Break It Down!

Last week, I commemorated 18 years of publishing this weekly blog. That’s a considerable milestone…in my opinion. So, imagine my consternation when, the very next week, when it was time to post, part of my neighborhood was digitally crippled by an internet outage. To both regular and casual readers, I extend sincere apologies for this unscheduled interruption.

As always, there are a plethora of issues that warrant discussion in this space. However, occasionally, a point I’ve addressed in the past begs to be reiterated. I feel like today is one of those days. In response, I am reprising a post from over five years ago, the man who is now sometimes referred to as 47 bore the appellation 45. In those days, media outlets such as The New York Times and The Washington Post routinely fact checked the President. Both concluded over his 4-Year term that he made tens of thousands of false or misleading statements. Some people characterize those fictions as lies. But lie has a technical, or to be precise, legal definition:

• In a legal context, a lie typically refers to a false statement made with the intention to deceive. This can encompass various forms, including perjury, fraud, and other misrepresentations, each with specific legal implications. Generally, a lie involves making a statement that the speaker knows to be untrue, with the purpose of causing another person to believe it is true.

With that in mind, I am retitling this post. But you already know!

For several years now, I’ve known, and repeatedly said, we’ve reached a point in this country that the chasm separating the left and the right is deep…and wide. It’s been a long time since we were this divided. So long ago, the terms left, and right were not even in vogue as the language that defined our political and ideological differences. It’s been at least half a century since the height of the Civil Rights Movement, and even longer since the Jim Crow era was pervasive, and even longer than that since lynching was the order of the day.

Despite the contentiousness that is subject to jump off at the mere mention of things political in gatherings of mixed ideological leanings, I still delve into those conversations. Undoubtedly, far more frequently than many deem prudent, or rational. There are any number of reasons I could proffer, but the one salient notation I’ll mention is my perplexity arising from what strikes me as the irreconcilable disconnects between what conservatives say and do now, versus what so many of them maintained, right up to the day Trump was elected.

That single point warrants a dissertation of its own, but that is not the point I am choosing to elucidate today. No, today’s post, the subject of which is prominently etched at the top of the page, is all about the distinction between Donald Trump’s claims and his actions, vis-à-vis COVID-19. My thesis is the public has been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, run amuck, and flat out deceived. I fully intend to prove that by using a simple tool, Mr. Trump’s own words.

Rising to the top of the political heap in the U.S. brings with it a lot of perks. POTUS is considered by some to be the most powerful position in the world. Technically, that’s probably not true. Though the person in that position is by most accounts, the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. In all likelihood, the most powerful person in the world, is some dictator, or autocrat, who singularly controls all or most of a country’s levers of power. Oh wait; he believes that what most people want…and that he has the right to do so. The flip side of those perks is, being POTUS brings with it an unrelenting spotlight.  Good, bad, or indifferent, every word he utters in public is captured for the public record. And as many have learned, quite a few words that were not necessarily intended for public consumption are thrust into the public domain.

Mr. Trump has long been a media maven. For this discussion, I will refer only to his on the record, in front of the media (a far as we can tell, one of his favorite positions), comments.

Back in 2020, CNN’s Jim Acosta asked Trump about some of his previous comments playing down the coronavirus.

In his best Trumpian response, Mr. Trump replied:

“If you look at those individual statements, they’re all true. Stay calm, it will go away. You know it — you know it is going away, and it will go away, and we’re going to have a great victory.”

Chris Cillizza, a CNN Analyst leans into The New York Times’ amazing timeline

of Trump’s statements on coronavirus as the framework for comparing and contrasting Trump’s remarks from the beginning of the outbreak until now, which Trump maintains, haven’t changed.

* In late January, Trump, in an interview with CNBC, said this: “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.” The US did not, in fact, have it totally under control. As of Tuesday morning, there were almost 161,000 confirmed cases in the United States and 3,000 deaths.

* In early February, Trump told Sean Hannity this: “We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.” He had not, in fact, “shut it down.” Again, almost 161,000 confirmed cases in the United States and 3,000 deaths.

* In late February, Trump said this of the number of coronavirus cases in the US: “We’re going down, not up. We’re going very substantially down, not up.” That was, and is, not true. One week ago, the US had 52,000 confirmed cases. This morning we had almost 161,000.

* In mid-March, Trump said this: “This is a very contagious virus. It’s incredible. But it’s something we have tremendous control of.” We did not have “tremendous control” of the virus. See above.

Now there are of course, many more examples. I won’t insult your intelligence by presuming you fail to get the point. I’m certain you do. To coin a phrase, it trumps ridiculous for Mr. Trump to claim with a straight face that every “individual statement” he made about COVID-19 was (or is) true. One would hope, I know I certainly do, that Trump supporters and non-Trump supporters alike (even though that chasm, as aforementioned, is deep and wide) would find themselves unable to draw that conclusion, based upon the evidence. It is simply logically impossible.  

Now was there a method to his madness? Almost certainly!

In January, in February, and even early in March, he was downplaying the virus because:

• He wanted it not to be that bad
• He didn’t want people to freak out, because the economy, on which his campaign is based, would tank

Evidence?

As Trumps said to Acosta:

“The statements I made are I want to keep the country calm; I don’t want panic in the country. I could cause panic much better than even you. I could do much — I would make you look like a minor league player.”

The thing is though, Trump’s attempts to undersell the virus to the public had real-world consequences — including a very slow start to testing for the virus in this country and our current shortages on masks and ventilators. (Doubt it? Read this Times piece: “The Lost Month: How a Failure Test Blinded the U.S. to COVID-19.”)

Now, Trump is being Trump, doing now what he always does about everything: Attempting to rewrite history so that it looks like he was always the smartest guy in the room, the one person who saw this all coming from a mile away.

Evidence? Check out his March 17^th about-face:

“I’ve always known this is a real — this is a pandemic. I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.”

The temptation is to call that what it is, straight up hot bovine excrement. For the purposes of this post, I’ll instead resort to factchecker’s prose. “That statement is, of course, demonstrably untrue.”  

Naturally, we all know, Donald Trump doesn’t care. Habit and history have established that if he simply repeats the story, he wants to be true, plenty of people will follow his lead. 

He will blame Democrats, or he’ll blame the media, or he’ll blame both…for twisting his words or making thing up. Remember that he is the guy who said this out loud: “Stick with us. Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. … What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”

In March 2020, Mitch McConnell alleged impeachment diverted Trump’s attention from coronavirus. While I don’t doubt he spent a considerable amount of time and energy ensuring that none of his associates and subordinates testified against him, I do question whether he spent any more time doing that than he did holding rallies and playing golf:

Rally Dates:

January 9^th

January 14^th

January 28^th

January 30^th

February 10^th

February 19^th

February 20^th

February 21^st

February 28^th

Golfing Dates:

January 18^th

January 19^th

February 1^st

February 15^th

March 7^th

March 8^th

Impeachment, by the way, ended February 5^th.

But if the truth still matters, know this. The truth is that Trump repeatedly downplayed the threat coronavirus posed to the country, providing Americans with false hope when they needed candor and transparency most of all.

At the end of the day, then and now, “He’s Making False And Misleading Statements To You, And You Know It; You May Not Care, But You Know!”

I’m done, holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

Click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the links below:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/31/politics/donald-trump-coronavirus/index.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-says-trump-impeachment-trial-distracted-federal-government-as-coronavirus-entered-us

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/mcconnell-impeachment-diverted-attention-coronavirus-69898707

He’s Making False And Misleading Statements To You, And You Know It; You May Not Care, But You Know

It’s time ro Break It Down!

(Note: This is a reprised, amended, and expanded presentation of my original blog post) 

HAPPY 18th ANNIVERSARY “BREAK IT DOWN!” Today, in acknowledgement of another anniversary of this publication, as I have often done in the past, I am revisiting my inaugural post.

Before launching into the post, it’s certainly appropriate to contextualize my original blog. To do that, I note that post was about a young lion, Barack Obama, coming into what would, for all practica purposes, become his era.

Tempus fugit (Time Flies)! Today marks a significant milestone in the life and development of “Break It Down!”  I initiated this blog on August 20, 2007, on a lark…almost a dare. That was exactly eighteen years (and 938 editions) ago today. Having related the story several times over past years, I will not repeat the complete details today.

I will note, however, that on that summer’s eve, I contemplated and discussed, in five paragraphs, the experience, or in reality the lack thereof, of then Senator Barack Obama, as he navigated the early stages of his historic Presidential Campaign.

So, in a nutshell, the message in Post #1 was five brisk paragraphs and a sign-off:

In an apparent calculated act of derring-do, Obama declares the virtue of inexperience. Gotta love it!

Personal footnote of recollection: I recall Jimmy Carter running the classic “anti-Washington” (i.e., lack of Capitol Hill experience) campaign in ’75-76. You know what, it worked.

The problem was, once JC sent all the reigning bureaucrats & policy wonks home, he was left with an assembly of newbies who didn’t understand how to get things done in DC. The result was that a very smart guy, genuine humanitarian, and erstwhile successful leader presided over what was widely perceived at the time, as a disastrous presidency. President Carter’s solitary term was fraught with numerous challenges (see the Shah of Iran, double-digit inflation, runaway gas prices, & the outrageous Interest/Mortgage rate morass) and public relations gaffes (remember the killer rabbit, and the failed helicopter gambit).

Fortunately for former President Carter, he was able to live long enough and subsequently do enough good deeds to distance himself from most of an unremarkable tenure as a one-term president, followed by a resounding defeat by that cowboy actor, Teflon guy.

Of course, none of that has anything to do with Obama…except in the unlikely event he prevails. If he does, let’s hope he doesn’t take that inexperience thing too far. As W constantly reminds us, getting to the White House is one thing (after all, he’s done it twice), providing prudent and effective leadership once there is quite another. (Of course, in hindsight, we know President Obama not only prevailed, but went on to win re-election, and serve a second term).

As we endeavor to navigate a sometimes tortuous, always unpredictable first year of 45/47’s second term, separated from his first term by Joe Biden’s solo run, we are buffeted by the collective exigencies of the TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) Tariff policy, the Day 1 Promise Series, the Mass Immigration morass, the continuous battle with Fed Chair Jerome Powell, the broadside attack on the Smithsonian Museums, especially of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and last but not least, the constant efforts to deflect attention from the infamous so-called Epstein Files. It’s enough to make one say, “Where is Obama when you need him?” I kid, I kid.      

Barack Obama, who many Democrats, and even some Republicans consider a sterling orator, won wide acclaim over two decades ago in 2004, when he addressed the Convention in Boston, an aspiring Senatorial candidate at the time. Fresh off an unexpected landslide victory in the March 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate Democratic Primary, he was catapulted into rising star status within Democratic Party circles, and he went on to leverage his newfound celebrity into a speaking role at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, which he crushed. He would go on to successfully vie for and win in his race to become a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, where he served four years, before his successful 2008 Presidential run.

Just for context, here’s a story carried by national news outlets about the Presidential campaign on August 20, 2007.

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS DEBATE IN IOWA

Obama posits virtue of inexperience

What rivals criticize as naiveté, he presents as break from status quo

MIKE GLOVER

Associated Press

DES MOINES, Iowa –Democrat Barack Obama on Sunday tried to parlay his relative lack of national experience into a positive attribute, chiding his rivals for adhering to “conventional thinking” that led the country to war and has divided the country.

In their latest debate, the candidates also said they favored more federal action to address economic woes that have resulted from a housing slump and tighter credit. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson called the current financial crisis “the Katrina of the mortgage-lending industry.”

Prodded by moderator George Stephanopoulos at the outset of the debate, Obama’s rivals critiqued his recent comments on Pakistan and whether he would meet with foreign leaders — including North Korea’s head of state — without conditions.

“To prepare for this debate I rode in the bumper cars at the state fair,” the first-term senator from Illinois said to laughter and applause from the audience at Drake University.

The debate capped an intense week of politicking in Iowa, an early voting state in the process of picking a nominee. The Iowa State Fair is a magnet for White House hopefuls each presidential election.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., directly addressing a question about Obama’s relative inexperience, said: “You’re not going to have time in January of ’09 to get ready for this job.” Dodd has served in Congress for more than 30 years.

Former Sen. John Edwards said Obama’s opinions “add something to this debate.” But Edwards said politicians who aspire to be president should not talk about hypothetical solutions to serious problems.

“It effectively limits your options,” Edwards said.

Obama said he could handle the rigors of international diplomacy and noted that many in the race, including Dodd, Edwards and Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joe Biden, voted to authorize the Iraq war in 2002.

“Nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and many of the people on this stage that authorized this war,” Obama said. “And it indicates how we get into trouble when we engage in the sort of conventional thinking that has become the habit in Washington.”

The debate, hosted and broadcast nationally by ABC, took place less than five months before Iowa caucus-goers begin the process of selecting the parties’ presidential nominees.

As we reflect upon the Campaign of 2008 it really does harken the recognition of how swiftly time and events pass.  Indeed, I am reminded, especially, of how a supremely confident Senator from Illinois approached his moment.  I shall always recall that it propelled me to write the words, “Obama Plays the Inexperience Card (Edition IX)!” He has gained an enormous amount of experience in the intervening years. I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Find a new post each Wednesday.

Consult the link below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

Obama Played the Inexperience Card (Edition IX)!

The Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC), located on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., serves as an institution dedicated to illuminating the rich and complex history of African Americans in the United States. Since its opening in 2016, the museum has become a cornerstone for education, remembrance, and understanding of the African American experience, drawing millions of visitors from across the nation and around the world.

The Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC), which opened its doors in September 2016, stands as a testament to the complex, rich, and often painful tapestry of African American history. It preserves and tells the stories of the struggles, triumphs, creativity, and resilience of Black Americans—from slavery and the fight for civil rights to present-day achievements and challenges. As one of the most prominent museums on the National Mall, its exhibits have frequently drawn attention, discussion, and at times, controversy. In recent years, the intersection of politics and historical interpretation has become ever more visible, especially when figures such as President Donald J. Trump publicly question, critique, or challenge aspects of cultural institutions like the NMAAHC.

The NMAAHC is the only national museum devoted exclusively to the documentation of African American life, history, and culture. The museum’s exhibits include artifacts ranging from Harriet Tubman’s shawl and Nat Turner’s Bible, to the dress worn by Rosa Parks and the track shoes of Olympian Carl Lewis. Interactive displays cover topics such as the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the Harlem Renaissance, the Civil Rights Movement, and contemporary Black culture from music to sports. The museum has played a critical role in shaping national conversations about race, identity, and the legacy of slavery and segregation in America.

Since its opening, the NMAAHC has attracted millions of visitors, including politicians from both sides of the aisle. Donald Trump has made statements about how American history is taught and presented, particularly in relation to issues of race. Trump has spoken out against what he describes as “revisionist” history and has emphasized the importance of “patriotic education.” He has criticized various educational curriculums and museum exhibits that, in his view, either overemphasize the country’s faults or understate its successes.

Trump’s criticisms of the NMAAHC, have typically centered on specific exhibits or representations he believes to be misleading, divisive, or damaging to America’s image. He has argued that the museum’s focus on slavery, segregation, and oppression risks overshadowing stories of progress, national unity, and the contributions of Americans of all backgrounds. In public remarks and social media posts, Trump has contended that some exhibits “paint the country in a negative light,” and has called for “balanced” portrayals that highlight positive developments alongside painful histories. This specious argument is essentially the racialized equivalent of his infamous “good people on both sides” hot take after the Charlottesville Unite the Right Rally in 2017.

These comments have generally been received as part of a broader political debate about how U.S. history should be interpreted and presented in public institutions. Supporters of Trump’s position claim that American museums, including the NMAAHC, should do more to promote national pride and unity. Critics counter that confronting the darker aspects of America’s past is essential for justice, reconciliation, and understanding the full scope of American identity. 

Let’s be serious. This Trumpian view amounts to, pardon the pun, whitewashing the story of American History. We cannot (and will not) just pretend chattel slavery never happened, or that Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan were not a thing, or that the Civil Rights Movement didn’t alter the course of not just our national discourse, but the way Americans live their day-to-day lives. The Trumpian way, as enunciated by some of his more powerful sycophants, promotes, among other things, fostering a narrative in textbooks that emphasizes how Blacks benefitted from slavery, rather than how America benefitted from slavery. Woosah!

In recent weeks, news reports have surfaced stating that Trump has publicly called for the removal of certain exhibits at the NMAAHC, labeling them as “racist.” This assertion has sparked a nationwide debate regarding museum curation, historical narratives, and the intersection of politics and public memory.

Such calls for the removal of exhibits based on accusations of racism raise questions about censorship, historical erasure, and the boundaries of public engagement with the past. While the debates continue, it is clear and compelling that museums must remain places for honest confrontation with history, fostering dialogue and understanding across generations.

Museums play a critical role in shaping collective memory and public understanding. By curating artifacts, stories, and perspectives, they help visitors grapple with complex questions about identity, justice, and belonging. The NMAAHC, in particular, offers a space for reflection, healing, and inspiration, serving as both a testament to struggle and a beacon of hope.

The Smithsonian Institution has not indicated any intention to remove or alter exhibits at the NMAAHC. In statements to the press, museum officials have reiterated their commitment to historical accuracy, educational value, and the importance of fostering dialogue about race, identity, and justice.

Some political commentators and members of the public have expressed support for Trump’s position, contending that museum displays should be mindful of fostering unity and pride in national heritage, rather than highlighting divisions or injustices. However, many historians, educators, and civil rights leaders have condemned Trump’s remarks, asserting that confronting uncomfortable aspects of history is necessary for societal growth and reconciliation. They argue that the museum’s exhibits are designed to contextualize racism, not perpetuate it, and that understanding both the painful and triumphant chapters of American history is vital for building a more inclusive future.

The debate over how museums portray the history of racism is not new. Institutions across the country have faced criticism from various quarters, with some arguing that certain exhibits are too graphic, accusatory, or political, while others insist that sanitized versions of history do a disservice to both the victims and the perpetrators of injustice.

Proponents of comprehensive historical displays maintain that museums like NMAAHC serve an essential role in presenting unvarnished truths, encouraging empathy, and inspiring action against ongoing discrimination. They emphasize that labeling artifacts, narratives, or exhibits as “racist” due to their content or message misunderstands the educational purpose of museums.

The controversy over Donald Trump’s remarks regarding the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture highlights the enduring tensions in how Americans interpret and present their shared history. While opinions differ on the appropriate boundaries of museum exhibits, the need for thoughtful, fact-based, and empathetic engagement with the past remains paramount.

As institutions like NMAAHC continue their vital work, the hope is that public discourse will move beyond accusations and division, toward deeper understanding and appreciation of the myriad stories that frame the nexus of the African Diaspora and the American experience. Moreover, if there is one certainty, it is that the answer is not Trump’s stated goal of making the NMAAHC and other Smithsonian Museums comport with his version of American History. That would not only be ahistorical; even worse, it would be a straight-up travesty. “Trump Calls for Removing Exhibits at the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture: He Labeled Them Racist!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday.

(Large Language model-based writing assistant AI Tool was used composing this post).

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/-trump-smithsonian-museum-executive-order-race-rcna198533

Trump Calls for Removing Exhibits at the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture: He Labeled Them Racist

“Break It Down!”

There is way more to say about this topic than I plan to elevate. I do want to make a point that most Republicans are desperately trying to obfuscate, ignore, or otherwise baffle you with bullschitt about the matter. First, the issue.   

In recent political developments, Donald Trump has advocated for a mid-decade redistricting of Texas, a move that would reshape congressional and legislative districts outside of the traditional decennial cycle. Historically, states have redrawn their legislative and congressional district boundaries every ten years following the release of new Census data. However, Trump has called for an off-cycle redistricting initiative in Texas.

There has been widespread discourse about this proposal signaling an attempt to capitalize on shifting demographics and strengthening Republican’s advantages in a rapidly evolving state. Proponents claim that such a move would correct perceived imbalances or respond to legal challenges, while critics argue it represents a partisan strategy to consolidate power and potentially disenfranchise voters. The debate around mid-decade redistricting in Texas reflects broader national tensions over redistricting, gerrymandering, and the ongoing battle for political control in key states.

Republican frequently point to so-called Blue States and the ways they have used gerrymandering as a tool to advantage Democrats. They seem to present that point, as though it were the proverbial coup de grâce. In fact, Blue and Red states have used gerrymandering quite liberally, no pun intended. However, two points that in their telling tend to get whitewashed…or perhaps to turn a less charged phrase, overlooked, are:

1. This proposal, as presented, will significantly reduce Black (and diminish Hispanic) representation in the state that, not coincidentally, has more Black people than any other state in the Union.
2. Redistricting, in Texas, as in many other states, is constitutionally tied to the Census. This mid-decade initiative is not tied to official Census data, not in fidelity with the Constitutional requirement, and not in concert with historical precedent.

These two important considerations are facts that will be absent most of those indignantly framed arguments the GOP hangs it hat on. They are, good, bad, or indifferent, making the case for this questionable act, because Mr. Trump is nervous about his ability to hold on to the GOP majority in the House of Representatives. Consequently, he is now taking a stance that represents an about-face to his heretofore enthusiastically held positions on merit and entitlement. Instead of promoting GOP Representatives earn their seats, based on the redistricting results of the last Census…until the next one as is the norm, he said yesterday, “I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know, and we are entitled to five more seats.” That’s not the way that works, Mr. President. It’s not the political equivalent of Name That Tune. You don’t get to say, because the House GOP numerical advantage is at risk, I deserve 5 more seats…regardless of when the next Census is scheduled. Yet here we are. “Trump’s Push For Mid-Decade Redistricting In Texas: “We’re Entitled To 5 More Seats!””

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the links below:

(Large Language model-based writing assistant AI Tool was used composing this post).

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/05/trump-texas-redistricting-00493624

Trump’s Push For Mid-Decade Redistricting In Texas: “We’re Entitled To 5 More Seats!”