Trump's America Page 6

  In fact, President Roosevelt described the war as a contest between “pagan brutality” and the “Christian ideal” and said, “We choose human freedom—which is the Christian ideal.” Later, Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan struck similar tones during the Cold War. Both presidents described the contest with the Soviet Union as a struggle between atheist, communist ideals, and Judeo-Christian values of the West.

  In Kennedy’s words, the Cold War—and particularly the nuclear arms race—was “a struggle for supremacy between two conflicting ideologies: Freedom under God versus ruthless, godless tyranny.”

  Reagan echoed Kennedy and contrasted the Soviet legacy with our own, saying, “Two visions of the world remain locked in dispute. The first believes all men are created equal by a loving God who has blessed us with freedom. Abraham Lincoln spoke for us.… The second vision believes that religion is opium for the masses. It believes that eternal principles like truth, liberty, and democracy have no meaning beyond the whim of the state. And Lenin spoke for them.”

  Finally, religious faith and liberty were also crucial to the success of the civil rights movement. Dr. King repeatedly—and correctly—cast segregation and the iniquitous treatment of African Americans in our country at the time as moral and spiritual failures.

  Specifically, King cited religious liberty enshrined in our founding documents as the absolute justification that segregation was counter to American ideals. He made this point clearly in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”:

  One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

  THE TRUMP REVIVAL

  President Trump’s executive order to protect religious liberty was an important first step toward bringing our nation back in line with its founding principle of freedom of religion.

  He followed up this action in January 2018 by announcing a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division at the Department of Health and Human Services. The new division, which is a part of the HHS Office for Civil Rights, will restore the enforcement of federal laws which protect health care workers from being forced to violate their conscience in order to practice medicine and healing.

  However, there is more work that needs to be done.

  President Trump and Republicans must strive to completely restore rights to our nation’s religious institutions. This means they must repeal the Johnson Amendment—a provision in the U.S. tax code which prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Most churches and faith-based charitable organizations are designated as 501(c)(3) organizations, which exempts them from paying federal taxes.

  President Trump raised the issue of getting rid of the Johnson Amendment at the Republican National Convention, then he continued that charge at the 2017 National Prayer Breakfast. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, Trump said, “‘The God who gave us life, gave us liberty.… Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?’

  “Among those freedoms is the right to worship according to our own beliefs. That is why I will get rid of, and totally destroy, the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.”

  The law, which was named for former president Lyndon B. Johnson, who proposed it when he was a senator, is billed as a way to prevent people from making tax-deductible campaign contributions by giving money to churches that support particular candidates. This seems like a reasonable goal. However, the provision completely violates the First Amendment rights of clergy and other faith leaders by threatening to revoke their organizations’ tax exemptions if they express political opinions about candidates.

  This essentially divides the First Amendment for religious leaders and makes their freedom of speech and freedom of religion mutually exclusive if they want to keep their tax-exempt status. Thus, the federal government is regulating churches—a notion the Founders would have wholeheartedly rejected.

  Furthermore, churches have been traditionally tax-exempt since the founding of our country. There was no rampant tax abuse by American congregants from 1776 to 1954. The Johnson Amendment was an act of revenge against conservative pastors who had opposed Johnson’s reelection. Despite Johnson’s petty attack, liberty for pastors matters. Historically active clergy members—such as Leland, who I mentioned previously—were critical to the founding of our country. It seems foolish to decide that the opinions and ideas of today’s John Lelands are not worth protecting.

  Even those who support the Johnson Amendment, such as the Washington Post Editorial Board, acknowledge that the provision “puts government in the business of evaluating speech’s content and is bound to have some chilling effect on someone.”13

  President Trump has blunted enforcement of this bad law by ordering the Department of the Treasury not to take “any adverse action against” clergy members, churches, or other faith-based organizations “on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective.” However, it is up to Congress to finish this work with legislation repealing the Johnson Amendment.

  House Republicans have put forward a repeal that would protect the ability of religious leaders to speak on politics during regular activities, but it would limit extra political activity or spending by the organizations. This bill was introduced by Representative Jody Hice (R-GA) and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA). It has a Senate sponsor in Senator James Lankford (R-OK).

  This plan mirrors a proposal supported by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group which opposes the Johnson Amendment and provides legal help for people whose religious freedom has been infringed.

  The Alliance suggests taking the advice of a commission formed by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, which suggested changing the rule to allow:

  1. Speech that would be no added cost or a very minimal cost to the organization (such as a sermon, not an expensive advertising campaign)

  2. If the speech of the organization would cost more than that minimal amount, then the Johnson Amendment would only prohibit speech that clearly identifies candidates and directly calls for those candidates’ election or defeat.14

  These proposals may be the right answer, and it will be up to Congress to pass a bill that the president can sign.

  President Trump and Republicans must ensure that religious faith and its practice remain protected as essential parts of Trump’s America.

  Individual religious liberty is absolutely vital to the continued strength of our country.

  As President Trump said in February 2017:

  America will thrive as long as we continue to have faith in each other and faith in God.… Because that’s what we are and that is what we will always be, and that is what our people want: one beautiful nation, under God.

  CHAPTER FOUR

  THE COMEBACK OF SOVEREIGNTY, ENDING THE NEW WORLD ORDER

  Imagine a world wherein you could freely escort your loved ones up to an airport departure gate to bid them farewell.

  Imagine that, in this world, the idea of holding a handheld computer that allowed you to connect with millions of human beings across the globe seemed as far-fetched as flying cars.

  Imagine that, in this world, you could walk into almost any clothing store in America and still find items with “Made in the U.S.A.” on the tags.

  Now, stop imagining. I’m describing America in 1990, when President George H.W. Bush outlined his administration’s commitment to creating a “new world order.”

  At the end of the Cold War, the United States remained at center stage as the world’s sole super
power. Cast as the world’s leading protagonist, President Bush seized the opportunity to rewrite the narrative of U.S. foreign policy and international relations by borrowing a page from President Woodrow Wilson’s playbook and embarking on a heroic global quest toward a new world.1

  Bush imagined a new world order where many nations would equally share financial, diplomatic, and military responsibility to enact collective security measures against aggressive forces.2 He envisioned a world whereby nations would hold one another accountable for acts of injustice and would be made to answer to the international community for crimes against humanity or the global order. He spoke of a new world that would follow in the American example, based upon the ideas and values of westernized democracy, that would actively pursue securing freedoms and liberties for all.

  This was the absolute dream of the people who now make up the orderly institutionalist wing of the anti-Trump coalition. This new world order was supposed to be their crowning achievement—the height of their political accomplishments.

  But after four presidents and 26 years, the new world order failed to materialize.

  Instead of a global order, wherein all of the member countries are benevolent and look out for one another, we developed a system wherein the United States was benevolent, and many in the global community took full advantage of that benevolence.

  This is the common denominator spanning throughout many of our foreign policy and national security decisions over the past two and a half decades. The Obama administration especially operated in a way which was completely out of touch with reality, leading to critical and continuous failures to stand up for American interests.

  Instead of an international utopia, the new world order established an international bureaucracy, a global swamp that makes the one in Washington look like a mud puddle.

  This elite global bureaucracy set up organizations, international relationships, and deals that forced America’s interests to take a back seat. Our diplomats worked to appease this global bureaucracy rather than prioritize the values and concerns of American citizens.

  The 2016 election made clear that millions of Americans were sick of being sold out by bureaucrats to bureaucrats. The men and women of Trump’s America had reached their breaking point.

  These Americans had witnessed (or lived through) devastating attacks in New York City and DC and subsequent attacks in Boston, Paris, Orlando, Brussels, and more. While Americans mourned for the loss of these victims and were resolute in their belief that such evil had to be defeated, they grew frustrated by seemingly endless wars as Islamic terrorism continued to spread throughout the globe.

  At the same time, Americans experienced a technological revolution creating a range of new inventions spanning from the smartphone to battle-ready drones. These advancements connected millions through the Internet and social media networks, and simultaneously opened the door to security vulnerabilities from global competitors who wish to steal data and ideas or influence national opinions.

  Meanwhile, American companies stockpiled $2.5 trillion overseas because it made more sense than bringing it home and losing a third of it to taxes.3 We also saw a dramatic increase of the United States’ deficit in the trade of goods with other world nations—up from a $185.5 billion deficit in 19904 to $736.8 billion at the end of 2016.5

  In constructing his foreign policy and national security initiatives, President Trump has chosen to end the failed, outdated pursuit of a new world order and instead has chosen to recognize the new world reality: In order to protect American interests and keep America safe, we must start by putting America first.

  This replacement of the idealistic fantasy of a new world order with the principled realism of President Trump’s America first strategy is a critical component of America’s great comeback.

  A NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY FOCUSED ON WINNING AGAIN

  Standing on the steps of the United States Capitol building, Donald J. Trump addressed the American people for the first time as the 45th president of America.6 He said:

  The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans. For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; Subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military; We’ve defended other nation’s borders while refusing to defend our own; And spent trillions of dollars overseas while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.

  We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon. One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind. The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world. But that is the past. And now we are looking only to the future. We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power.

  From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it’s going to be America First. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.

  We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength. I will fight for you with every breath in my body—and I will never, ever let you down.

  America will start winning again, winning like never before.

  On this inauguration day, President Trump emphasized one core promise to the American people—that they will never be forgotten and will always be put first. Every decision he has made thus far as president, particularly in the realm of trade, national security, and foreign policy, has always been made with this promise in mind.

  The president enshrined his America first approach into official policy in December 2017, when he issued his National Security Strategy report.

  The report starts by declaring:

  An America that is safe, prosperous, and free at home is an America with the strength, confidence, and will to lead abroad. It is an America that can preserve peace, uphold liberty, and create enduring advantages for the American people. Putting America first is the duty of our government and the foundation for U.S. leadership in the world.

  A strong America is in the vital interests of not only the American people, but also those around the world who want to partner with the United States in pursuit of shared interests, values, and aspirations.

  This National Security Strategy puts America first.7

  Importantly, one of the four pillars outlined in the National Security Strategy report is to “Promote American Prosperity.” The central idea of this pillar is that, “rebuilding economic strength at home and preserving a fair and reciprocal international economic system will enhance our security and advance prosperity and peace in the world.”8

  Simply put, the United States must be economically competitive, particularly in the areas of manufacturing and technology, to protect and advance our national interests.

  This is a significant departure from the beliefs of many in the orderly institutionalist wing of the anti-Trump coalition, who argue that trade deficits don’t matter, and that the United States can be competitive in the world so long as it maintains a strong service economy and benefits from cheap foreign goods to keep prices low.

  But this argument falls apart upon scrutiny.

  Without a strong manufacturing base, the United States cannot domestically manufacture and produce the defensive technologies and weapons that are required to protect ourselves and our allies from enemies. The same is true for many critical energy and infrastructure needs for which relying on foreign production would present national security vulnerabilities.

  Furthermore, without a strong technological base, the United States would be incapable of maintaining the strongest and most technological
ly innovative military in the world.

  This rational thinking was incomprehensible to the bureaucratic policymakers who spent years pursuing the new world order through complex multilateral agreements, bad deals, and unreciprocated relationships that resulted in a hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs from America, while failing to protect critical industries from intellectual property theft and other acts of economic aggression.

  The men and women of Trump’s America elected Donald Trump to put an end to the fantasies and failures of the globalists and international bureaucrats. And boy, has President Trump delivered.

  THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

  Three days after taking office, Donald Trump fulfilled one of his core campaign promises and withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

  Backers of this agreement, negotiated under President Obama and signed in 2016, promised it would boost trade, contribute to economic growth, and strengthen economic ties between the 12 involved countries. Together, these countries represented about 40 percent of the world’s global economy.9 Though the deal had yet to take effect, as Congress still had to approve the participation of the United States, the historic significance of President Trump backing out of this bad deal cannot be overstated.

  Instead of buying the rhetoric espoused by President Obama and the orderly institutionalist wing of the anti-Trump coalition, President Trump understood the reality of the TPP—that ultimately, it would hurt Americans.

  A 2016 brief published by the Roosevelt Institute noted that while 18,000 tariffs would be cut for American exporters under TPP, it would have little positive impact on our domestic industry and would not likely increase our economic competitive advantage.10