As Scott Adams points out, President Trump has broken a number of things “that probably needed to be broken.” One of those is ISIS.
Fox News reports:
ISIS has lost 98 percent of the territory it once held — with half of that terror group’s so-called “caliphate” having been recaptured since President Trump took office less than a year ago, U.S. military officials said Tuesday.
It is amazing what a little fortitude can accomplish.
As Mark Steyn points out, Roy Moore didn’t lose because of the allegations against him, he lost because he had to run against both the Democrats and Republicans.
Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, and their congressional friends aren’t alone in their opposition to anything that would help President Trump and flyover America from wresting control of the government. They are joined by the deepest of the deep state in the CIA and FBI.
David Stockman lists some of the culprits:
They include John Brennan, Jim Comey, Sally Yates, Peter Strzok and a passel of deep state operatives — all of whom baldly abused their offices. After Brennan had concocted the whole Russian election meddling meme to sully the Donald’s shocking election win, the latter three holdovers — functioning as a political fifth column in the new Administration — set a perjury trap designed to snare Mike Flynn as a first step in relitigating and reversing the voters’ verdict.
The smoking gun on their guilt is so flamingly obvious that the ability of the Trump-hating media to ignore it is itself a wonder to behold.
My dad fought in the Philippines during WW II as an infantryman in the 24th Infantry Division. He left some nice memorabilia behind; my son William has really become interested in it lately—you ought to see him with a Japanese fighter pilot’s fur-lined leather helmet strapped to his head!
So that got me searching around the Internet for information about my dad’s service. I found the story below my dad wrote about Private First Class James Diamond, who was awarded (posthumously) the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions in May 1945.
My dad can be seen in the photo to the right. It was taken during better times, in the winter of 1945-46 in Okayama, Japan, where my dad was part of the occupation forces in Japan. The story he wrote below, however, took place earlier in 1945 when he was at Mintal, on the island of Mindanao. The campaign on Mindanao ran just about up to the war’s end. As you’ll read, he witnessed some of the events that earned PFC Diamond his Medal of Honor, since my dad’s foxhole was right next to Diamond’s.
“I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: it was the content. I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things.” – Ronald Reagan, in his Jan. 11, 1989 farewell address to the American people (text)
“The biggest misunderstanding about Reagan’s political life is that he was inevitable. He was not. He had to fight for every inch, he had to make it happen. What Billy Herndon said of Abraham Lincoln was true of Reagan too: He had within him, always, a ceaseless little engine of ambition. He was good at not showing it, as was Lincoln, but it was there. He was knowingly in the greatness game, at least from 1976, when he tried to take down a sitting president of his own party.” – Peggy Noonan, in her column on Ronald Reagan during this season of his 100th birthday celebration.
“We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.”” – Ronald Reagan, in his October 27, 1964 “Time for Choosing” speech
“Reagan understood instinctively that modern liberalism represented a rejection of the constitutional premises of self-government. … Hence the core of Reagan’s political purpose was recovering an appreciation for the Founder’s understanding of the principles and practices of American government. This was central to his rhetoric to a much greater extent than it was to that of any other modern day president of either party. … ‘We’re for limited government,’ he said in his 1988 State of the Union speech, ‘because we understand, as the Founding Fathers did, that it is the best way of ensuring personal liberty and empowering the individual so that every American of every race and region share fully in the flowering of American prosperity and freedom.’” – Steven F. Hayward, in The Age of Reagan, 1980-1989: The Conservative Counterrevolution.
A sampling of recent remarks from John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism:
“What I want to do today is to talk about the new thinking and the new approach that President Obama brings to the task of safeguarding the American people from violent extremism and terrorism.”
“The president understands that military power, intelligence operations and law enforcement alone will never solve the second long-term challenge we face – the threat of violent extremism generally, including the political, economic and social factors that help put so many individuals on the path to violence. … Extremist violence and terrorist attacks are therefore, often the final, murderous manifestations of a long process rooted in helplessness, humiliation and hatred. … This is why the president’s approach includes a critical fourth element – the recognition that addressing these upstream factors is ultimately not a military operation, but a political, economic and social campaign to meet the basic needs and legitimate grievances of ordinary people.”
“As many have noted, the president does not describe this as a “war on terrorism.” That is because terrorism is but a tactic – a means to an end – which, in al-Qaida’s case, is global domination by an Islamic caliphate. … Likewise, the president does not describe this as a “global war.” … Nor does President Obama see this challenge as a fight against jihadists. Describing terrorists in this way, using the legitimate term “jihad,” which means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.”
“President Obama has made it clear that the United States will not be defined simply by what we are against, but by what we are for … Rather than looking at allies and other nations through the narrow prism of terrorism, whether they are with us or against us, the administration is now engaging other countries and people across a broader range of areas.”
“At the same time, terrorism is recognized as one of the many transnational challenges the world will face in the 21st century. We saw this in [the president’s] speech in Cairo, where he spoke of a broader engagement with the world’s Muslims, including the issues important to them – education, public health, economic development, responsive governance and women’s rights. Indeed, it was telling that the president was actually criticized in certain quarters in this country for not using words like terror, terrorist and terrorism in that speech. This goes to the heart of this new approach. Why should a great and powerful nation like the United States allow its relationship with more than a billion Muslims around the world be defined by the narrow hatred and nihilistic actions of an exceptionally small minority of Muslims?”