A Distracted Trump is Still Better than Any Democrat

 

Trump Isn't Perfect, But He's Still AWESOME

So I voted for Trump. Happily. The first year of the second Trump term was magical. Even the 2nd year was going well... at first. I stood by him as I noticed that Trump was/is despised by the left. I defended him against those with TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). And, by the way, I still will. But... and this is a big "but"... there are some things I can't really defend, if I'm being honest.

For instance, I don't like the Arch project. Completely unnecessary. 

The ballroom project is fine. But truthfully we've gone 250 years without one. What's another couple of years? It comes across as a vanity project. Could have done that after the mid-terms.

Renaming the Kennedy Center the Trump Kennedy Center... really? Why? That doesn't NEED to be done.

The reflecting pool debacle is a huge unnecessary mess. Also could have been done AFTER the mid-terms.

The ICE thing. This has become a flash point of scandal. A gift to leftists who are looking for anything to beat Trump up over. They're making it into another Kent State. Why is this not being fixed? USE PEPPER SPRAY for God's sake. Stop shooting these people. The lefties don't care if the agent was afraid of death or great bodily harm. To them a shooting is NEVER EVER justified.

Also, it was imperative that we pass the SAVE act. It's common sense. And we still couldn't do it? Trump should have had rallies. Pushed for it. Had he thrown his whole weight behind it, it would have passed. But he didn't. Why???

But the biggest problem of all... the Iran war!

Now, I'm not questioning the Iran war. Those vile, murdering bastards needed to be taken care of. Trump is the one with the testicular fortitude necessary to topple that crappy regime. What I question is the timing. Why the hell did he do this BEFORE the mid-terms??!! This is YET ANOTHER agenda item that should have waited until AFTER the mid-terms!

He should have waited and dealt with Iran AFTER we secured the house and senate. With a booming economy, historically low gas prices, historically low crime rates, historically high stock market, Republicans would have taken EVERYTHING.

Instead, he attacked Iran, and they used the strait of Hormuz to spike global gas prices. Prices rose to Biden-levels and the economy has sputtered. The result? Democrats are projected to take the house AND the senate.

So the house and senate are up for grabs. This really really bothers me. Not just me, but most people. Especially those of us who love Trump. The media hates him when he's doing the right thing. But when he actually does something wrong, or goofy, or not so great, well, the hatred gets to Biblical levels. And for the first time, starts to seem accurate.

Trump! The stopper of wars. Mr. Peace. Mr. Negotiator. Now he's just bombing the %$#@ out of people. Isn't he supposed to be the guy that uses economics to wage weapon-less war? I guess not. I told everyone that's who he was as he stopped 8 wars. But now, he has removed the very thing I used to use to defend him. I used to say "He stopped 8 wars!" and the liberal would stutter. Finding it impossible to counter. But NOW? They just point out that we are in a major war in Iran, with actual dying American soldiers, and economic difficulty leading to plummeting approval polls and rising gas prices.

Oh the calamity. What's a MAGA guy to do?

Hopefully Trump has someone around him who can talk sense to him. J.D. Vance? Marco Rubio? He needs to get back to what he used to be in 2024-2025. Those were heady times of winning winning winning. Putting the country first, and himself, not second, but last. 

It's getting very late in the game. Mid-terms are in November. It's already August.

I honestly think Trump was going to use a victory in Iran as a jewel in the crown for the mid-terms. But that didn't work out. Now this seeming quagmire of a war, with no end in sight, is an albatross around the administration's neck. It's a club the left can use to bludgeon Trump. A club he gave them with a bow on top. It's a major talking point Republicans can't effectively defend. And unfortunately, it might cost us "big league".

Can he fix it? Yes. But he had better hurry.

The Democratic Socialist takeover of the Democrat party

 

In modern Democrat politics, there is a storm brewing. That storm is that Communists are taking over the Democrat party. Which is actually good news for me. That will draw an even clearer distinction between us and them than ever before.

But it cracks me up. Their policy of "vote blue no matter who" has resulted in them being overrun by commies. 

Could Democratic Socialists (read "Commies") find a home in the Republican party? Hell no. But because of leftist ideology the Democrats have fallen for their stealthy infiltration. Hilarious. 

DSA is what would happen if elementary school kids made public policy. They don't have a clue what reality is.

Check out what they "fight for":

THRIVING WORKING CLASS COMMUNITIES

Freedom To Flourish
Healthcare For All
Housing For All
Finish Reconstruction
End Mass Incarceration and Police Immunity
Feminism For All
Green New Deal

WORKING-CLASS FOREIGN POLICY

End The U.S. War Machine
Free Palestine
End Blockades, Embargoes, and Sanctions
Abolish ICE

WORKING-CLASS DEMOCRACY

Democracy For All
A Real Democracy
A Democratic Congress
Economic Democracy
Democracy At Work

No Trump is not whitewashing Washington's Birthplace

 

The Trump Administration Isn't Whitewashing George Washington's History—It's Restoring Historical Perspective

Democrats and their allies on the left are accusing the Trump administration of “whitewashing” American history (or downright censorship) because the federal government replaced the slavery exhibit at the President's House site in Philadelphia. That accusation is politically convenient, but it doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Nobody is claiming that George Washington did not own enslaved people. Nobody is claiming that slavery was not an evil institution. And nobody is erasing the fact that nine enslaved people lived and worked in Washington's Philadelphia residence during his presidency.

In fact, the new exhibit still discusses those enslaved people, the evils and contradictions of slavery, the abolitionist movement, the Constitution's treatment of slavery, the eventual abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania, Washington's views concerning slavery, and the civil-rights movement of the twentieth century. The Department of the Interior specifically says the new panels acknowledge “the evils of slavery” and tell the stories of the nine enslaved people who lived in the President's House.

So what exactly has been changed?

Some material was removed or repositioned. The previous exhibit contained a map of slave-trade routes, a slavery timeline, and particularly accusatory language such as “The Dirty Business of Slavery.” Critics argue that removing or reducing this material sanitizes the subject. But removing particular interpretive material is not the same thing as erasing history.

There is an important distinction here that Democrats seem unwilling to acknowledge: history can be told honestly without making America's sins the organizing principle of the American story.

George Washington was a slaveholder. That is a historical fact that should be taught plainly. But George Washington was also the commander of the Continental Army, the indispensable military leader of the American Revolution, the first president of the United States, and one of the central figures in the creation of the American constitutional republic.

Those facts don't cancel one another.

He also grew to hate the idea of slavery.

Washington's involvement with slavery should neither be concealed nor used as a reason to diminish everything else he accomplished. Americans are capable of holding two truths simultaneously: slavery was profoundly wrong, and George Washington was nevertheless a consequential and admirable figure in the founding of the United States.

That isn't whitewashing. That's historical complexity.

And there is another point liberals conveniently overlook: the replacement itself was not some unilateral presidential declaration that Washington was perfect. The administration's authority to replace the panels was challenged in court. In July, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit allowed the administration to proceed and described the planned replacement as being “full of historical context.”

Reasonable people can debate whether the new exhibit is better than the old one. They can debate whether certain information should have remained. They can even argue that the new panels place too much emphasis on Washington's achievements.

But calling the change a “whitewashing of history” implies that the administration is concealing slavery or pretending that Washington never owned slaves. That simply is not what happened.

What actually happened is that the federal government adopted a different philosophy of historical presentation—one that emphasizes both America's achievements and its failures rather than presenting the nation's past primarily through the lens of its sins.

That distinction matters.

America does not need a history that lies about slavery. But neither does it need a history that treats America's greatest achievements as morally suspect because the people who accomplished them were imperfect, flawed people.

Washington was imperfect.

Jefferson was imperfect.

Franklin was imperfect.

The founders were human beings living in an imperfect age. The miracle of the American experiment is not that morally flawless men created it. It is that imperfect men established principles—including natural rights, liberty, constitutional government and equality before the law—that eventually provided the framework by which Americans could challenge and ultimately abolish the institution of slavery.

Yes, we should tell the whole story.

Tell the truth about slavery.

Tell the truth about Washington.

Tell the truth about the founders.

Tell the truth about America's failures.

But tell the truth about America's achievements, too.

That isn't whitewashing.

That's history.

But the modern phenomena of "cancel culture" is flat out wrong!

For instance, should we cancel Martin Luther King Jr. because of his perverse sexual peccadillos? Apparently, he was a nasty guy. Does that behavior negate the good he did? Should we post panels up at his homeplace detailing his sexual deviancy? No? So in some cases you are FOR censorship, eh? Maybe it's not censorship, but civility. Can we at least agree that presenting Americans of the past as great, but flawed, people is better than just canceling them?

People are a product of their times. You are. I am. George Washington was. Slavery was legal. Terrible. But still legal. Those are the times he lived in. He never celebrated slavery. 

We should be willing to acknowledge the moral failures of people we admire without pretending their accomplishments didn't happen.

Here is some historical context.

1. George Washington's clearest statement supporting abolition — 1786

Writing to Robert Morris on April 12, 1786, Washington said:

“There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it…”

He continued that abolition should be accomplished through legislative authority, adding that his vote would support such a measure.

That is probably the single strongest Washington quotation if you're making the case that he personally came to oppose slavery.

2. He wanted slavery gradually abolished — 1786

A few months later, Washington wrote that he intended not to purchase another enslaved person unless circumstances forced him to, because:

“it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by slow, sure, & imperceptible degrees.”

That is particularly useful because it demonstrates that his position wasn't simply economic. He was contemplating the eventual abolition of slavery as a national policy.

3. He opposed treating human beings as commodities — 1794

Washington wrote:

“Were it not then, that I am principled against selling negroes, as you would do cattle in the market…”

Mount Vernon's historical documentation notes that Washington increasingly opposed buying and selling enslaved people during the 1780s and 1790s.

He was even more explicit in 1799:

“I am principled against this kind of traffic in the human species.”

That latter statement is remarkably strong language for the period.

4. He called for gradual abolition in Virginia — 1797

Writing to his nephew Lawrence Lewis, Washington said:

“I wish from my Soul that the Legislature of this State could see the policy of a gradual abolition of Slavery…”

Again, this was not merely an economic complaint. He was explicitly advocating legislative abolition.

5. His will provided for emancipation — 1799

Perhaps his most consequential action came in his final will. Washington directed:

“Upon the decease of my wife, it is my Will and desire that all the Slaves which I hold in my own right, shall receive their freedom.”

This ultimately freed the 123 enslaved people Washington personally owned. He couldn't legally emancipate the people belonging to the Custis estate, which was a separate legal ownership issue.

The important historical nuance:

Washington was a complicated man whose views on slavery evolved substantially over the course of his life, and the historical record contains both his participation in slavery and his increasingly strong desire to see it abolished.

In Common (My Plea To Mankind)

 

Every human being, regardless of race, sex, nationality, language, culture, or social status, shares a remarkably deep set of things IN COMMON. Some are biological, some psychological, some moral, and some spiritual or existential.

Biological Commonalities

All humans:

• Are members of the same species: Homo sapiens
• Share overwhelmingly similar DNA
• Are born, grow, get old, and eventually die
• Need food, water, sleep, shelter, and oxygen to live
• Feel pain and physical pleasure
• Experience sickness and vulnerability
• Possess brains, nervous systems, emotions, and senses
• Reproduce through the same biological processes
• Share the same basic bodily systems (heart, lungs, blood, etc.)
• Require care and protection during infancy
• Experiences certain physical limitations
• Has emotions tied to chemistry and cognition
• Is vulnerable to fear, stress, fatigue, and suffering
• Has a capacity for reproduction and family bonding
• Shares universal bodily experiences like hunger, thirst, exhaustion, and physical affection

Emotional Commonalities

All humans experience emotions such as:

• Love
• Fear
• Joy
• Sadness
• Anger
• Grief
• Hope
• Loneliness
• Shame
• Compassion
• Anxiety
• Desire for belonging
• Desire to be valued and understood

People may express emotions differently culturally, but the emotional framework itself is universal.

Psychological and Cognitive Commonalities

Humans universally:

• Think and reason
• Learn from experience
• Form memories
• Dream
• Use language or symbolic communication
• Imagine the future
• Ask questions
• Seek meaning and purpose
• Recognize patterns
• Make moral judgments
• Experience curiosity
• Learn through observation and experience
• Solve problems
• Form memories
• Imagine possibilities
• Create stories, myths, music, and art
• Seek meaning and explanation
• Develop moral systems and social structures

Social Commonalities

Humans naturally:

• Form families and communities
• Develop friendships and bonds
• Cooperate for survival
• Create and value family traditions 
• Develop and grow cultural traditions
• Teach younger generations
• Seek acceptance and identity
• Establish systems of rules and justice
• Mourn the dead
• Celebrate important events
• Feel the sting of injustice
• Feel the joy of achievement
• Feel a sense of justice or fairness
• Feel concern for family and community
• Desire the safety and success of their offspring
• Condemn betrayal and murder
• Like to laugh
• Enjoy being entertained
• Love a good meal
• Appreciate comfort
• Crave security
• Admire courage and sacrifice
• Respect loyalty and honesty
• Create rules governing behavior
• Feel the desire for order and cooperation
• Have the capacity for both kindness and cruelty

Moral Commonalities

Across cultures, humans generally recognize concepts such as:

• Fairness
• Justice
• Loyalty
• Responsibility
• Courage/Bravery
• Compassion
• Honesty
• Protection of the vulnerable
• Condemnation of needless cruelty
• Strength
• Joy
• Contentment
• Many many more...

Different societies apply these principles differently, but the underlying moral instincts are nearly universal.

Existential Commonalities

Every human being faces:

• Mortality
• Suffering
• Uncertainty
• Questions about meaning
• The awareness of good and evil
• The desire for significance
• The longing for love and acceptance
• The fear of death
• The search for identity
• Loss of loved ones
• The desire for meaning and purpose
• The desire for significance and personal identity
• The desire for relationships
• The fear of loss
• Questions about right and wrong
• Questions about what happens after death

Spiritual/Common Religious Themes

Throughout history, humans across nearly every civilization have:

• Worshiped or sought transcendence
• Believed in realities beyond themselves
• Practiced prayer, ritual, or meditation
• Asked where we came from and why we exist
• Wondered what happens after death
• Contemplated the majesty of nature
• Considered the supernatural or transcendent
• Engaged in religious practices
• Engaged in rituals
• Engaged in a form, or type, of prayer
• Worshipped a higher power
• An awareness of guilt and accountability
• A desire for reconciliation, forgiveness, or salvation

Shared Human Dignity

Many philosophical and religious traditions — including Christianity — hold that all humans possess equal intrinsic worth simply by being human. In Christian theology specifically, all of humanity:

• Shares a common origin.
• Shares a fallen condition.
• Shares moral accountability.
• Shares the capacity for redemption.
• Has the capacity for negative behaviors.
• Has the ability to help others.
• Has equal value before God.
• Realizes that everyone eventually experiences suffering.
• Realizes that everyone desires relationships.
• Realizes that everyone faces death.
• Realizes that everyone leaves some kind of legacy.
• Realizes that everyone depends on others at some point in life.
• Realizes that everyone is capable of good and evil.
• Realizes that everyone longs for hope.

While the differences between people are real and meaningful, compared to what humanity shares in common, they are relatively small. Human beings are far more alike than different.

Here is my plea to mankind. In light of all these similarities, I propose we as humans pull together and focus on our SIMILARITIES and not our DIFFERENCES. Constantly focusing on our differences will divide us. The truth is, our similarities unite us. By focusing on our similarities instead of our differences, we can get to a point where empathy flourishes and we care about each other more. We see ourselves as brothers and sisters, not enemies. We become more tolerant of each other, rather than intolerant. We will start to give each other the benefit of the doubt. We will see others as member of our family, not the enemy. This will encompass all people. ALL humans. Regardless of your skin color, preferences, or cultural proclivities. If we did this, racial tension and injustice would rapidly become obsolete.

I pray that we can make this a reality today!

Why I Am A Conservative!

 

At its core, political conservatism is not just a set of policy positions; it is a philosophy grounded in gratitude, preservation, and a deep respect for the foundations that built a stable, thriving American society. It begins with the understanding that the enduring institutions of faith, family, and country are not arbitrary structures, but the essential pillars that support human flourishing, and are the bedrock principles this country stands for.

Here is a look at why those traditional values form the foundation of my conservative worldview.

1. The Primacy of Family

For a conservative, the family is the foundational building block of society. It is the first school of virtue, responsibility, and citizenship.

• The Principle: Long before a person interacts with the government, they learn love, accountability, compassion, and work ethic within the home.
• The Reason: A strong, stable family unit provides a buffer against social isolation and economic hardship. Conservatism seeks to protect and honor the family because when the family structure is strong, communities thrive, and the need for massive, bureaucratic state intervention naturally decreases.

2. The Role of Faith and Moral Order

Faith provides a moral compass that exists independent of political power or shifting cultural trends.

• The Principle: Traditional religious faith instills the belief that human rights and human dignity are granted by a higher power, not by the government. This means no government has the right to take them away.
• The Reason: A society anchored in shared moral truths possesses an internal restraint. It fosters a culture of personal responsibility, charity, and duty toward one's neighbor. For the conservative, faith provides the ethical framework necessary to maintain a free and just society.

3. A Deep Allegiance to Country

Patriotism, from a conservative perspective, is an expression of gratitude for a specific heritage of liberty and law.

• The Principle: A nation is defined by its borders, its history, its culture, and its constitutional rule of law. Loving one’s country means honoring the unique sacrifices of previous generations who built and defended it.
• The Reason: True national unity comes from a shared identity and a commitment to the principles that made the country a beacon of freedom and opportunity. Conservatism prioritizes national sovereignty and the rule of law because without stable borders and a respected constitution, the very liberty we cherish becomes fragile.

The Wisdom of Preservation

Ultimately, being a conservative means believing in ordered liberty. It is the idea that freedom cannot exist without order, and order cannot be maintained without virtue.

Conservatism approaches change with caution, preferring the hard-won wisdom of human history over untested, radical theories. It acknowledges that while society must always strive to fix its flaws, it must do so by building upon its existing, time-tested foundations rather than tearing them down. It is a philosophy of stewardship—passing down a legacy.

Also conservatives, at their best, view people thru the lens of shared similarities, and a shared desire for the common good. We prefer to NOT focus on our differences, which only serves to divide us.

A MAGA Republican Looks At The Dems (MAJOR concerns)

 

A Conservative Republican Critique of the Modern Democratic Party

The core concern I have about Democrats isn’t just policy disagreement—it’s a pattern of governance that prioritizes control, ideological conformity, identity, and political advantage over stability, unity, and constitutional balance.

---

1. Governance by obstruction when out of power, overreach when in power

Democrats tend to:

• Resist or slow opposing administrations through investigations, procedural blocks, and bureaucratic resistance
• Then pursue sweeping federal expansions when they hold power (e.g., large omnibus bills, executive actions)

The critique here is inconsistency:

Process is treated as sacred when useful, and disposable when inconvenient.

---

2. Centralization vs. federalism

The Democratic platform trends toward:

• Expanding federal authority into areas traditionally handled by states (education, elections, energy policy)
• Increasing reliance on administrative agencies rather than legislatures

From a constitutional standpoint, this raises concern about:

• Erosion of state sovereignty
• Reduced local authority
• Growth of unelected bureaucratic power
• Dissolution of the individual into the collective
• Widespread tax fraud (happens on both sides, but MAINLY Democrats)
• Death of legal accountability

---

3. Cultural and institutional pressure

Another major critique centers on what conservatives see as ideological enforcement:

• Alignment between political messaging and major institutions (media, academia, corporate HR culture)
• Social or professional consequences for dissenting views
• Framing disagreement as moral failure rather than policy difference
• Cancelling those you disagree with (shunning, mockery, and all too often, violence)

The argument isn’t just disagreement—it’s:

a narrowing of acceptable viewpoints in public life

---

4. Economic philosophy: redistribution vs. growth

Democratic policy is frequently:

• Focused on redistribution, regulation, and entitlement expansion
• Less focused on incentives for production, entrepreneurship, and long-term growth
• Heavily pro-immigrant (even illegal ones) over citizens

Concerns include:

• Increased national debt
• Dependency on government programs
• Reduced economic dynamism
• Bloated welfare system

---

5. Border and rule-of-law concerns

Democratic policies are often seen as:

• Insufficiently strict on immigration enforcement
• Inconsistent in applying law-and-order standards
• Re-imagines illegal immigrants as oppressed American minority citizens

The argument here is about credibility of the legal system:

laws that are unevenly enforced lose authority

---

6. Political rhetoric and polarization

Democratic leadership:

• Uses inflammatory language that frames opponents as dangerous or illegitimate
• Contributes to a cycle of escalation rather than de-escalation

It’s fair to note:

• Some Republicans are accused of the same thing.

A good way to look at this is:

Polarization is real—but Democrats institutionalize it through cultural, entertainment, and governmental channels. Especially through the constant propaganda spewed by willing, like-minded news media accomplices.

---

7. Education and worldview formation

Another concern is the influence of:

• Public education systems
• Universities
• Curriculum framing

These spaces increasingly:

• Promote a specific ideological lens (socialist, woke, leftist)
• Minimize, demonize, or caricature alternative viewpoints (i.e. all conservatives are racists)

This ties back to the broader concern about long-term cultural direction.

---

Bottom line

It isn't that Democrats are “wrong,” but that:

• They are expanding centralized power
• Blurring institutional neutrality
• Redefining dissent as unacceptable
• And prioritizing short-term political wins over long-term constitutional balance

---

Important reality check

Allow me to acknowledge:

• Not all Democrats fit this description. Most love their country, others are duped by the media.
• Some dynamics are mutual across parties. 
• The political system as a whole is under strain, not just one side.
• Some Republicans ARE crazy. And they hurt our cause very very badly.
• Democrats desire personal power and financial gain over American exceptionalism.
• "Woke-ness" is a terrible cancer inside our body politic.

Any group or institution that is actively trying to divide us, spread hate, and demonize one person, or a group of people, who are actually law-abiding people, are extremely bad for this country.

Everyone is entitled, and has a right, to his or her opinion. But when that opinion strays across the line of disagreement to demonization, you have gone too far and you need to be put in check.

Diversity is not our strength. Unity, in spite of diversity, is our strength.

That is one of my CORE doctrines: Unity Is Our Strength!

Yet ANOTHER assassination attempt

 

So this past Saturday a lunatic gunman tried to get into the White House Correspondents Dinner in order to kill president Trump. It failed. Thank God.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-correspondents-dinner-shooting-latest-years-attacks-targeting-trump-conservatives

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/04/27/trump-cole-allen-manifesto-political-violence/89811825007/

https://nypost.com/2026/04/26/opinion/how-many-times-must-trump-be-targeted-before-the-left-quits-radicalizing-people/