Liberal media are desperate to get you to believe the Trump - Roosevelt narrative. But who really buys this kabuki theater anyways?

For many years, Rush Limbaugh was fond of the phrase "phony baloney, plastic banana, good time rock'n roller." He used this often times as descriptors for people, but he also used it for events and other things.

This storyline about Trump and Theodore Roosevelt? That's definitely phony baloney with a very strong helping of plastic bananas. Check out this clowning article from The Atlantic: The Wannabe Tough-Guy Presidency

Ok, here's how you can sum up the Theodore Roosevelt Presidency, in three simple words. This is as simple as it gets. You ready?

Destroying the Constitution.

That's it. And it's accurate as heck too. Destroying the U.S. Constitution. That's what Theodore Roosevelt was all about during his tenure. But what about the Trump Presidency? This is as simple as it gets. You ready?

Saving the Constitution.

Now you see why I call the whole thing kabuki theater? You see what's clowning about this ridiculous premise that they are proposing? Now I could go further, I could summarize the Trump presidency by saying "he did what was best for the people." See, that's pretty good. But what about Theodore Roosevelt? Here's what's accurate to say, "he did what was best for the government". Again we run head-long into why Trump Roosevelt comparisons are hype.

A lot of ne'er-do-wells will quickly retort that I'm just jaded, or have crooked agenda of some kind. Alright, how about a test then. During the Trump Presidency, one of the defining moments was the response to COVID-19. What did Trump do? Did he listen to all of the media begging and begging him to centralize power in the government and take total dominion? Or did he rely on federalism and make sure the states did the best they could to deal with the situation?

Trump chose federalism. Contrast this with Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt hated federalism, he hated the states and said so publicly, and if he had a COVID he would've loved it and would've used it to expand the bureaucracy. Am I making that up? No, I'm really not. Roosevelt had a crisis on his hands, one that has certain similarities to COVID. It wasn't a pandemic, it was food. Tampering with people's health or tampering with people's food is a good way to freak people out, and clearly, food and health are closely related.

So what happened at the outset of the publication of a book titled "The Jungle"? Did Theodore Roosevelt rely on the genius of federalism? Did Theodore Roosevelt rely on the goodness of the individual states? Did he stand firm to defend the honor of the U.S. Constitution?

Nope. You know what he did. Roosevelt expanded the bureaucracy. The FDA was born out of a crisis, and as you know progressives see a crisis as a terrible thing to waste.

If having a crisis in food caused Roosevelt to expand the bureaucracy, a crisis of a pandemic would've resulted in the same. Never ending bureaucracy. That's just how progressives think. That's just the way progressives are wired. It's a brain defect, they can't help themselves but to make the size and scope of the federal government larger wherever it can be acceptably grown larger.

But why phony baloney? Why plastic bananas? Well, on the surface, Trump and many presidents have similarities. Trump is energetic, Obama was energetic. Oh, you didn't expect that? See, that's "surface level", it is not a descriptor of any philosophies or proven track record of actual governance. You'll notice, the Atlantic barely scratches the actual four years of Trump's presidency. Now why is that? It's because when you compare a sea urchin to a porcupine, all of the similarities end at the phony baloney, plastic banana, good time rock'n roll surface level. These three items do not require deep analysis:

Both men got shot. That doesn't tell me anything about governing philosophy or proven track record.

Both men are/were energetic. Still not seeing anything about governing philosophies.

Both men are from New York. Ok, Atlantic. Really? Please, it doesn't get any more phony baloney, plastic banana surface level than this.

Getting away from the simple surface, the Atlantic article does actually touch on a handful of things from Roosevelt's philosophy, one of which I do find shocking. The Atlantic actually writes this following line which in fact blows up the entire article. It wrote:

Below the surface level, their political ideologies could not be further apart. Roosevelt was a progressive.

Why didn't the elephant in the living room entirely squash the article then? Because facts don't actually matter. Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive, and Donald Trump has proven to be a progressive defeater. But so what? Why can't we persist the narrative anyways? The kabuki must go on!! The Atlantic admits that Trump is a fan - not of Roosevelt, but of McKinley, and has designs on eliminating the progressive income tax that Roosevelt gave us in favor of more tariffs. But the shocker is that The Atlantic actually puts pen to paper(font to word processor if you really prefer) and admits that Teddy Roosevelt was a globalist.(and Trump is not)

Now, mind you, they don't use that word because they likely view it as a loaded word/phrase. But make no mistake, they admit it. They point out that Roosevelt was very interested and was the original "internationalist" which is actually condescending because I know better. I recorded the speech Roosevelt gave to the Nobel committee where is very succinctly states that it would be a "masterstroke" if the world powers would form a "League of Peace" - a sort of a competitor to the League of Nations which he was not fond of. He supported globalism, he just didn't support Wilson's plan of globalism.

And of course, as you know, Trump doesn't support any kind of any plan at all of globalism and has no plan for globalism of his own ready for the offer. Unlike Theodore Roosevelt who did.

Had Theodore Roosevelt been the 45th President, alive in 2019/2020, he absolutely would've imposed a vaccine mandate and he would've loved every minute of it. Statists are just going to do what statists are known for doing.

But I would like to hear from anybody on this. How does one reconcile that a progressive defeater like Donald Trump is exactly the same in philosophy and governance as a progressive statist like Theodore Roosevelt?

If you only have an interest in the surface level stuff, that phony baloney plastic banana good time rock'n roll content where sea urchins are exactly the same as porcupines(on the surface, they are. Covered with spikes.), well, don't forget. Theodore Roosevelt did shoot a lion.

New audiobook release: Benjamin Franklin: Self-Revealed, Volume 1, by William Cabell Bruce

Today I am happy to highlight that William Cabell Bruce's work Benjamin Franklin: Self-Revealed (v1) has been completed. https://librivox.org/benjamin-franklin-self-revealed-vol1-wc-bruce/

This is an example of good things that just drop into your lap. Many moons ago I asked people "Which Founding Father is the most popular who isn't George Washington, isn't Benamin Franklin, isn't Thomas Jefferson, and isn't George Washington?", because in part this small handful of Founders is going to naturally have coverage. These are the Founders that the school systems cannot cover up. So from that standpoint these books are just going to get done anyways. There's no reason to specifically set out to get them done.

These Founders are also more well known than most others, so there's less of an educational value than, say, targeting for completion an audio book about Joseph Warren, Patrick Henry, or Benjamin Rush. Henry, being the most well known of the three aforementioned, is only really well known among a certain set of people. For the rest of America Henry might as well have only said 7 words in his lifetime.

This book by W.C. Bruce I have not read nor listened to. I didn't know it existed until about a week before it reached completion (found it randomly) and it is a Pulitzer Prize winning book. For most of you, winning a Pulitzer means that probably means the book is great. At a minimum, it is well-written and easy to follow, well composed.

Since the work relies heavily upon Franklin's own writings, it's probably fine. But it was written well into the progressive era (1918) so I personally am not the most enthusiastic about it. It's winning of a Pulitzer also gives me reason for caution since the Pulitzer was always political even from the beginning. These thoughts are all my own.

You can listen, you can choose to read the available and linked to e-text and read if you don't want to listen and in that way make up your own conclusion. I'm happy enough that the audio book exists and so here it is, for your listening.