Perspective on the Senate Resolution Vote 01/14/2026 on Presidential Powers

by John Bernard, ©2026

(Jan. 17, 2026) — Even as I write this, I am keenly aware that my time would have been better spent nailing my tongue to the floor with an annular ring nail, driven with a 22-ounce Plumb framing hammer because history, dates, and facts no longer have any sway over ideological presupposition and most certainly not among those so willing to and even demanding that we unilaterally surrender our Sovereignty.

History:

1789 – Establishment Date of the War Department

1801 – The first effective use of a unilateral executive order to use military force was by Jefferson, in the Med, interdicting Moslem Corsairs and then landing US Marines and attacking Tripoli to get to the source of the piracy. It is worthwhile for both sides of this debate to read up on this expedition so you can bring your education level up to that of any Private in the United States Marine Corps.

1945 – The Small Wars Manual is published and effectively becomes the blueprint for every single military engagement since, except Gulf War I and most recently in 2025 with Trump and Hegseth driving a dagger through the heart of the damnable, historically failed, 100% Democrat-initiated endless war creating Counter Insurgency Strategy.

1947 – Congress realigns several Departments, placing them all under one umbrella and one civilian Secretary as the Department of Defense. I suspect the new name was selected to be less provocative, less suggestive of projected power to convey a softer, defensive message in line with the new Globalist focus.

2025 – President Trump calls back the original name, signaling an end to the COIN (Counter-Insurgency doctrine) Op, endless wars, the unforgivable waste of American war fighters’ lives, Politruk Officers publicly vilifying their men in the field and fielding an inordinate number of JAG Officers specifically to glean after-action reports, looking for legally actionable diversions from COIN artificially mandated ROE’s and to give or withdraw permission for coordinating supporting fire to protect our men.

The 1945-47 changes were the fruit of three converging interests:

First, a war-weary generation having lived through two world wars.

Second, the move toward an early form of a world governing body building on the concept of the League of Nations.

Third, the realization that there is profit for all players in the production of war materiel needed for extended military operations.

War fatigue fed the idea that large-scale wars could be avoided by addressing singular issues tête-à-tête or by proxy on, effectively, orchestrated small-scale battlefields. The problem is that controlled/orchestrated violence never provides the necessary elements for cessation of any disagreement, e.g., acknowledgment of fault, an apology or a surrender and effectively the extending of forgiveness, establishing of a truce and terms of agreement.

It was frustrating listening to Chuck Schumer decry the passing of the resolution which he warned would create more endless wars when in point of fact, every single endless, open-ended engagement we have been involved with since 1945 has been initiated by a Democrat President; all with huge body counts and all without a satisfactory, American-centric resolution. It is also frustrating that every single President has used that unilateral power at least once. And no, this is not a whataboutism; it’s an indictment of those who think like Schumer and remained silent under Biden, Obama, Clinton, Carter and LBJ, identifying them as nothing better than political shills!

When you consider how callously Democrat Presidents have so flagrantly, soullessly and satanically wasted countless US war fighters’ lives these past 80 years, it is maddening to know anyone gave ole’ Schumer, who has never had a job, much less served, a microphone.

So once again we see that this has nothing to do with the What if it wasn’t for the Who, which also means this is 100% about political obstruction and 0% legitimate concern for right and wrong, law and morality. Use of force should be exercised judiciously; we all agree with that. However, it should be definitively effective in its destruction and to demand a repentant attitude with the implied threat of a follow-up attack.

The Presidential Powers Act acknowledges a couple of things: first, that some action is time-sensitive and cannot wait on the foibles of unserious people who see every single Congressional vote as an opportunity to polish their oratory and massage their egos. Second, given the history of Congressmen’s inability to keep anything secret, Operation Security/Mission success/War Fighters’ safety are all paramount.

Of course, ole’ Schumer knows this and would be making the counter argument if “his guy” was sitting behind the Resolute Desk.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard