Trump’s “White Out” Not So Black & White?

Letter to Romans: The old saw “it takes one to know one” might apply to the federal judge in Boston ordering Trump to reinstall all politically charged displays on any US museum, park or landmark for the sake of balanced history. A tad overreach?

That is, should she toss into her [apparently] nationwide order a mandate to also display New England pioneers being scalped by Native American Indians? Can you imagine a painting of 12-yr-old Shoshone Sacagawea being led through the wilderness by Hidatsa warriors after being enslaved? Indeed, one of the biggest problems with the judge’s “anti-white out” aka “tell it all” argument is exactly who is to be in charge of the complete historical record she says she wants to ensure it’s accurate & balanced? The judge sitting on her Ivory throne in Boston? If so, what’s her opinion on the widely debunked climate science she wants put back on the nation’s landmark walls out West? Should Obama’s presidential museum have installed a mural depicting millions of illegal aliens, including drug & human traffickers, pouring over his open borders? And should Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz be ordered to hang on the walls of Minneapolis City Hall a montage of MSM photos showing empty autistic care “clinics” that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars?

Yet, the judge asserted to have had a uniquely self-righteous insight to history as she explained her ruling: “… under the guise of promoting American dignity, this Administration seeks to share a limited history by [having] ordered the removal of all signs, displays & interpretive exhibits at National Parks that do not align with its preferred narrative, thereby telling half-truths …” Is there any chance this jurist was replacing Trump’s “preferred narrative” and “half-truths” with her own? Just wondering what the Supremes would say about it.

Davd Soul