That quote by the late diplomat and author, Jean Giroudoux, “Only the Mediocre are Always at Their Best”, sort of describes what some of our leaders have expressed in the past. Remember when former President Barack Obama claimed that the United States was not an exceptional nation? He said we were no better than any other nation, which could be concluded that rather than being exceptional, we were just mediocre.

Compare President Obama's rhetoric with that of President Trump, who at every opportunity praises our country to the hilt as being the “shining city upon a hill” (a phrase popularized by former President Ronald Reagan). Contrary to what President Obama said, the United States is the most powerful, most prosperous, and most compassionate country in the world, therefore the most exceptional country. Why do people go through any means necessary to try to enter the United States, either legally or illegally, if our country was just an ordinary mediocre country?

Look at what our country has accomplished since the election of President Trump. We have a booming economy with lower taxes for both companies and citizens, we have the lowest unemployment rates in history for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, women, and people with just a high school diploma. Companies are coming back to our country after moving overseas in years past. Our GDP, during the past 2 years has hovered between 3.5% to 4.2%, which has increased the revenue take by the U.S. Treasury. During the 2016 presidential campaign, then President Obama scoffed at Donald Trump's claim that our GDP should be over 3% or 4%, by saying that we should be satisfied with a 2% GDP (which over the 8 years of President Obama our GDP did average less that 2%) and that to claim otherwise, candidate Trump would have to wave a “magic wand” in order to exceed that mediocre prognostication by President Obama.

When President Obama claimed that we (the U.S.A.) were no longer exceptional, he implied that we should be “mediocre” so that other countries didn't feel inferior to us. We have been the leader for most of the last century because we were “exceptional” in practically all aspects of life. If it wasn't for our exceptionalism, most all of Europe and parts of Asia would be speaking German now. If it wasn't for our “exceptionalism”, the defeated Axis powers would still be living with the effects of the carnage brought forth by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. If it wasn't for our exceptionalism, most countries of the world would've had trouble rebuilding their countries from the natural disasters that befell them. We were there with an open hand and an
unlimited pocketbook to help the unfortunates around the world. That is why we are “exceptional” and not just a mediocre country.

So yes, the quote by Jean Giroudoux does not apply to the United States because we are not “mediocre”, we are exceptional and damn well proud of it. Just ask the other countries of the world.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

If you watch enough T.V. you are bombarded by ads that champion one cure after another for a myriad of diseases or ailments with names that are hard to pronounce or that they are unpronounceable, even to a literate person. After telling you the ailments that the advertised medicinal or drug products will alleviate, they list a laundry list of the dangers of using those very same products. These side effects range from possible death, strokes, yeast infections, dizziness, heart attacks, constipation, diarrhea, rashes etc., etc. It's enough to scare the living daylights out of a prospective customer of these drugs, who is looking for relief of a problem not an additional problem to cope with. You wonder, after hearing all these possible side effects, if the cure is worse than the disease?

The reason these drug companies list all these dangers and side effects of the products they are advertising, is to “cover their as---” from a possible lawsuit by “ambulance chasing lawyers” (some who might fall under the classification of being called “shyster lawyers” - a “shyster” is defined as someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law), who are chomping at the bit to latch on to one or more of these liability cases. Corresponding to the avalanche of drug ads on T.V. are a corresponding avalanche of ads by lawyers trolling for prospective customers who have had an adverse reaction to one or more of these medicines or drugs, and who are now looking to cash in on their real or imagined damages or adverse effects. The ads by the lawyers make it sound that the victims can or will hit the “liability lottery” if they hire them to represent them in a lawsuit against these drug companies. Little, if any, do these lawyer ads mention the fact that the law firm will be compensated by getting a 33% to 40% fee of the award given the “victims” of these drugs.

Most of these cases never go to trial (only 10% do) as the drug companies have determined that it would be cheaper to settle rather than go to trial, so it's almost an “effortless” effort to get a piece of the action by the lawyer for their clients just by threatening the drug companies with a lawsuit. The practices by the trial lawyers scream out for our politicians to enact meaningful “tort reform”. Since most politicians are lawyers, it is almost impossible to get common sense legislation passed limiting the practice of the liability lawyers, most of whom will go back to practicing law once their legislative careers are concluded. With all the talk about health care, hardly any mention is made of what part these lawsuits play in the costs of medicine or health care. You could say that there is a conflict of interest on the part of many politicians, due to the fact that they don't want to harm their future income source when they go back to practicing law. It'll take a really tough leader to get legislation passed to bring some common sense back to our health care system. A populist President like Donald Trump, a non-lawyer, is probably the one person who might be able to accomplish this task. The odds are against reform, as the Democrat Party is in the “pocket” of the trial lawyers who donate many millions, mainly to the Democrats, to keep the status quo, is quite high.

So to sum up the answer to the headline, it can be concluded that in some cases the cure seems worse than the disease, but, if properly handled, these drugs can be a force for good in extending the lives of people or by giving relief to the medically afflicted. Be aware of the dangers of the drugs you take and work closely with your physician to mitigate any life-threatening side effects.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Have your listened to the rhetoric of today's liberal politicians running for office? Can you discern anything positive they are presenting other than personal invective against President Trump the Republicans and giving out more “free stuff”? How do those attacks on the president make the average American's life better other than to create more animosity among both the Democrats and Republicans?

What do they propose that they claim would be beneficial to the citizens of our country? As usual, they propose “free this” and “free that”, hoping that the average American voter will vote for them because they want something for nothing. Some might fall for this ploy, but I don't think the vast majority of citizens want a “handout”, they really would like to have a “hand up” instead. Two of the most outrageous proposals offered by the liberals, headed by the Bernie Sander's and the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez followers, are a government guaranteed wage for the unemployed ($15 per hour), and free college tuition for all who cannot afford a college education. No mention is made, by these spenders, of how other peoples money from the federal treasury would solve our poverty problem? To them, it is the thought or good intentions that should be considered and not the practicality of being fiscally responsible. Remember the phrase, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”, certainly applies to them. In addition, some of these left-wing candidates (a/k/a Democrat Socialists) are proposing Medicare for all, a total government takeover of our health care system. If they get control of the government and institute these proposals, it is estimated, that in 10 years, they would add $40 trillion to our national debt. It would be non-sustainable, to say the least. They are banking on the voting
public being ignorant of basic economics, as many supporters of these socialist principles, mainly the age group called the Millennial's (ages 18 to 35), who have been indoctrinated in socialism by our left- leaning education system, taught by their public school teachers and  their radical professors (it is estimated that 90% of our educators espouse liberalism (a/k/a Socialism).

Our country, a “democratic republic”, was set up by our founding fathers under the economic philosophy of “free enterprise capitalism”. It has worked amazingly well over the past 230 years – we are considered the most prosperous country in the world, the en y of most all countries and the people of the world. That's why we have so many people clamoring to immigrate to our country – either legally or illegally, which, in turn, has caused a major problem for our country. We are a most generous country, spreading our wealth all over the planet, but in many cases it has caused major problems which the present administration is trying curtail as it administers its domestic and foreign aid programs. The liberal philosophy of dispensing out tax money, both locally and abroad, in the name of “compassion”, is like throwing money down a rat hole as much of the money is wasted or stolen. This is why many call liberals “the Axis of Ignorance”, they are just ignorant of basic economics. By trying to even the economic playing field in our country and around the world, we have created a fiscal monster. The liberals always want to raise taxes on the well-to-do (the makers and/or wealth creators) in order to distribute it to the less wealthy (the takers). We have spent over $8 trillion dollars since the “War on Poverty” was instituted in 1965, and still we have the same amount of poverty today as we did back then. Just recently, the big government liberal spenders are extending their “freebie” mentality to include the illegal aliens that are already here or will be arriving soon. This overly generous display of “compassion” by the “bleeding heart liberals”, don't seem to show too much “compassion” for our over burdened taxpayers, you and I.

We cannot continue on this path to self-destruction, we must forget the hateful partisanship against the present Administration that is impeding our economic growth, because if this Administration fails, we all fail, Remember, “ignorance can be cured but stupidity is forever”.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Is 2018 "deja vu" of the election of 2016?  Remember the "Blue Wall" (Hillary would win the most states with the greatest electoral votes), which would be a guarantee for a Hillary Clinton election victory as president, well what happened?  Hillary lost the election and drove the Democrats to be in an extended sate of "funk" and a visceral hatred of the winner, Donald Trump.  You'd think that after almost two years, the loser Democrats would have tampered their anguish over the electoral loss, but it seems just the opposite is happening - the whole Democrat establishment has become unhinged along with the main stream media (a/k/a fake news). They totally ignore all the accomplishments that the Trump Administration has racked up, it's almost like they have a mental block when it comes to anything the Trump Administration does.  They won't give him credit for anything that he does, even if it is beneficial to the country as a whole.  A good analogy I once heard is that if Trump came up with a cure for cancer, the Democrats would complain that he didn't do it soon enough.  In other words, he couldn't win by winning.

During the 2016 presidential election campaign, most all the polls and pundits were in the unanimous opinion that Hillary was a "lock" in being elected president.  Even up to 9 PM (EST) preliminary results, the victory party for Hillary was being planned for the expected Hillary victory celebration. As the night wore on and as Trump won state after state, some that was totally unexpected (like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania). The giddiness about an expected Hillary victory celebration was slowly morphing into a state of abject despair and utter disbelief.  The "Blue Wall" was crumbling down before the very eyes of the Hillary supporters and the biased media which predicted up to a 95% certainty that Hillary would win.

Now, the Democrats and the "Fake News" media are predicting a Democrat "Blue Wave" in the November mid-term elections.  Will it be a correct prediction or just another ginned up attempt to deceive the voters into thinking that is just a forgone conclusion about the outcome and to urge voters to jump on the Democrat bandwagon?  To me, I think it will be just the opposite of the "Blue Wave".  I think we'll have a "Red Tide" that will sweep the G.O.P. into majorities in both the House and Senate.  Do you agree with me?

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Once upon a time, (July 5, 2016) there was an old witch disguised as a princess (Hillary Clinton) who was under fire for misdeeds to the realm, and consequently exonerated by an inept inquisitor (James Comey), who was hexed into a decision out of his authority, saving her from the gallows of obscurity.

Two weeks before the people were to pick a new leader of the realm, information  appeared that might put the princess/witch back on politician's death row, but she dodged the bullet and challenged the new kid on the block (Donald Trump) for leadership. The people were on to her and instead, gave the new kid the thumbs up. Meanwhile the screwing up by the inept inquisitor was under scrutiny by the new leader's judicial advisory team and he accepted their recommendation that he be fired. That's when everything hit the fan!

The second in command from the judicial team (Ron Rosenstein) arranged to have his  friend, who once held the same position of the fired inept inquisitor replace him. That was turned down by the leader. The following day, because the head of the judicial team (Jeff Sessions) didn't want to get  involved, left his deputy in command (Ron Rosenstein) to hire his friend to lead a contrived investigation about collusive shenanigans between the leader and the Russians, to 
delegitimize his win.

In order to form and legitimize a need for a special counsel, the contrivers needed proof of  this to get authorization, but they had none, so the princess/witch and her  cronies paid for a false dossier, put together by a retired  MI6 spy, (Christopher Steele) now in business selling his clandestine experience for big bucks, containing false information and  endorsed by high level intelligence individuals, sworn to protect impartially, the integrity of its purpose, but didn't and instead, subverted the very system they swore to protect.

The knight in shining armor (Robert Mueller) who was suppose to sort out this whole mess,  added to it by forming a round table of partial allies to the princess/witch and scoring on things that have nothing to do from the original franchise, and turning it into a witch hunt. Only his pursuit is after the wrong witch. And the princess/witch dodges another bullet forevermore.
​
The end.