Connect with us


We can have only one President at a time



We can have only one President at a time

I always hate having to say “I told you so!” You know why? Because it means that something happened that I didn’t want to happen but was unable to prevent from happening.


The President of the United States is also Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces. Therefore, we can also have only one person in charge of our military.

Yes, certainly Congress shares responsibilities. But our country has not had a formal Declaration of War since World War II.

As unreliable and viciously political as it is, Congress still should be and must be consulted before the commencement of hostilities, which by definition are irrevocable and irreversible, with potentially dire consequences.

Hopefully, some of that is going on right now behind the scenes behind locked doors without TV cameras or Twitter phones present. We the People need not be privy to every such classified discussion. Unfortunately, when our government tells us as U.S. citizens, they also declare to the enemy and the world-at-large their intentions and contingencies.

It’s fair to say that every President in my lifetime has made decisions that in retrospect would have been better if done differently.


Truman and General Douglas MacArthur, when they met on Wake island in the Pacific, could have reached some kind of accord to better handle the Korean War.

Ike who was the Five-Star General for Operation Overlord on D-Day got us out of North Korea, but with only an armistice and not a treaty, so the issues persist today.

JFK stared down Khrushchev and resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis, but he wasn’t able to head off the coming quagmire in Vietnam.

LBJ successfully painted Goldwater as a warmonger, then he led us into a conflict in Southeast Asia he had neither the guts nor the brains to carry through the victory.

Nixon got us out of Vietnam, after 58,000 deaths and a generation of shattered lives, without honor or victory.

Ford, who was never elected as either President or VP, made a faux pas in debating Carter in not acknowledging the Iron Curtain across Europe.

Carter’s undermining of the Shah and impotence in the face of the Ayatollah are a low point in American history.

Reagan was instrumental in the demise of the Soviet Union, but he never really avenged the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut or of the Marine Barracks.

Bush 41 as a lame duck got us into Somalia which led to Black Hawk Down.

Bill Clinton mishandled Bosnia and failed to get UBL before 9/11 could happen. He also was lethargic in responding to the USS Cole incident.

Dubya didn’t handle the Hainan incident with China well, falsely exonerated Islam after 9/11, and led to the decimation of the Christian Community in Iraq.

From the outset to the end of his administration, Barack was an unmitigated disaster. Benghazi may be most egregious, but his other foreign policy failings are too voluminous to go into now.

The coming and perhaps imminent conflict with Iran is attributable to Carter’s ineptitude and Obama’s malfeasance.

After serving on active duty during the Vietnam era, I also was in the U.S. Air Force Reserve in 1980 at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii and fully expected to be called up to active duty for service in the Middle East against Iran.

That was 39 years ago and this untenable situation has been festering in Tehran ever since. Now it is incumbent upon our current Commander-in-Chief and POTUS with no military service of his own to hope he listens to the right advisors. As we all hope he does.


What concerns me now are both the politicians and the pundits who feel totally comfortable in adapting the armchair quarterback mindset that works for NFL & NCAA games to real life war and peace issues. Back in Tolstoy’s day, War and Peace didn’t have to be concisely expressed in 280 characters or less to fit into a middle of the night tweet.

Is Donald Trump the most capable person to be dealing with what the United States is facing right now in serious simultaneous threats ~ some might say deliberately tandem threats ~ that may prove to be existential in nature?

Asking that question is perfectly legitimate. But we must admit that it is a rhetorical question. We all have only one President and Commander-in-Chief at a time. Right now his name is Trump.

Calling him a liar, a predator or a rotten businessman who considers deal-making an objective in and of itself, really is counterproductive at this juncture in human history. If we as conservatives take that tack, who is our audience and what is our purpose?

Would one of the other GOP candidates be doing a better job in the White House today? Some probably would, others would not. But, it honestly does not matter. He won. They lost.


So at this point, my concerns are twofold.

First, in the immediate future, President Trump must deal effectively with the threats from Iran and China, along with those posed by Russia and North Korea and others.

Second, as conservatives we have to realistically ask ourselves whether any Democrat would be survivable as POTUS 46 as early as Inauguration Day 2021.

“Fifty-two American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981….”

For those of us old enough to remember, the fact is not lost on us that Iran released the Americans from captivity just as Republican Ronald Reagan was taking the Oath of Office to replace Democrat Jimmy Carter. Had Carter won, your guess is as good as mine how that incident would have played out.

There are going to be on-going foreign policy imperatives when Donald Trump’s term ends. Does any conservative really want to risk putting any progressive in the position of getting that 3 a.m. phone call?

So, this next election is not a referendum on whether you like Donald Trump or you don’t like Donald Trump. It is a decision as to whom you want to entrust with the future of America.


We’ve only been talking about foreign policy and national security here. But when you consider the whole picture with the active and aggressive social re-engineering of society by Democrat Progressive Socialists into a perverse caricature of these United States, the only valid conclusion I can recommend to you is that Trump is better than the alternative.

If this isn’t the full-throated endorsement you were hoping for, rest assured it’s the best you’re going to get from me. My vote is not for sale to anyone. Not ever.

I like some things Trump has done. I don’t like other things he has done. But, it’s unlikely a real conservative is going to mount a primary challenge. Therefore, look closely at all the Democrat contenders and listen carefully to what they’re saying.

You can actually wait until after the Democrat National Convention in Milwaukee next year and limit your scrutiny to whoever emerges victorious. Then consider what life in this country would be with him or her occupying the Oval Office. I think most of you will agree with my conclusion that it’s better to stay the course with the man from New Yawk who now has an established track record.


Reviewing as I did what our Presidents for the last 70 years have faced and how their records are seen through 20/20 hindsight (a term that now takes on a double entendre), I think we can be more objective in assessing the incumbent. History has been kind to some of his predecessors and less generous to others.

How the Trump Administration will fit into the American kaleidoscope that has survived and thrived for over two centuries will be assessed by future generations after we are but a fond memory. He won’t be forgotten like Buchanan or Harding. Nor will he be on the venerable scale of Jefferson and Lincoln or even Reagan.

What President Trump does in the coming hours, days, weeks and months will determine both his legacy and the well-being of all Americans everywhere. It is therefore in the interest of all of us, including Democrats though they will deny it, to stand together and respect the one and only person who is now President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the most benevolent superpower which has ever existed on the face of the Earth.


If things go kinetic against Iran and/or China, we better all be on the same side not divided by political ambitions. That Kumbaya moment on the Capitol steps after 9/11 faded all too quickly.

Ours is not a parliamentary form of government where a lack of confidence vote can call a snap election. There will not be an impeachment, conviction and removal from office. But let’s don’t become a banana republic in which opposing factions refuse to accept and recognize the authority of legitimate power.

Democrats have had their chance repeatedly. Undoubtedly, they will someday have it again. But it is not now.

God Bless America!

Facebook Comments
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Democrats imperiled whether they impeach or not



Democrats imperiled whether they impeach or not

The Democratic Party is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have been refreshing talks about impeachment of President Trump for months as it ebbs and flows as a talking point. The threats have been constant, though often from different sources. Yet, they haven’t pulled the trigger. It seems like things are getting awkward.

The rock they face is the futile time- and resource-draining reality of it all. If the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives impeaches the President, it will then be tried in the Republican-controlled Senate where it will likely go nowhere. What makes it worse for them is that impeachment isn’t a popular action with voters; even many Democrats have voiced their concern that it would be a waste of time.

Meanwhile, the hard place they’re up against comes in the form of the radical progressive wing of the party that is growing in ranks and influence. They want the President impeached even if it has no chance of actually going anywhere. They’re pressuring their fellow Democrats and have been rallying their supporters around this goal. If Speaker of the House never brings it to the floor, she and her allies in the House will face the scorn of the likes of Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

They’re damned if they do and they’re damned if they don’t.

As for the President himself, he’s been done with all the investigations, implications, and attacks by the press. He just wants to be President and do his thing. But what he may not appreciate is that impeachment by the House will give him a huge campaign point. He can not only garner sympathy over the ceaseless attacks by Democrats, but he and the RNC can also use it to help them win back some of the seats they lost in 2018.

Personally, I’d love to see them impeach him. Assuming the get all of the Democrats and some Republicans on board, they’ll have the votes they’ll need to make the first leg of the impeachment process happen.

Unless something fresh comes to light that changes public sentiment, impeachment would be a poor move in the eyes of most Americans. But the radicals in the party will voice outrage if impeachment never happens. Such as silly group, the Democrats.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Top 5 ‘assault weapon’ technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written




Top 5 assault weapon technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Just a sample of some of the repeating firepower that existed long before the 2nd amendment.

Leftist lore has it that the only guns in existence at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment were muskets that took 5 minutes to reload. This being exemplified by the New York Times in using an image of a musket contrasted with an assault rifle in an article on their usual obsession with gun confiscation. Or from a commercial from a liberty grabber group depicting the long, drawn out reloading of a musket. As is usually the case with leftist lore, this is a complete fabrication.

The fact is that multishot or repeating firearms existed long before the affirmation of the common sense human right of self-preservation in the US Constitution. We’ve already highlighted some of these technologies that predate the Constitution. However, for the sake of completeness, we shall fill out the list with the other fine examples.

Since there is no set definition of the term ‘assault weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’ or what ever farcical term the liberty grabber left has come up with to demonize ordinary firearms, we bestowed this term to these technology as some of the first ‘Assault Weapons’.

Repeating rifles of the early 1600s, predating the Constitution by 160 years

The Encyclopedia Britannica has a very informative article on this subject with this excerpt detailing the most important point:

The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s. One early magazine repeater has been attributed to Michele Lorenzoni, a Florentine gunmaker. In the same period, the faster and safer Kalthoff system—designed by a family of German gunmakers—introduced a ball magazine located under the barrel and a powder magazine in the butt. By the 18th century the Cookson repeating rifle was in use in North America, having separate tubular magazines in the stock for balls and powder and a lever-activated breech mechanism that selected and loaded a ball and a charge, also priming the flash pan and setting the gun on half cock.

[Our Emphasis]

Please note that these multishot or repeating firearms existed almost 2 centuries before the writing of the Constitution, eviscerating the ‘Muskets only’ lie of the national socialist Left. For those who are numerically as well a factually challenged, this was also 370 years before the 21st Century.

The Lorenzoni repeating flintlock: Portable firepower that predated the Constitution by over 100 years

Our first video from the venerable website Forgotten weapons is of two London-Made Lorenzonis Repeating Flintlocks. This was a repeating flintlock developed in the early 1600’s that was able to fire multiple shots 160 years before the writing of the Constitution.

Early development of revolving cylinder firearms, predating the Constitution by over 109 years

Next on the Pre-constitutional timeline, we have One of the Earliest Six-shot Revolvers from the collection of the Royal Armory that we profiled in a previous article. The Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson notes that this wasn’t one of the earliest revolvers along with pointing out how the technology has ‘evolved’ over time.

This also brings up an important point, that arms and other weapons of self-defense were vitally important, a matter of life or death. Every living being is in a battle for survival, in the case of human society, these technologies determined its survivability. Thus it is a constant competition with these technologies constantly changing and evolving over time. Something that would have been known by the learned men that wrote the founding documents.

The Puckle or Defense Gun from 1718, was predating the Constitution by over 70 years

We have previously detailed the Puckle or Defense Gun invented in 1718 and demonstrated early ‘automatic weapon’ fire in 1721:

The Puckle Gun, or Defense Gun as it was also known, was invented and patented in 1718 by the London lawyer James Puckle.

This was an early ‘automatic weapon’ was capable of firing 63 shots in 7 minutes in 1721.

For those following along this missed the mark of being a 21st Century weapon by almost 300 years.

The multishot Girardoni Air Gun that predated the Constitution by 9 years.

This is another multishot weapon of war that existed before the Constitution.

Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket – 1786, this also predates the Constitution

Our last video of multishot or repeating firearms that predated the Constitution is the Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket from 1786. We’re trying to keep this as short as possible, thus we have left off other examples such as the Ribauldequin, Duckfoot or Nock gun.

Very much like the previous example, the Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket was known to the founding fathers because he corresponded with Congress on this weapon in 1777 [Again, before the drafting of the Constitution]. For those keeping score at home, 1786 is still is not of the 21st Century.

Leftist lies on this subject depends on a number of improbable fallacies and assumptions. The founding fathers would have known the history of technological developments and they would have expected those developments to continue. Thus rendering the fallacy that they could not have foreseen that weapons technologies wouldn’t of continued on to the point of absurdity.

The Takeaway

Unfortunately for the Liberty Grabber Left, firearms tend to be valuable historical artifacts, these videos show that multishot or repeating firearms existed well before the Constitution. Thus we have eviscerated the ‘musket myth’. It should also be evident that the violence problem hasn’t been caused by the ‘easy’ availability of guns or repeating firearms.

As is the case with most Leftist lies and prevarication’s, they depend on a lack knowledge of the subject to succeed. This is why is extremely important that everyone of the Pro-Liberty Right be apprised of these facts in engaging those of the Left who have little care for logic, science or truth. The fact that multishot or repeating firearms existed centuries ago should make it clear that the Left is lying about the subject of self-defense from beginning to end.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading


4 Retweets in an hour: Bill de Blasio’s campaign failed to materialize



4 Retweets in an hour Bill de Blasios campaign failed to launch

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was supposed to make an impact on the Democratic presidential nominating process. At least that’s what a handful of pundits thought. But after a little buzz on his first day and a few jabs by the President, it appears de Blasio was nowhere near ready to run for president despite coming in much later than most in the field.

Last week, we noted how his YouTube channel had failed miserably. But that embarrassment was nothing compared to his attempts to play on Twitter, which happens to be the President’s favorite social media playground.

Bill Tweet

In case he keeps the Tweet up (he shouldn’t) and doesn’t attempt to artificially boost his numbers (he shouldn’t), I’ll put it here to see if it got any traction. Out of sheer embarrassment for him, I shared it and encouraged people to help him out. This is just too cringeworthy to watch unfold on its own.

Is Twitter important? There’s actually as much of a risk to candidates saying the wrong thing on Twitter as there is of them gaining support as a result. But between Trump’s epic use of Twitter in 2016 and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s use of the platform to shoot herself up to fame, candidates need to at least try to do well on the platform. Bill de Blasio is not doing well. That indicates two possibilities: either he and his team were ill-prepared to run for president or they’re not really running for president but rather running for a cabinet spot or something else in exchange for his help delivering the New York delegates to the eventual nominee.

Either option seems viable at this point.

One thing is certain: Bill de Blasio’s campaign for president should not be taken seriously by anyone. Democratic primary voters and Republican operatives need to all ignore him. He’s going nowhere in 2020.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading