Who Is Victor Davis Hanson?

My VIP for this week is Victor Davis Hanson who is recovering from major cancer surgery to remove a malignant tumor from his lung. Recovery has taken a little longer because there were complications, including emergency surgery for an arterial bleed. The word is that he is recovering well as well as grateful for all the support that he has received during his recovery.

In his article published at The Daily Signal, Hanson discusses “Trump’s ‘Wars of Reckoning’ Send a Message to Iran, China, and Beyond.” 

Hanson is a historian, and he sees current events through the lens of history. He has watched how Trump runs a war and says that there is “a general pattern” for “a Trump way of war.”

·        [Geostrategic]

One thing that’s central to all of his action is they’re geostrategic. Pressuring the Panamanians to divorce themselves from China. Making sure the Venezuelan oil does not go to Russia or China by changing the government and kidnapping, capturing, Nicolas Maduro.

Things like that suggest that the current Iranian operation has targeted China, but it’s a major supplier of Chinese oil. China’s one of the biggest, if not the biggest, supplier of consumer goods, material goods to Iran. It supplies weaponry to Iran, and Iran has become a client more of China now than Russia. And it may be lost to China as Venezuela was, and maybe Panama was.

·        [Settling Old Scores]

You’re starting to see a pattern. These are wars of reckoning. People say, “Well, why are we attacking Iran?” and Trump’s way of reasoning, he’s settling up old scores. Panama was getting away with murder through a previous administration, maybe including his own, by stationing or allowing the Chinese to have strategic locations on the Panama Canal.

It was time to say, “No more.” Maduro was getting away with literally murder. Sending drugs, working with the cartels into the United States, sending hardened criminals into the United States as well, illegal aliens. And it was time to say, “You’re not going to cause a Castroite Latin American Communist Revolution. We’re going to stop it.”

And it was past time in Trump’s way of thinking. All of these wars are in that way. Same thing with Iran. They have killed more Americans, as we all have been told, than any other terrorist clique or operation. Going back even before the Iran-Iraq war, before our incursions in the Gulf War.

At the very beginning that government was birthed on the idea of taking American hostages and then subsequently blowing up our embassy, blowing up Marine barracks, involvement in Khobar Towers, using proxies like Hezbollah to hijack planes, assassinate Americans.

It was time, in other words, to even up the score. These take place during negotiations.

·        [Negotiation]

Notice that Trump was negotiating with Iranians during the summer hit on their nuclear facilities. He was negotiating with them in this current war. He was negotiating with the Venezuelans, and that is his characteristic.

He’s saying to these different entities, “I want a peaceful solution.” And even if he didn’t want a peaceful solution, the idea that he is negotiating lessens the criticism that they are preemptive, or preventative, optional wars. In other words, he can say, “Well, I wanted to make peace, but the negotiations broke down.” 

[Top-Down Attacks]

Notice their top-down attacks. They go after Qasem Soleimani in the first term, or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or they go after Maduro or they go after Ali Khamenei. The idea is, everybody in the world should be on notice…. Of course, there’s no nation-building….

·      [No cultural imperialism]

There’s no cultural imperialism. No desire to say we were going to make democracies all over the Middle East. We’re not going to do that, and therefore, we’re not going to have boots on the ground … unless emergencies.

·         [Weird Exit Strategy]

There’s a weird exist strategy too that Donald Trump has in all of these. He determines when the war starts and when it ends….

·         [No UN Involvement]

An eighth aspect of the Trump way of war: There’s no effort to go to the United Nations. No United Nations, no International Criminal Court, no EU consultation. … nobody talked about NATO….

·         [Showcases U.S. Arms]

Nine, there are show cases for U.S. arms…. Everybody’s talking about the greatest, biggest, strongest warship in the history of civilization, the Gerald R. Ford….

·         [America First]

And finally, there’s no, I don’t know how to put it, but he’s not hiding U.S. self-interest. Of course, he talks about it’ll be much better for the greater Middle East, but we wouldn’t have gone to war if it hadn’t been for U.S. interest.

And what is U.S. interest? We’re sick and tired of the Iranians attacking our allies, but more importantly, as the biggest killer of Americans. We don’t want them to hijack planes anymore. We don’t want them to stage assassination attempts in New York or in Washington against either dissidents or foreign entities like the Saudi ambassador.

We don’t like them to capture hostages and torture them. We don’t like them sending lethal arms to kill Americans as they did during the Iraq war. We don’t want them to kidnap people in foreign countries or in Iran and hold them as hostages. We’re just sick of it. And it’s in our interest, in Trump’s way of war, to end it….

… War doesn’t change because human nature is immutable….

But how do you do it? What are the tactics? What is the strategy? What is the weaponry? Have change, and no one has changed them more than Donald Trump.

 

When Does Protest Break the Law or Become Terrorism?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the question: when do constitutionally protected protests turn into crime or terrorism? Simon Hankinson asked, and then answered, this question in his article published at The Daily Signal.

When does protest start to break the law – or even become terrorism?

I’ll define terrorism as using violence to achieve political aims. Most criminals are not terrorists. So, who is? Let’s start with some easy ones.

The Irish Republican Army, Italy’s Red Brigades, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization all murdered and bombed military and civilian targets in pursuit of political goals. At the risk of oversimplifying, these were: ending British rule, establishing a Marxist-Leninist state, and creating a Palestinian state, respectively.

The goals of 1960s radical youth groups such as the Weather Underground in the U.S. and the Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany were more vague; the overthrow of what they saw as the capitalist, imperialist, fascist countries they lived in; maybe world revolution. But still, terrorism.

Today, the Left intentionally makes things appear fuzzier. The 2020 demonstrations, looting, and violence in the wake of the death of George Floyd were not terrorism. We saw plenty of violence, and it was clearly political, but there was not a unified, clearly articulated goal. There was no list of things that the government of Portland, or Minneapolis, or even the federal government could have conceded that would have ended the whole thing and sent everyone home. It was inchoate rage against a vague, “oppressive” system with no specific or achievable policy proposals.

Now let’s look at the recent organized demonstrations against immigration enforcement.

In much of the country, ICE is going about its business of enforcing federal law. It is arresting aliens with no right to be here, many of whom have serious criminal charges or convictions. The most crucial assistance ICE needs is for local jurisdictions to honor their “detainers.” This means handing over criminal suspects or convicts, once their criminal process is complete, to ICE for immigration process.

In some major jurisdictions that refuse to do this, we see street violence: Los Angeles, Portland, and most of all Minneapolis….

Much of the conduct we have seen in Minneapolis is not “free speech” protected by the First Amendment. The protesters are not attempting to change anyone’s mind through discourse when they bang on pots at 3 in the morning. They are trying to change policy through physical means….

Activists follow ICE agents in their vehicles, claiming to be “legal observers,” but they also cross into deliberate obstruction, which puts them at risk. It’s also a felony under federal law: anyone who “forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with” a federal agent can be charged and sentenced to up to eight years – 20 if they hurt an officer.

What about real or self-appointed journalists?

On Jan. 18, a group of people, including ex-CNN personality Don Lemon, entered a Minneapolis church, uninvited, during a service. At an agreed point, they broke into protest chants. They reportedly impeded church members from worshipping, moving freely, or exiting the building. Protest leaders berated the pastor and some church members. They did not leave after being clearly told they were not welcome….

Churches are private property….

No one’s right to speak freely trumps another person’s right to private property or to worship God. If it did, then any person could enter another’s house, office, or property and stage a protest without limits….

Though he was obnoxious and unwelcome, Lemon was not violent. He is potentially liable for trespass, which is a local offence….

The Minneapolis church invaders are potentially liable for federal crimes under the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances Act [FACE Act] and even the Ku Klux Klan Act….

A federal court will decide if Lemon and others broke the law by attempting to coerce political action through force. While the punishment need not be severe if this is their first offence, we need to lay down a national marker at the limits of acceptable behavior when we disagree with others politically.

We cannot allow individuals to force others to accept their views….

How Have You Let God Prevail in Your Life?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Genesis 24-33 in a lesson titled “Let God Prevail.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

How do you secure for yourself a blessing from God? You might say that the account of Jacob, grandson of Abraham and Sarah, is the story of a man who learned the answer to that question. In a culture where the firstborn son received a birthright blessing, Jacob was born second, grasping the heel of his twin brother, Esau. The name “Jacob” means “supplanter”—one who replaces someone else. Jacob lived up to that name by trying, more than once, to supplant Esau as inheritor of the birthright blessing because Esau was unworthy of it (see Genesis 25:30-34; 26:34-35; 27:36). The result was discord in the family, and Jacob had to flee for his life into the wilderness.

Years later, God commanded Jacob to return home. On the way, Jacob, in humility, again sought a blessing from God. The scriptures describe this time as a “wrestle” for Jacob, and he declared that he would not give up “except thou bless me” (Genesis 32:26). Then came the lesson—and the blessing. God changed Jacob’s name to Israel—meaning, among other things, “let God prevail.” Israel learned that to receive God’s most valuable blessings, His covenant blessings, it’s not necessary to supplant someone else. His blessings aren’t purchased or seized or won. He gives them freely to all who live up to the name of Israel—who let God prevail in their lives.

The scripture block teaches numerous lessons, including the following: (1) Covenant marriage is essential to God’s eternal plan (Genesis 24); (2) I can value eternal things over temporal things (Genesis 25:29-34); (3) The covenants of the Lord’s house bring God’s power into my life (Genesis 28); (4) The Lord remembers me in my trials (Genesis 29:31-35; 30:1-24); (5) The Savior can heal my family (Genesis 32-33). This essay will discuss principle #5.

The story of Jacob and Esau is a story of forgiveness. Esau was the elder son who should have received the birthright. However, he sold his birthright to Jacob for a pot of porridge. Then their father Isaac confirmed with a priesthood blessing that the birthright belonged to Jacob.

The mother, Rebekkah, was afraid that Esau would kill Jacob, so she sent Jacob to live with her brother a long distance away. Jacob was there for at least fourteen years. Through some “palace intrigue” Jacob first married Leah, the older sister, and later married Rachel, the woman that he loved. Leah had lots of children, but Rachel did not have any. Therefore, Rachel gave her handmaid to Jacob as a wife to bear children for her. Then Leah gave her concubine to Jacob. Therefore, Jacob had four wives, twelve sons, and at least one daughter when he returned to Canaan. However, he was fearful of his brother Esau.

Jacob planned to give many animals to Esau to placate him, but he discovered that Esau was already a rich man and had forgiven his brother. The two men and their families lived in peace.

After telling the story of Jesus Christ healing the daughter of Jairus, President Howard W. Hunter taught the following. 

“And [Jairus] besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death.” This is typical of what happens frequently when a man comes to Christ, not so much for his own need, but because of the desperate need of a loved one. The tremor we hear in Jairus’s voice as he speaks of “My little daughter” stirs our souls with sympathy as we think of this man of high position in the synagogue on his knees before the Savior.

Then comes a great acknowledgement of faith: “I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.” These are not only the words of faith of a father torn with grief but are also a reminder to us that whatever Jesus lays his hands upon lives. If Jesus lays his hands upon a marriage, it lives. If he is allowed to lay his hands on the family, it lives. (Emphasis added.)

How Do We Protect the Mental Health of the Rising Generation?

Children and youth are stronger when they limit their time on social media, and strong members of the rising generation strengthen their families, communities, states, and nations. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TENN.) is working to get a bill into law to protect young users of social media. She recently called out Big Tech, specifically Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and accused “social media companies of harming young users.” 

The timing is interesting because Blackburn’s remarks come as “20-year-old Kaley G.M. is suing Meta and Google’s YouTube” in Los Angeles County Superior Court. “She accuses the companies of designing addictive and harmful platforms that have negatively impacted her mental health.” However, “Zuckerberg continues to deny these accusations.”

The case is part of a growing national debate over whether social media companies should be legally responsible for how their platforms affect teens’ mental health.

Blackburn said on the Senate floor regarding this case, “New court documents that were made public … revealed that nearly 1 in 5 – 1 in 5 – young teenagers have reported seeing nudity or sexual images on Instagram that they did not want to see.”

The impact of these social media platforms has shown to worsen anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.

Zuckerberg denies that his platform increases mental health risks….

Blackburn also noted that when Zuckerberg testified, downplaying the accusations, he did so within feet of the parents of children who have tragically lost their lives from social media.

“Last year, Meta spent roughly $20 million fighting the Kids Online Safety Act.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Blackburn are sponsors of the Kids Online Safety Act. The legislation would protect minors from social media, video games, and other platforms by requiring safeguards for users under 17.

Annie Chestnut Tutor, a policy analyst for the Center for Technology and the Human Person at The Heritage Foundation, said, “The revised KOSA requires platforms to obtain verifiable parental consent for research for children older than 13. This robust measure provides parents with greater autonomy over how Big Tech companies may use their children’s information.

She added, “KOSA empowers parents by giving them the final say in their child’s privacy and account settings.” …

She explained that an earlier version of the Kids Online Safety Act passed “the Senate on a 91-to-3 vote. It has a veto-proof majority.” However, it never passed the House before the last congressional session ended.

Contact your Congressional representative and convince them to vote for KOSA. Our children and youth deserve protection of their mental health.

Why Did Trump Team Give Up on Negotiation with Iran?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns safety and security in the world. One reason for lack of peace in the Middle East for many years is the unwillingness of Iran leaders to want peace. They have been at war with the United States since 1979 when they took Americans hostage for more than a year. They continue to proclaim, “Death to America!” It was obvious to all honest observers that Iran did not want peace.

President Donald Trump and his administration tried hard to negotiate with Iran negotiators. However, they determined that Iran “was not acting in good faith,” according to an article by Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell published at The Daily Signal. 

In a call with reporters on Tuesday, an administration official said that Iran had attempted to drag out negotiations over its nuclear program and delayed the Americans’ request for a detailed proposal before the U.S. decided to act with Israel and strike Iranian military and political targets this weekend.

During several rounds of talks between representatives of the two countries, Iran had maintained it did not intend to build a nuclear weapon, but it had enriched uranium far beyond the level needed for civilian energy use and close to the level needed for a bomb, Reuters reported.

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, one of the diplomats involved in the talks, told CBS News last week following the third round of talks that the Iranians were willing to minimize enrichment, forgo stockpiling nuclear material, and allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspections.

However, the administration said it learned that Iranians were hiding their nuclear enrichment program underground. The regime claimed it used its Tehran Research Reactor for civil purposes, but negotiators determined Iran was stockpiling fuel to later use to create a weapon….

The U.S. offered the Iranians free nuclear fuel to use for their civilian nuclear program, but the Iranians declined, saying enrichment is a national, “inalienable” right, an administration official said Tuesday.

“We said to them that you may deem that to be your right,” the official said. “We deem our right the ability to stop that, and we’re going to stop it, and we’re not going to allow it.”

Negotiators demanded that the Iranians have their facility above ground, and the Iranians shot back that it could then be bombed.

“If there’s nothing nefarious being done there, then, then you shouldn’t be worried about a bomb,” an official said. “So, it was one of these things where just everything was just trying to create a construct that would give them the capabilities and materials they needed in the future to produce nuclear weapons.” …

“It was very clear they were just trying to buy time in order to preserve whatever they could, to get past the term of President [Donald] Trump, in order to get a nuclear weapon,” the official said, “and if they wanted to do a peaceful nuclear program, or kind of a real deal, we offered them many ample opportunities to do that, and they kept getting in their own way, probably intentionally, in order not to do that.” …

It was the role of the negotiators to determine if a deal could be made. They came back and reported to the president that Iran was “basically playing games,” so a deal would be difficult….

Obviously, President Trump was not willing to play games with the Iranians, so he gave approval for the military operation against Iran. Iran is certainly seeing the consequences of trying to play games with Trump.

Is This War Just About Iran, or Is There More to the Equation?

Iran has been threatening and/or attacking America and Americans for nearly fifty years. Every U.S. President from Jimmy Carter to Joe Biden drew red lines and then allowed Iran to cross them. Now they have formed an axis with Russia, China, and North Korea.

After trying to negotiate with Iran for months, President Donald Trump recognized that Iran was using the negotiations to stall the US while using the time to build more ballistic missiles. Trump said, “no more,” and then approved “a decisive military strike last weekend that targeted hundreds of sites and eliminated key figures in Iran’s top leadership.”

Glenn Beck and Jack Carr, former Navy SEAL and bestselling author, unpacked “what this pivotal moment truly means for the region and beyond.” A portion of the discussion is below, but you can link for more information here. 

When he first heard the news that the U.S. and Israel had launched a joint military attack on Iran, Carr’s initial reaction was one of “sadness.”

“It made me sad because diplomacy had failed,” he says, arguing that Trump’s maximum-pressure campaign against Iran was doomed to fail because acquiescence to any of the three non-negotiables – no nuclear weapons, no ballistic missiles, and no supporting terrorist proxies – would make the Iranian regime look “weak,” something it cannot suffer if it wants to stay in power.

“Any covert action we’d attempted over the last year or in previous administrations over the past decades, that has failed also, and now we’re in a full-scale military engagement with Iran,” he laments.

Glenn agrees wholeheartedly: “Jimmy Carter said, ‘This can’t stand.’ … Ronald Reagan said, ‘They got to stop.’ … H.W. Bush, ‘It’s got to stop. They got to get to the negotiating table.’ Clinton said that, W. Bush said that, Obama said that, Trump said that in the first term, Biden said that.”

“I mean, at some point you’re like, this is insane. We’ve tried giving them billions of dollars; we’ve tried holding money back; we’ve tried carrots and sticks, and nothing works,” he continues, calling Trump “the first one to say, ‘I’m not kicking the can down to the next president. It’s over.’”

“Some of [those former presidents] actually helped Iran get either more powerful or gave them more options when it came to building up these different weapons  programs, to crushing any popular uprising or protests. So I’m not surprised that we got to this point,” Carr says.

“When people declare war on you and tell you that they want to destroy you, you probably don’t want that person to have a nuclear weapon or to have options that can lead to your demise,” he adds.

But Glenn thinks this military operation against Iran is “much bigger” than preventing the terrorist regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“This is about Trump redesigning the entire world and going after CRINK,” he says, arguing that Trump is aiming to “take the I” out of CRINK, “which hurts oil for China, hurts money through oil for Russia,” and weakens Iran’s supply of drones to Russia.

“To look at this just as Iran, I think you’ll never understand why we did this. Do you believe that’s true, or am I wrong?” he asks.

“You’re absolutely right,” Carr says.

He explains that Trump’s military strike on Iran disrupts China’s crucial economic and technological lifeline to the regime. China buys huge amounts of discounted Iranian oil to evade U.S. sanctions and has committed $400 billion over 25 years to Iran – including selling advanced surveillance technology that helps the Iranian government monitor and suppress its own people.

By weakening or breaking this support, the U.S. not only destabilizes Iran’s regime but also frees up American attention and resources to address bigger long-term threats – confronting China over Taiwan (the island China clams as its own) and the tiny but vital computer chips known as semiconductors (the essential “brains” powering phones, computers, cars, AI systems, and military equipment), most of which are produced in Taiwan – while also handling threats from Russia.

“So you’re exactly right. This is not just about Iran,” he says.

What Is the Weapon of Surprise Being Used Against Iran?

In a strange twist of fate, Iran is getting a taste of its own medicine. Iran provided Russia with drones in Ukraine, and the United States reversed engineered them to use in Iran. Carlos Garcia reported the following in his article published at The Blaze. 

The Pentagon said that Iran is getting pummeled by suicide drones using technology that Iran itself developed and used against U.S. allies, including Ukraine.

The U.S. attacked leaders and commanders of the Iranian regime in a joint operation with Israeli forces beginning Saturday morning. President Donald Trump said Monday that the operation was planned to last four weeks but that the military was prepared to continue “for as long as necessary.”

“CENTCOM’s Task Fore Scorpion Strike – for the first time in history – is using one-way attack drones in combat during Operation Epic Fury. These low-cost drones, modeled after Iran’s Shahed drones, are now delivering American-made retribution,” reads a statement from U.S. Central Command.

The LUCAS drone was developed by Arizona-based SpektreWorks and costs about $35,000 each, which is significantly less than other options.