Trump should be the choice of the liberal Catholic

If you have ever donated even a dollar to Catholic Relief Services, you obviously feel compassion for not just Americans in need, but the world in need.  So ask yourself this: which candidate in 2016 is truly better for the world’s poor and underrepresented? 

Let’s focus on two very different regions: Syria and Venezuela.  In Venezuela, you have a darling state of the left, a socialist paradise in the Western hemisphere, which unfortunately can’t provide its own citizens with basic necessities.  When Venezuelans were allowed recently to enter neighboring countries to purchase the necessities of life, they did so by the hundreds of thousands.  In Ronald Reagan’s day, Hugo Chávez would never have been allowed to come to power.  Would that not have been far preferable to the actual lives of the mass of lower- to middle-class Venezuelans?  But did not the good Mr. Chávez get much moral support and a huge pass from Mr. Obama’s administration? 

And then there’s Syria.  In light of the very recent heartrending photo of the bloodied young boy in Aleppo, can any rational member of the left not admit that the destruction of that boy’s family and society flowed directly from the feckless foreign policy of Obama/Clinton/Kerry?  Anyone recall the famously, darkly comical “red line” speech by Barack the Clueless?  So in a President Hillary administration, will we not see another boy’s picture – but this time he will be Polish or Czech or Israeli or Lithuanian? 

Sometimes, folks, the world needs decisiveness in its leadership.  Would you get this more likely from Trump or Clinton?  Ask yourself how different – and better – the world might be today if Winston Churchill, not Neville Chamberlin, was prime minister of England in 1936 when Hitler began his entries into the Sudetenland, Austria, the Rhineland.  How many children – like that little boy – would have then lived a life without horror?

If you have ever donated even a dollar to Catholic Relief Services, you obviously feel compassion for not just Americans in need, but the world in need.  So ask yourself this: which candidate in 2016 is truly better for the world’s poor and underrepresented? 

Let’s focus on two very different regions: Syria and Venezuela.  In Venezuela, you have a darling state of the left, a socialist paradise in the Western hemisphere, which unfortunately can’t provide its own citizens with basic necessities.  When Venezuelans were allowed recently to enter neighboring countries to purchase the necessities of life, they did so by the hundreds of thousands.  In Ronald Reagan’s day, Hugo Chávez would never have been allowed to come to power.  Would that not have been far preferable to the actual lives of the mass of lower- to middle-class Venezuelans?  But did not the good Mr. Chávez get much moral support and a huge pass from Mr. Obama’s administration? 

And then there’s Syria.  In light of the very recent heartrending photo of the bloodied young boy in Aleppo, can any rational member of the left not admit that the destruction of that boy’s family and society flowed directly from the feckless foreign policy of Obama/Clinton/Kerry?  Anyone recall the famously, darkly comical “red line” speech by Barack the Clueless?  So in a President Hillary administration, will we not see another boy’s picture – but this time he will be Polish or Czech or Israeli or Lithuanian? 

Sometimes, folks, the world needs decisiveness in its leadership.  Would you get this more likely from Trump or Clinton?  Ask yourself how different – and better – the world might be today if Winston Churchill, not Neville Chamberlin, was prime minister of England in 1936 when Hitler began his entries into the Sudetenland, Austria, the Rhineland.  How many children – like that little boy – would have then lived a life without horror?