“America First” is a Smart Negotiation Tool, Not Selfish or an Isolationist Policy

Featured

Strange, that liberals condone the killing of the most innocent human beings and the legitimizing of same-sex “marriage”, but freak out when President Trump says:  “America First.”

Three quick points:

A) Trump’s putting our nation’s interests first is what all nations’ leaders should do. Trump’s first responsibility is to the U.S., not Germany, Russia or Iran.  In the same way, Angela Merkel is primarily responsible to the German people, not to the E.U., China or Syria.

B) Secondly, “America First” is not a descendant of Hitler’s metastasized version of nationalism. That has already been addressed in https://cartaremi.wordpress.com/2017/01/20/trumps-patriotism-is-nothing-like-hitlers-concept-of-nationalism/.

C) Finally, “America First” is simply a solid negotiation strategy — something we haven’t seen from the Oval Office in quite a few years. Disagree?  Then check out the infamous Obama-Kerry deal with Iran.

Whom  Should  We  Trust  to  Represent  Us  With  Other  Nations?

When one is negotiating, the wise individual begins with a position which allows some losses through compromise without losing key “wants.”

It’s no different from selling a house or a car.  One doesn’t open with his “must have” price, but begins above that mark so that he has room to negotiate downward and maintain his “must have” price in the end.

What is surprising is that so many fear our nation’s negotiation future in the hands of President Trump who wrote, “The Art of the Deal.”  In it, he said:

“I don’t hold it against people that they have opposed me.”1

“My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. Sometimes I settle for less than I sought, but in most cases I still end up with what I want.”

He’s determined and sticks to the issues without allowing personalities to sidetrack him.

And yet, many felt more comfortable with his predecessor who wrote these two quotes from “Dreams of My Father” and other statements.

“Churches won’t work with you, though, just out of the goodness of their hearts.  They’ll talk a good game-a sermon on Sunday, maybe, or a special offering for the homeless.  But if push comes to show, they won’t really move unless you can show them how it’ll help them pay their heating bill.”3

“I had given her a reassuring smile and patted her hand and told her not to worry, I wouldn’t do anything stupid.  It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned:  People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.”4

“Because what we are confident about is that when people look and see that they can get high-quality, affordable health care for less than their cell phone bill, they’re going to sign up.” [Good thing our phone bills aren’t that high or we’d all need subsidies.]

“During his presidential campaign and subsequent battle over a health care law, Mr. Obama quieted crowds with the story of his mother’s fight with her insurer over whether her cancer was a pre-existing condition that disqualified her from coverage…. But in “A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,” author Janny Scott quotes from correspondence from the president’s mother to assert that the 1995 dispute concerned a Cigna disability insurance policy and that her actual health insurer had apparently reimbursed most of her medical expenses without argument.” 6

Conclusion

Obama had difficulty being honest with issues confined to our homeland – no wonder he did a poor job abroad.  Trump, on the other hand, vows to look out for the needs of our entire nation.  From his style, neither our allies nor our adversaries will have to decipher what he’s up to.  In this way, we will have a chance at reasonable international agreements.  Obama won the presidency in 2008 on a promise of change.  Little did his fooled supporters realize that the beneficial change he spoke of was still eight years away!

 

1http://www.bankrate.com/finance/politics/clues-to-trump-presidency-from-the-art-of-the-deal-4.aspx

2 – “A paragraph from ‘The Art of the Deal’ gives insight about a Trump administration,” by Jacob Pramuk, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/01/a-paragraph-from-the-art-of-the-deal-gives-insight-about-a-trump-administration.html, 12/1/2016.

3 – “Dreams from My Father Quotes,” https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/86032-dreams-from-my-father?page=2

4 – “Dreams from My Father Quotes,” https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/86032-dreams-from-my-father?page=3

5 – “Top 10 Quotes From Bill Clinton and President Obama Chat At CGI,” by Dan Munro, http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2013/09/27/top-10-quotes-from-bill-clinton-and-president-obama-chat-at-cgi/#f7e13213860f, 9/27/2013.

6 – “Book Challenges Obama on Mother’s Deathbed Fight,” by Kevin Sack, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/us/politics/14mother.html, 7/13/2011.

Link

Many activists and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders have defined their version of a “living wage” to be a minimum of $15 per hour.Unfortunately, this cause gained some momentum last year as “Fourteen cities, counties and states approved a $15 minimum wage through local laws, executive orders and other means in 2015.”2

Cost  of  Living  Varies  Widely  Among  the  States

A national minimum wage of this magnitude makes the careless assumption that the cost of living is relatively equal across our country.  Not the case!

For 2015, the cost of living in California and New York was close to 35% above the mean for all states.3  For an “average” state such as Florida, it only takes $11.10 per hour to create the same economic climate for an employee as $15 does in California and New York.  Why should Florida be forced to effectively pay nearly $4 per hour more for the same work?

The absurdity is worse for states with below average costs of living.  Mississippi’s was 16.5% below the U.S. mean for last year.  A citizen of the Magnolia State would do as well on $9.28 per hour as his counterparts in California or New York would do on $15.  Requiring Mississippi to have a $15 minimum is as ridiculous as pushing California and New York to $24.25 —  a guaranteed method of raising machine employment at the expense of humans.

States  Are  Different  Despite  Simplistic  Liberal  Beliefs

For decades, the Left has confused equality with being identical.  The concept of a national minimum wage is just one of their futile attempts at creating fairness by legislating sameness among the inherently different.  Some national policies are unwise.  For at least two millennia, it has been shown repeatedly that the best policies result when problem solving occurs at the lowest effective level.4,5    

The U.S., with its diversity of geography, cultures, economic climates, etc., does not lend itself well to many across-the-board mandates because they can often be destructive.  A national minimum wage of $15 per hour is one of them.

1 – “Bernie Sanders is The Only Presidential Candidate Who Supports $15/Hour Minimum Wage,” by Jason Easley,  http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/04/bernie-sanders-presidential-candidate-supports-15hour-minimum-wage.html, 4/4/2016. 

2 – “14 Cities and States Approved $15 Minimum Wage in 2015,” http://www.nelp.org/news-releases/14-cities-states-approved-15-minimum-wage-in-2015/, 12/21/2015.

3https://www.missourieconomy.org/indicators/costof living/

4 – “… Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative.  The teaching of the Church has elaborated  the principle of subsidiarity [emphasis retained], according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good’… The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism.  It sets limits for state intervention…”  — excerpts from paragraphs 1883 and 1885 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, published by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, March 2000.

5 – So as to avoid confusing the real meaning of “common good” with the one currently in vogue (that it’s whatever benefits the most, even at the expense of individuals):  “The common good comprises ‘the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily… The common good consists of three essential elements: respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person; prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society; the peace and security of the groups and of its member.”  Paragraphs 1924 and 1925, Ibid.

Democratic Candidate’s Research Paper Position is Not Unforgivable

“Local  Democratic party leaders decided not to impede the campaign of an upstart state representative candidate, but many still aren’t forgiving Ben Lindy for the anti-research paper he wrote in law school.”

The article proceeded to explain that the resolution to strip him of “the essential benefits provided a candidate in order to run a fair campaign” failed by just a few votes, 26-21.  Additional fuel for this uproar stemmed from the fact that “it was discovered last month that his Yale University research paper has been cited in a legal brief used in a U.S. Supreme Court case that could weaken unions’ collective bargaining agreement nationwide, including in Ohio.”1

Purpose  of  Research

It’s understandable that the party which counts on the backing of unions would be apprehensive of possible fallout from some of their supporters over this.  But let’s step back for a moment.  The purpose of the academic world is to make clear previously undiscovered conclusions.  It aims to shed preconceived notions in order to reach these conclusions objectively.

The fact that a research paper is “anti-union” does not make it intrinsically evil, worthy of disdain.  The presence of labor unions may or may not be beneficial.  Unions are not inherently good or bad because it depends on the circumstances and application.

Intrinsic  Evil  vs.  Prudential

This conflict exemplifies the confusion which has existed in our nation for a long time.  For example, Prohibition was instituted because a majority was not able to understand that alcoholic drink is a prudential issue.2,3  A drink for an adult is not necessarily a bad thing.  It can be if the person is predisposed to addiction or excessive use, but a drink itself is not inherently evil.  Thus, the 18th Amendment was not only inappropriate for the purpose of the Constitution but it incorrectly labeled all alcoholic drinks as something to prohibit under all circumstances.

Abortion, on the other hand, is intrinsically evil despite attempts to rationalize it with reasons ranging from “privacy”to the erroneous assertion that we don’t know when human life begins.5,6  The act of abortion is always morally wrong even though the level of moral responsibility may vary for each individual involved.

An “anti-union” research paper does not carry the same moral liability.  The subject of unions is a prudential issue requiring discernment for each situation.  Each position deserves to be evaluated on its own merits.  Regardless, “unforgiving” is not an admirable attitude.

Of course, if the Democratic Party strongly opposes a person’s views on this, perhaps he should switch parties.

 

 

1 –“Democrats back off sanctioning candidate,” by Jason Williams, The Kentucky Enquirer, 2/6/2016

2 – “Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of the intention or purpose for which the act was chosen, regardless of the circumstances or consequences of the act, and regardless of the other acts that are chosen before, during, or after the intrinsically evil act. Nothing can cause an intrinsically evil act to become moral.” By Ron Conte, contributor to Catholic Answers Forums, http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=476417, 7/16/2010.

3 – Prudential issues are not clear-cut, but require sound judgment.  “Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgment less assured and decision difficult.” From paragraph 1787 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,” Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997.

4 – “On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, which recognized that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to make her own personal medical decisions — including the decision to have an abortion without interference from politicians.”  https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion-access/roe-v-wade/

5 – “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition.” spoken by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to Candy Crowley of CNN’s “State of the Union,” http://www.cnsnews.com, 7/28/2014 as reported in “Pelosi Blatantly Lied Regarding Church’s Teaching on Abortion, So Why Not Misrepresent Hamas, Too?” https://cartaremi.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/pelosi-blatantly-lied-regarding-churchs-teaching-on-abortion-so-why-not-misrepresent-hamas-too/, 8/7/2014.

6 – “Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit…” from the second paragraph of section 60 of “Evangelium Vitae,” by Pope John Paul II, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html, 3/25/1995.

“I am Your Father” and Campbell’s Soup Buys into Lucifer’s Message

In what was probably an attempt to modernize its image, Campbell’s Soup decided to add “a wink and a smile” to its advertising messaging by including two increasingly famous “gay” men and their adopted son in their “Made for Real, Real life” campaign. [1] (For those who have not witnessed this, each “father” attempts to imitate the famous quote from the Star Wars promotion of Campbell’s.)

Before the Left and some badly formed Christians take to the streets in protest of this article, it needs to be clear that all have a right to dignified work in order to provide food, shelter, clothing, etc. for themselves so long as it’s done in an ethical manner. [2,3] The word “ethical” was chosen instead of “legal” because there are many fallible civil laws on the books. “Moral” was avoided as it is summarily dismissed by those who promote the pagan philosophies of our post-Christian United States.

Therefore, this is not a commentary on homosexual actors who have the inalienable right to work. Rather, this addresses Campbell’s disappointing decision to join the politically-correct parade attempting to normalize disordered behavior. [4] Whether it’s rejecting the Ten Commandments or dismissing Natural Law, the results have never been pretty historically:

“Once the modern mind denied that man was a creature made in the image and likeness of God, it naturally fell into the error of saying that man was made in the image and likeness of the beast… But, if man is not different from nature, then what value has man? If there is no specific difference between a man and a horse, then why not yoke man to the plow of Nazism or the tractor of Marxian Socialism, or make him an instrument of the State as the Fascist intelligentsia teach today.” [5]

Campbell’s Soup would do better stick to the art of preparing food and forget about its venture into social engineering.

1 – “Campbell’s Soup Star Wars Commercial,” by Jendaya Fleming, http://arhsnewspaper.com/949/ae/campbells-soup-star-wars-commercial/, 10/21/2015

2 – “For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation…it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things that perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after time. ” from paragraph 6 of the encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII published 5/15/1891, http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

3 – “From work comes a person’s dignity,” quote of Pope Francis, in “Pope Francis on the Dignity of Labor,” by John A. Coleman, http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/pope-francis-dignity-labor, 11/20/2013

4 – “A popular God-is-dead book in the United States argues that homosexuality will become normal in a humanistic society where there is no restriction of morals which come from religion. St. Paul declared homosexuality and atheism were related to one another as effect to cause.” From The Quotable Fulton Sheen, edited by George J. Marlin, Richard P. Rabatin and John L. Swan, an Image book by Doubleday, New York City, 1989. Quote was cited from Footprints in a Darkened Forest, page 213, New York: Meredith Pres, 1967.

5 –Ibid. with the original quote from Philosophies at War, page 52, New York: Scribner’s, 1943.