“I will not be voting for Donald Trump for president. This is not a decision I make lightly, for I am a lifelong Republican. But Donald Trump does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country. . .
“I am also deeply concerned that Mr. Trump’s lack of self-restraint and his barrage of ill-informed comments would make an already perilous world even more so. It is reckless for a presidential candidate to publicly raise doubts about honoring treaty commitments with our allies. Mr. Trump’s tendency to lash out when challenged further escalates the possibility of disputes spinning dangerously out of control.” — Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine

The Donald. Poor The Donald. Trump is leaking support every day. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she could not vote for Trump. A letter was signed by 50 Republican security leaders saying that Trump is woefully uniformed, and lacks the knowledge, temperament, and experience to serve as Commander in Chief – and that he has shown no inclination to learn.

In fairness, George P. Bush, son of Jeb Bush, and grandson of George H.W. Bush, said that he would vote for Trump. Yet in saying that, he added that casting that vote would be a “bitter pill to swallow.” Sounds like George P. puts party before country.

Trump gave a speech at the Detroit Economic Club Monday, in which he re-packaged the old “Trickle Down Economics” theory. He would lower taxes for the middle class, lower taxes for the rich, lower taxes for businesses, and make child care fully tax deductible up to $25,000. At the same time he would greatly increase expenditures, on things like infrastructure (needed) and wall building (not so much). The wall, of course would be “a great wall”, because Trump “builds great walls,” and, anyway, he would get Mexico to pay for it. Economists seem to think these actions would add to the deficit and the debt, significantly. According to Trump, however, they aren’t factoring in the phenomenal growth he anticipates from the new policies. He’s also walking a fine line between being for free trade and protectionism. How can he be for free trade if he’s against free trade?

The good news for Don is the debates are coming up, and he will have a chance to demonstrate his command of the issues, his understanding of the constitution, and his familiarity with world events. His handlers are working very hard to lower expectations. Trump himself said that the debates were rigged, and that they shouldn’t be held in conflict with NFL football, even citing unrevealed sources from the league asking him to have the debates be re-scheduled. The NFL denies this, but it should be easy enough for Donald to produce the letter. At the same time he might want to produce the videotape of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9/11. And his tax returns, which contain, according to him, nothing to hide.

My take on a couple of recent Townbroadcast columns:

A recent column in Townbroadcast about religion was way off the mark. The constitution does not make a distinction between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. It clearly prohibits the governmental establishment of religion. That provides for religious freedom, whichever preposition one prefers. We are not required to wear yarmulkes. Or hajibs. We needn’t chant. We can check the box as none for religious preference, as now up to 24% of our fellow Americans are doing. Citizens of the United States can practice any (or no) religion. It has always been thus. In Arlington National Cemetery there are many graves. There are graves for Christians. And Jews. And Muslims. And Zorastrians. And Hindus. And Sikhs. And Atheists.

Amy Kerr Hardin, in her Townbroadcast column, seems to suggest that the person to make the choice regarding a woman’s body and reproduction is the woman herself. Kinda makes sense, doesn’t it? No one is saying these are easy decisions. Women have the legal right to make their own determinations. It’s the law of the land. If my niece (or yours) becomes pregnant, should she make the decision – or should Clarence Thomas has a say in the matter?