So over time, Republican party leaders made the case that bringing Libertarians into the fold would solve the problem.  It wasn’t that easy.  When Mitt Romney won the GOP nomination for President, it was libertarian-leaning Ron Paul who stole the thunder at the Republican National Convention in 2012.  Not satisfied with Romney, Libertarian delegates made a spectacle at the convention, insisting on a platform to their liking. They didn’t get it and eventually walked away from both Romney and the GOP.  It was a marriage of sorts without a sufficient prenup.

With the rise of Donald Trump in GOP politics, the rift between the GOP and its libertarian cousins was somewhat pacified.  This was more a function of Trump’s overwhelming manhandling of establishment GOP politicians, including the Libertarian upstart Rand Paul. Trump cleared the field like a harvester with a sharp scythe. So effective was he in revealing the weaknesses of past GOP candidates that Libertarians were left without a choice but to join what became known as the “Make America Great Again” or “MAGA” movement.

In large part, Trump sated the Libertarian beast. His campaign rhetoric fit nicely into what are generally regarded as Libertarian principles. That included individual freedom and the belief that people should have the right to make choices about their own life, body, and property, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.  On economic issues, they agreed with Trump to enhance free enterprise.  They liked his renunciation of foreign wars and an adventurous foreign policy.  And they were particularly persuaded by his call for limited government.

Many conservative Republicans agree with these principles, but are uncomfortable with the liberal bent of Libertarians on social issues and their non-interventionist tendencies, which amounts to a dangerous isolationism.  However, conservative Republicans tended to support the war on drugs. They were very committed to protecting traditional marriage.  And they understood that—like it or not—America has an important role to play in securing world peace according to international norms.  Libertarians would defenestrate that, preferring to stay cuddled between two massive oceans and pretend the dangers we face will comport with their Pollyannish view of world affairs.  They won’t.

What has emerged in this union is a failed governance symbiosis, particularly in Congress, where prominent Libertarians dispute with the Trump agenda and the governing objectives of the Republican majorities.  In the Senate, Kentucky’s Rand Paul frequently is a thorn in the side of the President and the Senate’s leadership.  It’s not uncommon for him to vote procedurally with the Democrats, along with unhappy liberal Republicans.  In the House of Representatives, fellow Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie was a carbon copy of Paul.  He too vexed the House leadership, often siding with Democrats on thorny issues for Republicans.  In Massie’s case, his obduracy vis-à-vis President Trump was so profound that it incurred the President’s ire, which led to Massie’s defeat in the GOP primary in Kentucky on 19 May 2026.  He is gone.  And with his departure, it is time to rethink the Republican-Libertarian experiment.

Some assert that politics is about addition, and not subtraction.  In general, that’s indisputable.  But when it comes to governance, a party needs to set aside individual issue predispositions to attain governance objectives.  When you have politicians like Paul and Massie who insist on “my way or the highway” positions, governance can be very hard, if not impossible.  Moreover, such discord does not advance the necessary unity to combat the liberal and now socialist agenda or the Democratic Party.  The liberals are ecstatic when the GOP fights among itself on issues that frankly should solicit unity, even when the solutions proffered are imperfect.

I conclude this.  It is time for clarity between the GOP and Libertarians.  Either Libertarians get on board with a unified approach to governance, or they take to that highway they so much prefer on occasion.  It’s time for the Republican Party to return to nominating Republicans, not discordant Libertarians who give every evidence of bucking the team for their own political purposes.

The Republican Party must reconnect with its foundational principles of more freedom, lower taxes, and greater opportunity in a world where the US projects strategic power to protect those goals.  If Libertarians agree, fine.  Otherwise, they should get their own ticket.

The Supreme Court of Virginia acted as Chief Justice John Marshall advised in Marbury v. Madison when he wrote that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”  Moreover, Virginia Justice D. Arthur Kelsey noted in reversing the redistricting scheme that Marshall’s law professor, George Wythe, emphasized two important duties of the courts.  The first is “to declare constitutional boundaries of political power.” The second is exhibiting “the courage to ‘fearlessly’ protect them.”  Justice Kelsey and the majority of the court have done both exceedingly well.

They, in a fashion, upended the plans by the Democrat Governor, State Senate, and House of Delegates to defenestrate Virginia’s constitutional provision abolishing partisan redistricting, substituting a new amendment to allow Gerrymandering solely by the General Assembly pursuant to its most partisan political designs.  Such was an affront to the rights of Virginians by ignoring the Constitution’s procedural requirement that any amendment must be approved by the General Assembly twice, once before the next general election, and then again by legislators after that election.

The wisdom underlying this procedure was to deliberately slow the amendment process so that the voters would have an opportunity to signal their approval or disapproval of legislative candidates supporting controversial amendments.  Indeed, dissatisfaction at the polls over a proposed amendment could result in its failure to pass in the subsequent legislative session following that election.

At issue before the court was whether the General Assembly passed the proposed amendment prior to that intervening election.  The Republicans protested that it had not, pointing out that voting in the 2025 general election began on 19 September and ended on 4 November, Election Day.  Yet the General Assembly’s initial vote for the proposed constitutional amendment to go before the electorate occurred on October 31, after over 1.3 million votes—40 percent of the entire vote—had already been cast in the election cycle.  The court agreed, concluding that the election is not simply a date on a calendar, but rather a period of time starting when people begin participating in early voting and concluding on what we call Election Day.

In citing their opposition to Democrat lawyers seeking to ignore that elections begin with the first casting of early votes, the court settled on a precise definition to resolve the issue.  “History confirms that ‘election’ includes both ballot casting and ballot receipt.”  Indeed, in the 63 prior constitutional amendments adopted since 1971, “The Commonwealth has identified none in which the General Assembly passed a proposed amendment after voting in the general election had already begun.”  In essence, the court concluded that “The Commonwealth implicitly concedes that early voting is one of the combined actions of the election when it recognizes that early voting is ‘casting a ballot to be counted on Election Day.’”

In that regard, the court made clear that when citizens cast ballots early, “the durational term ‘election’ and the determinate term ‘Election Day’ fit together perfectly.

In essence, what the ruling Democrat majority advocated—with the clear approval of Governor Abigail Spanberger—amounted to “denying over 1.3 million Virginians their constitutional right to have a voice in the debate over whether their Constitution should be amended—thereby eroding one of the core rights that Article XII, Section 1 was intended to safeguard.”

Their final verdict was resounding. “For these reasons, we hold that the definition of ‘general election’ in Article XII, Section 1 describes the combined actions of voters casting ballots and officers of election receiving those votes and closing the polls on the last day of the election.”  It was a conclusion a blind Bartimaeus could have seen before he was miraculously healed.

Despite a resounding defeat in this case, Democrats will now seek an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  It is a petulant act of intransigence in the face of sound legal reason. As Justice Kelsey noted, “While the Commonwealth is free by its lights to do the right thing for the right reason, the Rule of Law requires that it be done the right way.”  Democrats didn’t, and the court’s decision was a frank and firm critique of calcified legislative minds more interested in attaining power than judiciously and legally employing it.

When our nation was established in 1776 and further refined as a constitutional republic in 1787, following the adoption of our Constitution, we were not led by idiots—quite the opposite.  Our leaders then were men influenced by the Enlightenment era.  They devoured the Greek and Roman classics and were enlivened by the brilliance of Enlightenment writers.

• Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was an English philosopher and scientist who explored the scientific method involving observation, experimentation, and inductive reasoning, all designed to expand human knowledge. 
• René Descartes (1596–1650), a French philosopher and mathematician who coined the phrase “Cogito ergo sum” or “I think, therefore I am.”  That idea became foundational in modern philosophy, which saw value in doubt and deductive reasoning.
• John Locke (1632–1704), another English political philosopher, advanced the essential idea that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed and that natural rights like life, liberty, and property are inherent in our creation as humans.
• Montesquieu (1689–1755), a French political thinker, proposed the separation of powers in government, influencing modern democratic systems.
• Voltaire (1694–1778) of France was a philosopher who advocated for freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and separation of church and state.
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), another French philosopher, focused on the idea of the social contract and popular sovereignty, and how both influenced democratic thought.
• David Hume (1711–1776) was a Scottish philosopher who applied reason to history, religion, and politics, while emphasizing skepticism and empiricism.
• Adam Smith (1723–1790), a fellow Scot economist and philosopher, is credited with founding modern economic theory in his The Wealth of Nations.  Smith promoted free markets and the “invisible hand” whereby economies work best when there is less government intervention in free trade, both domestically and internationally. 
• Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), a German philosopher who systematized Enlightenment thought, emphasized ethics, autonomy, and the role of reason.
• And finally, Englishman and American patriot Thomas Paine (1737–1809) was a political thinker whose Common Sense and The Rights of Man inspired our revolutionary movement.

Our founders, especially Virginia’s Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and Patrick Henry, drew substantially from these remarkable thinkers as they shaped and perfected America’s founding.  Were they with us today, 250 years later, to see what has become of the nation that they founded, they would be stunned.  To be sure, they would be amazed by our scientific and social progress.  They would be in awe of how the United States would rise to be a superpower, possessing political, military, economic, and informational abilities that far outstrip any other nation in world history, indeed put men on the moon.  Yet they would be alarmed.

What would they think about New York City being led by an ideologue who despises private property, the rule of law, and a common American identity?  How would they regard the mayor of Seattle, Washington—a state they hardly envisioned—who is gleeful that people of wealth are fleeing her city when faced with raw wealth confiscation?

What would those Virginians think of the current Governor of their Commonwealth, who brazenly disregards her responsibility to hold criminal illegal aliens to account when they ravage our streets and kill innocent people, even while courts release offenders to commit more crimes? 

What would they say of a Congress that refuses to fund the government over puerile and selfish issues?  What would they think of Federal judges who the US Supreme Court routinely overrules for rendering aggressive activist decisions that obstruct the Chief Executive in his Constitutional duties?

How would they view people who openly call for the assassination of political leaders with whom they disagree?  How would they react to the gutter-like language used in political discourse, as if cursing is acceptable instead of decent vocabulary?  What would they say about the rise of a political class that acts more like an aristocracy than citizens who seek election to serve the people, not to accrue power so that they can enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers?

And what would they say of us, the voters, who routinely return such people to the halls of power?  Ben Domenech is right.  We should consider the possibility that we are being led by idiots.  Yet so too we are acting doltishly by putting them in power in the first instance.  I suspect they would say to us, consider the Classical and Enlightenment thinkers, and stop the idiocy.

So, what is masculinity, if not what the definitions hold it to be?  To wit, “the quality or nature of the male sex.”  More specifically, “the quality, state, or degree of being masculine or manly.”  In other words, masculinity is no more or no less than a man or a boy being, well, what they are.  In that regard, it seems a bit silly to condemn masculinity any more than one would condemn any aspect of nature.

Yet that has not stopped radical feminists, nihilist professors, and their activist acolyte lickspittles from condemning manhood whenever it raises its head.  “Off with it,” they demand.  Moreover, any effort to pass on to boys the value and virtue of growing into men—particularly if that involves sports, physical strength, endurance, and asserting man-like behaviors—is regarded by the feminist cabal as some form of child abuse.  Boys, they would say, should be cupcakes, retiring, and indeed subservient.  They should be conditioned to be manipulated and controlled.  For the feminist, women are the forceful class, and men must be serfs.

Without a doubt, there are very bad expressions of masculinity, most of which are in contradiction to the virtues and behaviors of proper manhood found in the Bible, particularly those expected of Christian men.  Good, faithful, law-abiding, and responsible men are much preferred over brutish, violent, hedonistic, and reckless ones.  Therefore, the kind of masculinity that men should embrace embodies a patient, kind, humble, selfless, forgiving, protecting, trusting, and sacrificial man whose worldview is centered on the Creator, not some false portrayal of men as found in Hollywood.  None of these virtues excludes strong men who have tough roles in life, including athletes, law enforcement, and military professions.  Manhood is not about being the toughest guy on the block.  It’s about sound character that can withstand the winds and tides of a very rough world while modeling to others, especially boys, what it is to be a man, a real man who understands he is made in the image of God.

Consider, for a moment, Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, when he blessed his eight-day-old son at the baby’s circumcision in the Temple.

Zechariah’s Prophecy: Luke 1: 67-80

And his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised  a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us; to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days. And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.” And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness until the day of his public appearance to Israel.”

To be sure, Zechariah knew the divine purpose God had for John as he grew from a boy to a man.  Zechariah understood that he was entrusted to raise John in a way acceptable to God, and indeed the young boy grew strong in spirit.  That is precisely what men should do to bring their sons up in a way whereby their masculinity reflects God’s purpose for men.  That’s not to be “macho” as some would think, but to be resolute in doing right, indefatigable in facing difficulty, and wise in every pursuit.

Doing so may not meet the completely distorted expectations of feminists and radicals who hate masculine men, particularly our Founding Fathers.  But it will be a step in the right direction to put manhood in an undistorted context, not one of condemnation.

Unlike Texas, where a mid-term redistricting occurred based on census data not available when its legislature redrew lines last year, Virginia Democrats have created an exception for the current constitutional provision that requires non-partisan redistricting following the decennial census. Now by fiat, they will be able to supplant that provision whenever they think it necessary.  Democrats are smug in their insistence that it is exactly what Texas did in advantaging Republicans in that state. So, they are justified in favoring Democrats here.  It shows the extent to which they dissemble. 

In years past, when Virginia Democrats actively disenfranchised black voters to retain their iron grip on the General Assembly, legislative maps were drawn to ensure that their preferred voters—almost exclusively white and Protestant—predominated in every district.  To be sure, Republicans would win a few, but Democrats retained their hold on both the General Assembly and the congressional district through partisan Gerrymandering.  They were surgical, cutting district lines to conform to desirable voters like a snugly fitted garment while assigning undesirable voters in small, unthreatening pockets.  In doing so, Democrat legislators—mostly white—were able to keep themselves employed while isolating Republicans to remote districts and blacks tucked away where they were unable to gain representation.  Simply put, it was a predatory political policy that sought to isolate the opposition and effectively disenfranchise them.

They were masters at the art of Gerrymandering.  But in time, their schemes would fall prey to Republican efforts to grow their numbers in the General Assembly and Congress.  By 1999, the GOP had made significant gains in its numbers, mostly the result of savvy campaigning, message discipline, and hard work going door-to-door to appeal to voters.  When Republicans achieved a majority in 2000 in both the House and the Senate of Virginia, they set about drawing a new legislative map that favored them.  And in doing so, they did something Democrats refused to do when the pen was in their hand.  Republicans drew districts favorable to black Democrats, long consigned to urban and rural enclaves, unable to effectively challenge white Democrat legislators.

To be sure, many of the GOP districts were drawn to exclude large minority pockets. So, there was no great virtue in what transpired.  But more importantly, the redistricting process was conducted fairly, with all members getting input, even when they might not have gotten their way.  Ten years later, the GOP replicated the process.  And while they continued to benefit from drawing favorable lines, they were nonetheless fairly drawn.  Indeed, I was present on the floor of the House when one black representative in 2011 boldly credited the GOP with being more fair to blacks than the Democrats ever were.  It was one of those moments when you could have heard a pin drop.  Yet it was also very true.

Nevertheless, in subsequent years, it became increasingly evident that citizens did not like Gerrymandering, even when there was an effort to do so fairly. As a result, Virginians adopted a constitutional amendment calling for non-partisan redistricting by a commission composed of both legislators and citizens. It became law in 2020, and in the following year, Virginia had the most balanced legislative maps in the country.  However, now that Democrats are in power, their preference is to return to the days of old, where they skillfully disenfranchised voters not of their liking to achieve power over the entire state without the slightest regard for fairness.

Now, Congressional legislative districts are twisted, elongated, and contorted to resemble lobsters or serpents, all to assure that Democrats—as in times of old—are in power.  No longer are districts compact, continuous, and mindful of communities of interest that include social, cultural, racial, ethnic, and economic interests common to the population of an area.  To illustrate the absurdity of the current Gerrymandering, 5 of Virginia’s 11 Congressional representatives will all reside within Fairfax County in districts that extend like tenacles in a chokehold of disenfranchisement affecting millions of rural Virginians.

It now falls on the Supreme Court of Virginia to decide whether this gross injustice will stand.  Indeed, it shouldn’t and must be rejected as patently unconstitutional. 

There is yet another thing that must occur.  As attributed to Edmund Burke, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”  The day will come when those who have perpetrated this evil on Virginia will be held to account. And that will require many good men and women to do something.

Many times, we hear from candidates for public office, “This is the most important election ever!”  For most politicians seeking election or reelection, it’s a recurring appeal.  After all, their jobs are on the line, and for them, it’s important.

But the vote before us now far exceeds the triviality of a politician seeking longevity.  If Virginia legislative Democrats are successful in this grossly unjust effort to literally wipe Republican districts off the face of the map, it will demonstrate the absolute corruptibility that comes with absolute power.  We must vote “NO” in the 21 April referendum.

Our system of government is a Constitutional Republic, brilliantly conceptualized to (among other things) allow the minority a voice. The Virginia far-left progressives seek to eliminate the minority opinions of most of the rural population of the state.  They want the extremely liberal and densely populated counties of NOVA to overshadow the more conservative voters of the Shenandoah Valley and the southwestern parts of the state.  Instead of 6 out of the 11 congressional districts leaning Democratic, the Governor and Democratic legislators want 10 of the 11 districts to lean Democratic. They are seeking to silence conservative voters, all to counteract more Republican districts in other states.  This is punishing Virginians to compensate national Democrats.  It’s an appalling, hypocritical abuse of power.  As this picture above depicts, it’s simply unfair.

I am aware that not everyone who reads my weekly updates agrees with my conservative worldview.  That’s fine by me.  People must do their own thinking in life, and wise people accept diverse thoughts in a free society.  But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make the effort to share with others where they may be wrong.  And to be sure, if you’re voting for the Democrats’ scheme, you are very wrong. 

Some have a strong dislike for President Trump.  But you would be very wrong if you vote for a corrupt plan that is motivated by hate. You should understand that supporting partisan Gerrymandering undermines the very non-partisan redistricting approach that many of us—including Democrats—supported in 2020.  Don’t let hate decide. Maintain fairmindedness.

And my point?  If it was wrong to have partisan redistricting before 2020, it is still wrong today.  It is for that reason that I ask you to be sure to vote.  Find at least 10 others and recruit their “NO” vote with yours.  Share this email with them and make the point that when Virginia passed its non-partisan redistricting requirement in 2020, in short order, our state was rated as having one of the most fairly drawn congressional maps in the nation.  Now, partisan Democrats want to destroy that evenhanded approach.

It may seem trite to suggest this is “the most important election ever,” but it absolutely is.  We must oppose blatant corruption that results from a brazen power grab.  You can do that.  But only if you vote.

There is much to say on this matter.  But on my mind is how readily those participating in our public discourse rely on lies and falsehoods to advance this or that argument.  In the many debates we are subjected to on television, lies substitute for facts.  One person’s murder is another’s misfortune.  The blatant Islamic-inspired terror attacks of 9-11 were pushed aside by a politician sympathetic to the perpetrators as “some people did something.”  That omits necessary nouns and verbs to describe the raw truth correctly.  It amounts to a lie.

Like many others, I find watching Congressional hearings on controversial issues very trying.  In an effort to grab an “I gotcha” cable news headline, legislative inquisitors seek to entrap witnesses in ways that advance the questioner’s arguments.  That is not lying.  But certainly, the object is not to obtain the truth.  Indeed, our Founders saw in the First Amendment a device to distill the truth of a matter by allowing robust, fact-laden debate.  But when discourse devolves to choppy efforts to limit the full explanations of facts, it masks the truth.  No, that’s not a lie, per se.  But it is a step in that direction when responses are taken out of context to create a narrative that is every bit a lie.

To be clear, what passes for “debates” today does not resemble at all the characteristics of genuine debate.  Classic debate involves structured and organized speeches, followed by questions, rebuttals, and closing summaries that lead the listeners to conclude winners and losers.  That has been replaced with much shouting, ad hominem attacks, and accusations that have nothing to do with getting at the truth.  Indeed, rebuttals in today’s debates frequently rely on one side or the other declaring that something that is indeed true is not at all.  “That’s not true,” said one recent 2007 Presidential debater of an indisputably truthful fact.  Is that not a lie to call something untrue that is verifiably true?

In this era of sharp political and social division, opposing sides have at their disposal an arsenal of twisted and distorted facts—themselves untrue—to hurl at one another.  They also amount to lies.  Sadly, political discourse has become coarse indeed.  Deceit is its defining characteristic.

Closer to home, that deceit seems to have no limit, even in a referendum put to the people for consideration.  Take the ballot question before Virginians on 21 April.  Voters are being asked to decide on a constitutional amendment that would allow the current Democrat majority in the General Assembly to gerrymander congressional legislative districts, something Virginians roundly rejected in 2020 when they approved a constitutional provision requiring citizen participation in non-partisan redistricting.  If passed, the amendment would permit the implementation of a new Congressional District map that would create a 10-to-1 advantage for Democrats, essentially eliminating 4 of the 5 Republican seat holders.

It is blatantly unfair, especially when done in the middle of the decade and not concurrently with a new census.  Yet consider the deceitful ballot question voters are given at the polls that reads, “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections?”  To say this is a lie would be a gross understatement.  It is a deliberate effort to tell a lie to obtain an injustice.  Of course, Virginians should vote “NO” not only in opposing a corrupt provision, but also as a rejection of a bald-faced lie embedded in the ballot question.  Both are perverse distortions of justice and truth.

It’s time for Americans to reject the culture of lies that has flooded our discourse in ways that would make the worst fabricator blush.  A nation like ours cannot long survive if we hold in contempt the need for truth.  We must be worthy of self-governance, and surely we will not be if we condone deceit in any form, even if those who practice it are of our own political persuasion.

When we wink at a political lie of convenience, we participate in its telling as if it were solely our own creation.  That’s objective deceit.   

We were all wondering what Armstrong would say when he stepped onto the surface.  I recall some jokes about where to get a hamburger.  But what he eventually said was eloquent.  It wasn’t nationalistic, but rather appealed to a much broader context.  “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”  Nonetheless, all of us welled up with pride as we applauded and cheered this remarkable event.

It’s fascinating to me to think about what will occur in the future that is hard for those of us here today to comprehend.  Last night, America, for the second time in 57 years, sent astronauts into space to travel to the moon, to orbit it, and eventually return home, a test of modern technology that will lead to landing men on the moon again, possibly within the next two years.

Imagine for a moment if an advisor to King George III had predicted that the Colonies he would lose to a revolution would result in a nation that would send men to the moon and return them safely to our planet.  “Preposterous” would have been the likely response.  But that is what happened.

America would prosper throughout history and, ironically, do so while Britain continued to rule the seas.  Then, Pax Britannica would benefit the mutual interests of the old empire and the United States as they expanded their mutual economic interests.  There would be tension—and a second war—between the two, but in the long run, the United States and Britain have had a symbiotic relationship, even amid some disagreements.

After WWI, America would continue to prosper and reach dominance after WWII, when the rest of the world was in shambles.  America’s emergence as a preeminent world power would continue as the Boomer Generation arrived.  Much would define us as young people growing up in the most powerful country in the world.  Rock and Roll, fast food, souped-up cars, and sports heroes were prominent.  There were also bad things.  Drugs, sexual hedonism, and the Vietnam War.  All of that created doubt about the future of our nation, one that was in open rebellion against authority and deeply divided over war and traditional values.

Amid all of that, Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin galvanized us in a moment of unity.  They exhibited extraordinary courage, and we watched them.  We were riveted by what they did for the US and the world.  The unthinkable was no longer impossible.  America had put men on the moon.  We were first.  Yet all around the world, people watched in utter amazement as two American visitors to the moon placed the American flag where it remains to this day.

These are the memories that occurred to me last night as we watched America launch Artemis 2, atop NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), the most powerful rocket ever built.  Liftoff took place at 6:35 PM, sending four astronauts into Earth orbit aboard the Orion spacecraft, where they are now preparing for the next phase of their journey.  I wonder what young people watching this second epoch of lunar exploration were thinking when the SLS thundered into space yesterday.  Did they, like we decades ago, take a break from the self-indulgence and conflict of our age?  Were they able to look past the great divisions that confront us today, politically, socially, religiously, and racially?  Did they see some hope in excelling as no other nation has in history? Were they proud to be Americans?  I have my doubts, and that saddens me.

Maybe it will take a repetition of the 1969 arrival on the surface of the moon for them to share the same sense of awe and national pride—a good thing—that I sensed with my friends as we watched Armstrong make world history before our very eyes.  A VMI classmate reminded me that then we sent men to the moon using paper, pencils, and slide rules.  Now, supercomputers, some quite small, do that work as fearless, brave astronauts hurtle towards our closest neighbor in the universe.  They share the same drive as their forbearers.  They carry within them the courage of their grandfathers. 

I’m hopeful that the youth of this nation will once again take pride in their nation.  We could use some transcendent unity now in the form of courage, vision, and exaltation.

I don’t feel old.  Yes, I move more slowly.  Bedtime at 9:00 PM suits me well, but I normally awake at around 5:30 AM each day.  Our yellow Labrador, Woody, provides a rousing incentive.  He doesn’t bark, but does put his two front paws at the edge of the bed.  If he could speak English, I’m sure he would say, “OK, time to get up and let me out.”  Yes, I am grateful. He’s actually a very polite and patient dog.

Gone are the days of Army service, when I was almost always happy with soldiering.  There were times when it was difficult. Particularly when I worked for highly disagreeable people, but that was infrequent over 28 years.  I learned how to survive them, mostly by not falling prey to giving my boss a piece of my mind.  It was tempting.  Most of the folks I worked for in both the artillery and in my duties as a Foreign Area Officer were professional and willing to overlook my faults.  I have many.  But my fondest memory is recalling the artillerymen I served with.  They were truly first-rate.

Artillerymen are a very fine breed of people.  They are obsessively mission-focused and precise in what they do.  I just finished writing a book about the artillery and its future in the wars ahead. I had the input of many former colleagues, some I served beside, some I served with contemporaneously, and others who served before or after me.  In all, they were superb professionals.  Writing about what they did and still do makes me feel a lot younger.  We worked hard to do what we did to a high standard.  That habit sticks with you, and it did when I went into politics months after I retired.

When I was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 2001, I did my best to apply the skills I learned as a soldier to my legislative duties.  It was not a perfect fit.  I soon learned how little I knew about governance.  I also learned that while I could compel soldiers to do the right thing, that was not so easily accomplished with 99 other legislators, who had an equally clear vision of what they thought was the right way to proceed.  In time, I learned it’s a lot easier to listen, learn, and persuade rather than demand compliance.

I would grow to deeply appreciate the associations I had in the General Assembly, particularly those who would be genuine friends and not just colleagues.  Yes, I confess, the soldier in me prevails to this day.  Looking back on the political phase of my life, I learned a lot about what is good and bad policy.  We have a lot of the latter lately, politicians who think presiding over government shutdowns is leadership.  It isn’t leadership.  It’s idiocy.  Others here in Virginia think it’s fair to gerrymander legislative districts in an obscenely partisan manner. That isn’t leadership. It’s a grotesque abuse of power.  They make schoolyard bullies look like cherubs.  Indeed, there’s nothing angelic about what they’re doing, quite the opposite (Vote “No” on 21 April).

At 75, I think about both of my careers, one as a soldier and the other as a small “s” statesman. Both were enjoyable in their own unique ways.  Yet I found another pastime as a scribe of sorts.  Having published two books and finished a third, I have found my calling.  Writing.  Indeed, this will be my 301^st weekly missive.  All of them have been cathartic for me.  They give me a time each week to “get stuff off my chest.”  Generally, they are well received.  A loyal few will say so back in an email.  Others will consume them quietly, and later—in person—will profess their approval. When people don’t agree, they will say so.  Sometimes with a bit of caustic flair.  I write on.

So, what of the next 25 years?  What shall I do?  To be sure, I will do my best to enjoy my family.  (I am besotted with joy over our grandchildren.)  And of course, I am blessed with the most wonderful wife, children, good friends, and a God who, despite my failings, never fails me.

I doubt I’ll make it to 100.  But I was wrong about 75, thankfully.

Let’s start with how we got to where we are. In the Cold War era following World War II, the world was dominated by a powerful US and the Soviet Union. Both were the prominent survivors of that war and almost immediately began competing for domination in what they felt were their spheres of influence. The American monopoly on atomic weapons would soon be challenged by Russia’s acquisition of an equally deadly nuclear arsenal. The “hot” war would now be a “cold” one. It was a time when global conflict was largely bipolar, that is, characterized by the US-Soviet competition for regional dominance internationally. 

That struggle would get very “hot” in Korea and Vietnam as the US and other Western powers opposed the spread of Russian and Chinese-supported communist movements. But in the Middle East, the violence that followed WWII brought much trouble to the world.  When the modern state of Israel was founded, the Arab-Israeli conflict threatened peace worldwide as the US and Russia took sides. Almost everyone knows that history well. But what of Iran?

During the 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1978 wars between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Iran was led by its Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who distanced himself from those conflicts, preferring to align himself with US goals to keep the Persian Gulf open to world commerce. He was the perfect ally for the US while Washington was focused on Vietnam or standing by Israel. When the Shah fell in 1979, all of that changed. Iran was no longer an ally, but a bitter enemy, then ruled by radical mullahs who hated Israel and sought to propagate the Iranian revolution throughout the region. 

Iran would wrongly hold the US embassy hostage for 444 days while inspiring terror attacks against US Marines in Beirut in 1983 that killed 241 brave Americans. The die was cast. Iran was at war with the US.

When the Soviet Union fell in December 1991 after a US-led coalition defeated Saddam Hussein and his army, the world was no longer bipolar. The emergence of a multipolar competition would be a new threat. Smaller countries seeking long-desired regional influence characterized a new political-military competition.  Among them was Iran, whose hatred of the US and Israel fueled their desire to push the former out of the Middle East and destroy the latter.

Again, most people are well aware of the violence and terror that Iran has sponsored in the years since the First Gulf War, the one I fought in and wrote about. All of that history has led us to where we are now. And where we are is facing an Iran that is in the process of collapsing as a nation-state.

Since Operation Epic Fury began on 28 February 2026, US and Israeli forces have struck over 7,000 targets and destroyed the Iranian navy, all toward dismantling the regime’s security apparatus. Meanwhile, the Iranian leadership has been decapitated, and more of that will follow. How will this end?

I’m not sure. But I do know this. Iran will be in shambles. Its economy will collapse, its military will be defanged, its ballistic missiles and nuclear ambitions crushed.  And then the US will withdraw, wisely not willing to re-engage in the national-building miscalculations of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Iran has paid a deserved price for the years of terror and violence it visited on the region and on its own people. This is not a war of choice, but a war of necessity. Iran’s demonic regime needed to be defenestrated. Now it will fall on the Iranian people to find the will to set their nation on a path to peace that its former tyrannical leaders eschewed. 

The theocratic tyranny of the Islamic Revolution was untenable, maybe suited for a 7th-century world, but not for the present. The primary US strategy is to decisively terminate Iran’s ability to project violence and terror. Hopefully, a more moderate regime will emerge and reject radical hegemony for rational coexistence. But the Iranian people have been so abused by their repressive terror mullahs for the past 47 years that a new regime will not be formed overnight. After all, the former regime murdered protesters in the streets. For that reason, the wrong sort of leadership should be eliminated.

The best outcome may be the obvious one at this point—a demilitarized and defeated Iran, but one eager for positive change.