ACTION

The War Powers Resolution passed Thursday by the House in an effort to restrict President Trump’s ability to take military action to defend America against attack from Iran is a meaningless political document designed only to embarrass the president.

The nonbinding resolution criticizes the president for not “consulting” with Congress and receiving its “authorization” before ordering the killing of Iranian general and terrorist mastermind Qassem Suleimani. The resolution also orders Trump to stop using military force against Iran until he gets congressional approval.

Trump acted fully within his constitutional authority when he ordered the drone strike against Suleimani, a mass murderer responsible for thousands of deaths — including over 600 Americans — who was engaged in planning additional imminent and ongoing deadly attacks.

President Trump told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham in an exclusive interview Friday that Suleimani was planning attacks on four U.S. embassies.

Nine other terrorists traveling with Suleimani were also killed in the U.S. drone strike near the Baghdad International Airport in Iraq last week.

Imagine how much better off we would be if U.S. forces had been able to kill Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden and nine of his fellow terrorist leaders while they were planning the horrific Sept. 11, 2001 attacks that killed nearly than 3,000 people. Can anyone seriously argue that preventing those tragic deaths would not have been the right thing to do if a past president had the opportunity?

We’ll never know how many more people Suleimani would have murdered if he had lived longer, but it’s a safe bet that the number would be a big one, and that Americans would be among the dead. President Trump should be applauded for eliminating this very real threat.

The framers of the Constitution understood we needed a strong president to defend our country. One reason they replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution was to create the office of president with the powers it currently possesses.

Article II of the Constitution makes the president the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” He is also vested with all of “the executive Power” and the duty to execute the laws.

The text, structure, and history of the Constitution make it clear that this article gives the president broad constitutional authority to use military force to support our foreign policy and to respond to threats to our national security. And that’s the way it has been interpreted by successive administrations and the courts since the very beginning of our nation

As the U.S. Justice Department said in a 2001 legal opinion issued after the 9/11 attacks, the “power of the President is at its zenith under the Constitution when the President is directing military operations of the armed forces, because the power of Commander in Chief is assigned solely to the President.”

No law and no congressional resolution — such as the one passed Thursday by the House — “can place any limits on the President’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make,” according to the Justice Department legal opinion.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Congress has done so five times in our nations’ history and also authorized the use of military force over 40 times. But the commander in chief is charged with defending the country. He — and he alone — has the authority to use the armed forces for our defense.

In cases such as the killing of Suleimani — a situation calling for self-defense based on a verifiable, ongoing and imminent threat — a president can clearly act based on his constitutional authority. Neither Trump — nor any other American president — need ask for a congressional declaration of war or even an authorization for the use of military force in cases like this.

Trump acted wisely, quickly, and constitutionally to save American lives. That’s something we are entitled to expect all our presidents to do — regardless of their political party.

You can be sure that if Trump had done nothing and Suleimani had gone on to stage a nightmarish terrorist attack that claimed hundreds or even thousands of American lives, the president’s critics would be screaming at the top of their lungs that Trump was incompetent and derelict in his duty for failing to prevent the mass murder.

The simple fact is that the authority of Congress to declare war does not limit the ability — in fact, the responsibility — of the president to direct the armed forces to respond either defensively or offensively to terrorist threats.

If Congress wants to flex its constitutional muscles on this, it can cut off funding for the military. After all, Congress has the power of the purse. If it really wants to stop specific military actions, it can use its budget authority to withhold appropriations and to ban the use of any public funds for specific purposes.

The War Powers Resolution passed by the House Thursday does not do that. The fact that the House is not willing to use its actual authority in this matter strongly suggests that this resolution is just political theater meant to score points against the president.

In addition, the nonbinding resolution puts members of the House in the embarrassing position of seemingly defending a terrorist mass murderer. It may give the rest of the world — including our most dangerous enemies — the impression that our government is in disarray and doesn’t want to respond to attacks on our embassies, our citizens and our armed forces.

This, in turn, could invite further attacks.

Suleimani was unquestionably a legitimate target — someone who could have and should have been taken out years ago by a past president in the interests of our national security. Had that happened, an untold number of innocent civilians and members of the U.S. armed forces whose deaths were caused by Suleimani would still be alive today.

Those condemning President Trump for taking out Suleimani should answer this question: How many American military personnel and others is a terrorist allowed to kill before you think he is a legitimate military target?

And Trump’s critics should be willing to sit down with the widows, widowers, orphans and parents who lost loved ones because of Suleimani’s barbarism and explain to them why it was a good thing than an earlier American president did not rid the world of this monstrous mass murderer.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/67879?mailing_id=4800&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4800&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

This is not to say that children who grow up in one-parent homes are doomed to miserable lives, but it’s hard to deny that the opportunity for a better life takes a lot more work. One-parent households are predominantly lower income, less educated, and more susceptible to crime and drug problems.

Sociologists, economists, and politicians have struggled for years to find ways to alleviate the inequities dealt to one-parent households. Potential solutions abound, but those suggested by Dr. Christina Cross, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University, ignore the core issue and risk making matters worse.

In a shockingly obtuse New York Times op-ed last month, Cross claimed that for black Americans the problem is not a lack of two parents under one roof, but, rather, it’s a lack of access to resources compared to white one-parent families. In other words, more taxpayer money will fix it.

Cross points out that black one-parent households have a tougher time than white one-parent households when it comes to getting and maintaining jobs, obtaining a good education, owning property, and so forth. She then makes the cognitive leap that access to resources alone is the problem for one-parent black families because one-parent white families perform statistically better in these areas. The power of a two-parent household among blacks is “a myth” according to Cross. Rather than stepping back and looking at the larger issues that face all one-parent families, Cross chooses to make a racial divide and drive home the tired leftist narrative about a racist system that has it in for black families.

Perhaps one-parent white families do perform statistically better than one-parent black families across all of Cross’s data points, but what difference does that make? White or black, they are still more likely to be poor, less educated, and more susceptible to a tougher life.

Ian Rowe, senior visiting fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, takes Cross to task for her misguided analysis. Rowe points to data from the National Center for Education Statistics that shows the proportion of black children living in poverty decreases from 45% for mother-only households and 36% for father-only households to 12% for two-parent households.

Rowe also questions how Cross narrowly cites evidence to play down the importance of two-parent households for blacks while ignoring the broader issue of family structure for children of all races. Why does the problem have to be confined to one race? Non-marital births among white women under 24 numbered 238,000 in 2018, far higher than any other racial cohort.

Cross is right to be concerned about the issue of single-parent families, but by choosing to make a racial argument, she makes it that much more difficult to implement the real solution: A more stable family structure benefitting all children, no matter their skin color.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67871?mailing_id=4800&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4800&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Given that the anonymously sourced report came from CNN, which is less factually reliable than the satirical Babylon Bee, you can take this with a grain of salt. But the network reports, “The two agreed that if they ultimately faced each other as presidential candidates, they should remain civil and avoid attacking one another, so as not to hurt the progressive movement.”

“She could make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters,” CNN noted, adding, “commie-Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win.”

commie-Sanders called the CNN story “ludicrous,” turning his fire on Donald Trump, calling him “a sexist, a racist, and a liar.” But dinky/liar-Warren said, “Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.”

The other part of dinky/liar-Warren’s broadside came from Politico, which reported that the Sanders campaign is distributing volunteer talking points undermining Warren with phony kindness: “I like Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren. In fact, she’s my second choice. But here’s my concern about her.” She is the “candidate of the elite.” Feel the Bern.

This media hit job was such an obvious setup for tonight’s debate that it’s hard to take it seriously, especially when dinky/liar-Warren’s autobiography is so littered with victimis falsehoods. But a couple of things bear mentioning. For one thing, dinky/liar-Warren peaked too soon and has been steadily losing traction in the polls in recent weeks. She needs something — anything — to generate some buzz in advance of not only the debate but the February 3 Iowa caucuses, where she’s running fourth. The candidate most occupying “her lane” is commie-Sanders, which makes him a target despite whatever detente they agreed to two years ago.

The other notable thing here is the reminder that Democrats have nothing of substance to offer beyond socialism. If it’s not failed policy ideas, it’s Trump Derangement Syndrome and identity politics.  

 ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67887?mailing_id=4800&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4800&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Wolf also pushed back against critics who have asserted that it’s not new wall going up but just replacements of old wall. “One thing I want to emphasize: Every inch of the 100 miles that we have constructed is new border-wall system. It’s not so-called ‘replacement’ wall as some of our critics claim.” He justified his declaration with the example that replacing a one-bed shack with a new five-bedroom house would be called a “new” house, not a “replacement” house.

This milestone represents just the first step in the Trump administration’s plan to build an additional 900 miles of border wall. The Washington Post reports, “Pentagon funds would be extracted, for a second year in a row, from military construction projects and counternarcotics funding. According to the plans, the funding would give the government enough money to complete approximately 885 miles of new fencing by spring 2022, far more than the 509 miles the administration has slated for the U.S. border with Mexico.”

Meanwhile, this past December, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol apprehended or turned away 40,620 individuals attempting to illegally enter the country. That total is down a whopping 70% from a high of 144,000 last May and marks the seventh consecutive month of declining illegal crossing. Much of this can be credited to Trump’s multi-faceted approach to addressing the border crisis, which includes deals with Mexico and Central American countries to actively engage and deter illegal immigration in their countries, the new “remain in Mexico” asylum policy, and miles of new border wall.

In spite of all the Left’s opposition, Trump has clearly made significant headway on his signature campaign agenda.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67888?mailing_id=4800&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4800&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

On Thursday the House of Representatives passed a worthless resolution telling President Trump that he could not take out terrorists like Iranian General Qassem Soleimani without permission from Congress.

Why do I say the resolution is worthless? Because it was a purely symbolic, non-binding resolution with no legal impact. In fact, at least one House Democrat, Rep. Max Rose of New York, opposed the measure precisely because it was meaningless. Rose said:

Unfortunately, today’s War Powers resolution is a non-binding resolution that simply restates existing law… I refuse to play politics with questions of war and peace and therefore will not support this resolution.

Just like the impeachment fiasco, this is another example of progressives wasting time trying to score cheap political points rather than doing the people’s business. But liar-Pelosi’s resolution will be applauded in Tehran, where the mullahs are betting on Trump being restrained because of opposition like this.

Nevertheless, there was heated debate over the resolution. One statement that stood out to me was delivered by Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL). I recall first meeting Brian at a rally against the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. He was then a candidate for Congress, and I pledged to support his campaign.

Mast told his colleagues that Soleimani was a terrorist just like Osama bin Laden or al-Baghdadi. He noted that Soleimani’s super IEDs were responsible for burning our soldiers alive in their Humvees, for blowing their arms and legs off, and sending our young men home totally unrecognizable to their loved ones.

Mast said that we would have been justified in killing 100 Soleimanis for just one of our heroes he killed.

Of course, many conservatives made similar arguments Thursday. But they had much more power coming from Congressman Mast because as he stood to give those remarks, he wasn’t standing on his own legs, but on two artificial legs.

Prior to his election to Congress, Brian Mast served in the U.S. Army and lost both his legs to an IED blast in Afghanistan. As someone who literally sacrificed parts of his body for our country, Mast brings a much-needed perspective to debates about foreign policy and national security.

I have no doubt that our country is economically and militarily strong enough to deal with Iran. What I do worry about is whether we can overcome the moral rot that is so prevalent on the left today, with so many commentators and politicians sounding like apologists for the Iranian regime.

Soleimani Was No Elvis

If you need an example of the moral rot I described above, look no further than MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who waxed poetic about the dead terrorist, Qassem Soleimani. Here’s what he said on his show Wednesday night:

When some people die, you don’t know what the impact is going to be. When Princess Diana died there was a huge emotional outpouring. Elvis Presley in our culture. It turns out that this general [Trump] killed was a beloved hero of the Iranian people.

Here’s a reality check for Mr. Matthews and anyone else who needs it:

• President Trump said Thursday that we killed Soleimani because “they were looking to blow up our embassy.”

• The German newspaper Bild wrote this about Soleimani: “President Trump has freed the world of a monster whose aim in life was an atomic cloud over Tel Aviv.” (By the way, I took the opportunity during this week’s hearing of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to note how the Iranian regime is built on anti-Semitism and constantly threatening a second Holocaust against the state of Israel. Watch the exchange here.)

• Journalist Oz Katerji, who has written extensively on the Middle East, described Soleimani this way: “The only way to understand Qasem Soleimani’s legacy is to trace the trail of bloodshed in his wake across the Middle East… Soleimani made his mark through his unrestrained barbarity towards civilians in Syria and Iraq… Soleimani was brutal, merciless … slaughtering his way across the Middle East.”

That’s not the legacy of Princess Diana or Elvis Presley. Anyone who sees Soleimani as a “hero” is an enemy of the civilized world and should be prepared to meet a similar fate. Assuming, of course, that progressives like Chris Matthews aren’t responsible for protecting the civilized world.

liar-Pelosi Blinks

Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi announced Friday that she is planning to transmit the articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate next week. The speaker is facing growing pressure from within her own caucus to stop her stalling, and polling shows that the public is overwhelmingly against it.

Her announcement comes on the heels of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell signing on to a resolution to dismiss the articles of impeachment if they are delayed longer than 25 days.

Netflix’s Latest

Here’s Netflix’s latest contribution to our culture: “AJ And The Queen.” And no, I don’t mean the queen of England.

According to The Washington Post, the movie is about “a drag queen who takes on a 10 year-old runaway as a traveling companion while embarking on a cross-country trip in an attempt to open his own drag club.”

I think I can safely say that this movie is in a category all by itself. I was not aware that Americans were clamoring for a movie about a drag queen traveling the country with a young boy.

End of an ERA

Liberals all over America celebrated Wednesday as Democrats assumed full control of the Virginia government for the first time in a generation. But why would liberals in California care about what is happening in Richmond, Virginia?

Among other things, progressives are hoping to resuscitate the Equal Rights Amendment by getting Virginia to approve the ERA. That’s right — the same pro-abortion constitutional amendment that the late great Phyllis Schlafly battled back in the early 1970s is still kicking. Sort of.

If the Virginia General Assembly approves the ERA, it would become the 38th state to do so, precisely the number needed to ratify constitutional amendments. But there’s a catch.

When Congress passed the ERA in 1972, it included a time limit for the states to approve it. That time limit expired in 1982, but that’s not stopping the left from pursuing its radical pro-abortion agenda. Friday, a Virginia State Senate committee approved the Equal Rights Amendments.

Anticipating the left’s push to have Virginia ratify the ERA, the Justice Department issued an opinion this week officially declaring the ERA dead and prohibiting its recognition.

Now, just imagine for a minute that scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton had prevailed in November of 2016. Imagine that “Attorney General lowlife-Kamala Harris” or “Attorney General Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren” is running the Justice Department.

I guarantee that this week’s opinion on the ERA would have been very different, and the country would have been on the verge of abortion on demand being enshrined in our Constitution.

This is just one more example of the Trump/Pence team defending the values of men and women of faith. Just one more example of why it is so important for them to win four more years this November! 

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/67849?mailing_id=4798&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4798&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

According to a December 2019 analysis by the American Enterprise Institute’s Daniel Cox, four in 10 Millennials (individuals 23 to 38 years of age) cite that they are religiously unaffiliated. Writing around Pew Research data that point to the fact that this age group is a product of parents who raised their children without the influence or connection to religion or faith, Cox declares, “Millennials are leaving religion and not coming back.”

AEI’s own data show that 17% of Millennials surveyed acknowledged the absence of a faith-based belief system in their upbringing. Contrast that to only 5% of Baby Boomers — aged 55 to 75 years old — who reported a lack of a religious influence in their nurtured years. Further, just one in three Millennials noted attendance in a weekly religious service during their childhood compared to half of Baby Boomers.

Over the last 10 years, according to Pew, there has been a 12% decline in adults who identify as Christians with individuals who label themselves as having no particular beliefs at 26% and the aggregate of Christians down to 65%.

That Law of the Harvest is more than theory — seeds sown do bring forth a crop. Parents erroneously believing their hands-off manner permitted their offspring to find their own way and even pursue some “enlightened” value system honoring the Secular Trinity of Me, Myself, and I were instead sewing seeds that today demand an intellectual approach to faith rather than, well, simple faith to a simple Gospel of grace and the forgiveness of sin.

Inarguably, every single person has a belief system based on exposure to information or through experience. We all believe in something and adhere to some set of mores. It’s just a matter of the object of that belief system whether it’s the monotheistic God of the Judeo-Christian faith, or some other framework that drives a personal definition of morality.

And, that personal definition of morality is growing more relevant in not only the generational divide of faith but is literally dividing the flocks of the faithful and churches.

Look no further than the separation just announced in the Methodist denomination. The split is based on whether Holy Scripture is to be honored in sanctioning marriage as holy matrimony between one man and one woman — treated as a covenant modeled after Christ and His Bride the Church — or whether same-sex marriage is permitted. It’s a manifestation of cultural approvals transcending Biblical Truth. Some personally view same-sex marriage as without consequence and others say what God says, which is that sexual sin — of all sorts — is still sin, but still covered by grace when confessed.

The current split in the religion that was originally founded to reform the Church of England from within by John Wesley is, ironically, taking the similar path faced during the original days of Reformers in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Wesley’s teachings based on the “methodical” devotion and study applied to one’s life that all should have access to God’s salvation through love fell within the Protestant Reformation that declared that the Bible be the standard of teaching and worship.

Today, many Methodists have sacrificed the standard of Truth on the altar of personal whim.

So, in addition to parents without a commitment to faith raising children of the same philosophy, the cultural influences on the definition of right versus wrong have eclipsed the Gospel. But churches themselves have some responsibility in the loss of membership.

If teachings in the church say, “You’re ok, I’m ok, we’re all ok” and “We’ve got grace, so let’s just live as we so desire,” it is no different than the opinions shared at the neighborhood bar, nonprofit, or secular organization. Why would young adults need a community of faith when they’ll hear the same advice and opinions and get the same acceptance at their favorite watering hole among friends who will commiserate and honor the time-tested truth that misery loves company?

In a series on the decline of religion in America, The Washington Times wrote of doctoral candidate Rev. Stephen Koeth at Columbia University teaching one of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.‘s sermons, which included references to the road to Jericho and the Good Samaritan. Not only did the class have no knowledge of the dangerous setting of the famous parable of ministry, but they didn’t have any understanding of the basis of the parable itself — the Good Samaritan — whose actions transcended cultural and economic constructs.

Do you think this same group could articulate details about climate change or the need for “safe spaces” from harmful speech?

Again, those churches reflecting and echoing cultural norms and teaching a social-justice agenda rather than Truth from the Bible are not remarkable, inspirational, or courageous. But churches that do boldly teach the hope of Christ in each of us through the forgiveness of sin are indeed the beacons of light daring to say the same thing that God Himself says about our past, our present, and our future.

So where will Americans of all ages find their hope? The brilliant and fearless Paul sums it all up in Galatians 6:8, “For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.”   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67713?mailing_id=4783&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4783&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Meanwhile, what is Iran doing?

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani threatened, “The great nation of Iran will take revenge for this heinous crime.” That apparently includes placing an $80 million bounty on Trump’s head. We suppose the mullahs are using the cash Barack scumbsg/liar-nObama gave them to back that up.

Speaking of scumbag/liar-nObama, Tehran announced it’s officially abandoning his 2015 Iran nuclear deal — as if the mullahs were ever truly abiding by it. Besides, President Trump kept his promise to ditch the deal in 2018.

What is the U.S. doing?

Trump issued a counter threat to Iran: “If Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets …. we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!” This sent leftists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar caterwauling about Trump’s “war crimes” instead of presenting a united front against Iran, which should be a common enemy. Trump Derangement Syndrome is incredible.

What is Iraq doing?

Iraq’s parliament, over objections by the Trump administration, passed a nonbinding resolution demanding the remaining 5,300 U.S. troops in Iraq leave the nation. President Trump doesn’t want to do so until “they pay us back” for our “very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there.” If the Iraqis don’t pay up, Trump threatened “sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever.” We suspect that’s Trumpian bluster. Parliament’s move is a political facade giving some politicians cover with Iraqi factions; material changes in actual Iraqi policy are unlikely.

Trump did the right thing by taking out a murderous terrorist ringleader who had more power and influence than Osama bin Laden or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi at the time they were terminated. That doesn’t mean there won’t be reprisals, but it does mean an American president just stood up for America in an important way.   

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67716?mailing_id=4783&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4783&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body