A Most Difficult Decision

The headlines out of Israel this morning were jarring. A major hospital was hit by an Iranian missile. Incredibly, there were no deaths or serious injuries because the hospital wing that sustained the direct hit was evacuated yesterday. 

We need to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. We also need to pray for President Trump and his team as they discuss America’s role in this conflict. The White House announced today that the president is giving Iran one last chance to negotiate a deal, adding that the president will make his decision “within the next two weeks.”

Whether America directly helps Israel end the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran may very well be the most difficult and most consequential decision Donald Trump makes in his entire presidency.

I believe we need to stand with Israel for strategic and moral reasons. But no matter where you are on this, no one knows for certain what the consequences will be of either decision. 

Iran has already demonstrated the danger and threat of its ballistic missiles. Just imagine if one of those missiles carried a tactical nuclear warhead. Some argue that Iran would never use such a weapon, knowing it would mean their own destruction. Well, they’re forgetting who we’re dealing with. 

Death and destruction are central tenets of the ayatollah’s religion. Iran’s Islamic supremacists are trying to please their god by destroying Israel and the United States. That’s why the ayatollah wants nuclear weapons.

If you ask your child or grandchild what they want to be when they grow up, they may say they want to be a doctor, a police officer, or a professional athlete. But in radical parts of the Islamic world, a shocking number of children will say they want to be “a martyr for Allah.” 

This war did not begin last week. 

It began 46 years ago when Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in a bloody revolution. Ever since then, the goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been the destruction of Israel and “the Great Satan,” the United States. 

It is not in America’s interest to allow the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism to get its hands on the world’s most dangerous weapons.

Monumental Messes 

Here’s an observation I’m sure you understand, but maybe some of your friends and neighbors have forgotten. 

• President Trump is trying to deal with the illegal alien mess by trying to get them out of our country.
• President Trump is trying to deal with the inflation mess by enacting pro-growth energy and tax policies.
• President Trump has to deal with the Middle East mess by preventing Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. 

All three of these are monumental messes caused by the autopen president. Now Donald Trump is trying to clean them up.

The Real Danger

Former President Barack Obama took a break this week from producing content for Netflix to tell us that our democracy is in danger of slipping into authoritarianism. He said the courts, the Justice Department, and the American people must actively defend it.

Where do I begin?!

Since Obama is injecting himself into the national debate over our “democracy,” I want to remind you of a White House meeting he presided over in the waning days of his presidency. 

It was January 5, 2017. The meeting took place in the Oval Office. Then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI Director James Comey, Vice President Joe Biden, CIA Director John Brennan, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper were there.

After an initial briefing, Brennan and Clapper left, while the rest of the gang stayed behind to discuss something really important: How to keep the Russia collusion hoax going. 

The hoax was initially hatched by Hillary Clinton and her campaign operatives to smear Donald Trump as “Putin’s puppet.” But when it failed to defeat him at the ballot box, Democrats didn’t give up; they created a Plan B. 

It was at Obama’s January 5th meeting that this cabal decided to investigate and take down incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn over his alleged Russian connections. When Obama gave Comey the green light, the Russia collusion hoax was put on steroids. 

The purpose wasn’t to find any foreign collusion. The FBI knew the Steele dossier was Clinton campaign garbage. The point was to keep spying on Donald Trump, paralyzing his presidency with false accusations while they looked for anything they could use to bring him down.

But now Barack Obama is worried that our “democracy is in danger,” even though he was part of the conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election. 

Everything the Left does is calculated to gain power, even if it means the American people lose confidence in our constitutional republic. If you cared about our republic:

• You wouldn’t open our borders.
• You wouldn’t fight every attempt to ensure fair elections.
• You wouldn’t attack free speech and demand censorship.
• You wouldn’t enthusiastically use an iron fist against citizens during COVID.
• You wouldn’t spy on parents and churches.
• You wouldn’t suppress the truth.
• You wouldn’t persecute your political opponents.
• You wouldn’t incite or defend political violence.

It is laughable that these neo-Marxist “progressives” think they are in any position to lecture us and our president about “defending democracy.” They are the ones putting our “democracy” – our constitutional republic – in danger by attacking every right we have. 

By the way, Barack Obama was the first president who routinely “forgot” the most important line of the Declaration of Independence. Whenever he referred to all men being equal and our unalienable rights, Obama always left out our “Creator” – the God of the Bible. 

It wasn’t an accident. He skipped over it time and time again. He went to a church with a radical pastor who said, “God d--n America.” He was friends with Louis Farrakhan.

What They Said

The left-wing media are in a complete meltdown over yesterday’s blockbuster Supreme Court decision. They are describing it as “a bitter setback,” “a huge setback,” “a stunning setback,” and “a major blow.”

So, given these hysterical headlines, I thought it might be useful to review what the justices said about protecting children from chemical castration and surgical mutilation. 

It’s worth noting that the ACLU and others challenging the law DID NOT sue over transgender surgeries. They knew any discussion of those grotesque procedures was a sure loser. They only challenged the state’s ban on puberty blockers as sex discrimination. 

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his 6 to 3 majority opinion, rejected that argument, writing that “the plaintiffs . . . contort the meaning of the term ‘medical treatment.’”

Citing the growing evidence that “gender-affirming care” lacks any real scientific basis, Roberts affirmed Tennessee’s compelling state interest in the welfare of its children to define how puberty blockers can and cannot be used. 

Roberts acknowledged that some boys may need medical treatments that include puberty blockers and some girls may medically need estrogen. But preventing boys from accessing estrogen treatments that are not medically necessary is not sex discrimination. 

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas blasted the so-called “consensus of experts.” Whether it’s climate change, COVID, or mutilating children, the “consensus of experts” is routinely used to shut down debate and enforce the “experts’” dogma. 

Thomas noted several problems with deferring to the experts:

• They are not entitled to countermand the ‘wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.’
• Whether young children can really consent to irreversible treatments is a matter of medical ethics for state legislatures to decide.
• There is no consensus on how to treat gender dysphoria in children.
• There is evidence that ideology, not science, determined the “consensus.”

Thomas concluded his opinion with this statement:

“This case carries a simple lesson: In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct. Deference to legislatures, not experts, is particularly critical here.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has disappointed conservatives recently, raised a critical constitutional point. 

In her concurring opinion, she noted that to be considered a legally privileged or protected class, the court examines whether the group in question exhibits “obvious, immutable or distinguishing characteristics.”

Alluding to the “fluidity” of gender identity, the fact that transgender procedures are about radical change, and the fact that some people detransition or change back to their biological sex, Barrett concluded that trans individuals do not meet the test of “immutable characteristics.”

In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito reiterated Barrett’s argument on “immutable characteristics” by quoting the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In a 1996 majority opinion, Ginsburg wrote that the “physical differences between men and women . . . are enduring” and the “inherent differences between men and women” are “cause for celebration.”

To be clear, this ruling has no effect on Blue states. If we could ask only one question to determine whether a state protects its children from trans ideology, it would be, “Who has the majority in the legislature?” 

Speaking Of Legislatures. . . 

Oregon’s Democrat-dominated state House of Representatives began yesterday’s session with a drag queen performance on the House floor. The “good news” is that the drag queens weren’t at a school or public library reading to little children.