ACTION

“Great nations do not fight endless wars,” President Trump declared in his State of the Union address. It was a line that could have been delivered by President Barack scumbag/liar-nObama, who in 2015 memorably said, “I do not support the idea of endless war.”

Just a few days before Trump’s address, his own party delivered the president a stinging rebuke when Senate Republicans passed a resolution opposing his Syrian and Afghan withdrawals by an overwhelming bipartisan 68-to-23 vote. Trump’s defenders say: That’s just the foreign policy establishment advocating “forever war.” When, they ask, will these wars end? When will we be able to declare victory and go home?

These are fair questions, and they deserve serious answers.

In traditional wars, defining victory is easy. Victory comes when the enemy surrenders and lays down its arms. But this is not traditional war. We are not fighting nation-states with defined borders and armies, navies and air forces. We are fighting radical Islamist terrorists who are engaged in what Osama bin Laden called “a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam.” There will be no signing ceremony on the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri. They will never lay down their arms. In this war, victory for the United States is every day that passes without a terrorist attack on American soil. And that daily victory is made possible because the men and women of the U.S. military are hunting the enemy in faraway lands.

America’s enemies have a very clear definition of victory. For them, victory comes when we give up the fight before they do. We know this because they have told us so. The 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told his CIA interrogator “Americans don’t realize we do not need to defeat you militarily; we only need to fight long enough for you to defeat yourself by quitting.” That is how the terrorists see scumbag/liar-nObama’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 and Trump’s planned withdrawals from Syria and Afghanistan: America defeating itself by quitting.

It is understandable that, after 18 years, Americans want the war to end. But what we want is irrelevant. We don’t get to decide unilaterally that the war is over. The enemy gets a vote. Just because we have tired of fighting doesn’t mean that they have.

Here is the hard truth: We don’t get to choose when the war ends, but we do get to choose where it is fought. It can either be fought over there, in the deserts of Syria and the mountains of Afghanistan, or it can be fought over here — on American streets and in American cities, as it was on Sept. 11, 2001. It’s up to us.

Trump deserves enormous credit for taking the gloves off in the fight against the terrorists. He was absolutely correct when he declared in the State of the Union address, “When I took office, ISIS controlled more than 20,000 square miles in Iraq and Syria. Today, we have liberated virtually all of that territory from the grip of these bloodthirsty monsters.” But the Islamic State is not defeated. It still has tens of thousands of fighters under arms and, according to one estimate by the Institute for the Study of War, as much as $400 million it smuggled out of Iraq, money that can be used to sustain its movement and plan attacks across the world.

In Afghanistan, U.S. intelligence estimates there are about 20 terrorist groups — including al-Qaeda and the Islamic State affiliate known as Islamic State Khorasan, or IS-K — who would immediately gain an uncontested sanctuary from which to plan new attacks if America withdraws. On Jan. 28, the New York Times reported that a 2017 intelligence assessment, renewed last year, “says a complete withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan would lead to an attack on the United States within two years.”

Right now, the U.S. military has its boot on the terrorists’ necks. They are focused on survival, not on launching faraway attacks. Take that boot away, though, and the terrorists will get up, dust themselves off, regroup, rebuild and go back to trying to kill Americans in the United States.

In his address, Trump praised the heroism of the men who stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-Day. “They did not know if they would survive the hour,” he said. “They did not know if they would grow old. But they knew that America had to prevail.”

The same is true today. Great nations do not quit before they prevail.  ~The Patriot Post

On D-Day, all those warriors set out on their mission of liberation. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt led our nation in prayer. In a national radio address, President Roosevelt began with these solemn words: “Almighty God, our sons, the pride of our nation, on this day have set upon a mighty endeavor: A struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion and our civilization.”

Since the founding of our nation, many of our greatest strides — from gaining our independence to abolition, from civil rights to extending the vote to women — have been led by people of faith and started in prayer. When we open our hearts to faith, we fill our hearts with love.

Many of the people in this room lead and support the charities and faith-based institutions that bring hope to the lives of our citizens, comfort to those in despair and solace to those in grief, aid to those in need and a helping hand to struggling people all around the world.

And then, as Democrats around the nation rush to quash life in the womb, Trump stood up for the most innocent among us:

As part of our commitment to building a just and loving society, we must build a culture that cherishes the dignity and sanctity of innocent human life. All children born and unborn are made in the holy image of God.

Every life is sacred and every soul is a precious gift from Heaven. As the Lord says in Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart.”

He closed with a call for unity similar to that in his State of the Union Address:

We are blessed to live in a land of faith where all things are possible. … On Tuesday, I asked Americans to choose greatness. … Greatness for our country and to renew our love and loyalty to one another as friends, as citizens, as neighbors, as patriots and as Americans.

There could no better way to begin this exciting national adventure than the way America has always begun our greatest adventures — by coming together in prayer. So today and every day, let us pray for the future of our country.

Let us pray for the courage to pursue justice and the wisdom to forge peace. Let us pray for a future where every child has a warm, safe and loving home.

Let us come together for the good of our people, for the strength of our families, for the safety of our citizens. … And let us always give thanks for the miracle of life, the majesty of creation and the grace of Almighty God.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/61043?mailing_id=4067&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4067&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

As Mark Alexander has noted, the so-called “climate change” agenda is all about socialist economic control, as evident in the insane requirements of the GND. According to Alexander, “It may be green on the outside, but is is red on the inside.”

Written as a resolution rather than a bill, the GND reads as a laundry list of socialistic changes attached to the overriding goal of combating climate change by making America 100% dependent on “clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources … by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources [and] deploying new capacity.” Along the way, a second chief goal of the GND is to empower “frontline and vulnerable communities,” also known as the victim class.

While those on the extreme Left — including Vox writer David Roberts, who in December authored an extremely long treatise on the GND’s origins and eventual goals — were  pleased to see the concept come to life, Roberts and others like him also know that the resolution left a lot of blanks to be filled by actual legislation.

One comparison for the GND could be made to the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is described by author Michael Grunwald as its own “ginormous energy bill.” A significant part of that “stimulus” money went to renewable energy and efficiency projects. But while best known for its support of failed green-energy companies like Solyndra and Ener1, it also created a large funding pool that lifted the solar- and wind-energy industries to the modest market share they now own.

Most of the 2020 Democrat presidential contenders were already behind the Green New Deal in concept, but its introduction allowed them to prove their environmental bonafides. Sen. scumbag-Cory Booker was “excited” to join in, adding, “Our history is a testimony to the achievement of what some think is impossible — we must take bold action now.” Fellow Senator and GND co-sponsor lowlife-Kamala Harris insisted, “We must aggressively tackle climate change which poses an existential threat to our nation.” Not to be outdone, Sen. Elizabeth dinky-Warren chimed in, “Climate change is real, it threatens all of us, & we have no time to waste to address it head-on.” She’ll also co-sponsor the resolution, which becomes a perfect palette from which these contenders can paint their own proposals to oppose President Donald Trump.

There was one contender with a more serious policy idea, though. Former Congressman John Delaney, who came from a business background and left Congress at the end of last term to concentrate fully on his long-shot Oval Office run, made the case that “the right answer on climate is to do whatever big thing can get done ASAP. … That’s why I support my bipartisan carbon tax-dividend proposal.” In fact, revenue sources such as a carbon tax aren’t being discussed in this rendition of the GND. Nor does the resolution explicitly call for the elimination of fossil fuels as some extremists would prefer. Adding the aspect of “clean” energy allows the inclusion of natural gas, which is generally accepted as a clean fuel. Fracking for it, on the other hand…

While there were compromises and large parts of the plan open for interpretation, the GND is still getting a cool reception from Democrat leadership. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?” asked House Speaker Nancy Pulosi somewhat dismissively. “Quite frankly, I haven’t seen it,” she added, “but I do know it’s enthusiastic and we welcome all the enthusiasm that is out there.”

Translation: She knows it’s pretty extreme, so just wait for her moderated “compromise” offer. By the way, Pulosi also pointedly did not choose commie-Ocasio-Cortez for a new committee on climate change.

Last month, our Brian Mark Weber called out the Green New Deal for what it really is: “a dangerous scam to destroy the country as we know it.”

Republicans, for their part, should certainly lampoon the GND’s most laughable parts — such as its promise of “economic security for those unable or unwilling to work” or “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States … to achieve maximal energy efficiency” or “build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary” or to “replace every combustion-engine vehicle” (emphasis ours) — but they must be on guard for those aspects that seem somewhat reasonable by comparison.

We can’t dismiss the chance that some portions of the GND will make it through Congress or be executive-ordered by a future president. After all, people thought scumbag/liar-HillaryCare didn’t stand a chance when it was unveiled in 1993 and failed in a fully Democrat-controlled Congress. But a quarter-century later, Republicans controlled both houses and the White House and still couldn’t get rid of its successor. If nothing else, history shows that leftists are masters of incrementalism, especially when they conjure up a crisis and claim that only they can solve it.

Let’s be mindful of that history when the sun comes out tomorrow and provides its live-giving (albeit unevenly applied) brand of global warming.  ~The Patriot Post