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.