Stan McWilliams

No DM: When young, I voted Democrat, Believed in dreams and all of that. Now old and gray, I see the saga— Turns out my vote’s gone red—for MAGA!

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

@ElenaBee0 Age always matters!

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

@ElenaBee0 That’s the rest of the story

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

@ElenaBee0 You both should be proud of that picture. Bet you great friends!

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

@ElenaBee0 I think you look great

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

@ElenaBee0 He’s not called

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

@ElenaBee0 I’m wishing 😊

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

@BriarThornes You do look outstanding.

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

TRUMP IS GETTING OUT AT THE RIGHT TIME

One of the biggest mistakes America has made over the last 50 years is confusing military success with permanent occupation.

President Trump has never been a believer in forever wars. His doctrine has always been different: define the objective, achieve the objective, maintain overwhelming deterrence, and leave yourself the ability to strike again if necessary.

If the objective was to cripple Iran’s military capabilities, degrade its ability to threaten its neighbors, prevent a nuclear weapon, restore freedom of navigation, and force Tehran back to negotiations, then America appears to be in a far stronger position today than when this conflict began. Victor Davis Hanson has argued that Iran entered negotiations from a position of weakness and economic distress, not strength.

Trump has repeatedly stated that Iran will never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and has warned of severe consequences if it violates its commitments.

That is what deterrence looks like.

You do not have to occupy a country forever when your military, economic, intelligence, and technological advantages allow you to reach out and strike at any time if necessary.

The goal should not be endless war. The goal should be peace through strength.

If Iran complies, peace is possible.

If Iran does not comply, America retains the capability to respond.

That is a far better strategy than spending another twenty years and trillions of dollars trying to remake the Middle East.

Strength. Deterrence. Verification. Then come home.

That appears to be exactly where President Trump is trying to take this.

https://t.co/wHVNBE4nuP

https://t.co/uSpRlE4oVp

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

@lippyent Jaws

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

IRAN’S “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” — BY ANY OTHER NAME

President Trump may be right.

When a nation loses significant military capability, agrees to end hostilities, reopens vital shipping lanes, and accepts terms it previously rejected, what exactly do you call it?

The article also references covert maritime operations that reportedly crippled major portions of Iran’s naval capability. We may never know every detail, but history is often shaped by operations the public doesn’t fully see until years later.

Of course, President Trump is always going to present the strongest possible interpretation of events. Every political leader does. But even allowing for that reality, it is difficult to argue that Iran emerges from this conflict stronger than it entered it.

One thing I do not believe has changed: President Trump has consistently supported Israel’s right to defend itself. Deep down, I suspect he understands Israel’s position that no nation can simply sit and absorb attacks without responding. Whether one agrees or disagrees, that has been a central principle of Israeli security policy for decades.

The lawyers, commentators, and political operatives can debate terminology. They can argue over whether this technically qualifies as “unconditional surrender.”

History will focus on outcomes.

Iran appears far worse off militarily today than it was before this conflict. Its ability to project power has been challenged, its infrastructure damaged, and its options narrowed.

Supporters of the administration argue that this leaves the United States in a far stronger strategic position and provides significant military leverage should Iran choose to violate future agreements.

History will render the final verdict.

https://t.co/nExkYOAXat

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

JASMINE CROCKETT’S BIGGEST PROBLEM

I have watched Jasmine Crockett closely. Based on her public statements and political approach, I believe that if James Talarico were Black, she would be supporting him instead of attacking him.

That is my opinion, and it comes from what I see as an excessive focus on race and identity politics rather than ideas, policies, and results.

In my view, being a Democrat is almost a subset of race in Crockett’s political worldview. Nearly every issue seems to be filtered through race, grievance, or what Rush Limbaugh famously called “getting evenism.”

There is no doubt that Jasmine Crockett is intelligent, articulate, and politically skilled. But I believe she has chosen to build her political brand around victimhood, identity politics, and racial division rather than around the broader issues that affect all Americans.

America works best when we judge people by character, competence, achievement, and convictions—not by the color of their skin. The same standard should apply whether someone is Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

The question voters should ask is simple: Are we choosing leaders based on what they believe and what they can accomplish, or are we choosing them based on identity?

I know my answer.

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

@Babywwir A 12

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

@lippyent Bewitched

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

A FATHER’S GREATEST LEGACY

Happy Father’s Day to all the fathers, grandfathers, stepfathers, adoptive fathers, and father figures who helped shape our lives.

A father’s job is never easy. He teaches by example, protects when danger comes, provides when times are hard, and sacrifices more than most people will ever know. The lessons he passes down—character, discipline, faith, responsibility, and love—become the foundation upon which future generations stand.

To the fathers still raising children: your work matters.

To the grandfathers passing down wisdom: your work matters.

To the fathers who are no longer with us: your legacy lives on in the lives you touched.

Today, call your father if you can. Thank him if you can. Remember him if you cannot.

Strong families build strong communities. Strong communities build strong nations.

Happy Father’s Day to all the fathers. May God bless you and your families.

A young man has time to learn. An old man has a responsibility to teach.

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

RIGHTS COME FROM GOD, NOT GOVERNMENT

Many of the greatest political debates in history come down to a single question:

Where do our rights come from?

The American Founders gave a revolutionary answer. They did not believe rights came from kings, politicians, legislatures, courts, or governments. They believed rights came from God.

That belief is embedded in the very words of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

The word Creator matters.

If government grants rights, government can take them away. If politicians create rights, politicians can redefine them. If rights depend solely on power, then whoever controls power controls freedom.

But if rights come from God, they exist before government. Government’s role is not to create rights but to protect them.

The right to speak freely, worship freely, defend yourself, own property, pursue opportunity, and live according to your conscience does not originate in Washington, Austin, or any state capitol. These rights belong to every human being because they are rooted in human dignity itself.

This principle transformed the world.

For centuries, people lived under rulers who claimed power came from above and flowed downward to the people. America reversed that idea. Rights came from God to the people, and governments received their authority only through the consent of the governed.

That belief remains the foundation of liberty.

It also creates responsibility. Rights and responsibilities travel together. Freedom requires character. Self-government requires self-discipline. A free people must possess the wisdom to govern themselves, or eventually others will govern them.

As technology grows more powerful and governments become larger and more complex, this principle becomes even more important. Every generation must decide whether freedom is a gift from God or a privilege granted by government.

The answer will determine the future of liberty.

The Founders answered clearly.

Rights come from God. Government exists to protect them.

That truth built America.

And it remains worth defending.

A young man has time to learn. An old man has a responsibility to teach.
Rights come from God. Government exists to protect them.

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

@lippyent Petticoat Junction

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

TO MY GRANDCHILDREN: HOW TO CHOOSE FRIENDS

One of the most important decisions you will ever make is choosing your friends.

Your friends will influence what you believe, how you behave, what opportunities come your way, and ultimately who you become. More dreams are encouraged or destroyed by friendships than most people realize.

Choose friends carefully.

Look for people of character. Find friends who tell the truth, keep their word, show up when they say they will, and do the right thing even when nobody is watching. Character is not something people turn on and off. It is who they are.

Choose friends who make you better.

The best friends encourage growth. They challenge you when you are wrong. They celebrate your successes without jealousy. They push you toward your goals instead of distracting you from them.

Pay attention to how people treat others.

Anyone can be kind to someone they want something from. Watch how they treat waiters, cashiers, strangers, children, and people who can do nothing for them. That often reveals their true nature.

Avoid people who constantly create drama.

Some people seem to carry conflict with them wherever they go. They are always angry, always offended, always blaming someone else for their problems. You do not have to dislike them, but you should be careful about building your life around them.

Choose friends who take responsibility.

Life is difficult. Everyone makes mistakes. Good friends own their failures, learn from them, and move forward. People who never accept responsibility rarely improve.

Find friends who share your values.

You do not have to agree on everything. In fact, good friends often challenge each other’s thinking. But on the important things—honesty, family, faith, work, responsibility, and respect—it helps to walk in the same direction.

Remember this: popularity and friendship are not the same thing.

Many people may know your name. Very few will stand beside you when life becomes difficult. A handful of loyal friends is worth far more than a thousand casual acquaintances.

As you grow older, you will discover that the greatest friendships are built on trust, shared experiences, mutual respect, and genuine care for one another. Those friendships become one of life’s greatest blessings.

Choose wisely.

Your friends will help shape your future.

And never forget: if you want good friends, be a good friend.

A young man has time to learn. An old man has a responsibility to teach.

One day my voice will be gone. I hope these words remain.

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

WHO STEPS FORWARD NOW? THE TORCH OF RUSH LIMBAUGH AND CHARLIE KIRK IS STILL BURNING

I loved the old Candace Owens, and in many ways I still do.

What she did to challenge political orthodoxy, encourage independent thinking, and open conversations that many people were afraid to have can never be forgotten. She influenced millions of Americans and helped create space for new voices to emerge.

But movements are bigger than any one person.

First we lost Rush Limbaugh. Then we lost Charlie Kirk. Candace Owens has largely chosen her own path. Erika Kirk has carried an enormous burden and has already given more than most people could ever be asked to give.

That leaves a question that conservatives should be asking:

Who steps forward now?

Every generation produces a handful of voices capable of changing the national conversation. Not because they are famous. Not because they are wealthy. But because they are willing to stand in the arena when others will not.

The message still matters.

Faith still matters.

Family still matters.

Citizenship still matters.

Personal responsibility still matters.

America still matters.

The next great voice may not be a politician. It may not be a television personality. It may be a young man or woman nobody has heard of yet who is willing to speak with courage, conviction, and common sense.

History rarely leaves a vacuum unfilled.

Someone will step forward.

The question is whether they are preparing themselves right now.

Rush carried the torch.

Charlie carried the torch.

The torch is still burning.

Who carries it next?

Say his name out loud: Rush Limbaugh.

Say his name out loud: Charlie Kirk.

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA IS NOT A TEST OF SOCIALISM

I keep hearing that Richmond, California proves socialism works.

How?

Richmond has roughly 115,000 people. America has more than 340 million. Richmond operates under California law, federal law, federal monetary policy, federal spending, federal regulations, state regulations, and benefits from being part of the Bay Area economy.

The city controls some zoning, permitting, policing priorities, parking, traffic, fees, and local taxes. Important? Yes. A true test of socialism? Not even close.

Richmond also benefits from major industry, including the Chevron refinery, one of the largest on the West Coast, along with port operations, logistics, and regional economic activity that city politicians did not create.

A real test would require control over the major economic levers: taxation, labor law, energy policy, environmental policy, trade policy, welfare policy, immigration policy, and monetary policy.

Cities often get to pick and choose the policies they want to showcase while blaming failures on someone else and taking credit for successes created by larger economic forces.

Richmond is not proof that socialism works.

At best, it is a case study of how a small city operates inside a much larger state and federal system.

Calling Richmond a definitive test of socialism is like calling a parking lot a test of the entire transportation system.

https://t.co/S7O9xEM88e

[Stan McWilliams @StanMcwilliamd]

THE THREE ISSUES THAT MAY HAVE BROKEN THE MODERN DEMOCRATIC PARTY

If I had to identify the three issues that have done the most damage to the modern Democratic Party, I would choose:

1. Illegal Immigration

A nation that cannot control its borders eventually loses the confidence of its citizens. Americans are generally welcoming people, but they also expect laws to be enforced. The failure to distinguish clearly between legal immigration and illegal immigration has created a political wound that grows deeper every year. Sanctuary policies, overwhelmed public services, and highly publicized crimes committed by some illegal immigrants have convinced many voters that the party is more concerned with protecting non-citizens than protecting its own citizens.

2. “Getting Evenism”

Rush Limbaugh often described a strain of modern politics as “getting evenism”—the idea that society should be organized around settling historical grievances rather than expanding opportunity. Many voters believe the Democratic Party increasingly emphasizes division by race, class, gender, and identity instead of unity through citizenship, merit, and shared national purpose. Americans generally support fairness. They are less enthusiastic about politics built around resentment, blame, and perpetual victimhood.

3. Crime

Government has many responsibilities, but none is more fundamental than public safety. When citizens feel unsafe walking downtown, riding public transportation, or raising families in their communities, political theories quickly become irrelevant. Voters may tolerate many disagreements, but they rarely tolerate disorder. The perception—fair or unfair—that Democrats became reluctant to support aggressive law enforcement has cost the party credibility with millions of working-class Americans.

Political parties are ultimately defined not by what they intend, but by what voters believe they stand for.

Rightly or wrongly, many Americans now associate the modern Democratic Party with illegal immigration, grievance politics, and weakness on crime.

If that perception continues to harden, it may become one of the greatest political realignments of the 21st century.