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!




Justice Democrats vs. DNC: Group behind AOC looks to shake up the Democratic Party



Justice Democrats vs DNC Group behind AOC looks to shake up the Democratic Party

Are they unified or are they at odds? The Justice Democrats and the Establishment Democrats are still at odds despite being temporarily unified by President Trump’s “racist” Tweet recently. It doesn’t matter how much the Establishment Democrats like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi defends them. They don’t like here and will do everything they can to subvert her power.

But little is known about the Justice Democrats, not because the information isn’t out there but because legacy media refuses to give them much attention. In many ways, they’re worried that if too much attention is given to the radical progressives, it will harm the party as a whole in the upcoming 2020 election. So the media is stuck between a rock and a hard place – supporting the people they like without allowing those people to harm the party they like. It’s a conundrum all Democrats are going to have to face soon as establishment-backed candidates like Joe Biden take on hyper-leftists like Elizabeth Warren.

One America News did a nice job of talking about the Justice Democrats and the direction they’re headed within the party itself. They’re not just after the Republicans. They’re after the Democrats, Independents, and anyone who isn’t a card-carrying social justice warrior.

As in-fighting in the Democrat Party escalates, one organization says that was the plan all along.

With a voting demographic at odds with typical establishment politics, one group is looking to capitalize on the disarray in the Democrat Party. Justice Democrats is a group that looks to promote progressive causes by advocating for change within Congress itself.

It was founded in 2017 by Kyle Kolinsky of Secular Talk and Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks with the goal of redefining the direction of the Democrat Party.

“We’re going to try to save the soul of the Democratic Party by boarding the Democratic Party ship and taking it over,” Uygur said. “How are we gonna do that? We’re gonna run strong progressives so from now on there will be a new wing of the Democratic Party and it will be the Justice Democrats. We will seek social justice, economic justice, racial justice, and plain old justice justice.

Justice Democrats was successful in its first operation, elevating candidates like a Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocazio-Cortes to the House of Representatives after the 2018 midterms.

“We’re gonna run hundreds of candidates and we’re gonna primary all the establishment Democrats,” Uygur continued. “So we’re not gonna be like ‘is a Chuck Schumer maybe yes maybe no,’ right? No, it’s a hard no. But wait a minute, now, are you really going to primary vulnerable Democrats. Yeah that’s the whole point.”

The group doesn’t just support candidates, it recruits them, finding individuals that can act as a vessel for its progressive agenda, candidates who don’t only align with the values of the organization but can propel them into Congress.

“Back in 2016 we put out a call for nominations, trying to capture the diversity of background of experience of the American electorate, the people that aren’t currently represented, and we got over 10,000 nominations,” said Justice Democrats Executive Director Alexandra Rojas. “Out of those 10,000 nominations we found Alexandria.”

Much like Representative Ocasio-Cortez, candidates are recruited to run for office with justice Democrats fundraising, organizing, and creating the agenda for the individuals they put on the ballot with the goal of overtaking the party.

“We want to actually create that grassroots funded machine that can be a real opposition to the current institutional powers,” said Saikat Chakrabarti, AOC’s Chief of Staff and co-founder of the Justice Democrats. They’re the group behind the polarizing Green New Deal.

Chakrabarti recently told The Washington Post the green New Deal is not a climate change proposal. The statement corroborates claims made by Rojas, “But really I think a big anchor piece is the Green New Deal and talking about it in a frame of social, racial, and economic justice, and a mobilization of our economy in our society at the scale of what we did during World War II.”

This, of course, has been echoed by Ocasio-Cortez herself.

As dangerous as “The Squad” is, they’re the tip of the Justice Democrats’ iceberg. Perhaps a better way of putting it is they’re the tip of the spear. The Justice Democrats represent the greatest threat to America’s future we’ve seen since the Cold War.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading


Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax won’t work



Elizabeth Warrens wealth tax wont work

There’s a popular sentiment that’s present in many circles across America. The “rich” are the bad guys who plot against the common American to keep us down. In some cases, this is actually true; wealth has been used by many throughout history to buy favors, subvert prosperity for the economic middle- and lower-classes, and steer governments to do things that benefit them while hurting others. But corruption is much less of a driving force for the hatred towards the rich than envy. Few people would take the “moral high road” and turn down opportunities that would allow them to be rich. Just ask Bernie Sanders.

But this envy of the rich is manifesting into something much more dangerous than we’ve seen in the recent past. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a top contender for the Democratic nomination for president, has built her campaign around offering as much free stuff as possible and claiming that she’ll pay for it all through her wealth tax, which she currently proposes as 2% on any household with more than $50 million and 3% on any household worth more than a billion dollars. It’s a yearly tax that is designed to help her get elected. It isn’t designed to work, and either she knows this but hopes the people won’t see it, or she doesn’t realize it and she’s an idiot.

Wealth taxes have never worked. They hamper the ability of actual job-builders to build jobs. They also incentivize the rich to take their money elsewhere, which has a cascading effect on the economy when done in bulk. But perhaps most importantly is that the revenues projected to be generating from them never come to pass.

The saddest part is based on Warren’s own calculations of how much revenue she’ll generate compared to non-partisan estimates of how much her proposals will cost, it isn’t even close. We’re not talking about being off by millions, billions, or even trillions. If she gets her way, we’ll experience a budget shortfall of tens or even hundreds of trillions of dollars over a decade. This isn’t insignificant, but it may be part of the plan.

Who would plan for economic collapse? Someone who wants to install Modern Monetary Theory in America. That’s the only realistic conclusion that one can come to unless we’re to believe she’s a total liar. And that’s possible. She could be so eager to be a one-term president that she’s willing to make promises she knows are impossible to keep. But more likely, she’s going to try to keep those promises by taking us down a path in which we print money to pay our bills, leading to hyperinflation and the total collapse of the United States of America as a viable nation.

If that happens, she’ll have the ultimate form of socialism in which everyone is suffering equally. Well, everyone other than the elite.

This video by Reason breaks down other examples of hour Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax is either based on ignorance, deceit, or both. Her calculations are off by a few decimal points, but in a post-truth society, Democrats don’t care.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading


Rashida Tlaib says $15/hr minimum wage is too low. She wants $20/hr.



Rashida Tlaib says 15hr minimum wage is too low She wants 20hr

There is nothing more progressive than taking something radical and destructive and doubling down on the spirit of the proposal. That’s what Representative Rashida Tlaib did today when she said the movement that’s pushing for $15 per hour nationwide may be behind on the times. $15 per hour is what whey needed before, but since the costs of milk and eggs have gone up, the new minimum wage should be $20 per hour.

It has already been established by the non-partisan CBO that $15 per hour would kill off 1.3 million jobs. While most Democrats balked at the number and said it was too high, the radical progressives saw it as an opportunity – there’s plenty of room to kill off even more jobs, from their reckoning.

Costs of many items are going up, but as the Washington Free Beacon pointed out, eggs and milk are actually lower than their peaks in 2015 and 2014, respectively, around the time when the “fight for $15” started ramping up. As usual, Tlaib is making things up to support her points.

The real minimum wage is zero, as anyone unemployed knows. But jobs have been rising across the board since the President took office. The economy is humming. In many industries, there is a shortage of workers able to fill positions, forcing many companies to raise wages organically. That’s how it should be. We don’t need Washington DC placing a blanket minimum on the country, especially considering the economic norms in West Virginia are very different from the economic norms in California. Leave it to the states to regulate the economies properly.

This is just further evidence that Rashida Tlaib and “The Squad” aren’t interested in helping America. They want to tear it down and rebuild it in the Justice Democrats’ image. This is no longer a secret, but it’s an under-reported fact.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading