Trump's Push To Restore 'Truth and Sanity in American History' Tests Nonpartisan Institutions

Politically-motivated firings and increased executive branch scrutiny set “a dangerous precedent,” warns a former archivist of the United States.

Last May, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to restore "Truth and Sanity in American History." The order called on the federal government to challenge a "concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history" and "restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness."

In the months since, the Trump administration has successfully pressured the Smithsonian to do the very thing the order aimed to combat: rewrite American history. Last week, the National Portrait Gallery "removed a swath of text that mentioned President Donald Trump's two impeachments and the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection," The Washington Post reported. These materials were replaced by an updated portrait of Trump. On Wednesday, the institution turned over photographs of labels, placards, text, and additional materials on exhibits to the White House for review. This was in response to a December letter that threatened to withhold federal funds if the Smithsonian did not "submit extensive documentation for a sweeping content review" to weed out materials that the White House deemed to contain "improper ideology," according to the Post.

In a recent interview with Reason's Eric Boehm, former U.S. Archivist Colleen Shogan warned about the damage that actions like these could cause to historically nonpartisan institutions.

As archivist, Shogan oversaw the National Archives and Records Administration, which referred Trump's handling of presidential records to the Justice Department after documents were not returned at the end of his term, helping trigger an investigation that led to felony charges against Trump. Shogan, who was not in charge of the Archives when the investigation began, was fired in May 2025 and replaced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Firings like hers and former Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, which some people deem to be ideologically motivated, are worrying, says Shogan. "I'm very concerned about what will happen in the future. To places like the Archives, the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian, because what these institutions should not be is a political seesaw back and forth," she says.

Making these institutions more partisan sets "a dangerous precedent for the future," she adds. "If we remove that from our ecosystem, we're really giving something up as a democracy."

Since leaving the National Archives, Shogan has transitioned into a new role overseeing "In Pursuit," a project that will feature a series of essays on key political figures in U.S. history. Shogan says this project is intended to fill the void she sees in the U.S.' lack of "a large-scale national program that uses history as a way for us to learn the lessons of our present and, of course, inform our future."

"In Pursuit" will include pieces authored by former presidents, first ladies, and leading cultural pundits. This includes George W. Bush writing about George Washington and an essay about Jackie Kennedy penned by Michelle Obama. The first article will be released on President's Day.

Trump's push to restore "truth" in history has predictably led to more chaos and confusion at historically nonpartisan institutions. While this is concerning, efforts like "In Pursuit" show that the private sector will always be ready to step up when the government fails.

Comments

[Rick James]

Politically-motivated firings and increased executive branch scrutiny set “a dangerous precedent,” warns a former archivist of the United States.

There America was, completely free of "politically motivated firings" when... ALL OF A SUDDEN!

[Rossami]

Shogan makes the logical fallacy of assuming without evidence that those institutions actually were non-partisan.

Some of the things highlighted in the article above are concerning. However, they don't hold a candle to the flagrant racism in the Smithsonian's "white values" poster and other missteps.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

I would saying arguing against evidence.

[Rick James]

This is the classic head-in-the-sand/agree-to-disagree situation. This is one of the most infuriating aspects of the modern zeitgeist. People act as if the last 10 years didn't happen or were just some figment of a Fox News Host's fever dreams and then retreat to the fainting couch when it either happens to them or see an instance where their ideological side got lightly rapped on the knuckles or a stern talking-to. Meanwhile, nearly every institution is entirely captured with social-justice-based rules, procedures, hiring practices and a totalizing worldview in every policy it pursues.

[BikeRider]

I can accept the claim that they were technically non-"partison" in terms of formal alignment with a particular political party. But that's dodging the issue. They certainly were (and are) NOT non-ideological.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Trump administration has successfully pressured the Smithsonian to do the very thing the order aimed to combat: rewrite American history.

You mean this Smithsonian:

https://learninglab.si.edu/collections/1619-project-resources/j1N7KdWXYML48t0z

[Spiritus Mundi]

Or this one:

https://americanart.si.edu/furthering-conversation-about-whiteness

[Spiritus Mundi]

Or this one:

https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian-race-guidelines-rational-thinking-hard-work-are-white-values-1518333

[Spiritus Mundi]

Or this one:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/tearing-down-barriers-black-inventors-honoring-historic-breakthroughs-180979652/

[MollyGodiva]

There is nothing wrong with any of those pages linked.

[Pepin the short]

God you are such a twat. Go back to Reddit

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

He goes back to something red, but he is probably even too retarded for reddit.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Actually, an 混蛋.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Have you attoned for your white priviledge by giving up your life so a person of color can live in your house and not be burdend by your whiteness? If not, Canada can help

[Vernon Depner]

He's not white; he's Chinese.

[Spiritus Mundi]

That is white according to DEI

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Honest question. What do you think the Smithonian should present when it comes to the topic of slavery in America?

I mean, it was a terrible institution which did terrible things. I consider it a stain on America's history. But how do you think the Smithsonian should present it?

[Rick James]

Truthfully and by staying tens of light years away from anything related to the 1619 project... for fuck sakes.

[Spiritus Mundi]

^ this.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I don't think the 1619 Project should be presented as objective fact. I also don't have a problem with it presented as one possible lens through which to view American history. Which I'm pretty sure was the Smithsonian's approach to the project.

[Spiritus Mundi]

1619 project = historical Lysenkoism

But of course you don't have a problem with it becuase it fits your world view.

[Rick James]

You don't present the 'ideas' of the 1619 Project(tm) as 'just another lens through which to look at slavery'. The 1619 Project was literally a branded project created by one writer who made up narratives through a tortured history of America. If 50 years from now, the Smithsonian presents a pictorial history of mid 21st century politics via a branded project called The Make America Great Again Project which was produced by a Heritage Foundation employee whose facts had been debunked by every reasonable historian, that would very reasonably be called a partisan stance.

You're engaging in classic Motte and Bailey tactics:

The motte-and-bailey fallacy is a rhetorical tactic where someone advances a controversial or bold claim (the bailey), but when challenged, retreats to a more modest, defensible position (the motte), then pretends the two are equivalent.

You've suddenly pivoted to the Smithsonian creating an exhibit out of The 1619 Project which was literally a branded set of contained lies, fabrications and narratives as 'hey man, it's just another lens to look at things, I'm sure they're not actually like, promoting it'.

I support Black Lives Matter(tm).

Um, that's a self-described Marxist organization that has declared and expressed desire to destroy the nation state and the nuclear family.

All I'm saying is black lives actually matter... surely you do...

[Zeb]

Just present it as a fact of history. The US started as a nation which allowed slavery (like most of the world at the time). Many states abolished it peacefully, then we had a big war that settled the issue once and for all. No one needs to be told what to think about slavery.

[DesigNate]

It’s no more a stain on American history than it is on the rest of the world. That is to say it was wrong and brutal, but not some aberration of time or place (as if it didn’t exist anywhere else in the world ever, or currently), and should be presented as such.

Basically, sometimes dry and boring is the way to go.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

But see, this is just false. Take for example the American approach to slavery and the Muslim approach to slavery. The American approach to slavery was that slaves were literal property. So if a slaveowner beat or abused slaves, that was perfectly within his rights to do so. By contrast, the Muslim approach to slavery was that slavery was justified but that the slaves themselves were still entitled to be treated like human beings. They were NOT considered mere property. They viewed slavery as a way to forcibly convert heathens to Islam. A slave who died from abuse can't worship Allah, right? Also, the Quran provides a mechanism for how slaves might be freed (Muhammad himself freed some of his own slaves). In the American system, even when slaves were freed, they were still treated almost as if they were slaves because the BASIS for the slavery remained (racism). This is just an example, there are countless others. These details matter, and a serious discussion of slavery should soberly and rigorously discuss these things, don't you think?

[Vernon Depner]

So, slavery is not so bad as long as it's done right?

[DesigNate]

The idea that any of these institutions has been non-partisan is ridiculously naive.

Also: “aimed to combat: rewrite American history. Last week, the National Portrait Gallery "removed a swath of text that mentioned President Donald Trump's two impeachments and the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection,"

From a purely factual basis, mentioning the impeachments is historically accurate, but there was no insurrection on January 6th.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

They have been as close to non-partisan as we can reasonably expect to get.

News flash, serious scholars in any discipline have the discovery of knowledge as their primary objective, regardless of their team affiliation.

MAGA partisans habitually complain that their complaints and concerns are ignored by elite institutions. Okay, fine. So in considering the point of view of conservatives, do you think that institutions like the Smithsonian should simultaneously ignore the points of view of liberals? That if the Smithsonian says "AMERICA IS THE BEST COUNTRY EVAH FUCK YEAH" then that means they must ignore things like slavery and Jim Crow?

As long as any of these institutions which purport to present American history in a serious academic manner do so in a rigorous way, I don't care if they occasionally piss off either liberals or conservatives. Frankly I think if they piss off both, then they are probably on the right track. So let them have an exhibit on "whiteness". That's fine. There's plenty of other material in the Smithsonian which presents how great America is. Let the two stand side by side.

Facts and truth and objective reality are not subject to the popular will. They exist regardless of what any team thinks of them.

[Idaho-Bob]

So let them have an exhibit on "whiteness". That's fine.

Okay, as long as there is an exhibit on blackness, with every positive contribution, but also crime statistics.

We can make everything about race and highlight ALL of the negative and true stereotypes.

[damikesc]

I like how he praises them for being as non-partisan as possible while missing that whole "1619 Project" thing they were ALSO working on.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

You don't even understand the concept of "whiteness" in the first place. It's not merely about skin color.

From Google AI:

Whiteness, as a concept, is a complex social construct, not just a skin color, that emerged historically to create racial hierarchies, granting systemic advantages and privilege to people of European descent, functioning as a default "normal," a standpoint, and a set of unmarked cultural practices, often tied to power, property, and oppression. It's a dynamic, relational idea used to define who belongs and who is marginalized, operating through ideologies, laws, and cultural norms that benefit white individuals while excluding others.

I bet you were one of those people who felt like he had to "apologize for being white", aren't you?

[Spiritus Mundi]

Whatever you say Dalit.

[damikesc]

There is no white privilege. A poor white kid has zero privilege in comparison to the child of a wealthy minority.

Is there a leftist shibboleth you do not subscribe to?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So no I would not be in favor of a Smithsonian exhibit that just presents racial stereotypes. That would be unserious, unscholarly, and offensive.

[Spiritus Mundi]

But those things exist and where a part of history. From cartoons, to ads, to even products.

Not including historical sterotypes would not be presenting all of the history. They shouldn't be avoided because of your delicate sensitivites.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Shorter pedojeffy, because I approve of thier bias, I am ok with it.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

You mean, their bias towards scholarly work? Yes, I approve of that bias.

[Spiritus Mundi]

^ thinks the 1619 project is scholalry

[Ersatz]

Well it is... in a grifty sort of way.

How did she write the 1619 project so scholarly...

She just thought of a real academic and took out reason and accountability... (and intelligence and integrity)

... oh yeah... and real history.

[DesigNate]

America IS the best country evah and I’m 100 percent unapologetic about holding that view.

Edit: even with all her faults and checkered history.

[rovers]

Have I got a deal for you!
Stop funding those "non partisan institutions" with my money and I'll stop trying to influence them.
Trump will have NO POWER if you stop giving him money.
I hate Trump! I want to stop giving him money to do his evil deeds.

Back to you? Do you ACTUALLY hate Trump?

[Spiritus Mundi]

Please show us on the doll where the evil touched you.

[Incunabulum]

The partisan archivist is worried about Trump's partisanship affecting her partisan organization's partisanship.

[MollyGodiva]

The Smithsonian is not under the Executive Branch and Trump has zero power over them. The Smithsonian needs to tell Trump to shove it.

[Doug Heffernan]

He has the power of the purse.

[MollyGodiva]

No. That is the House.

[JFree]

With JD Vance exerting the power of the eyeliner and Trump wielding the power of the purse, we are facing serious risks.

[Incunabulum]

So you're saying the Smithsonian makes laws?

[MollyGodiva]

Not the Smithsonian as a whole, the black back whistling ducks at the Bird House are the true legislature of the US.

[MollyGodiva]

And they perch on the fire suppression pipes in Coffee Farm and poop on the visitors.

[EISTAU Gree-Vance]

Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair, molly.

[Mickey Rat]

" "I'm very concerned about what will happen in the future. To places like the Archives, the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian, because what these institutions should not be is a political seesaw back and forth," she says."

They should only lean Left, dammit.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

And Reason predictably beclowns itself once again.

[Incunabulum]

Reason, REEEEEEAAAASSON, come out and plaaaay.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/us-overdose-deaths-fell-2025-federal-data-reveals-129211259?utm_sf_post_ref=651737093&cid=social_twitter_abcn&utm_sf_cserv_ref=28785486

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So what is the argument here from the commenters?

That there should be no national museums, national libraries, etc., at all? Because they would inevitably become partisan?

That it is right and proper that national museums and libraries push propaganda based on the party in charge?

I mean, I think we are approaching Peak Nihilism from the MAGA team now. That there is no such thing as an objective "history", it is always rewritten and rewritten based on ideology and narrative, and there can be no objective truth at all. Is that the thought here?

I guess it tracks with the constant right-wing whining about "indoctrination" in schools. If this keeps up, truth itself becomes an exercise in will-to-power politics. Will future generations be taught that, akshually, Thomas Jefferson didn't own any slaves at all? That those claims were based on "left-wing woke DEI America-hating indoctrination propaganda"?

[damikesc]

There's NO middle ground from "slavery did not exist" and "American slavery was uniquely brutal and vicious and the worst thing in the history of ever"?

No, there should not be any national museum. No, there should never be ANY federal monies going to a museum.

You do not even realize how indoctrinated you are. You are a walking cliche of progressive talking points on basically every single issue.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

"American slavery was uniquely brutal and vicious and the worst thing in the history of ever"

It wasn't "the worst thing in the history of ever" - I would rate the Holocaust and Holodomor higher than that - but American slavery WAS uniquely brutal. For all of the morons who claim "every nation had slavery at one point", they conveniently ignore that the BASIS for the slavery was different for different societies. For example, slavery in classical (Greek/Roman) times was a type of war spoils. The losing side lost everything, including the right of self-ownership. But it wasn't race-based, white people could be both slaves and slave-masters. And it wasn't justified by theology, no one claimed "slaves deserve to be slaves because Zeus said so". Because ANYONE could potentially be a slave at any time based on the outcome of the next battle. That is DIFFERENT than American slavery, which was justified based on race - "they are inferior, therefore they deserve to be slaves" - and justified by the Bible.

That's the thing, the people who want to pretend that American slavery was just the same as all other slavery, they are actually downplaying how horrible American slavery really was. Furthermore, after the slavery ended, the racism didn't. So the BASIS for the slavery endured even after the practice was outlawed.

[damikesc]

"It wasn't "the worst thing in the history of ever" - I would rate the Holocaust and Holodomor higher than that - but American slavery WAS uniquely brutal."

No, it was not. It was not terribly different than slavery in other locations. It was awful anywhere it was. The US was not worse or better than other locations. Simple reality.

It being done for racial reasons instead of conquest does not make the practice better or worse, any more than somebody murdering somebody because they hated their race does not make the murder worse than murdering them because you find them repellant in a non-racial way.

And the Bible does not say anybody deserves to be a slave. Feel free to point to the verse than does say that. I've read it thru multiple times, but things could always be missed.

And that racism continued afterwards is not terribly relevant either. Bigotry towards different groups is a norm for humanity. Goes on to this day. "Things were bad for the former slaves after they were freed" does not make slavery a worse institution. It was rather bad.

Worse than Brazil? The Arab world? Africa? No, it really was not.

"Says the guy who literally advocates for mass murder of progressives."

Tried living peacefully with the subhumans and those days have ended. If Minneapolis ceased to be tomorrow, nothing of value would be missing.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

No, it was not.

I disagree, I think chattel slavery in America was qualitatively worse than slavery in other areas for other reasons. So how about this: when it comes to a controversial issue such as this, let's let an institution like the Smithsonian present multiple perspectives on the matter. Not to label any one of them as "objective truth", just to present different legitimate points of view. What do you think?

Oh wait, that is contrary to MAGA which demands that there be ONE American narrative and it is conveniently the one that they write for themselves. All other points of view represent "indoctrination" or "hatred of America" even if they are presented in good faith with historical evidence. That is the problem with you and your team, you simply do not tolerate any disagreement whatsoever. They are "subhuman", right?

And the Bible does not say anybody deserves to be a slave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

Those who defended slavery magically made Ham have black skin and claimed that all of Ham's descendants (also black) were cursed to be slaves because of Ham's original sin.

Bigotry towards different groups is a norm for humanity.

That's your real objection - you just don't like it that some people have the audacity to claim that bigotry is wrong.

[Vernon Depner]

Jeffy is now saying there are "multiple perspectives" on slavery that are "legitimate points of view". I would be shocked if it were coming from anyone else.

[DesigNate]

This is why I said sometimes it should just be dry and boring, because we don’t need to always present people’s opinions.

[Mickey Rat]

"I think chattel slavery in America was qualitatively worse than slavery in other areas for other reasons."

Probably because you have not heard much about chattel slavery in other cultures. Like, Islamic countries making a normal practice of castrating their male sub-Saharan African slaves.

[Ersatz]

Heres a question. For your own benefit - now.. in this moment in history. ... If you are black in America would your life be better or worse if your ancestors werent captured by the black tribes in Africa and sold to the slavers to be shipped to America?

Would you rather that your ancestors lived their lives and generations in Africa and that you were born and raised and live in Africa - today , in this moment in history?

All slavery is an afront to human dignity and agency but as slavery goes... those descended from slaves sent to America have a much better outcome than those 'lucky ones' that got to be eventually born in that paradise that is modern Africa.

[Nobartium]

BASIS for the slavery was different for different societies.

Who gives a fuck about that?

Egalitarians, that's who.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

You do not even realize how indoctrinated you are.

Says the guy who literally advocates for mass murder of progressives.

[Spiritus Mundi]

They should all be privately funded. Then they can do whatever they want.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

That is a reasonable idea, but that flies in the face of the MAGA ideal of having one shared culture and one shared heritage that most people agree on. If all the museums and libraries are private, then there will be lots of different museums with lots of competing views, and which one is the one that represents the "authentic America"?

MAGA requires that there be one single narrative about American history, the one that whitewashes the sins of the past and overexaggerates the greatness of the state. Competing libraries and museums, which I think is a reasonable idea, cannot be a part of that.

[damikesc]

And progressives wish to pretend the US is a uniquely evil force upon mankind.

Your point?

[Spiritus Mundi]

He doesn't have one. Just a non sequitor to hate on what he thinks is MAGA and link it to everybody here who calls out his bullshit.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

what he thinks is MAGA

So, tell me why you think I'm wrong above. Oh wait you can't, because you know I'm more right than you are willing to admit.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Cite

[rovers]

It's a very reasonable idea.
But you're "Flying in the face" too.
If something is government funded it's going to follow government rules. Since the rule is, The winner decides what is done then I don't
want to listen to your complaints when the other side wins.

You act like the other Team didn't enforce their one size fits all world view on everybody. If you don't want that to happen, then fight the funding. But if you just run around screaming that the Orange Man is uniquely offensive and partisan .... I'm cheering for the Orange man. I *prefer* the partisan narrative that says "America is Great! F Yeah!" Than the partisan narrative that says "White men are the cause of all our problems! Let's take their money!"

So IF you insist on making me pay for your museum, I'm going to make it one I want to go to.

[rovers]

YOU might not see the Orange man museum saying "America! F Yeah!"
You probably see something worse. I get it.
YOU probably don't see the other team saying "Kill rich people".
I get it. You might see something much more noble .... but can you at least acknowledge that other people differ from you?
Do you have any empathy at all?

So stop wasting so much time complaining that Trump is uniquely bad and just take away his money. Then NO one gets to decide what story is the "One True Story".

[Ersatz]

^this^

[Rick James]

I mean, imagine if Museum of Anatolian Civilizations spent all its time talking about the Ottoman Empire's legacy with the global slave trade.

[mad.casual]

Wive's Push To Restore 'Peace and Domestic Tranquility' Tests Feminist Husbands

"They Lie To Us, We Know They’re Lying, They Know We Know They’re Lying But They Keep Lying Anyway..."

[Rick James]

I mean, it's all just interpretation...

[See.More]

Trump's Push To Restore 'Truth and Sanity in American History' Tests Nonpartisan Institutions

"Nonpartisan." Sure. /sarc

[JFree]

When a librarian is deemed a threat, you got yourself a very frail system.

[Vernon Depner]

A "librarian". Is that similar to a "Maryland man" or a "preschool teacher"?

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

To JFucked? Probably.

[mad.casual]

Trump's Push To Restore 'Truth and Sanity in American History' Tests Nonpartisan Institutions

Because they oppose 'Truth and Sanity in American History'? Because they're not used to having or sharing a true, sane presentation of American History?

Explain why this is a test for nonpartisan institutions without blaming Trump or partisan politics.

Talk about begging the question.

[Vernon Depner]

When they refer to the Jan. 6 disturbance as an "insurrection" and an "attack on the Capitol", they are not being non-partisan.

[MollyGodiva]

Calling J6 an attempted coup is an objectively accurate assessment of the incident. Just because MAGAs don't like it does not make it false.

[Vernon Depner]

So, you believe that the J6 demonstrators could actually have defeated the Capitol Police, the FBI, the US Marshals, and the US army, and taken over the country, with a few hundred unarmed people? You believe THEY believed that, and that was their intention? Even you can't be that delusional.

[MollyGodiva]

Yes I do. They almost did. A killed member of Congress, the attack going on long enough to cancel the counting of the EC vote, the attack scaring Pence enough for him to trow out EC votes. You ignore the fact that the FBI, US Marshals, and US Army work the for the person spearheading the attempted coup.

[Vernon Depner]

As I said—even you can't be that delusional.

[damikesc]

You do realize a Bernie supporter SPECIFICALLY did exactly that, right? Yet I do not blame Bernie for it.

Well, I did not. Now he should be imprisoned for insurrection.

[Rick James]

It was a pro-democracy protest.

Now, Ashtifa Babbitt participating in the attack on Minnesota... that's a different story.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Calling J6 an attempted coup is total and complete bullshit, 混蛋.

[MWAocdoc]

"This was in response to a December letter that threatened to withhold federal funds if the Smithsonian ..."

What this confirms to me is that government should not be allowed to fund anything except the few Constitutionally mandated functions. Everything else should be privately funded or we can do without it. Apparently all it takes these days is a threat to withold government funds to bring cowardly Americans into compliance with autocratic desires.

[MollyGodiva]

Trump has no authority to withhold funds from the Smithsonian.

[TJJ2000]

Trump has EVERY authority to uphold and honor the US Constitution.
He not only has the authority he has the duty to do so by his sworn oath of office.

[MollyGodiva]

That makes zero sense. Congress has the sole power to authorize government funding and the president has no way to block it after it becomes law. This is even more so since the Smithsonian is not part of the EB.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"...Congress has the sole power to authorize government funding and the president has no way to block it after it becomes law...."

That is merely an assertion from a lying 混蛋.

[TJJ2000]

Please show us the enumerated power that gives "Congress the sole power to authorize government funding" for Smithsonian.

Just another $1-BILLION/YR THEFT treasonously passed [D] Polk, 29th [D] House & [D] Senate trifecta F'Up.

"But, but, but ... He's hollowing out our [Na]tional So[zi]alist Institutions!" /s

[MWAocdoc]

Molly, Congress would have the sole power to authorize government funding if it had not given that authority away long ago, and if the Supreme Court had not upheld its right to do so. Even now Congress could reclaim the authority under the Constitution but it has not been able to make any kind of controversial decisions for over three decades now and counting ...

[Michael Molovinsky]

Although I'm glad that "In Pursuit" can help in this situation, I'm doubt that the private sector can "always" come to the rescue. On the contrary, when the private sector is under government regulation, ie. FCC, Securities Exchange, etc.,no life line may be coming. Locally here in eastern Pa, PBS is cutting back 50%.

[creech]

Historical facts aren't usually spun, but the "why" is. Fact: Jefferson owned slaves. But why, and how did he treat them, and did Sally love him or submit because he would sell her if she didn't? Your private museum, or book, or tv "documentary" can take whatever view you profess, but the taxpayers who think differently should not have to fund it.

[mad.casual]

Historical facts aren't usually spun

Right, the wool is spun around the spindle to produce thread or yarn until you've got enough to weave a fabric. You can even spin yarn from multiple spindles and weave them together into an even more elaborate fabric or garment. You need the spindle to produce the garment, but you can't wear the spindle around to show off to people or keep you warm and a bunch of spindles with no yarn may as well be firewood.

I'm sure totally not coincidentally, unlike other intense manual labor that requires its own dedicated verbal coordination, great distances that prevent communication, and strenuous effort that juxtaposes breathing and talking, it's quite easy to stand around talking while spinning yarn.

[TJJ2000]

Like the 90%+ Non-Partisan D.C.?

I think what you really mean to say is D.C. is completely partisan controlled and the only time it's an issue is when that partisanship is threatened....

"HE'S HOLLOWING OUT OUR NAZI INSTITUTIONS!" /s