A conversation about what's going on in the world at any given point in time…and what I think about it. Occasionally, guest bloggers may appear. Viewer comments are welcome. Peace! Alpha Heel
In the world of news cycles, the Government Shutdown rules the roost at the moment. This week, however, offers at least a couple of options for 1A, and 1B. Yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, featuring a melodramatic Academy Award-worthy performance by Attorney General Pam Bondi captures the 1A slot. For the moment. But don’t cast your vote yet. Today, 1B is coming. Former FBI Director James Comey is set to be arraigned in Alexandria, VA. And that’s just 3 days into the 5-day workweek.
Last month, in celebration of Comey’s indictment, Donald Trump characterized the move by the Justice Department as “Justice in America, and called Comey “one of the worst human beings this country has ever been exposed to.” Prior to the indictment, Trump had called upon AG Bondi to more aggressively investigate his political adversaries.
In a social media post addressed directly to Bondi, Trump said, “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.” He further expressed frustration that “nothing is being done,” before calling on Bondi to investigate former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, who oversaw his first impeachment trial.
Shortly afterward, he posted again: ”Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They are all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.”
Following Trump’s screed, and the arrival of a new federal prosecutor, Mr. Comey was indicted. “And the band plays on” (Pro tip: We really are in a Ball of Confusion…IYKYK).
It was tempting to make one of those current top tier news items the topic for today’s post. I considered it; I really did. But in a sort of Robert Frost moment, I took a position curated from his famous metrical composition, “The Road Not Taken, which ends with the following verse:
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
That’s overly dramatic, for sure, but I like the poem, and I wanted to use the final stanza in this blog. Voila.
Whether seeking the cure for a disease, or the solution to a problem, the most effective strategy is not to investigate the symptoms; rather, it is to determine the root cause. In other words, sometimes, you really do have to reject the optics of your lying eyes. The art of political legerdemain, the practice of getting you to look at the activity over here, while the real dastardly mischief is being executed over there, is well-practiced, and skillfully done.
This is where I take you for a ride in the way-back machine and redirect your attention to a matter that Trump, Inc. is trying desperately to induce you to forget. Three words: “The Epstein Files.” Every Trump rant, and all the performances of his dutiful acolytes are designed to deflect, distract, and propel you to disassociate cognitively from the notion of Trump and any potential nexus between him and “The Epstein Files.” AG Bondi in particular, does appear to protest too much. In February, she claimed during a Fox News interview that the Jeffrey Epstein client list (aka, The Epstein Files”) is “sitting on my desk right now to review.” So where is it today? Non-existent, if you believe her subsequent cover story.
That’s where Adelita Grijalva come into focus. At this juncture, 218 votes are required in the House of Representatives to constitute a majority vote, when all current members are present and voting. That’s 50% plus 1 of the 435 members. There are 217 members on record as being willing to vote to release “The (so-called) Epstein Files.”
Ms. Grijalva won a landslide Special Election in Arizona. She became the first Latina to represent AZ in Congress, and has pledged that when sworn into office, she will provide the decisive 218th vote. Thus, prompting a serious round of political gymnastics. The Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has basically sent House members home. Well, to be precise, he didn’t tell them they had to go home; just that they had to get the hades up outta the House of Representatives. The institution is Closed for Business, and, just so we’re clear, it was shuttered before the commencement of the shutdown. As a result of that artful move, he then declared that Grijalva couldn’t be sworn in, because the House wasn’t in session. Notwithstanding, he’d previously said he’d swear in the Democrat whenever she liked. More legerdemain. He now says he’ll swear her in, when Democrats open up the government. Fact: He swore in Florida GOP Reps. Jimmy Patronis and Randy Fine during a pro forma session earlier this year. In standard English, that means, technically, when the House was not in session. Just as is the case now.
In short, there is no rule. Johnson, just as Trump, or perhaps more aptly, in the service of Trump, is flexing raw power, for the sole purpose of preventing Ms. Grijalva from assuming her rightful place in Congress, thereby denying her constituents the representation they elected…and perhaps more important to the Trump axis, so as to keep her from voting to release “The Epstein Files.” The additional time may also be used to give Trump. Inc the opportunity to flip one or more of the votes of Republicans, who’ve committed to support releasing said files. It remains to be seen how it all plays out. If form holds, some GOP member, previously committed to releasing the files will either wilt under Trump’s relentless bullying pressure, or perhaps, secure some acceptable medium of exchange for their vote. I’m prepared to be surprised, but I certainly urge you not to bet the rent on it. “Adelita Grijalva: Remember The Name!”
To subscribe, 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 relating to this post, consult the links below:
Yesterday, on orders from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, over 800 generals and admirals assembled at the Marine Corps Museum in Quantico, Virginia. In the age of the frequent use of “secured communications,” pulling flag officers from across the globe for a meeting in a single location is a rare and unorthodox move. But unorthodox is not a new space for Mr. Hegseth, nor for the man at whose pleasure he serves, Donald Trump.
Hegseth gave an interesting speech, as he served as the warm-up act for Trump, who as always was the star of the show. To be sure, Petey took his fair share of shots at some of his favorite targets: women in the military, men with facial hair, women in combat, rules of engagement for war, and the ability of the inspector general’s office to conduct investigations (not coincidentally, like the one currently being executed on Mr. Hegseth). But, let there be no doubt, the star of the show, ad that’s really what it was after all, a big show, was Donald Trump.
It has long been said that Trump veers from the truth so often, trying to hold him accountable for his false and misleading statements is pointless. His supporters have their own variation of that theme. They routinely excuse, rationalize, or deny his errant statements. They say he was joking, he didn’t mean it, they assert he was misunderstood, and my personal favorite, “I haven’t seen the video.” Well, I have time today. Here are a few instances Mr. Trump and his comments opted for what one of his previous advisors, Kellyanne Conway, once referred to as alternative facts. As usual, there were too many to easily count, but here are ten I curated for your entertainment:
Trump bragged we have the strongest military in the world, and claimed, “You never heard Biden say that. You’ve never heard him say anything about that. The truth is, Biden repeatedly said the U.S. has the world’s strongest military. For example, in a 2023 speech about democracy, Biden said: “Our U.S. military – and this is not hyperbole; I’ve said it for the last two years – is the strongest military in the history of the world. Not just the strongest in the world – in the history of the world.”
Biden also made that point in the last week of his presidency, when he told a Defense Department audience, “You are simply the greatest fighting force in the history of the world – in the history of the world. That’s a fact. That’s not hyperbole, that’s a fact.”
Trump made the false claim that Biden said he thought he could get rid of Space Force, the military branch created during Trump’s first term, before backing down. “When Biden came into office, he wanted to terminate it – he said, ‘And this thing called Space Force, so we can get rid of that.’ And he got hammered by the people in this room for even suggesting it.” Biden never said anything like that.
In the first month of the Biden Administration, there was a controversy of a snarky remark by White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki to a question about whether Biden had made any decision on keeping Space Force. But even Psaki didn’t come close to saying, “we can get rid of that.” And she said the next day that Space Force has “the full support of the Biden administration and “we are not revisiting the decision to establish the Space Force.”
Trump touted the fact he got members of the NATO military alliance to pledge to spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense (by 2035), then falsely said, “It used to be 1%, then we got it up to 2% in my last term, and they did not like it.” Trump was not responsible for getting NATO to set its previous 2% target; the 2% target was agreed upon by NATO defense ministers in 2006 (I might add, when Trump was a registered Democrat), and then reaffirmed in NATO documents in 2014, the year before Trump launched his presidential campaign. Moreover, if Trump meant he was the one who got the members to meet their commitment, that’s not true either. In 2020, the last year of Trump’s first term, only nine members were meeting the 2% target. There are 32 members of NATO.
Trump reiterated his oft repeated false claim that Biden gave $350 billion in aid to Ukraine. That figure isn’t close to accurate. A German think tank that has closely tracked wartime aid to Ukraine says the U.S. allocated about $135 billion to Ukraine and has committed about $5 billion more through June. The U.S. Government inspector general overseeing the federal Ukraine response says the U.S. had disbursed about $94 billion as of the end of June 2025, and had appropriated about $93 billion more, including money that was spent in the U.S. and in broader Europe rather than Ukraine itself. That’s about 53% of Trump’s claim, and it includes money spent under Trump.
Trump restated his false claim that he has “settled seven” wars. He cited a war between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda as one example, saying “I got that one done,” and mentioned “Kosovo and Serbia” as another.
Those two examples show precisely why Trump has not settled seven wars. For starters, Trump hasn’t ended the conflict involving the Democratic of Congo and Rwanda. The peace agreement brokered by the Trump administration and signed by the DRC and Rwanda in June did not involve the rebel coalition, allegedly backed by Rwanda, that has seized territory in the eastern DRC. The scores of militia groups that have fought for three decades in one of the most protracted and complex conflicts in the world are still engaged in deadly fighting.
Moreover, while Trump claims to have prevented the eruption of a new war between Serbia and Kosovo – providing few details about what he was talking about – these countries weren’t in an actual war either during Trump’s current term, or during his first term.
Another dispute on Trump’s list of seven wars he supposedly settled, between Egypt and Ethiopia was also not a war, in either of Trump’s terms. They have a long-running (note: still unresolved) dispute about a major Ethiopian dam project on a tributary of the Nile River, but this is also not a war.
Trump repeated his frequently stated false claim that, under Biden, “the Congo and Venezuela opened their prisons to somehow get prisoners to travel to the U.S. as migrants.
“They opened up prisons in the Congo. They came into our country, totally unmatched, unvetted, unchecked, and from all over. Venezuela emptied its prison population into our country.” Referencing unspecified countries, he said, “They would take their worse people (like the escalator claim in 2015), and they’re people from prisons, in jail, and they put them in a caravan, and they’d walk up.”
Mr. Trump has never provided any proof for these claims, which his own presidential campaign and White House have been unable to corroborate. Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and neighboring Republic of Congo say there is no evidence of these claims. There is also no evidence Venezuela has done such a thing.
Trump repeated the false claim that “25 million” migrants entered the country under Biden. The “25 million” figure is fiction, as was his previous “21 million” claim. Both numbers are wild exaggerations. As of December 2024, the last full month under Biden, the federal government recorded under 11 million nationwide encounters with migrants during the Biden administration, including millions who were rapidly expelled from the country. Even adding the so-called gotaways who evaded detection, estimated by House Republicans as being roughly 2.2 million, there’s no way the total was anywhere near Trump’s claim.
Trump repeated the lie that the 2020 election was “rigged,” claiming that Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine “if the election weren’t rigged.” The Russia hypothetical aside, Trump lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.
Trump repeated his usual spurious figure about U.S. drug deaths, saying, “We lost 300,000 people (deaths) to drugs last year.” The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported earlier this month that there were 80,856 reported overdose deaths in the U.S. in the 12 months ending December 2024. Experts have noted that even if there is an undercount, there is no reasonable way to get to Trump’s 300K number.
Speaking about the City of Portland, Trump said, “Your place is burning down. Unless they’re playing false tapes, this looked like World War II.” It is not certain what tapes Trump is referring to, but the city is not burning down. While there have been some unruly protests near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in the city this year – and protesters were arrested in June for allegedly starting a fire there – the broader city has been functioning as usual, and even the situation around the ICE building is generally calmer than it was in June.
As an aside, welcome to the latest Governmental Shutdown. It’s sure to dominate the news cycle at least for the remainder of this week, since the GOP House members have left Washington until Monday. Meanwhile the GOP spin machine is working overtime to lay the shutdown at the feet of Democrats, even though the GOP controls the Oval, the House, and the Senate. The last shutdown, also under Donald Trump, lasted 35 days. It was the longest on record. You’ll hear much more about it sooner rather than later.
I simply cannot move on without sharing my favorite quote about government shutdowns:
“A shutdown falls on the president’s lack of leadership. I mean problems start from the top and they have to get solved from the top. A shutdown means the president is weak.” —Donald J. Trump, Circa 2013
I co-sign that statement. The internet is undefeated!
To subscribe, 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 relating to this post, consult the links below:
The Trump administration has been accused of many things, ranging from incompetent to corrupt. It’s array of former Fox News alumni underscore the questionable competence. The most recent example of alleged corruption stems from an episode involving Tom Homan, Trump’s so-called Border Czar.
Today, the White House finds itself standing behind Homan following reports he accepted $50,000 US from undercover agents posing as businesspeople during an FBI sting operation last year.
Consistent with the Trump playbook, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt characterized Homan’s encounter with the undercover agents as an effort by the Biden’s administration to “entrap one of the president’s top allies and supporters; someone who they knew very well would be taking a government position.” It’s interesting how insightful the administration Team Trump consistently calls inept, can be sharp and insightful…when it serves their purpose. Biden, nor anyone else “knew very well” Homan would be in Trump’s administration. Apparently, what they did know, was that Homan was likely a bad actor.
Leavitt went on to say, “The White House and the president stand by Tom Homan 100 per cent because he did absolutely nothing wrong, and he is a brave public servant who has done a phenomenal job in helping the president shut down the border.” It’s worth noting what Homan appears not to have said. There are no reports of him saying he did not take the cash.
MSNBC first reported Saturday that Homan had accepted the cash in a Sept. 20, 2024, encounter with undercover agents who were posing as businesspeople seeking government contracts that Homan suggested he could help them get in a second Trump term.
What you the citizen need to know: The Trump administration Justice Department shut down the probe, and said the matter was “subjected to a full review,” but authorities found “no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.”
The administration clearly has other priorities, as the statement by FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said: “The Department’s resources must remain focused on real threats to the American people, not baseless investigations. “As a result, the investigation has been closed.”
Leavitt insisted to reporters during a briefing on Monday that Homan “never took the $50,000 you’re referring to,” though she did not elaborate on what she meant. An MSNBC spokesperson said the network stood by its reporting.
On Sunday, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters that Homan accepted the cash.
Homan’s response: “I did nothing criminal. I did nothing illegal.”
“You’re talking about a guy who spent 34 years enforcing the law. I mean, I left a very successful business that I ran to come back and work for government again.” He added that he and his family have been subjected to death threats.
While providing no evidence, the White House criticized the Biden administration investigation as politically motivated. However, the FBI director during Biden’s term was Christopher Wray, a registered Republican, and the Justice Department investigated Democrats for corruption, including veteran Sen. Bob Menendez, who is now in prison.
Democrats from the House’s judiciary committee in a letter on Tuesday called upon Patel to release “explosive recordings” and other documents from the aborted investigation. The letter stated:
“Confirmed by six sources and reportedly captured on recordings now in [Department of Justice] and FBI’s possession, this startling episode is powerful evidence that Mr. Homan may have committed multiple federal felonies, including conspiracy to commit bribery.”
Between his stints in both Trump administrations, Homan was a consultant for GEO Group, which invests in private prisons and has been awarded several new contracts this year from the federal government.
The Democrats asserted, “The corruption investigation the Trump Administration blocked would have examined whether Mr. Homan was selling these contracts for personal profit before he even had the power to award them.”
The MSNBC report has elevated a fresh array of concerns about political interference in Justice Department matters at a time when Trump’s calls for prosecutions of his adversaries is testing the law enforcement agency’s long tradition of independence when it comes to prosecutorial decision-making.
Trump supercharged his pressure campaign on the Justice Department over the weekend, publicly calling for Attorney General Pam Bondi to move forward with cases against New York Attorney General Letitia James, former FBI director James Comey and U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff. In a separate incident, Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton had his residence and office searched this summer, though the specifics of that probe have not been officially announced.
Raising concern about the matter, Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy said on ABC News, “See what happened to Tom Homan, his border czar, who literally accepted a bag of cash — $50,000 — and the investigation was dropped once Trump became president. There are just two standards of justice now in this country. If you are a friend of the president, a loyalist of the president, you can get away with nearly anything … but if you are an opponent of the president, you may find yourself in jail.”
To subscribe, 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 relating to this post, consult the link below:
Warning: This is a long post. Skip it, break it up into manageable pieces, or zero in on parts that interest you. The topic is deep, and this doesn’t begin to cover all that could be said. Thank you.
By next week this time, we will have changed seasons and entered fall. Make no mistake about it, the anticipated seasonal cooling is not matched by any such reduction in our country’s political climate. On that front, Nelly could be the meteorologist of record, as politically speaking, it’s “Hot In Herre!”
A week ago, Charles James Kirk, known familiarly as Charlie Kirk, was cut down in the prime of his life. He was 31. An American right-wing political activist, author, and media personality, He was the co-founder and executive director of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a conservative organization started in 2012. Kirk was murdered. The suspect in his killing allegedly did so, because he disagreed with Kirk’s views. Before writing another sentence, let me say early, pointedly, and unequivocally, no one, including Charlie Kirk, should be killed for expressing their views.
Kirk was an ally of Donald Trump, and a close friend of J.D. Vance. He is credited with having been particularly influential in Trump and Vance winning the 2024 Election. In the week since Kirk’s murder, both have made clear both their affection and their appreciation.
Mr. Kirk avidly espoused a variety of conservative positions, including opposition to abortion, gun control, DEI programs, and LGBT rights. The list of his most controversial views included his criticism of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Martin Luther King, Jr., his promotion of COVID-19 misinformation, false claims of electoral fraud in 2020, and his opposition to immigration. Speaking of false claims, he made quite a few.
False and Misleading Claims
A Summary of Documented Examples
Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, is a prominent conservative commentator in the United States. His statements frequently generate discussion and scrutiny, and several have been publicly identified by fact-checkers and media organizations as false or misleading. Below is a list of well-documented examples, with each claim referenced by reputable public sources.
1. COVID-19 and Vaccines
Claim: In July 2021, Charlie Kirk claimed that COVID-19 vaccines have killed “thousands” of people, citing the VAERS database as evidence.
Fact: This interpretation of VAERS data is incorrect. VAERS collects unverified reports, and the CDC, FDA, and independent fact-checkers have repeatedly stated that these reports do not establish causation. There is no credible evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have killed thousands of Americans.
Sources: CDC, Associated Press, PolitiFact
2. 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Claims
Claim: Kirk has repeatedly stated that there was widespread voter fraud sufficient to alter the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
Fact: Multiple courts, state and federal election officials, and the Department of Justice found no evidence of widespread fraud that could have changed the result of the election.
Sources: Reuters, NPR, The New York Times
3. Texas Power Grid and Green Energy
Claim: During the February 2021 Texas power outages, Kirk claimed that frozen wind turbines were “the main factor” in the electrical grid failure.
Fact: Fact-checkers and energy experts confirmed that while some wind turbines did freeze, the majority of the outages were caused by failures in natural gas, coal, and nuclear facilities.
Sources: PolitiFact, The Texas Tribune
4. Misinformation on COVID-19 Death Statistics
Claim: Kirk has claimed that COVID-19 death counts are dramatically inflated, suggesting that the majority of deaths reported were “with” COVID rather than “from” COVID.
Fact: The CDC and health experts maintain that the official death counts reflect those who died as a result of COVID-19 infection, not incidental deaths.
Sources: CDC, AFP Fact Check
5. Claims About the Green New Deal
Claim: Kirk has stated that the Green New Deal would “ban hamburgers,” referencing the idea that it would outlaw eating beef.
Fact: The Green New Deal contains no language banning hamburgers or beef consumption. This is a misrepresentation of the policy proposal.
Sources: Congressional Research Service, The Washington Post Fact Checker
6. Misinformation on Critical Race Theory
Claim: Kirk has described critical race theory as being taught in K-12 schools nationwide and asserts that it is a dominant curriculum.
Fact: Education experts and school districts have clarified that while discussions of systemic racism occur, critical race theory as an academic framework is not part of standard K-12 curricula.
Sources: Education Week, NPR
These examples represent a selection of false or misleading claims attributed to Charlie Kirk that have been publicly addressed and corrected by major news outlets and fact-checking organizations. As with all public figures, scrutiny and independent verification of claims are essential for maintaining informed public discourse.
Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, and Erika Kirk have called Kirk a martyr. And, in a manner of speaking, he appears to be. His death can be tied directly to his beliefs. I’ve already stated, Kirk, nor anyone else should be murdered due to their beliefs.
MAGAWorld has gone all out, not only to memorialize a trusted source, and in some cases, hero, but to cast Democrats, the far left, and liberals as the collective bogeymen, solely responsible for Kirk’s assassination. They attribute ginning up the rhetoric to one side, and one side only. It is worth noting that a suspect has been arrested and is in custody. Initial reports are he acted alone. To that end, he is responsible for Kirk’s death. No one else. However, it’s impossible to resist inserting into the conversation, to offset some of that leftist talk, Kirk was shot, not in one of those Left-led Blue states, or in a Democratic led, so-called crime infested urban cities, but rather in bucolic Utah, where most of the people are conservative, Mormon, Republican…and of course white. And yes, the suspect was home grown. So even if he were radicalized, his roots were WAR, (Widely Accepted Republican). Deal with it.
Trump, who in a rare moment admitted there are right-wing radicals, claimed “The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. Worried about the border. They’re saying, we don’t want these people coming in. We don’t want you burning our shopping centers. We don’t want you shooting our people in the middle of the street.” Meanwhile, “The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious, and they’re horrible and they’re politically savvy, although they want men in women sports, they want transgender for everyone, they want open borders.”
But most importantly, every MAGA man, woman, and child are singing from the “Blame It On The Left” hymnal. Republicans have been immersed in a vivid fever dream about the rhetoric of the left causing the political temperature to rise. They lament being called Nazis, fascists, and enemy of the state. They argue that heated language is the crux of the problem, and is the unique signature verbiage of Democrats, used against Republicans.
It makes a great talking point, but a lousy argument. With Donald Trump is the face of the Party, you may want to do an AI deep dive, before you suggest some insult has only been used by “the other side.” Trump has used all those derogatory remarks when referring to Democrats in general, or to Kamala Harris in particular.
“Marxist,” “communist,” and “socialist”: Trump used these labels interchangeably
to paint Harris as an extremist, often dubbing her “Comrade Kamala”.
“Dumb as a Rock”: Trump repeatedly used this phrase to question Harris’ intelligence, including on his social media platform, Truth Social.
“Mentally impaired”: At a September 2024 rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, Trump claimed Harris was “mentally impaired” and compared her to those with mental disabilities. He claimed, “I believe she was born that way… there is definitely something missing”.
“Very low IQ individual”: In late October 2024, at a rally at Madison Square Garden, Trump called Harris a “very low IQ individual”.
Trump also referred to Harris as “the worst,” “lazy as hell,” and “a radical left lunatic” throughout the campaign.
He made an unsubstantiated suggestion that Harris might abuse alcohol or substances before interviews.
Retaliation against Kamala Harris: The specific labeling of Democrats as fascist occurred after then-Vice President Kamala Harris agreed with former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly’s assessment that Trump met the definition of a fascist. In response, Trump specifically called Harris a fascist, among other insults.
Finally, back to Charlie Kirk. Let’s permit his own words to make the case.
On race
If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024
If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?
If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?
If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.
We record all of it so that we put [it] on the internet so people can see these ideas collide. When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence. That’s when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil, and they lose their humanity.
– Kirk discussing his work in an undated clip that circulated on X after his killing.
Prove me wrong.
– Kirk’s challenge to students to publicly debate him during the tour of colleges he was on when he was assassinated.
On gender, feminism and reproductive rights
Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.
– Discussing news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement on The Charlie Kirk Show, 26 August 2025
The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered.
– Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded, published on 8 September 2024
We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.
I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.
– Event organized by TPUSA Faith, the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA, on 5 April 2023
On immigration
America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that.
The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.
We’ve been warning about the rise of Islam on the show, to great amount of backlash. We don’t care, that’s what we do here. And we said that Islam is not compatible with western civilization.
To subscribe, 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 relating to this post, consult the link below:
This post appeared originally in this space on September 7, 2011, commemorating the 10th Anniversary of Nine-Eleven. It was re-purposed and presented September 11, 2013, September 13, 2017, September 12, 2018, September 11, 2019, September 8, 2021 (20th Anniversary), September 14, 2022, September 13, 2023, September 11, 2024, and again today, September 10, 2025.
As I re-post this vintage edition of “Break It Down,” today on the eve of the Twenty-fourth Anniversary of Nine-Eleven, I am ever mindful that it’s both, a day America will never forget, and a day that forever changed America’s worldview. In the span of 81 minutes in one late summer’s morning, in the second year of the new millennium, 19 Saudis grabbed America by its collective gonads, and squeezed. Unimaginably hard. We blinked. We gathered ourselves, but regrouping was a process. We fundamentally changed the way we meet and greet the world. We are more guarded, and security has a whole new meaning. We even invented an entirely new federal governmental agency (Homeland Security) to guard our public security, and monitor anti-terrorism, border security, immigration and customs, cyber security, and disaster prevention and management.
(From the Archives, September 7, 2011)
Do you remember where you were, Tuesday, September 11, 2001? This week we observed the 21st Anniversary of the day that has come to be known simply as, Nine-Eleven (9/11). That day 10 years ago, America lost, in one fell swoop, any notion of its blissful innocence, its long-standing appearance of invulnerability, and its deeply ingrained sense of security. By some accounts, what it retained is its self-righteous (some would say) belief in American Exceptionalismandentitlement; but that is a conversation for another post.
Suddenly we were at war, and the fight had uncharacteristically come to us, straightway. This battle was personal, and it was on our home turf; no longer some shadowy ideological military exercise, or guerrilla warfare episode, played out on foreign soil, half a world away.
U.S. House of RepresentativesJoint Resolution 71 was introduced with 22 co-sponsors (11 Republicans and 11 Democrats) and approved by a vote of 407-0 on October 25, 2001 (with 25 members not voting). The bill passed unanimously in the Senate on November 30, 2001. The Resolution requested that the President designate September 11th each year as Patriot Day. President George W. Bush signed the Resolution into law December 18, 2001 (as Public Law 107-89).
On this day, the President directs that the American flag be flown at half-staff at individual American homes, at the White House, and on all U.S. government buildings and establishments, home and abroad. This year President Biden, as President Trump and President Obama did before him, deemed the day one of National Remembrance and Service.
Even after 23 years; more than two decades worth of context building, and development of perspective, the numbers behind Nine-Eleven are chilling. Nearly 3,000 people lost their lives, and thousands of others were injured, and many more sustained post-event traumas. Examples of the carnage include:
2,977 Victims killed (not including the 19 hijackers)
2,606 Killed at the World Trade Center Towers
87 Killed on American Flight/NYC World Trade Center North Tower
60 Killed on United Flight 175/NYC World Trade Center South Tower
A Medical Examiner will continue to try to identify remains in the hope new technology will lead to the identification of other victims. The death and destruction of Nine-Eleven led to the so-called Global War on Terror. Mostly the front lines have been in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, a central intent of the action has been to prevent a recurrence of Nine-Eleven-like events on U.S. soil.
The initial thrust began October 7, 2001 when the U.S., British, and Coalition forces invaded Afghanistan, and in March 2002, when the U.S. and Coalition forces launched Operation Anaconda and the Taliban suffered significant losses, and left the region. In the interim, involvement in the region has ebbed and flowed, but the war, which the Obama Administration referred to as Overseas Contingency Operation, continues. The War in Afghanistan is officially the longest war in American History. We have for some time been in the “every day is a new record” era.
U.S. Intelligence sources pointed to Al-Qaeda as the probable instigator behind Nine-Eleven. It’s leader, Osama bin Laden initially denied involvement. Over time, bin Laden became more emboldened, first conceding involvement, and ultimately admitting that he was instrumental in masterminding the horrific attacks. During his Presidential Campaign, Mr. Obama declared he would not relent in the hunt for Osama. The elusive terrorist was thought to be hiding in Pakistan. Mr. Obama stated bluntly that if reliable intelligence pinpointed bin Laden, he would deploy U.S. forces to find and kill him, which he did on May 2, 2011.
The good news is, over the course of the past twenty-three years, there have been no repeat Nine-Eleven scale events on U.S. soil. That result is partly due to fastidiously focusing on prevention efforts, partly a result of fortuitous failures of would-be terrorists, and partly a function of the fateful intervention of alert by-standers. Last year, President Trump negotiated an agreement to end America’s longest (20 years) war by May of 2021. President Biden, who succeeded Mr. Trump, committed to honor the agreement. Ultimately, he pulled American troops out of Afghanistan by August 31st. a pledge he ultimately honored, despite numerous suggestions, for a variety of reasons, that he abandon it.
To subscribe, 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 relating to this post, consult the link below:
This post appeared originally in this space on August 31, 2011. It was re-purposed and presented again September 3, 2014, September 7, 2016, September 6, 2017, September 5, 2018, September 4, 2019, September 9, 2020, September 7, 2022, September 6, 2023, September 4, 2024, and again today, September 3, 2025.
As you know, Monday was Labor Day. As with most holidays, I knock it down a few notches so readers can enjoy their time off, and ease into a vintage post, if they so choose. At its core, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, Labor Day in the United States was designed to commemorate the creation of the labor movement; dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. The holiday focuses on contributions workers have made to strengthen, and enhance the prosperity, and well-being of our country.
First observed in September 1882, the event has always been observed on the first Monday of the month of September. Initiated by the Central Labor Union of New York, the celebration became a federal holiday in 1894.
In addition to its formal structure and purpose, Labor Day has several symbolic associations. It is considered:
The unofficial “End of Summer”
The last 3-Day warm weather weekend for vacationers
By High Society standards, the last day for which it is appropriate for women to wear white.
The last weekend before the start of the NFL Season
The conventional kick-off of the hard-core political campaign season
The culmination of back–to-School shopping
Labor Day also validates and recognizes an often-controversial mechanism that frequently divides American opinion: labor unions.
Scorned by many who fancy themselves as Free EnterpriseCapitalists, unions and their members have not only been actively involved historically, in debates that framed public policy for American workers, they have won or forced hard-earned concessions that in the shimmering glow of reflective perspective, must be considered to have fundamentally altered the playing field (known as the workplace), including:
Pensions
Health Care Benefits
Paid Vacations
Equal Pay to women
The Development of Child Labor Laws
The 5-Day Work Week
The 40-Hour Work Week
The 8-Hour Workday
Worker’s Compensation benefits
Obtaining the right for Female Flight Attendants to marry
These and many other important cherished and beneficial employee rights are attributable to the efforts of the American Labor Movement. However, this post is not an ode to Labor Unions. For all their well-deserved accolades, unions also have downside effects. They can create or contribute to:
The potential for strikes
Additional costs to all employees (membership dues; whether a member or not)
Loss of individuality (ability to represent oneself in a grievance)
Subject employees to fines & discipline by the Union
Burdensome salary demands (relative to the market)
Loss of profits (and/or pay) due to strikes.
Inefficient & ineffective contracts
Increased unemployment due to failure to reach agreement w/management.
The first Labor Day celebration was led by a Labor Union. The history of the Day has been linked, inextricably, with Labor organizations, ever since. But it is the American Worker the Day was intended to commemorate.
Meanwhile, contemplate, “Labor Day: It’s All About The Workers Redux ’25!”While we’ve got plenty of issues to temper our enthusiasm, we should still celebrate America’s Labor Movement, and the phenomenal workers it represents.
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 relating to this post, consult the link below:
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.”
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 17th 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 9th
January 14th
January 28th
January 30th
February 10th
February 19th
February 20th
February 21st
February 28th
Golfing Dates:
January 18th
January 19th
February 1st
February 15th
March 7th
March 8th
Impeachment, by the way, ended February 5th.
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.
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:
(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!
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).
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:
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.
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).
BREAK IT DOWN! 