The video was the stuff of nightmares. Dads cradling the dead bodies of their sons and daughters. Children writhing on the ground in pain. Others foaming at the mouth, the result of a deadly poison gas attack by the Syrians’ own government. When news reached the White House, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson knew exactly where to place blame. “There is no doubt in our minds that Syria and the regime under Bashar Assad were responsible for this attack,” he told reporters. “It’s a serious matter; it requires a serious response.”

And late Thursday night, the new president gave it one — launching the first-ever direct strike on Syrian forces in the last six years. American forces blasted the airbase with 59 Tomahawk missiles to send the message that the U.S. will not tolerate aggressive violence against innocent men, women, and children. “I will tell you,” President Trump said to reporters in the White House Rose Garden on Wednesday, “that the attack on children […] had a big impact on me — big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing. And I’ve been watching it and seeing it, and it doesn’t get any worse than that.”

Rallying other nations, he called on the world to help “end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria.” The chemical attack on the innocent took the lives of more than 70 people — many women and children. “It was a slow and brutal death for so many,” President Trump said soberly. “Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.” His swift response will certainly make other governments think twice. In an encouraging show of strength, the president’s team was decisive and in sync. What a difference from the previous administration, which would have almost certainly had a long and ponderous debate about what to do, if it did anything at all. While the world’s attention has been captured by this one military response, it has yet to be captured by ISIS’s genocide against Christians and other religious minorities in the region. We must continue to draw attention to this problem and other international religious freedom violations where they occur around the world.

As FRC’s Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (U.S. Army-Ret.) pointed out, this should debunk any rumors that President Trump’s national security team is in disarray. “They made a quick decision,” General Boykin said, “and they executed it. That’s not a sign of a disorganized team.” In many ways, he went on, the strike was more symbolic than destructive. Five dozen Tomahawks are devastating, but the U.S. response could have been much more extensive — marking several more targets, killing several more people. But it was meant to send a message not only to Assad but to the Russians. “President Trump is telling the Russians and Iranians that America isn’t messing around. It also sent a message to the Chinese, which set the stage for the president to be able to negotiate with China in regard to North Korea: either you handle it, or we will.”

In the aftermath of Thursday night’s strike, though, the biggest question for the administration is whether they want a regime change or a behavioral change. “When the U.S. brought down Saddam Hussein, we got Iranian radicals in his place. When we took down Muammar Al Gaddafi, we got the Muslim Brotherhood,” General Boykin explained. “So while Assad is evil, what’s the alternative? Is it ISIS? Assad has never killed Christians and never attacked Israel. So as malicious and brutal as he may be, we need to ask this question.” Meanwhile, Americans can be grateful that we have a commander-in-chief who not only recognizes our nation’s responsibility to stand up for the vulnerable but who will not hesitate to use the force necessary to hold the world’s powers accountable.

Originally published here.

Trump Tries on Army Green

What a difference an administration makes! The U.S. Army, whose highest civilian position has been held by an LGBT activist until this year, now has a leader with impressive pro-family credentials. Thursday, the Trump team announced that Tennessee State Senator Mark Green will be taking over for Eric Fanning, a man whose biggest priority was encouraging politically correct regulations and “diversity trainings during his time as the Secretary of the U.S Army.” In his farewell interview with CBS, he was asked, “Do you think your being gay made you want to really focus on inclusivity and diversity in the Army?” “Absolutely.” Later on, reporter Faith Salie wondered, “Do you think that your commitment to diversity in the Army will be continued in a new administration?” Fanning said he didn’t know.

The appointment of Green would suggest that the Trump administration has more important things on its mind. Green, who may be best known for as the special operations flight surgeon who cared for Saddam Hussein (and later wrote a book about it), has already been attacked by the far-Left for his conservative values — which must mean he’s doing something right! As a state senator, he backed a privacy bill similar to Texas’s SB6 and North Carolina’s HB2. He’s also been an outspoken proponent of religious liberty, life, and conscience rights.

Obviously, no one can undo eight years of anti-faith, anti-American lawlessness overnight, but we’re confident the Trump team is taking the job seriously. It understands, as we do, that the only way to rebuild our troops into the most elite fighting force in the world is to clear the decks of distractions like this one. “Our enemies don’t care about how well versed we are on tolerance, inclusion, diversity, or sensitivity,” FRC’s Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (U.S. Army-Ret.) points out. “All they will be concerned with is whether we are capable of and willing to kill or capture them on the battlefield.”

Originally published here.

Giving New Meaning to ‘Lookie Loo’

It looks like the “bathroom wars” have now moved overseas. It was recently reported that The Barbican Centre in London, “Europe’s largest multi-arts and conference venue,” has adopted a “gender neutral” bathroom policy. Signs that used to read “men” now say “gender neutral with urinals,” and signs for “women” have been replaced with “gender neutral with cubicles.”

The Barbican’s higher ups, it seems, are more concerned with promoting liberals’ gender-confused ideology than they are with using common sense. Beyond the implicit danger of criminal activity that these policies needlessly create, there is a much more practical consequence as well. Apparently, it never occurred to The Barbican that its new policy would give men two options for using the bathroom, while leaving women in the lurch with the same single option they have always had. Women are now voicing their displeasure about the policy, including the BBC’s Samira Ahmed, who rightly castigated The Barbican for “imposing politics” into a policy that creates longer bathroom lines for women. Another response to the policy pointed out its inherent hypocrisy: “Give us back women’s loos for ALL women.”

When public institutions flaunt their liberal bromides through nonsensical gender-neutral virtue-signaling, they do so at their own peril. As Target has learned, the public does not take kindly to violations of basic decency and fairness when it comes to bathroom privacy. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that alienating half of your customer base is not good for business. More and more of the public are standing up for common sense when it comes to bathroom policies and are refusing to cower in fear of transgender activists. The Barbican Centre should do likewise and reverse its misguided appeasement of “gender-neutral” ideology, because it’s time to acknowledge reality: men don’t belong in women’s bathrooms.

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.