▶️ VDH: WHO HAS BEEN BUSY DESTROYING DEMOCRACY?
⭐️ HelloKitty’sGotAHairTrigger
VDH: WHO HAS BEEN BUSY DESTROYING DEMOCRACY?
hhhh
estroying democracy”—the latest theme of the left—can be defined in many different ways. How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient, and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? Democrats decry “destroying democracy” while dismantling long-standing institutions, weaponizing agencies, and undermining the very systems they claim to defend.
So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court?
Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster—though only when they hold a Senate majority?
Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia—by altering the Constitution—as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators?
Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate “The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?”
Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president?
So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of “collusion” to sabotage Trump’s 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump’s first term?
Who prompted a cabal of “51 former intelligence officials” to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a “Russian intelligence operation?”
Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign?
Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort, and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate?
Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him?
Who coordinated four local, state, and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else?
Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor’s efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president—all on the same day—a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid?
Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen?
When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign?
Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10–12 million illegal aliens?
Who created 600 “sanctuary jurisdictions” for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy?
Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists, and violent protestors over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers, and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct, and a historic church—all with de facto legal impunity?
How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60–70 percent approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion?
How does a president “destroy democracy” by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes, and enjoying a 6–3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? So what is behind these absurd charges?
Three catalysts: one, the new anguished elitist Democrat Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power.
Two, the Democrat Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power—minorities, youth, and Independents.
Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them.
So it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats now bark at the shadows—given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. Yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. ✪
▶️ VDH: DISINFORMATION & THE DROPPING OF THE ATOMIC BOMBS
VDH: DISINFORMATION AND THE DROPPING OF THE ATOMIC BOMBS
oooo
n 1945, Truman’s decision to drop two atomic bombs was grim—but it ended a war that could have cost millions more lives on both sides and unleashed even greater horrors. Legitimate disagreement about the wisdom of dropping two bombs on Japan to end World War II in 1945 persists even 80 years later, as reflected in discussions this past week.
However, recently, there has often been no real effort even to present the facts, much less to consider the lose-lose choices involved in using such destructive weapons. In an age of revisionist history—when Churchill is deemed a “terrorist,” Germany did not really mean to starve millions of Jews and Ukrainians in summer and fall 1941, the British forced Hitler to continue the war, and World War II was not worth the cost—so too are Hiroshima and Nagasaki judged as either war crimes or colossal and unnecessary follies.
For today’s generation, it seems so easy to declare one’s 21st Century moral superiority over our ancestors. So we damn them as war criminals, given that they supposedly dropped the bombs without legitimate cause or reason.
What follows are some of the most common critiques of President Truman’s decision to use two nuclear weapons against wartime Japan; with an explanation of why his decision to use the bombs proved, at the time and in hindsight, the correct one.
ONE: Why did the Americans not drop a trial bomb in Tokyo Bay to warn the Japanese to surrender or face the real thing?
That choice was considered at length. The liberal-minded Robert Oppenheimer had headed a commission to determine the most effective way to use the two bombs to end the war as quickly as possible.
A third nuclear weapon may or may not have been available within a few weeks after the bombing, but there were no others beyond those three at hand for at least a few months. So in early August, only two bombs, the uranium-fission bomb “Little Boy” and its plutonium counterpart “Fat Man,” were deliverable. The limited number of bombs affected the decision to use two on real targets.
Note that a third atomic bomb would not be exploded (in a test) for about a year after the war. Moreover, the uranium bomb used on Hiroshima had never been tested; the plutonium one had, but in the New Mexico desert on a tower and not loaded on and dropped from a plane.
As a result, no one knew for certain whether an air-dropped bomb would even work, the optimal detonation height, or the extent of the destruction it would cause. On the eve of the first test of the plutonium bomb on July 16 in the New Mexico desert, even scientists could not agree whether the plutonium blast would set the sky afire or might be not much more powerful than a large conventional bomb—or something in-between.
So given that there was no sure supply of additional bombs and no real knowledge of the effects of the bombs when dropped from the sky, the advisory commission decided that if the bombers crashed or were shot down with the bombs, or if the bombs prematurely blew up, or if either one failed to explode, or if the test proved underwhelming and did not impress the Japanese military government, then a trial bomb could backfire and only reinforce the Tokyo government’s insistence on refusing to surrender.
Others had earlier noted that despite the dropping of millions of leaflets over targeted Japanese cities to warn civilians to flee their cities, given additional scheduled B-29 fire raids, few had heeded the admonishments.
Either the Japanese people believed that their industries dispersed within civilian neighborhoods were so integral to the survival of Japan that they could not be abandoned, or they did not think the Americans would continue with the raids, or they assumed that their own government would use lethal force to prevent massive flights, or their sense of patriotism and confidence in ultimate victory prevented any mass withdrawals from soon-to-be-targeted cities.
As a result, the commission concluded that only a surprise attack without warning on a military/industrial/urban target would be the best way to maximize the bomb’s ability to shock the Japanese government into surrendering.
Note that even after the second bomb dropped on Nagasaki, there was an attempted coup by senior Japanese military officers aimed at preventing peace discussions. And there were many in the Japanese hierarchy, even after the second bomb, who believed the atomic bombs were too expensive, or too few, or too untested to be used in any further number. Instead, the dead-enders believed that an Okinawa-like resistance on a nationwide scale could still kill so many Allied soldiers that London and Washington would call off the effort to invade and occupy their nation.
TWO: But why did the Americans need to drop any bombs?
Since March 1945, the B-29s had destroyed perhaps somewhere over 75 percent of the industrial capacity and the urban cores of the majority of the Japanese cities. Yet the military government had shown no sign of surrendering. American submarines and B-29 mining of the harbors had already eliminated almost all maritime traffic in and out of Japanese ports. And still the Japanese resisted.
The months-long firebombing of Japan had cost well over 400 of the massive B-29 bombers (each plane with a crew of 11 and costing $1 million). The recent bloodbath at Okinawa was the deadliest American battle of the entire Pacific War. The fighting was not declared over until just six weeks before Hiroshima, and even then, there still remained pockets of stiff Japanese resistance.
Okinawa had cost over 50,000 American casualties, including 12,000 dead. Over 750 planes were lost and some 380 ships damaged—mostly by attacks by 850 kamikazes. The last twelve months before Hiroshima had killed more Americans than during any other year of the war.
In hindsight, we may think the atomic bombs were superfluous or gratuitous. However, the generation that fought the war was despairing that the fighting had become bloodier and more horrific the longer it went on, the closer the allies got to Japan, and the harder it became to impose an unconditional surrender. After Okinawa, they saw no end to the killing in sight, but only more, and far greater, Okinawas on the horizon.
By calculating the number of Japanese troops who fought at Okinawa and the resulting American losses (and also computing the earlier bloody conquest of the Philippines as well), the American military correctly judged that it likely would lose well over one million casualties in the two-pronged invasions of Japan planned for 1945–1946.
Japan could have fielded at least 3.5 million troops and between 5,000and 6,000 kamikazes; one-way fighter-bomber planes analogous to human-guided cruise missiles, far more accurate and deadly than German V-1 buzz bombs.
In sum, the Allies believed that neither the devastating firebombing nor the catastrophic Japanese defeats in the Philippines, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa had broken the will of the Japanese military government. Thus, Truman was desperately seeking some new solution to avoid invasions that would have likely killed millions on both sides. By earlier agreements, the Americans first had to gain the permission of the British to use the atomic bomb, which was not hard, given the savagery that the British had also experienced from the Japanese at Singapore and in Malaysia and Burma.
The two bombs together killed roughly 100,000 to 150,000 people in the first few days after the blast, with thousands more dying later from the aftereffects.
Yet there was never an American eagerness to use its exclusive control of bombs and heavy bombers.
For the next four years, the Americans enjoyed a complete monopoly on atomic bombs from August 1945 to August 1949, when the Russians, through espionage, were finally able to conduct a successful atomic bomb test. Yet, in the period of escalating Soviet-American tensions, which saw ongoing communist revolutions in China, Asia, and Africa, the U.S. did not use its one-sided advantage.
During the Korean War, the U.S. had an arsenal of over 300 atomic bombs with a huge bomber force, versus just a few newly acquired bombs on the Soviet side. Yet Presidents Truman and Eisenhower stifled talk of using nuclear threats to pressure the Russians and Chinese to stop fueling North Korean aggression.
THREE: Weren’t the two bombing missions fairly easy?
Hardly. The two bombs had to be transported 6,000 miles to Tinian by sea from the West Coast. The heavy cruiser Indianapolis sped from San Francisco and later Hawaii, unaccompanied through enemy waters, to deliver the components for Little Boy; only to be sunk along with the majority of its crew by a Japanese submarine, just two days after it departed the island.
There was real fear that air crashes might set off the bombs. Safety devices (especially on the more volatile uranium bomb) to keep the bombs inert until minutes before dropping were last-minute improvisations.
The bombing runs from the B-29 bases on the Marianas to Japan were some 3,000 miles round trip. Crashes, navigational errors, turbulent weather, and losses to Japanese flak and fighters were common dangers.
The second atomic bombing mission to Nagasaki nearly ended in disaster. The B-29 (Bockscar) carrying the plutonium bomb took off despite a fuel tank blockage. On arrival, it could not see the aiming point over the primary target of the city of Kokura. The mission’s bombers consequently circled for too long over Kokura, and only belatedly were diverted to the secondary target at Nagasaki.
But it too was likewise obscured with clouds. Finally, Bockscar dropped the bomb 1.5 miles off target. As a result of the delays, mishaps, and mechanical trouble, it could not make it back to its Tinian base or even to the halfway emergency base on Iwo Jima. Instead, Bock’s Car diverted to the newly acquired Okinawa runways—only to run out of gas as it landed.
FOUR: Why did we target the Japanese and not the Germans?
The atomic bomb was designed to be used against Germany, which the Allies initially feared might beat them to nuclear acquisition (although the Japanese were also racing to get a bomb).
The mostly experimental and costly B-29 heavy bomber (the only American plane found to be capable of efficiently carrying a 10,000-pound atomic bomb) was likewise designed to be used against Germany. The two programs together cost well over $4 billion. But the accelerated pace of the European war in 1945 and the delays in the Manhattan Project resulted in the European war concluding before any bomb was ready.
FIVE: Did the bombs just cause more wars and killing, or save lives?
The bombs, as horrible as they were, saved millions of lives in a variety of macabre but often underappreciated ways.
First, no major power in World War II killed more civilians and soldiers at less human cost to itself than the Japanese military. For almost a decade, Japanese troops had killed between 16–20 million Chinese, the vast majority of them civilians. They likely killed another 3–4 million British, Americans, British Commonwealth troops, Pacific Islanders, and non-Chinese Asians.
The Japanese military routinely executed prisoners, used captives for grotesque medical experiments, and starved and gratuitously slaughtered enemy civilians. On average, Japan likely killed over 10,000 of its enemies each day of the war. Any means possible to stop that ruthless killing machine was seen as justified by late 1945.
Second, with the conquest of Okinawa (just 800 miles from Tokyo, rather than the 1,500-mile distance from the bases in the Marianas), General Curtis LeMay, in a few months, envisioned a huge second B-29 base. Okinawa would allow far easier and far more firebombing missions per week, especially given orders for an envisioned 3-4,000 more new B-29s.
More terrifying still, with the end of the European war on May 9, 1945, there were additional plans to transfer some of the 2,000 idle B-17s and B-24s to Okinawa from the European theater.
The British were also considering adding some of their now idle 400-500 heavy Lancaster bombers to the Pacific (“Operation Tiger Force”).
In theory, LeMay and his British counterparts eventually might have been able to unleash well over 6,000 four-engine bombers against Japan. They could have easily doubled or tripled the number of the 200-300,000 Japanese civilians and soldiers already killed by the fire raids.
As a result, after the war, General LeMay insisted that he could have inflicted such conventional destruction on Japan as to have avoided both an invasion and the dropping of the two atomic bombs by either forcing a Japanese surrender or utterly destroying the Japanese ability to resist by burning the entire nation to the ground.
So the two bombs 1) stopped the massive daily Japanese killing of mostly civilians in the Pacific, Asian, and Chinese theaters; 2) ended the fire raids that had proven more deadly than Hiroshima and Nagasaki; 3) prevented a nightmarish invasion of Japan; and 4) in terrible irony, prompted an emerging doctrine of nuclear deterrence, which, as a result, may help explain why the world has neither seen another global war nor another use of nuclear weapons since 1945
Dropping the atomic bombs may have been a terrible decision, but the alternatives were even worse. ✪
▶️ JB SHURK: THE EXISTENTIAL INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THREATS
JB SHURK: THE EXISTENTIAL INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THREATS
nnnn
irector of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard’s declassification of communications and reports that implicate Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, senior officials from the Obama Administration, and former heads of the Intelligence Community in a conspiracy to frame President Trump with the Russia Collusion Hoax is nothing less than earth-shattering.
America has endured many political scandals. However, the country has never had to contend with anything of this magnitude; in which a lame-duck president abused and politicized national intelligence-gathering operations in order to blame an adversarial nuclear power for an embarrassing election loss and set in motion a series of fraudulently predicated criminal investigations intended to force President Trump’s resignation from office or impeachment and removal.
As enormous as this scandal already is, it remains an ongoing criminal conspiracy. Every time former Obama officials, including former DNI James Clapper and former CIA director John Brennan, publicly lie about material facts regarding the Russia Collusion Hoax, they are acting as co-conspirators in a plot to defraud the American people, overthrow a legitimately elected president, and cover up past criminal activity.
Perhaps the only aspect of this story that could rival in size such treason against the United States is the corporate news media’s continued refusal to report these events accurately without fear or favor. For many reasons, newsrooms will not do so. Because indoctrinated and committed leftists control the American press, “journalists” lack the requisite discernment to see beyond partisan political blinders and report facts that are personally troubling. Even worse, many “journalists” have redefined their professional role away from any responsibility for objective truth-telling and toward a kind of active agency in which they shape “truth” to advance a particular worldview. “Journalists” love Obama. They despise Trump. They are happy to act as assets for former Obama Administration officials pushing lies and to hide facts that are politically inconvenient.
“Journalists” were and remain essential co-conspirators in the Russia Collusion Hoax. By publishing sensational stories that were often contradicted by a mountain of publicly available facts, the nation’s pre-eminent news companies aided and abetted the Clinton-Obama information war against the American people. As has been their wont in this era in which “journalism” resembles stenography, famous “reporters” simply repeated what corrupt members of Obama’s Intelligence Community told them without ever verifying the accuracy of their reporting. When pressed to corroborate salacious details of their Russia Collusion Hoax stories, “journalists” habitually relied on “anonymous sources” from “past or present government officials” as tawdry proof that their shoddy “journalism” passed muster.
In exchange for acting as propagandists spreading disinformation and misinformation in a hybrid war being waged by powerful Democrats and Intelligence Community officials against citizens of the United States, “reporters” received promotions, celebrity recognition, book deals, and Pulitzer Prizes. Even after DNI Gabbard’s declassifications have exposed the corporate news media’s Russia Collusion propaganda for the trashy clickbait that it is, “reporters” refuse to retract past lies, return Russia Collusion related awards or remuneration, or publicly admit any wrongdoing.
The American press corps is now so inextricably linked to the Democrat Party and the corrupt Intelligence Community that it would rather pretend not to see the greatest scandal in American history than admit its own complicity in perpetrating mass fraud against citizens of the United States. These are, of course, the same “professionals” who refused to acknowledge President Biden’s obvious cognitive decline for four years; going so far as to defame those who did notice as “conspiracy theorists” — only to claim today that the Biden Administration simply pulled the wool over their eyes. Should the growing body of evidence documenting the Clinton-Obama conspiracy to overthrow President Trump become impossible to ignore, these same “professionals” will surely claim that powerful members of the Democrat Party, Obama Administration, and espionage apparatus had them fooled, too.
The damage from the Russia Collusion Hoax cannot be overstated. The psychological warfare directed against the American people destroyed any residual social unity in a nation that has become only more divided since the turn of the century. The covert hybrid war engineered by Clinton confidants, Obama allies, and Intelligence Community spymasters constituted nothing less than sedition and treason against the legitimate government of the United States. Not only was President Trump handicapped during his first term by unlawfully predicated criminal investigations but also the Clinton-Obama-aligned co-conspirators further inflamed tensions with nuclear Russia, exhibiting malicious disregard for the safety of the citizens of the United States.
As a nation, we are lucky that the Clinton-Obama coup d’état was ultimately unsuccessful. Had the Russia Collusion Hoax precipitated President Trump’s resignation or provided enough political cover for corrupt co-conspirators in Congress to impeach and remove him, the American public would be today even more vulnerable to the machinations of a deeply immoral and dishonest Intelligence Community. Federal bureaucrats who operate in secret and without oversight remain a constant threat to the freedom of all Americans. Bureaucrats who would wage an information war against the American people and conspire to provoke kinetic war between Russia and the United States are a threat to all mankind.
After any disaster, the survivors must go on. It is at this time that sober, well-intentioned people take stock of troubling past events and look for potential lessons that can aid them in the future. It is fair to say that the Russia Collusion Hoax provides many. Among those, perhaps this is the most significant:
No American should uncritically believe any supposed statement of fact coming from the press, the Intelligence Community, or any government official attempting to define “truth” by appealing to a title of authority.
Blind faith in powerful institutions ensures only that those institutions will become irredeemably corrupt. Healthy skepticism for official pronouncements and public debate of government-sponsored “truths” are indispensable ingredients for a free society. If any honest observer still clung to the naïve belief that the Intelligence Community, permanent federal bureaucracy, or American news media were honest, impartial institutions acting on behalf of all Americans with dispassionate professionalism, the Russia Collusion Hoax should have exposed such comforting delusions as idealistic hogwash.
Here is another lesson vital to the survival of these United States: The president, in whom all executive power is vested, must have complete control of and total authority over the Intelligence Community, the executive departments, and the broader administrative state. There can be no extra-constitutional organ exercising executive power that feels emboldened to disregard lawful presidential orders and entitled to chart its own course. If every spy chief and agency manager operates as if vested with independent power and unilateral authority, then there are a thousand “presidents” governing the United States. As the Electoral College has not voted them into office, they are, in actuality, tyrants disguising their misappropriation of power behind titles of authority.
The Clinton-Obama Russia Collusion Hoax was nearly a successful coup d’etat precisely because the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has long been home to a thousand tyrants pretending to be presidents. For the Republic to endure, this betrayal of the U.S. Constitution must come to an end.
Acknowledging these truths adds significance to DNI Gabbard’s ongoing disclosures. At no time in American history has the Office of the President taken such direct aim at its own Intelligence Community. These public disclosures are embarrassing — which is why America’s rogue agencies have worked so hard to keep them classified. They are incriminating — which is why a reactionary public relations campaign (read: a new bombardment of information warfare) is underway to undermine DNI Gabbard’s authority and protect Russia Collusion Hoax perpetrators from legal accountability. Finally, these disclosures are an existential threat to the Intelligence Community & the Nation itself— which is why former spies, current members of Congress, and the corporate news media continue to cover up the truth. ✪
▶️ THE SMITHSONIAN’S ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA
THE SMITHSONIAN’S ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA
nnn
he Smithsonian Institution is one of America’s greatest assets. When Americans visit the nation’s capital in Washington, D.C., they are able to witness their country’s vast array of art, culture, history, and research acumen all in one place, and for free, because of the museums and zoo the institution operates there. Like the national parks, the Smithsonian is part of America’s cultural inheritance.
However, because of its academic and historical nature, the institution, established by an act of Congress that was signed by President James K. Polk in 1846, has always been in a precarious situation where dishonest and destructive actors who have deep disdain for the United States might take over its stewardship.
That appears to be what has happened, particularly under the Biden Administration, as museum halls are adorned with gay “pride” flags and exhibits are filled with pseudo-history or history that is framed dishonestly; seemingly in an attempt to degrade the American experience.
That is a far cry from the Smithsonian Institution’s mission: to be “an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men,” as initial patron James Smithson (after whom the institution is named) said in 1826 when willing his estate ultimately to the United States. Smithson’s donation would over time become the world’s “largest museum, research, and education complex,” boasting 21 museums, a zoo and conservation biology institute, and nine research facilities.
To that end, Trump Administration officials; including Lindsey Halligan, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Associate Staff Secretary, Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Haley, and Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought, wrote a Tuesday letter to Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III initiating an internal review of the Smithsonian’s exhibitions and materials:
“It is an honor to work alongside the Smithsonian in reviewing its museums and exhibits, with the shared goal of ensuring this treasured institution reflects the very best America has to offer — accuracy, excellence, and the richness of our shared history. While certain ideological influences have permeated the Smithsonian over time, our goal is for the Smithsonian to be fact-based, scholarly, and historically sound,” Halligan said. “The current Smithsonian exhibits are publicly available so everyone can see firsthand what we have observed. We invite the public to form their own judgments and better understand why we believe certain changes are necessary to preserve the integrity of our shared heritage.”
Admission is free to everyone, Smithsonian buildings line the National Mall from the Capitol Building to the Washington Monument; and since 1970 they have been visited by between 20 and 30 million people per year, save for some off years.
While two of the notable off years included 2020 and 2021 when there were protocols related to the coronavirus and the museums only saw three million to five million visitors, visitation has not returned to pre-coronavirus levels, with last year seeing fewer than 17 million visitors.
The phenomenon raises concerns about the broader left-wing project to force Americans to hate their history and their country. Corrosive outgrowths of that project have been seen, perhaps most acutely, at the Smithsonian museums in recent years, and the woke-scolding nature of their exhibits may be an explanation for their dwindling numbers over the course of the Biden Administration’s tenure.
The Trump Administration’s review will be all-encompassing and phased, starting with eight museums first: American History, Natural History, African American History and Culture, American Indian, Air and Space, National Portrait Gallery, and the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden.
All aspects of each museum’s process will be reviewed, including public-facing content, the curation process, planning of exhibitions, how collections are used, and standards for narrative building.
Such a broad review appears to be necessary, as tourists and visitors to the museums in D.C. have offered images and insight detailing the countless examples of the far-left ideological capture of one of our nation’s greatest resources. The Trump Administration’s concerns are not unfounded.
✪ Promoting Homosexuality & Maligning The American Flag
As the Trump Administration works to restore a semblance of reality and prestige to the Smithsonian museums, it makes sense to start a review with the museum dedicated to American history.
At the American History Museum, which is located in the shadow of the Washington Monument, Americans who want to learn about their history must first be bombarded at the front entrance with a “pride-progress” flag.
True to form, one of the exhibits argues in favor of “transgender” athletes competing in sports against members of the opposite sex. It questions why anyone would think it necessary to test the sex of athletes before a competition, denying the advantage men have over women because of testosterone and other biological realities like bone density and muscle mass. It states:
“Proponents believe that gender testing prevents transgender athletes and athletes with high testosterone levels from gaining an unfair competitive advantage. However, critics argue that gender tests are humiliating and discriminate against athletes who challenge traditional gender norms.”
While visitors are greeted with the LGBT flag at the door, the exhibit about the U.S. flag — the Star-Spangled Banner exhibit — advances left-wing causes as well. On separate slides it shows the flag being used at an “immigrant rights rally” or with LGBT material. Other slides show the flag burning, being used at a Ku Klux Klan rally, or alongside anti-American propaganda.
✪ America Is Evil & Also Needs Mass Illegal Immigration
Visitors can also get a preview of the future addition to the Smithsonian network, the National Museum of the American Latino, which is still in its planning stages but will ultimately be situated alongside the others on the National Mall.
“¡Presente! A Latino History of the United States” will be the first exhibit of that museum, yet those interested can look at it now in the American History Museum — but only if they want to be hit with more anti-America propaganda.
At the outset, visitors are told to “reflect on the effects of colonization and slavery in the Americas and throughout the world,” which frames the entire exhibit as one where the United States is an evil force for destabilization and imperialism, and Latinos have been bearing the brunt of that burden for all time.
As writers at The Heritage Foundation put it three years ago, the exhibit is a “hothouse to curate grievances against the United States.”
“The Latino exhibit simply erases the existence of the Hispanic who loves, contributes to, benefits from and exemplifies the promise of American liberty,” they stated. “That is to say, it erases the Hispanic majority.”
The exhibit suggests that the United States stole one-third of Mexico’s landmass in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which recognized the Rio Grande River as the southern border of the U.S. and finalized Texas becoming part of the United States.
A 2021 quote from artist-activist Judy Baca on a pillar in the exhibit states, “We didn’t cross the border; the border crossed us.”
The Texas Revolution, according to the exhibit, was actually a massive defense of slavery waged by “white Anglo Saxon” settlers against anti-slavery Mexicans fighting for freedom, not a Texan war of independence from Mexico.
It also pushes the idea that Cuban immigration had nothing to do with escaping Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, but was rather a movement motivated by economic considerations.
The exhibit strains to connect other left-wing ideologies to the narrative, including leftist propaganda on labor, education, housing, immigration, justice reform, and “LGBT rights,” while discounting American sovereignty.
America has utilized Western capitalism to oppress minorities, the planet, and the Global South, according to the exhibit, which therefore concludes that all the “oppressed” intersectional groups that allegedly exist in Latin America have been fighting for “global justice” against a domineering United States.
To that end, the museum uniformly presents indigenous populations positively or as victims, without qualifications about violence, child sacrifice, or other behavior.
The exhibit remarkably leaves out mentions of the abuses of left-wing dictators like Fidel Castro of Cuba and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, while making sure to show how the United States backed right-wing dictators like Fulgencio Batista of Cuba and Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic.
Immigration is yet another area where each story told is aimed at advancing the open borders narrative, completely discounting national sovereignty and suggesting that controlled immigration is a human rights abuse.
To further that narrative, the exhibit depicts migrants looking at Independence Day fireworks “through an opening in the U.S.-Mexico border wall,” and a description to the side of it called “Fear and Prejudice” quickly maligns Benjamin Franklin and essentially all founding-era leaders as having “feared non-White immigration.”
“Instead of being recognized as community builders, Latin American immigrants are sometimes described as ‘invaders,’” it states. “Many have risked their lives to immigrate because they believe in U.S. ideals such as democracy, equality, and opportunity.”
It makes no mention of the violent gangs and individuals committing crimes against Americans, their drugs that kill countless American people, or their economic effect in taking jobs and upending the lives of American citizens.
✪ Profound Unsettling Of The Continent
The founding of America, from the colonial era through the revolution, was not a historic triumph of liberty, the American History Museum insists, but rather a “profound unsettling of the continent.”
“The continent’s population actually declined in this period as Old World diseases swept through Native populations that lacked immunity. Beyond that profound tragedy there would be new conflicts, new forms of freedom, new forms of slavery, and new ways of living together,” the exhibit states. “Our world today grows out of that unsettling history.”
✪ Explicit Attacks On Benjamin Franklin
A visitor to the American History Museum cannot get two sentences into an exhibit about the scientific works of Benjamin Franklin without being bombarded, at every single turn, with mentions of slavery.
In fact, there is a QR code near the exhibit on the Star-Spangled Banner telling visitors they can find out more about his “electrical experiments and the enslaved people of his household.”
In an apparent attempt to undermine Franklin’s contributions to the American founding and to science, the Smithsonian says that “Franklin’s remarkable scientific accomplishments were enabled by the social and economic system he worked within.”
“Franklin enslaved people, perhaps as many as seven. Their labor helped to build his fortune,” the exhibit states, while speculating and admitting there is no evidence that the slaves “may have directly assisted his research.”
If one were looking to find out more about Franklin’s research, it would be tough to do in this exhibit which appears to entrap people by promising his scientific history, but then quickly turns into a diatribe about slavery.
“Franklin’s involvement with slavery is complicated. He published anti-slavery articles in his newspaper while also profiting from the sale of enslaved people and printed notices seeking the capture of escapees,” the exhibit states. “Later in life he took an overt stand against slavery, becoming president of the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery in 1787, supporting gradual emancipation. But Franklin never emancipated any of the people he enslaved.”
Almost as if the writers suddenly remembered that this was supposed to be about scientific research, not slavery, the exhibit states, “Franklin’s place in the nation’s history of slavery is part of his legacy, as is his electrical research that led to the smartphone.”
The constant mentions of slavery continue, with a small amount of scientific discovery or inventions woven in:
This 1763 engraving is one of dozens that bolstered Franklin’s fame as a scientist. It shows two of Franklin’s inventions: alarm bells that alerted him when the atmosphere became charged with electricity, and a lightning rod. Missing from the image are the people whose labor freed Franklin to conduct his research: the women, indentured servants, and enslaved people who maintained his household, assisted him, or made or operated equipment.
The narrative goes on, and on, and on; continuing to make accusations and then admitting there is no evidence for them:
Benjamin Franklin was not just a founding Father, but a scientist. From 1746 to 1752, he conducted experiments that changed peoples’ understanding of electricity. The sparks of his inventive mind drove research and led to new inventions. Those sparks crackle with the complications of his time. Enslaved people helped build his fortune, and may have participated in his research. We still have much to learn about that part of his scientific work.
✪ The Coronavirus ‘Racism’ Psy-Op
An exhibit in the lobby of the second floor, immediately next to one of the museum’s main entrances, shows a “stop Asian hate” protest during the coronavirus — the “Asian hate” being a psy-op invented by the corporate media to hide the fact that the coronavirus did, in fact, come from China.
“As COVID-19 spread across the United States in early 2020, San Francisco’s Chinatown community was already shunned, even targeted by those who considered the disease ‘the China virus,” it states. “Because Asian Americans had been subject to racist scapegoating and violence so often in the past, they organized a rally to call on their fellow citizens and residents “to fight the virus not the people.”
✪ It’s Not Just The American History Museum
There is a huge amount of propaganda that needs to be cleaned up at numerous Smithsonian museums. Americans would be better served if the Trump Administration’s review forced the institution to have a fair and truthful depiction of their country, science, culture, history, and art. ✪
▶️ DEFUNDING USAID HAS COLLAPSED THE DNC
⭐️ Americalsgt
DEFUNDING USAID HAS COLLAPSED THE DNC
kkk
y all accounts, even those of liberal media outlets, the Democratic National Committee is broke. Under the leadership of newly elected chairman Ken Martin, the DNC is now facing a full-blown financial crisis. If the DNC truly had a nationwide army of enthusiastic supporters, it wouldn’t be begging for loans. But it doesn’t, so it is… But how did it come to this?
Donor flight is one part of the answer. Since President Trump and J.D. Vance took office in a historic victory, the DNC’s once-reliable donor class has slammed the brakes on their contributions. However, the bigger story, and one the mainstream press won’t touch, is that a critical pipeline of DNC cash has been shut off: the massive taxpayer-funded slush fund known as USAID.
For years, USAID was used by the Washington establishment to bankroll politically motivated nonprofits, foreign projects of dubious value, and leftist causes worldwide. We had a front-row seat to this here in Eastern Europe for decades.
A vast network of NGOs, many of which had no accountability and little public visibility, received billions under the guise of “democracy promotion” and “foreign development.” But in practice, this system served as a backdoor funding operation for the Democrat Machine and its liberal friends around the world.
That changed almost immediately when the Trump Administration created DOGE, a bold new agency tasked with slashing wasteful spending and tackling fiscal abuse head-on. Conservatives were thrilled to see this launch, knowing accountability was finally coming!
One of its first moves was to dismantle the opaque, unaccountable structures within USAID that had been misused for decades.
Thanks to whistleblowers, internal audits, and brave investigative reporting, Americans have learned what we’ve known for years about just how badly their tax dollars were abused. For example, millions were spent on gender ideology programs in deeply conservative regions like Guatemala and Egypt. Worse, American taxpayers unknowingly funded farming tools, irrigation, and fertilizer in Afghanistan, only to have them diverted to bolster heroin production under the Taliban. How is this in the interest of the American people? It’s not!
Let that sink in. While American veterans struggle to get adequate care at home, your government was helping produce heroin in Taliban controlled territory. True story.
Beyond all the absurd waste, the deeper scandal is political. This entire ecosystem was the fundamental mechanism propping up the Left. Here’s how it worked: USAID money flowed to “development” groups, which then subcontracted to friendly NGOs, who in turn funneled money to progressive causes or recycled it through “approved” entities that made legal donations back to the DNC. It was nothing more than a money laundering operation dressed up in foreign aid clothing.
Now that the spigot has been turned off, the DNC is flailing. The party that claims to represent “the people” can’t survive without their backdoor foreign cash and taxpayer subsidies. Without federal dollars being funneled through shadowy partners and ideological NGOs, there’s no real donor base left. There’s no grassroots support willing to foot the bill.
If the DNC truly had a nationwide army of enthusiastic supporters, it wouldn’t be begging for loans. But it doesn’t, so it is. That was confirmed again last week when new polling showed just 33 percent support for the Democrat Party, their lowest level of public support in 30 years. A staggering 63 percent of Americans now view Democrats negatively.
Why? Because Americans are sick of being force fed a constant diet of lectures about open borders, gender confusion, radical climate alarmism, and racial division. In other words, today’s DNC platform. It just doesn’t resonate; and now, thanks to DOGE, Americans are no longer subsidizing their own cultural destruction.
This is more than a fiscal story. It’s also a philosophical and moral one. The Left, as Margaret Thatcher once noted, always runs out of other people’s money. And that’s precisely what happened here. The DNC’s finances were never about grassroots democracy. They were about harvesting public funds through bureaucratic corruption and NGO middlemen.
The shutdown of this funding pipeline marks a turning point not just in exposing the rot within USAID, but in proving that the DNC has no independent capacity to fund itself. It was never a movement of energized citizens. It was a political pyramid scheme. And now that scheme is collapsing.
Americans are finally waking up. They’re rejecting the idea that we must endlessly bankroll propaganda overseas while our own borders remain open and our own people struggle. They want efficiency, accountability, and America-first policies; exactly what President Trump and DOGE are delivering.
The DNC isn’t just broke. It’s broken both financially and morally. And that might be the best news American taxpayers have heard and the worst news liberal NGO’s around the world have listened to in years. ✪
▶️ DONATE VIA PAYPAL (DEBIT & CREDIT CARD)
ALL PayPal Transactions Are Encrypted For Card Holder Privacy & Security
▶️ DONATE VIA ZELLE (DIRECT BANK CASH TRANSFER)
ZELLE is the perfect online alternative to PayPal. It’s an incredibly simple, secure, easy, fast and FREE way to send or receive money to recipients directly from your online banking account without a middleman. Best of all, there’s NO fees.
ZELLE is a service provided by your bank and is already built in to your online banking account. You only need to activate it first before using. If you’ve already activated ZELLE in your online bank or credit union account, you can donate to The New Americanist by using our ZELLE address:
vip@thenewamericanist.com
To activate your ZELLE, follow these easy instructions (a simple two minute process):
▶️ DONATE VIA SNAIL MAIL
▶️ RSBN LIVESTREAM LINK: Trump & Putin Arrival @ Alaska Summit
▶️ RSBN LIVESTREAM LINK: Post Summit Trump Presser
⭐️ TokaiseBlessedPatriot
