson.””

  59. Do any of you remember how Bill Clinton won a non majority election because of a third-party surge led by Ross Perot that mostly took conservative voters away from George Bush? Bush was no angel but I believe that Bill Clinton was truly toxic to American culture. His wife has none of his dubious charm and all of his baggage. With Trump we are faced with the lady and the tiger puzzle. Either he won’t be as bad as some expect or he will be as bad as Hillary. With Hillary we only have the tiger. I feel that we are faced with the same conundrum that Mormon and Moroni faced in the later era of the Nephites. At one point Morman became so discouraged that he refused to lead the armies of the decadent Nephites, yet ultimately he died as a result of battle. Do we disengage or vote in such a way that we are certain to have a tiger devouring our chance of freedom?

  60. Growing up in Germany, and in a German/American home, I heard many stories about my family members surviving both Adolf Hitler and World War II. Given this background, I make the following observation: Clinton reminds me of a typical politico, Trump reminds me of Hitler. Please remember, Hitler was elected.

  61. We put too much importance on who will be president. Constitutionally they are not supposed to be the most powerful elected officials. The speaker of the house is, and by virtue of Congress being able to undo the laws that gives the office of the president so much power, your representative is still more important than the president.

  65. Evan McMullin is your only option come this November. Look him up.
    BTW, this article describes my feelings about the candidates word for word.

  66. Evan McMullin is your only option come November.

    Evan McMullin for president. Look him up.

Comments are closed.