An all American conservative boy, here to have fun with interesting conversations and the like. Taken by a lovely girl J.
-
1939 Beiträge
-
512 Fotos
-
0 Videos
-
Follower 5 Menschen
Neueste Updates
-
The party who calls you a Nazi, Hitler, racist, a Putin puppet, a pedo protector, a white supremacist, and every name in the book 24/7 - wants you to know that calling Michelle Obama, a man is a bridge too far.The party who calls you a Nazi, Hitler, racist, a Putin puppet, a pedo protector, a white supremacist, and every name in the book 24/7 - wants you to know that calling Michelle Obama, a man is a bridge too far.0 Kommentare 0 Geteilt 265 AnsichtenBitte loggen Sie sich ein, um liken, teilen und zu kommentieren!
-
Can anyone BE more gay than these 2?Can anyone BE more gay than these 2?0 Kommentare 0 Geteilt 224 Ansichten
-
https://x.com/SoveyX/status/2066559104705761562
The Obama’s respond to last night’s accusation that Michelle is a man. pic.twitter.com/iaKOPi64tQ
— Sovey (@SoveyX) June 15, 20260 Kommentare 0 Geteilt 164 Ansichten -
I watch the fight last night. It was awesome. And here is our national anthem by Zac Brown and the combined flyover…..https://x.com/TONYxTWO/status/2066320203089146149I watch the fight last night. It was awesome. And here is our national anthem by Zac Brown and the combined flyover…..https://x.com/TONYxTWO/status/2066320203089146149
The National Anthem at the White House was absolutely epic!!! 🇺🇸🔥
— TONY™ (@TONYxTWO) June 15, 2026
Wait for the flyover!!!! pic.twitter.com/gNEkSPFkaO0 Kommentare 0 Geteilt 219 Ansichten -
Just read this on this news…..and my thoughts.
”Elite university students are now incapable of reading a book.
Instead of fixing this, universities are simply reducing reading requirements to shorter and shorter excerpts.”
I don't think anybody really grasps how desperate this situation is.
University professors are now saying they are unable to teach history because reading long books and passages is how a person learns history. College kids are incapable of reading more than a few pages.
Some classes don't assign any reading at all now, only lectures.
There is an assumption among the people managing this decline that reading is just a way of receiving information. It isn't. Proper reading is how we build the mental muscle to synthesize ideas and evaluate them.
If the catastrophic decline in reading and literacy is not addressed now, we risk losing everything.
Western civilization cannot survive the death of reading because it was built by people with the kind of cognitive depth that a culture of deep reading brings:
Complex reasoning, extended internal dialogue, the capacity to hold opposing ideas in tension. Our systems and institutions are complex, and they require well ordered minds to maintain them.
Reading forms minds, and the West was built by the richest minds in history.Just read this on this news…..and my thoughts. ”Elite university students are now incapable of reading a book. Instead of fixing this, universities are simply reducing reading requirements to shorter and shorter excerpts.” I don't think anybody really grasps how desperate this situation is. University professors are now saying they are unable to teach history because reading long books and passages is how a person learns history. College kids are incapable of reading more than a few pages. Some classes don't assign any reading at all now, only lectures. There is an assumption among the people managing this decline that reading is just a way of receiving information. It isn't. Proper reading is how we build the mental muscle to synthesize ideas and evaluate them. If the catastrophic decline in reading and literacy is not addressed now, we risk losing everything. Western civilization cannot survive the death of reading because it was built by people with the kind of cognitive depth that a culture of deep reading brings: Complex reasoning, extended internal dialogue, the capacity to hold opposing ideas in tension. Our systems and institutions are complex, and they require well ordered minds to maintain them. Reading forms minds, and the West was built by the richest minds in history.0 Kommentare 0 Geteilt 695 Ansichten -
-
I used to believe in birth control as a means to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions, but I changed my mind. Here’s why.
In 1968, Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae and was mocked for it. He saw exactly where we were headed.
He predicted that widespread contraception would open the door to more infidelity, a lowering of moral standards, and men viewing women as something to use instead of someone to honor and protect. This is what happens when we separate sex from commitment and from the possibility of life.
Contraception didn’t reduce abortion; it helped build the mindset that made abortion inevitable and provided another opportunity to profit off women’s bodies.
When society is told that it is possible have sex without consequences, the baby is viewed as a failure.
A child is not a failure. We shouldn’t be surprised that a child results from a procreative act.
We fail ourselves by dividing sex from the goodness God created it for. We fail our children by viewing them as accidents.I used to believe in birth control as a means to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions, but I changed my mind. Here’s why. In 1968, Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae and was mocked for it. He saw exactly where we were headed. He predicted that widespread contraception would open the door to more infidelity, a lowering of moral standards, and men viewing women as something to use instead of someone to honor and protect. This is what happens when we separate sex from commitment and from the possibility of life. Contraception didn’t reduce abortion; it helped build the mindset that made abortion inevitable and provided another opportunity to profit off women’s bodies. When society is told that it is possible have sex without consequences, the baby is viewed as a failure. A child is not a failure. We shouldn’t be surprised that a child results from a procreative act. We fail ourselves by dividing sex from the goodness God created it for. We fail our children by viewing them as accidents.0 Kommentare 0 Geteilt 700 Ansichten -
Agreed.. https://x.com/DerrickEvans4WV/status/2064460550143103182
They ruled Iryna’s killer is incompetent to stand trial.
— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) June 9, 2026
The same system ruled this man was plenty competent enough to be released back into society dozens of times.
It’s past time to remove these left wing activist judges. https://t.co/W21yWqLD5f pic.twitter.com/OyPeWbLnwL0 Kommentare 0 Geteilt 312 Ansichten -
Stonewall Jackson trusted very few men. He demanded absolute discipline, unquestioning obedience, and relentless aggression. But there was one general whose brilliance he admired—and whose behavior he could never fully forgive. Their partnership helped win battles, yet their personal relationship remained one of the Confederacy’s most complicated rivalries.
Time Period: 1862–1863
Conflict: American Civil War
Key Figures: Stonewall Jackson and A.P. Hill
The image portrays two of the Confederacy's most famous commanders: Lieutenant General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson and Major General Ambrose Powell (A.P.) Hill. Together they helped create some of the most remarkable Confederate victories of the Civil War. Yet behind the battlefield success lay a relationship filled with tension, arguments, and lingering resentment.
When the Civil War intensified in 1862, A.P. Hill emerged as one of the Confederacy's most talented combat commanders. Leading his famous Light Division, Hill developed a reputation for aggressive attacks, rapid movement, and personal courage under fire.
Stonewall Jackson immediately recognized Hill's military ability.
In battle, Hill was often exactly the type of commander Jackson needed. He moved quickly, fought aggressively, and inspired his troops. During the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1862, Jackson's lightning-fast victories depended heavily on officers capable of executing difficult orders under extreme pressure.
However, the two men possessed very different personalities.
Jackson was intensely private, deeply religious, and demanded strict obedience from subordinates. Orders were expected to be followed without question. Hill, by contrast, was independent, outspoken, and often challenged decisions he believed were mistaken.
Their disagreements soon became legendary.
Throughout the Valley Campaign, Jackson and Hill repeatedly argued over marching orders, troop movements, and battlefield decisions. On several occasions Jackson accused Hill of moving too slowly or failing to carry out instructions precisely as ordered. Hill, meanwhile, believed Jackson sometimes issued vague or impractical commands.
The tension reached a breaking point during the Seven Days Battles outside Richmond in June 1862.
During one heated dispute, Jackson became so frustrated that he temporarily placed Hill under arrest. Although the arrest did not last long, it revealed just how strained their relationship had become. Few Confederate officers could imagine openly clashing with the feared Stonewall Jackson, yet Hill repeatedly did so.
Despite these personal conflicts, Jackson never doubted Hill's fighting ability.
In fact, some of the Confederacy's greatest successes occurred because Hill's division arrived at critical moments. At Antietam in September 1862, Hill's troops completed a grueling march and arrived just in time to prevent the collapse of Lee's right flank. Their counterattack helped save the Confederate army from potential disaster.
Even Jackson reportedly acknowledged the value of Hill's battlefield leadership.
Yet trust between the two men never fully developed.
Jackson admired Hill's courage but disliked his independence. Hill respected Jackson's military genius but resented what he considered unfair criticism and excessive secrecy. Their relationship became a constant balance between professional respect and personal frustration.
Everything changed in May 1863.
After the Confederate victory at Chancellorsville, Stonewall Jackson was accidentally wounded by Confederate soldiers and later died from complications. The Confederacy lost one of its greatest commanders.
Following Jackson's death, A.P. Hill eventually rose to command a corps in Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. He continued serving with distinction until he was killed near Petersburg in April 1865, just days before Lee's surrender.
Historians still debate exactly what Jackson truly thought of A.P. Hill. What is clear is that Jackson considered Hill difficult, stubborn, and occasionally infuriating. Yet he also knew that Hill was one of the most capable combat commanders in the Confederate army.
In war, mutual admiration does not always create friendship. Sometimes great victories are achieved by men who respected each other's abilities while never fully trusting one anotherStonewall Jackson trusted very few men. He demanded absolute discipline, unquestioning obedience, and relentless aggression. But there was one general whose brilliance he admired—and whose behavior he could never fully forgive. Their partnership helped win battles, yet their personal relationship remained one of the Confederacy’s most complicated rivalries. Time Period: 1862–1863 Conflict: American Civil War Key Figures: Stonewall Jackson and A.P. Hill The image portrays two of the Confederacy's most famous commanders: Lieutenant General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson and Major General Ambrose Powell (A.P.) Hill. Together they helped create some of the most remarkable Confederate victories of the Civil War. Yet behind the battlefield success lay a relationship filled with tension, arguments, and lingering resentment. When the Civil War intensified in 1862, A.P. Hill emerged as one of the Confederacy's most talented combat commanders. Leading his famous Light Division, Hill developed a reputation for aggressive attacks, rapid movement, and personal courage under fire. Stonewall Jackson immediately recognized Hill's military ability. In battle, Hill was often exactly the type of commander Jackson needed. He moved quickly, fought aggressively, and inspired his troops. During the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1862, Jackson's lightning-fast victories depended heavily on officers capable of executing difficult orders under extreme pressure. However, the two men possessed very different personalities. Jackson was intensely private, deeply religious, and demanded strict obedience from subordinates. Orders were expected to be followed without question. Hill, by contrast, was independent, outspoken, and often challenged decisions he believed were mistaken. Their disagreements soon became legendary. Throughout the Valley Campaign, Jackson and Hill repeatedly argued over marching orders, troop movements, and battlefield decisions. On several occasions Jackson accused Hill of moving too slowly or failing to carry out instructions precisely as ordered. Hill, meanwhile, believed Jackson sometimes issued vague or impractical commands. The tension reached a breaking point during the Seven Days Battles outside Richmond in June 1862. During one heated dispute, Jackson became so frustrated that he temporarily placed Hill under arrest. Although the arrest did not last long, it revealed just how strained their relationship had become. Few Confederate officers could imagine openly clashing with the feared Stonewall Jackson, yet Hill repeatedly did so. Despite these personal conflicts, Jackson never doubted Hill's fighting ability. In fact, some of the Confederacy's greatest successes occurred because Hill's division arrived at critical moments. At Antietam in September 1862, Hill's troops completed a grueling march and arrived just in time to prevent the collapse of Lee's right flank. Their counterattack helped save the Confederate army from potential disaster. Even Jackson reportedly acknowledged the value of Hill's battlefield leadership. Yet trust between the two men never fully developed. Jackson admired Hill's courage but disliked his independence. Hill respected Jackson's military genius but resented what he considered unfair criticism and excessive secrecy. Their relationship became a constant balance between professional respect and personal frustration. Everything changed in May 1863. After the Confederate victory at Chancellorsville, Stonewall Jackson was accidentally wounded by Confederate soldiers and later died from complications. The Confederacy lost one of its greatest commanders. Following Jackson's death, A.P. Hill eventually rose to command a corps in Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. He continued serving with distinction until he was killed near Petersburg in April 1865, just days before Lee's surrender. Historians still debate exactly what Jackson truly thought of A.P. Hill. What is clear is that Jackson considered Hill difficult, stubborn, and occasionally infuriating. Yet he also knew that Hill was one of the most capable combat commanders in the Confederate army. In war, mutual admiration does not always create friendship. Sometimes great victories are achieved by men who respected each other's abilities while never fully trusting one another0 Kommentare 0 Geteilt 1KB Ansichten -
Just a little American advice to all my friends in the UK:
It's only treason if you lose.
Godspeed.
The UK is the canary in the coal mine now. We will be dealing with the same here in the US, they're just further along than we are.Just a little American advice to all my friends in the UK: It's only treason if you lose. Godspeed. The UK is the canary in the coal mine now. We will be dealing with the same here in the US, they're just further along than we are.0 Kommentare 0 Geteilt 468 Ansichten
Mehr Storys