Trump Has Shown Real Courage on China

Image of President Trump, First Lady and President of China

One way to measure courage is to ask whether someone does the right thing even when it’s the hard thing.

A courageous politician will champion an issue that could cost him votes based on principle.

President Donald Trump routinely takes these positions — positions not just fellow party members but even his own family members sometimes reject.

He is courageous, though his critics won’t ever admit it.

Perhaps Trump’s most courageous effort is his attempt to rebalance economic relations with China.

Contrary to the “experts,” Trump has for years said that China is ripping America off on trade, and the way to fix it is through tariffs. Since the tariffs would hurt China’s economy more than ours, this would create leverage to force its leaders into playing fair.

This was like nails on a chalk board to the business community.

Tariffs are taxes. We pay for them in more expensive goods. And a trade war with our biggest trading partner could be catastrophic.

As an unapologetic capitalist, I would normally agree. But the reason I’m with Trump is that what we have today with China isn’t free trade. As I’ll touch on in a moment, the economic playing field is tilted in China’s favor. The current U.S.-China partnership may have gotten us cheap TVs, computers and phones, but at what cost to American workers, their families and communities, as well as to our national security?

By imposing tariffs, forcing a weakened China to the negotiating table, the president has put the long-term national interest over short-term political and business interests. That is how the CEO of a country should act. And if Trump can rebalance our relationship with China, it will serve the interests of everyone.

You know for decades we were promised that free trade would lead to a freer and more peaceful China.

Just the opposite has occurred.

The ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is getting increasingly repressive at home.

Abroad, China is rapidly militarizing, rampantly spying and hacking and threatening Americans and our allies.

The CCP has funded these efforts by taking advantage of the generosity we showed it when we normalized relations with China, and granted it access to the global economic system we built.

To add insult to injury, China cheated. It has stolen hundreds of billions of dollars of American intellectual property. It has forced our companies to turn over treasured technology to do business on the mainland. Its government unfairly backs all its key industries.

I guess no good deed goes unpunished.

The U.S. and China are not competing like Burger King and McDonald’s. It’s more like if McDonald’s copied Burger King’s recipes, stole its equipment and sold the exact same menu items for half the price — since McDonalds’ bankers didn’t care about being in the black, just putting Burger King out of business.

So when after months of trade negotiations, the Chinese recently reneged on the deal’s most important terms, Trump was right to throw up his hands, and walk away – but not before slapping still more tariffs on China.

That showed real courage.

Trump had everyone from financiers to farmers begging him to cut a deal. He said he’d rather have no deal than a bad one.

Trump has shown courage all the way around here in pursuit of the national interest: Courage to take on the entire political establishment with a policy it hated; to threaten rising financial markets; and to upset voters from Wall Street to Main Street, all with 2020 looming.

As more and more politicians come around to Trump’s position on China, maybe this courage will become contagious.

No Matter Your Opinion On Abortion, These New Laws Should Trouble You

Image of the word Abortion on Typewriter

Throughout my life, I’ve spent a great deal of time thinking about the issue of abortion.

With a lot of thought and prayer, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is murder. It just totally violates my value system.

Now, I’m a Catholic. That informs my views.

You might disagree because of your religion, or for any of a million other reasons. Reasonable, decent people can come to completely different opinions on this issue.

But what I find unreasonable and indecent – in fact what I find disturbing – are the abortion laws taking hold or even just being raised in states as different as New York and Virginia.

You’ve probably seen some of the headlines about this.

New York used to permit third-trimester abortions only if the mother’s life was in danger. Now, New York law will allow third-trimester abortions if needed to protect the mother’s “life or health” (italics mine). It will be up to the doctor, the patient and probably some legal opinions, to determine what “health” means, and whether or not the doctor can recommend aborting a perfectly healthy, viable baby.

The bill also “decriminalizes” abortion by defining homicide based on the murder of “a human being who has been born and is alive.” So New York law does not consider it homicide to kill an unborn baby no matter how close it is to delivery.

What does this decriminalization mean in practice? Well, just after the bill was passed, a New York prosecutor dropped an abortion charge against a man who murdered his girlfriend when she was 14 weeks pregnant because of this bill.

I cannot imagine that most Americans think that charge should be dropped.

Virginia proposed a bill that went even further than New York in easing its late-term abortion laws.

Like the New York bill, it lowered the bar for when a third-trimester abortion could occur far below life and death. But it also allowed, in the words of the legislator who drafted the bill, abortion “through the third trimester.”

Here’s the relevant back-and-forth between the legislator and one of her colleagues on the bill:

COLLEAGUE: How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?

LEGISLATOR: Through the third trimester…The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.

COLLEAGUE: Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth, that she has physical signs that she is about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified?…She’s dilating…I’m asking if your bill allows that.

LEGISLATOR: “My bill would allow that, yes…”

Virginia’s governor, who is himself a doctor, stood by the legislation. And he went even further. In the governor’s reading, the bill would allow an infant to be aborted after being born. Here are his exact words: “The infant would be delivered; the infant would be kept comfortable; the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desire, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Thankfully, the people in the Virginia legislator had the good sense to reject this law.

But I was, and remain, both shaken and angered over these comments. I still can’t believe the bill ever got as far as it did.

Abortion after a baby is delivered is not “abortion.” It is infanticide. That is true whether you are a Catholic or an atheist.

I tremble just thinking about this.

Human lives are precious.

Government’s job is to protect our lives so we can pursue our happiness.

That our leaders would permit people to murder the gift from God that is man simply shocks the conscience.

No matter your position on abortion, I hope you will consider just how disturbing these bills are at their core, and pause to think about what they say about the direction of our country.

President Trump Might Have to Defy the Courts

Image of US Supreme Court Building

I’m concerned about overreaching judges. No matter your political beliefs, you should be too.

You know the story: President Trump takes action on an important issue that falls mostly on his shoulders, like immigration or national security. Within minutes, left-wing activist groups file suit with a friendly judge, who then blocks the Trump administration not only in the judge’s district, but across the entire country. The administration appeals the decision ultimately all the way up to the Supreme Court, where it triumphs, but only after months or years of litigation.

The parties here could be reversed, and this would still be a travesty.

I’m not saying judges should lay down in the face of an out-of-control commander-in-chief. If the president abuses his power, the judiciary should overrule him.

But that’s not what is going on today.

We know this since President Trump keeps winning at the Supreme Court. It would seem then that federal judges in lower courts are abusing their own power by blocking obviously legal initiatives, nationwide, due to their political leanings, hostility towards the president, or some combination of the two. This is outrageous since judges are supposed to be above politics, and we’re a nation of “laws, not of men.”

For the latest example of what I’m talking about, look to San Francisco. There, a judge appointed by President Obama recently overruled President Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy. (His ruling was just blocked by an appeals court, but it’s still worth analyzing.)

The policy lets U.S. authorities return certain asylum-seekers entering the U.S. illegally or without proper papers via Mexico to Mexico while they await a date in immigration court. Otherwise, tens of thousands of migrants flooding our southern border would be released into the U.S. pending a future court hearing. Many would skip court, never to be seen again. We’re a compassionate country, but if we have no borders or rule of law we will not be a country at all.

If you read Immigration and Nationality Act Section 235(b)(2)(C), it’s clear Congress gave the president this power, and it’s clear he’s doing what he can within the law to deal with a crisis.

There are two parts of this case that drive me nuts. The first is that the ruling makes no sense. Congress gave the president a power, which he is using to secure our borders. This is among the most basic of government responsibilities. Who is an unelected federal judge to replace his judgment for that of the president, and our representatives who gave the president this power?

The second is that the judge took a ruling that made no sense, and forced it on the entire country by issuing a “universal injunction.”

These injunctions allow any one of the 600 hundred some odd — again unelected — federal judges to block a presidential policy not just for those filing suit in a judge’s area of authority, but for everyone across the country.

Ask yourself if a single federal judge should have this power.

Read the Constitution and you won’t find any basis for it.

Look to our history and you’ll see universal injunctions were never used in the first 175 years of our Republic.

For these reasons, the Department of Justice and Republicans in Congress have been fighting them. In an opinion last year, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court might have to rule on their legality.

President Trump was hit with more of these injunctions in the first year of his presidency than any president in history. If universal injunctions keep flying, at some point he’s going to be left with no choice but to ignore the courts.

This will cause a constitutional crisis. But it won’t be one of his making.

It may be that he needs to bring this crisis to a head to protect the system of government we’ve been blessed with for a short 243 years – one based on justice that is blind, the separation of powers and checks and balances.

If President Trump defies the courts, Democrats, Republicans and Americans of all political stripes should thank him.

This attack on the presidency is an attack on we the people.

Ours is a Family of Independent, Diverse Thinkers

Photo of Joe Ricketts and Ricketts family

Among the thousands of recent articles written about me by hard-left leaning publications was one that included a picture of my family along with an out-of-context headline.  I suppose the publication that ran this piece was trying to indict my family with that negative, inaccurate headline.

But the headline’s suggestion that everyone in my family thinks the same way is wrong.  In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. 

My wife Marlene and I raised our children to be informed and to think for themselves.  One of the things we enjoy in our family is that we’re all very different and independent.  And we don’t love each other in spite of our independence; we love each other because of it.  As Marlene has said, “If we raise our children to be independent, we can’t be surprised when they turn out that way.”

We’re very proud of each of our children and know that they are all very different from one another.  I think this may be true of many families.  We are not all on the same page politically—we have Republicans, Democrats and Independents in the group—or across every issue, but we listen to and respect each other.

All four of our kids have served on the board of the Chicago Cubs, and when they go behind closed doors for their board meetings, I’m sure each expresses his or her own independent thoughts and ideas.  But the most important factor is that they come to a consensus or agreement and arrive at a particular solution before the meeting is over.

Marlene always told our children that they could fight all they wanted in the house, but when they went outside they needed to act as one family.  So our kids have grown up disagreeing with each other but learning how to get along.

The glue that holds us together is love, respect and understanding.  It is a lively and enjoyable family.

Should Americans Put Country Above Party?

Image of Handshake with American and North Korean Flags

I was really taken aback by the coverage of President Donald Trump’s summit with Kim Jong-un.

Now no one would call President Trump’s North Korea policy conventional. He has played “good cop, bad cop” in front of the whole world in the highest stakes negotiation there is. First he attacked Kim Jong-un and threatened his destruction. Then, as his campaign of economic pressure crippled Kim, forcing him to the negotiating table, Trump took a more friendly approach. The result? Kim signed an agreement expressing his interest in denuclearizing, vowed to halt nuclear and missile tests, released U.S. hostages and returned the alleged remains of dozens of U.S. soldiers from the Korean War.

Those are pretty good things.

The two leaders met in Vietnam to see if they could push the ball further down the field towards their stated goals, including denuclearization.

Reasonable people can disagree with how President Trump has tackled this problem, and should be suspicious of Chairman Kim’s intentions. None of Trump’s predecessors have been able to successfully deal with this dictatorial, nuclear-armed, “hermit kingdom.” North Korea has frequently cheated.

Facing these challenges, maybe an outside-the-box strategy is exactly what we needed to shake things up, and make Kim Jong-un think twice.

But even if you disagree with President Trump’s strategy, I would think and hope that you would share his goal of denuclearization of North Korea. After all, a nuclear-armed North Korea threatens Americans here at home, our servicemen and women overseas and allies across Asia.

This is why I was shocked to see not just pundits but even U.S. senators undermining President Trump before the Vietnam summit by questioning his judgment, and suggesting he was going to get outmaneuvered. House Democrats, by having the circus of the Michael Cohen hearings coincide with the Trump-Kim summit, further poisoned the political atmosphere.

You just don’t attack your president when he’s overseas, and especially not when he’s trying to achieve peace for Americans and people all over the world.

Amazingly, when President Trump walked away from the table, stunning many of the critics who had claimed he would accept any deal for the sake of a political “win,” he was then called a failure.

But refusing a bad deal is what leaders do. It is what people acting from a position of strength do. It takes courage. As many commentators noted, this was a Reagan at Reykjavik moment.

Yet in the face of his political opposition, Trump could do no right.

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen people rooting against the country if it helps damage Trump.

It’s a very disturbing trend.

This is about more than any one president, or any single issue.

In America, we can and should have heated disagreements over political matters.

That we can do so freely is one of the many things that separates us from a North Korea, or China or Iran.

But we should disagree agreeably.

And when we hash out arguments, we should never lose sight of the goal, which is to do what is best for the country – not what is best for party.

If party is all that matters, we will tear apart the things that make us great.

And then nobody wins. In fact, we all lose.