George Maledon - Prince of Hangmen

George Maledon 

By Terry McGahey

George Maledon served as Judge Isaac Parker's Chief Executioner in Fort Smith, Arkansas, during the so-called Wild West period, and later became known as the Prince of Hangmen.

Born in Germany on June 10, 1830, his family immigrated to the United States of America while he was still a small child. As an adult, George ended up in Fort Smith working as a police officer. When the Civil War began, he enlisted in the Arkansas Light Artillery, first battalion, serving through the conflict. At war's end, George went back to Fort Smith and resumed working as a police officer, but this time he became a deputy sheriff. Then, several months later, he became the turnkey (Jailer) for the federal jail in 1871. Several months later, he became the Special Deputy in charge of executing condemned prisoners.

With over sixty hangings and the shooting of five prisoners trying to escape, killing two, he had become Judge Parker's favorite executioner over the next twenty-two years. During the years between 1873 and eighteen, the hangings became public, drawing large crowds of onlookers. During this time period twenty-two men were hung on top of the twenty-foot-wide scaffold, which could process up to twelve hangings at one time. The most hung at one time upon the scaffold was six men on September 3rd, 1875.

This was truly a publicized event, and one week before the executions took place, people from near and far, as well as many news reporters from many papers of that time, converged on Fort Smith, bringing over five thousand people to watch the gruesome event, as these men met their final destiny. Of the six men, three were white, two were native American, and one was black, all being hung at the same exact time once the death warrants were read to each one and then given their chance to say any last words.

In 1878, a sixteen-foot-high fence was built around the gallows, that disallowed any further witness by the public to the executions. From that point on, there were usually less than fifty people within the fenced area.

After twenty-two years, George Maledon retired in 1894 and opened a grocery business in Fort Smith. The following year, his eighteen-year-old daughter Annie was murdered by a man named Frank Carver. The two met in Fort Smith while Carver was being tried on whiskey charges. Annie fell in love and followed Carver to Muskogee, Oklahoma where she found out that Carver was already married to an Indian woman, they got into a huge argument and Carver being drunk, shot Annie. She was taken back to Fort Smith, where she passed away on May 17, 1885.

Frank Carver was found guilty of murder, and Judge Parker sentenced him to hang. Carver found a slick lawyer who appealed to the Supreme Court, and Carver's sentence was reduced to life in Prison.

After this huge disappointment, George Maledon left Fort Smith and took his memorabilia with him, and started his own road show. He would display some of the ropes he used, a piece of the gallows beam, and many pictures of the notorious outlaws whom he had sent to their final reward. People flocked to see the famous hangman wherever he went.

George Maledon was not a very large man, standing about five feet six inches tall with a slight build, dark eyes, dark hair, fair complexion, and a long beard. He very rarely smiled and was a quiet man who mostly wore black clothing, which seems appropriate for his profession. In 1905, George's health took a bad turn, and he entered an old soldiers' home in Humboldt, Tennessee. According to government records, he passed away on May 6, 1911, and was buried at the Johnson City Cemetery.

George Maledon has the dubious honor of sending more men to their final eternity than any other executioner.

Once, George was asked if he had a bad conscience or was afraid of possible spirits he had hung. He replied, "No, I have never hanged a man who came back to have the job done over". The last execution in Fort Smith took place on July 30, 1896. Eleven and a half months later, the gallows were destroyed, and their remains were burned. In 1981, the gallows were rebuilt as part of the Fort Smith National Historic Site.

Terry McGahey is a writer and Old West historian.

This once-working cowboy is best known for his epic battle against the City of Tombstone and its historic City Ordinance Number 9, America's most famous gun-control law.

Terry was instrumental in finally repealing Tombstone City Ordinance Number 9. He is directly responsible for compelling the City of Tombstone to adhere to Arizona's laws.

If you'd like to read about his epic battle against the City of Tombstone, click here: The Last Gun Fight -- The Death of Ordinance Number 9 (Chapter One)

Let's Talk About The Seditious Six

Here's a fact: There are no such things as "illegal orders" in the military. Here's another fact: Orders are either "lawful" or "unlawful" in the military. 

What's the difference between a "lawful" and an "unlawful" order? First, "lawful" orders are orders that comply with all applicable laws, regulations, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and the U.S. Constitution. Service members are expected and obligated to obey such orders without question. Second, "unlawful" orders are those that require a person to commit an act that violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the U.S. Constitution. Service members have a duty to question and ultimately disobey such orders. 

The precise use of the terms within a legal military context, the appropriate terminology, in fact, differentiates between "lawful" and "unlawful" orders. Nowhere in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) is the use of the term "illegal orders." 

The term "unlawful order" is used in Articles 90, 91, and 92 of the UCMJ, which establish the duty to obey lawful orders and the right/duty to disobey unlawful orders. As for UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation): This article can be used to charge an individual for failing to follow regulations. Examples of Article 92 violations include failing to obey lawful orders, violating general orders, such as the one prohibiting drinking while deployed, and dereliction of duty, such as failing to follow safety protocols or to secure classified information. 

A service member might be charged with failure to obey a lawful order to perform a duty, even for minor infractions such as being late for formation, though less severe violations are often handled through non-judicial punishment rather than a court-martial. Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation can include failing to obey a specific order, being late for a required formation or detail, not following a lawful order from a superior officer, failing to follow specific safety procedures during a mission or training exercise, dereliction of duty and neglecting responsibilities which means failing to carry out duties assigned to you, and dereliction that results in injury or death to other service members or civilians. 

Another example is ignoring one's duty and failing to act. In that example, security personnel who fail to intervene in a crime in progress when they have a duty to do so. In that case, depending on the circumstances, a service member may be charged with failure to obey a lawful order and dereliction of duty. 

The Manual for Courts-Martial clarifies that an order is unlawful if it "is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it".

The phrasing in legal and military documents emphasizes that the law is the ultimate standard for the validity of an order, making "lawful/unlawful" the technically accurate legal descriptors. Supsequently, the term "illegal orders" is bogus. There are lawful orders and unlawful orders, but there is no such thing as an "illegal order." 

I'm bringing this up since 6 Democrats in Congress, now known as the "Seditious Six," decided to make a video telling American troops to disobey "illegal orders" from President Trump. Democrat Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Sen. Mark Kelly, Rep. Jason Crow, Rep. Maggie Goodlander, Rep. Chris Deluzio, and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, made a video to say, the "threats to our Constitution" are coming "from right here at home," and repeatedly urge the military and intelligence community to "refuse illegal orders" -- saying, "No one has to carry out orders that violate the law, or our Constitution." 

But here's the rub: First, these six Democrats are supposed to be former military and former members of our intel community. So yes, we should all think they would know the precise term when talking about lawful versus unlawful orders. And second, more importantly, these people knew they were lying and sowing discord in our military when they made the video. We know that because, even before making the video, the "Seditious Six" knew President Trump had not issued any "illegal orders." 

It's true. A couple of them have gone on television and have been made to admit that President Trump has never issued an unlawful order as President and Commander-in-Chief. This means their attack video on President Trump has not only been a flop but has also raised questions about their personal credibility, ethics, and more. 

The obvious question is this: Where were these 6 partisan Democrat jerkweeds when Democrat President Joe Biden was issuing unlawful orders to the military and the federal government? 

First, let's talk about President Biden's "unlawful orders," the authoritarianism that he demonstrated when he issued an executive order to create illegal federal mandates on the COVID-19 pandemic and the environment. His authoritarianist mandates stretched into our homes when he tried to micromanage the lives of  Americans by telling us what electrical appliances we were forced to use. All in the name of the hoax we all know as "Climate Change." 

As for Biden's authoritarianism during COVID-19, let's not forget how he implemented a federal COVID-19 vaccine-or-test mandate for large private employers through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which was later struck down by the Supreme Court. 

He did not have the legal authority to do so, but in 2021, Biden mandated that America's military have COVID-19 vaccinations. This was an authoritarian overreach of government power that Democrats went along with because it fell into the Democrat Mindset of micromanaging Americans. 

It was an "unlawful order," but in August 2021, all U.S. armed forces members were required to get vaccinated. President Biden's unlawful mandate was un-Constitutional because it forced our troops to take a vaccine that initially had only emergency use authorization (EUA) rather than full FDA approval, and his mandate led to thousands of service members being discharged or facing disciplinary action for refusal. 

And where were Democrats in Congress, including the "Seditious Six," when President Biden issued "unlawful orders" to the military, police, and Border Patrol to effectively stand down and open the border? Democrats in Congress should have stopped him right then and there, since President Biden, in fact, violated his oath of office to protect and defend the United States and the Constitution. In fact, Biden violated National Security. 

Democrats, especially the "Seditious Six," who are presently trying to undermine President Trump's authority as Commander-in-Chief, were silent when Joe Biden allowed the flood of illegal aliens into the United States -- effectively undermining the police, U.S. Border Patrol, and our national security, all while "unlawfully" encouraging illegal entry to bypass our immigration system. Yes, including flying in illegal aliens into the United States -- a program that was secretly funded by the Biden administration. Why didn't anyone tell those in the Biden administration to disobey the President's orders when that was going on?  

Biden's supporters argue his policies were justified even if they broke the law. Yes, while that's a completely screwed-up perspective on the legal and practical implications of policies meant to destroy the fabric of American society by flooding American streets with criminals. And yes, Democrats supported the Biden administration's illegal acts. 

It's true. As screwed-up as it sounds, the Biden administration tried to make the unjustifiable justifiable when it argued that its policies were designed to "enhance national security by focusing enforcement resources on those who pose a threat instead of on all unauthorized immigrants." This is the sort of double-talk that Democrats allowed to take place while they purposely allowed criminals, including known drug cartel members and child sex traffickers, into our country.

The Biden administration's failure to secure our border was criminal. And yes, it's "illegal orders" if you want to call them that, all "unlawful orders," issues to the Border Patrol so that they would release known violators of our immigration laws, in fact led to the release of large numbers of violent criminal illegal aliens into the U.S. to murder and rape American citizens. 

Let's not sugarcoat it: Joe Biden was given a green light when he entered office to halt the construction of the border wall and create programs for favored nationalities to enter without having to go through the proper process -- all of those Democrat policies weakened border security and put Americans' lives at risk. Democrats, like those of the Seditious Six, were quiet. 

So, what sort of "illegal orders" are Democrats worried about President Trump issuing? 

As fascinating as it might seem to some out there, Democrats are worried that President Trump will order more military personnel to the border and deploy the National Guard to crime-ridden and riotous cities. Unlike in 2020, President Trump will not allow Democrat Governors and Democrat Mayors to refuse the help of the Federal Government to quell the out-of-control riots, widespread violence, and looting and arson that burned down huge parts of several American cities. Democrats in Democrat-run cities allowed the chaos and arson to take place.  

And let's remember, Democrats are fighting for criminal illegal aliens. Democrats are using Democrat-appointed Judges to stop President Trump from deporting criminal illegal aliens. Many of the criminals that the Democrats are defending are some bad hombres. Democrats are today defending child molesters, child sex traffickers, human traffickers, slave runners, murderers, rapists, domestic abusers, drug dealers, gang members, and not just aliens who are "criminals" by virtue of being here illegally. 

What's puzzling is why Democrat Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Sen. Mark Kelly, Rep. Jason Crow, Rep. Maggie Goodlander, Rep. Chris Deluzio, and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, would make a video to say, the "threats to our Constitution" are coming "from right here at home," and repeatedly urge the military and intelligence community to "refuse illegal orders" -- saying, "No one has to carry out orders that violate the law, or our Constitution." As I said before, they said that in the video while also knowing full well that they can't specify any "illegal orders" they speak of -- because President Trump has not issued any unlawful orders.

So why do it? Why make such a video? They demonstrated a lack of care regarding unlawful orders under President Biden, so what's the Seditious Six truly concerned about in regards to President Trump's lawful orders? 

Since we know that, like other Democrats during the Biden years, they weren't concerned about a Democrat President issuing "unlawful orders," what are the Seditious Six worried that President Trump might order the military to do? Is it something that may go against their self-interest? 

Well, as crazy as it sounds, their concern goes to the heart of the Democrat mindset: Democrats don't want our military to shoot at drug-running Drug Cartel boats in International Waters. Their concern is about the criminals who want to put drugs on our streets and kill Americans. They are worried about President Trump's military strikes targeting drug traffickers in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.

Democrats are watching President Trump shoot drug traffickers after he declared war on the Drug Cartels. President Trump is taking this fight to save America and hopefully stem the flow of murderous drugs into America to wherever the drug traffickers appear -- on the high seas, on land, or in the air.

Democrats have defended the Drug Cartels and their drug-running operations by getting Democrat-appointed Judges to stop President Trump's operations against those criminals. But that's failed so far. Democrats have also tried to get Democrat-appointed Judges to say that Drug Cartels in other countries should have the same rights and privileges as American citizens, such as "due process," "Miranda rights," and "legal representation," while shipping illegal drugs into our country from overseas. 

So no, Democrats have not been successful at stopping President Trump from killing the people who are bringing in what I call "murderous drugs" into the United States. And yes, that's what this is all about. And by the way, that's why some of my readers believe Democrats are getting paid by the Drug Cartels. 

Let's be frank here. Anything that President Trump is for, Democrats are against. Are Democrats against President Trump for targeting the Drug Cartels because Democrats are accepting bribes and payoffs from the Drug Cartels, even in the form of campaign contributions, in exchange for political favors and protection? While I might think they are in the pockets of the Drug Cartels, who really knows if they are? Of course, the question becomes, if not, then why are Democrats trying so hard to stop President Trump from attacking the Drug Cartels' drug boats? 

So why make the video if they're only trying to stop President Trump from shooting at Drug Cartel boats?

I believe they made the video to undermine President Trump's credibility with the troops and introduce doubt and confusion into the Chain of Command. I also believe the Seditious Six deliberately sought to create problems among the troops by sowing doubt in their minds. They want to make our troops question their mission when it comes to attacking the Drug Cartel drug boats. 

To me, when the Six crossed the line and became "traitors" by attempting to create discord in the ranks, they hurt unit cohesion and tried to bring morale down. What they did may also create significant legal problems within our military. Yes, especially for troops who don't realize that our military already has established procedures for handling concerns over "unlawful orders." Frankly, besides screwing with the morale of our troops by injecting doubt into their minds, the Seditious Six could be putting our troops in danger. 

The Seditious Six can frame their video as fulfilling their "Constitutional obligation and a non-controversial reminder." They can also say they are upholding their oath to the Constitution, and they "are not afraid to use their authority to hold the government accountable." That's all just cover for them screwing with our troops and them trying to make it sound like they are doing their job when we all know they aren't. 

But let's not make a mistake about what this is all about. The traitors who made the video did so to attack President Trump and our military. They did it because Democrats don't like the fact that President Trump is successful and popular with the American public and our troops. Democrats hate Trump, and they will do anything, including arrange a Coup if they can, to see him fail. And as we've seen for ourselves, Democrats are inciting their sick followers to assassinate President Trump. Their hope is that one will try again. Yes, they want that to happen. That's how much they see President Trump as a threat to their power. And frankly, no one can convince me that they are doing anything to stop their followers from attempting it again. 

Let's remember, Democrats only care about their own self-interest, power, and control over others. The video was a Trump hit piece aimed at getting our troops, including our Generals, many of who are also drinking the Democrat Kool-Aid and suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, to question President Trump's leadership and credibility. Democrats did this video knowing full well that their attack would also demotivate our troops and assault their sense of purpose to protect America. Attacking our troops is what traitors do. And yes, they've done this -- just to attack President Trump. 

Lastly, I was asked about Arizona Democrat Sen. Mark Kelly, who is a retired U.S. Navy Captain. After the backlash over his being in the video, he posted a picture online of his rank and medals displayed on his dress white Navy uniform. His critics see his post as saying, "I'm a hero. I can do and say what I please. I can demoralize the troops and attack President Trump's leadership and credibility all I want because I have medals." 

Well, one critic of his online post reminded Mark Kelly that Revolutionary War General Benedict Arnold was also held in high esteem for his courage -- before he also revealed himself as a traitor.

  

Tom Correa

Happy Thanksgiving 2025

Norman Rockwell’s “Home for Thanksgiving” 

From the cover of The Saturday Evening Post on November 24, 1945.

I hope and pray that all of you who read this have a blessed Thanksgiving this year. I hope those of you who have been far from home and your loved ones, either working on the road or maybe stationed far from home, are able to be with those you love. 

On November 16th, 2022, my Mom, who was in her late 80s, went to a hospital suffering from Congestive Heart Failure. After she left, she went to a nursing facility for rehab for 30 days. After that, she came home and was on hospice. She became bedridden in April of this year. On October 21, she passed away. She was just a couple of weeks short of being 91.  

I promised her that I wouldn't let her die in a convalescent hospital. Over the last three years, I've tried to live up to my promise. With the help of my brother and sisters, I'm glad she was able to last for three years. Now that she's passed, I wish I had more time with her. And no, I cannot find the words to tell you how much it would mean to me to spend one more day with her. 

So yes, that's the point of this post. That's what I'm preaching today. Be with those you love. Have your family and friends around you. Make time for those you care about. Talk with them. Laugh with them. Find something in common. Chat about the price of gas and eggs, the weather, your favorite foods, their favorite foods, find out how Aunt Martha's doing, find out if someone has heard from Uncle George, ask about the new horse in the round pen, ask how the old truck is running, find out if anyone heard about the stranger who paid for someone's meal without them knowing. 

Talk to each other. Visit. Make memories. Laugh along with those you love. Love being with those you love being around. Find out about those you care about. Ask about your family ancestry instead of wishing you had later. Talk about things that you've been curious about. It's okay to ask if someone knows who's on first, what's on second, or if they don't know the guy on third. 

Hopefully, you'll make some good memories. It's all about memory making. It's all about what you're going to wish you had asked and what you're going to miss later. It's all about being thankful you have the time right now to get to know the person you will wish were still around later.  

I loved talking with my Grandfather, my Dad, my Mom, and so many others who are no longer here. I loved hearing about "the Old Days," the horse named "Anytime" that bucked anytime it felt like it, that mule that supposedly killed a plantation worker, Big Jim the bull that busted our loading chute, that time we spent hours in the rain in the saddle looking for a few elusive head of cattle that we were told got out of the fence, the times when memories were so vivid that you could almost see them again. 

I love remembering my Grandfather's stories, thinking about how my Dad would shake his head at hearing Grandpa's tales for the 100th time, and my Mom laughing at those same old stories, knowing that Grandpa was a great storyteller. And yes, a lot of folks wondered how my Grandpa could remember the stories and the jokes he told. 

Well, I remember the day that I found out the secret to his storytelling. It was the day he told me that liars have to have great memories if they plan to remember their lies. As for telling a story? He said, the secret to telling a good story is to tell the truth -- just make it sound like it's made up. And yes, to me, that was too simple and easy to do. 

"Always tell the truth when telling a story. Of course, always remember," he'd say, "Most people won't believe it anyway."  

Now that I'm closing in on the age that my Grandfather was when he passed away, I think about how I'm a lot like him in that I enjoy spinning a yarn now and then. And yes, I enjoy wondering who believes what might sound like a far-fetched tale versus who simply thinks I'm just "full of shit." 

For me, when telling a joke, I've found that being "full of shit" in a metaphorical sense, making things up, exaggerating, and being a little absurd can make jokes funny. Whether I'm telling folks about getting drunk with a monkey back in 1975 or some other tale, I know some folks wonder which of my tales are fabricated and which are true. And yes, I always keep in mind that most people won't believe those stories anyway. 

So yes, the way I see it, if I can leave my friends and family with the memory of a good laugh or two, even at the expense of their thinking that I'm "full of shit," then that's fine with me. After all, if I can leave folks thinking I made them smile and laugh, or maybe made them think about something they might not have, or shared an interesting tidbit of history that they found interesting, that's not a bad thing. 

This being Thanksgiving, I'm thankful that I took the time to get to know my Grandparents, my Mom and Dad, and those I now miss. I'm thankful that I got to know my father-in-law, because I really do miss him. And yes, I'm very thankful that I've gotten closer with my brother Howard and sister Val over the past couple of years. I cannot tell you how much I love who they are. 

I'm extremely thankful for the love and support of my wife during this stressful time of caring for my Mom. My wife has been right there with me, and her support has made all the difference in the world. Her love has kept me standing when I've had a hard time dealing with things. 

For a few years, especially when I was in the Marines stationed away or later working out of town, I would always call Mom at Thanksgiving. This Thanksgiving is different because it's the first time that my Mom won't be just a phone call away. For the first time that I can ever remember, we won't be able to compare meals or find out what she served this year versus what I ate at the chow hall or at some restaurant. We won't talk about who brought what dish, when people arrived, who got there late, or whether there are leftovers to make that turkey sandwich on Friday. 

This year, I'm grateful to God for my family and friends, my health, and for being able to fulfill my promise to Mom. Yes, even if all I have now of my Mom is her stories, her laughter, and her love, I'm blessed and grateful to God for that. 

As for my advice, for what it's worth, go make friends with your loved ones. Don't wait until they're gone, then wish you had connected with them more. Connect with people you might not have a connection with now. Build stronger connections with those you do. It's great for your well-being. Besides, not having regrets about missing an opportunity to get to know others is not overrated. 

From what I've learned recently, getting to know our friends and loved ones better brings health benefits, like lower stress, increased happiness, and can even give us a greater sense of belonging. It can also mean less depression, anxiety, and being closer to friends and loved ones are crucial during difficult times. 

As for talking about current events? My advice is to do it. Don't hesitate to talk about how good it feels to see a gallon of gas more than a dollar lower today than it was a year ago. Celebrate food costing less, more security for ranchers on the border, and how homicides are down across the country. Celebrate how we again have a focus on merit and good works, and how we again are getting rid of the criminals that came here illegally. And yes, feel good and celebrate the fact that we again have a government that's putting the priorities of we the American people before the rest of the world. 

Those are things we should be in agreement about, not argue over. These are things that we should be thankful for this Thanksgiving. 

So, go talk to your relatives. Get to know them. They may fool you. You might find out that your thoughts about someone in your family being a jerk were not exaggerated. But then again, you might be surprised and find out that you have more in common with those you love. And yes, you'll be thankful for doing it. 

So from my family and me to you and yours, I wish you all a very happy Thanksgiving. 

God bless you all. 

Tom Correa

Democrats Motivated John Wilkes Booth To Assassinate President Lincoln

Ever since the dawn of the Democratic Party's ideology of the "White Man's Republic" in the 1830s, the Democratic Party held that the United States is a country established for white people and that black Americans and women were not citizens and should be excluded from voting -- and subsequently taking part in the political community. This ideology was notably advanced by the Democratic Party in the mid-1800s as a means to unite white men and preserve racial hierarchy and the institution of slavery. Democrats used that divisiveness to start the Civil War. 

The central theme of the Democratic Party was that the United States was for white persons alone. Prominent Democrats like Stephen Douglas argued that, "This government is established on the white basis. It was established by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men and none others".

While the vast majority of Southerners in the 1850s and 1860s did not own slaves, in fact, only a small percentage of the very wealthy white and black plantation owners actually owned slaves, that didn't stop the Democratic Party from pushing their central theme to justify withholding rights from black Americans and women. 

The Democratic Party's justification for inequality was based on the fear of "Amalgamation," The fear the Democrats preached was straight out of the book of hate with the notion that any sort of equality would inevitably lead to social equality and "amalgamation" -- which would lead to interracial relationships and marriage, something Democrats claimed would be "repugnant" and lead to perpetual social turmoil.

Democratic Party leaders falsely claimed that America's Founding Fathers never intended for black Americans and women to be citizens. The Democratic Party ideology stoked the fears of black and female participation in politics, voting, and the abolition of slavery. By promoting the "white man's republic," the Democratic Party sought to forge a broad, hate-filled coalition ready to kill for their cause.

This was the Democratic Party that motivated John Wilkes Booth to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln in 1865. Booth was driven by his staunch Confederate sympathies, which were driven by the Democratic Party. 

It is historically accurate that the leadership and citizens of the Confederate states were overwhelmingly Democrats at the time of the Civil War. The Democratic Party was the primary political vehicle for white supremacy and the preservation of slavery. Regarding the Democratic Party and Confederate sympathies, the states that formed the Confederacy were solidly Democratic. To a great extent, the Confederacy was a creation of the Democratic Party because they feared the end of slavery following the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln.

The Democratic Party was the main pro-slavery political party, and its desire to keep slavery intact catapulted the nation into a Civil War. The Democrats' platform was to actively support the continuation and expansion of slavery.

 
Assassin John Wilkes Booth fervently believed in the Democratic Party doctrine of white supremacy and intensely hated President Lincoln, the Union, and the Republican Party's anti-slavery cause. He was a fervent supporter of the Confederacy and pro-slavery views, and his actions, including the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, can be understood in the context of the 19th-century ideal of the Democratic Party's doctrine "White Man's Republic".

The Democratic Party's doctrine of "White Man's Republic" is an ideology the party has held for more than 200 years. The key connections between John Wilkes Booth and this concept were Booth's pro-Slavery stance, as we know he was an outspoken supporter of slavery and detested abolitionists; his commitment to the cause of the Confederacy, which we know was rooted in his desire to preserve the institution of slavery and an exclusively white-controlled society; and his opposition to President Lincoln since we know that Booth viewed President Lincoln as a "tyrant," a "king," as someone who was "unconstitutionally expanding federal power and fundamentally changing the character of the nation." Yes, very similar to what the Democratic Party preaches today regarding President Trump. 

Republican President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and his support for voting rights for black Americans and women directly challenged the Democratic Party's doctrine of the "White Man's Republic" ideal. Since Booth believed in that doctrine, that's how the Democratic Party motivated John Wilkes Booth to assassinate President Lincoln. 

As Democrats do today, Democrats appealed to all of the things that such a sick mind hated; they stoked that fire of hatred at every opportunity and pushed him to finally act. Does that sound like the same method of operating as Democrats today, since we know of many Democrat politicians who have vilified President Trump, repeatedly called him "Hitler," stoked the hate for the president, and have influenced their followers to assassinate President Trump? I believe history is repeating itself, and the Democratic Party is taking a page out of its old playbook to get one of its followers to kill President Trump. 

John Wilkes Booth's Confederate sympathies were part of a broader political movement aligned with the Democratic Party. Booth was a strong supporter of slavery and the doctrine of white supremacy of the Democratic Party. He hated abolitionists. He hated President Lincoln because he was told to hate him. His views were widely shared among Democrats who saw the Democratic Party lead the charge to secede from the Union to form the Confederate States of America, even though that meant keeping thousands enlaved. 

Yes, in the same way that Democrats today see the Democratic Party as leading the charge to secede from market capitalism to form the Communist States of America, even though it means enslaving thousands to a Communist state.

What's been the tipping point for those would-be assassins who have tried to kill President Trump? That's something that Americans need to find out. For me, I believe it is the hate and threats coming from Democrat politicians, Hollywood celebrities, and leftists in the news media on television who routinely demonstrate their visceral, deep-seated hate for President Trump daily.  

The Mainstream News Media, the Leftist talking heads on television, and Leftist newspapers, say that that the "tipping point" for individuals attempting to kill President Trump is "a complex mix of factors, including personal grievances, potential mental health issues, exposure to extreme political polarization and online echo chambers, and a desire for notoriety, rather than a single, consistent motive." 

If that all sounds like double-talk and spin to you? You're right. The Democrat-controlled media refuses to acknowledge that Democrat political rhetoric has directly influenced the would-be assassins who have targeted President Trump. The Left refuses to accept blame for its complicity in the acts of those assassins.  

Following the July 2024 assassination attempt, many Republican lawmakers and President Trump himself publicly blamed the "heated" and "irresponsible" rhetoric of Democrats for creating a climate that encouraged violence. Republican lawmakers and President Trump himself point to Democrats' statements that incite their followers to believe the lie that they push, saying, "President Trump is a threat to democracy." Have the Democrats turned down the hate? No. 

When will the next Leftist assassin act? While I hope never, I fear that Democrats will get another one of their followers to again try to kill the president. After all, I believe that's what Democrats want. And while you might disagree with me, that's how I see the hate coming out of the Democrat Party today.

What was the tipping point for John Wilkes Booth? Well, let's remember that the assassination of President Lincoln was precipitated by the President's speech in which he advocated for black suffrage. For John Wilkes Booth, that was the tipping point he needed. That was the event that showed him that what Democratic leaders were saying was right. That's what pushed him to kill President Lincoln. 

For Booth, the idea of a Republic that included equal rights for black citizens and women was an existential threat to his view of the way society should be. And yes, if we go by what the Democratic Party was saying, then it was undoubtedly a threat to the Democratic Party. So in essence, John Wilkes Booth's act to shoot President Lincoln was done to defend the Democratic Party's vision of the United States as a "White Man's Republic." 

The irony is that, while John Wilkes Booth was not a member of the Democratic Party, he was so influenced by the Democratic Party's hate rhetoric against Lincoln that he did exactly what the Democratic Party's leaders wanted one of their followers to do. Booth shot and assassinated President Lincoln from behind, then proclaimed "Death to all tyrants," just as a Democrat would do today.  

Tom Correa  

Happy 250th Birthday, Marines!

When Captain Samuel Nichols was looking for "a few good men" to form the first Continental Marines, he wanted patriotic, capable individuals — tough, resilient, hard men from the Philadelphia wharf area — who could fight at sea. His recruitment efforts at Tun Tavern sought men who would be disciplined and effective fighters to serve aboard the Continental Navy ships. 

His specific goal was recruiting for a new military unit, the Continental Marines, which were being established to serve alongside the Continental Navy. His recruiting headquarters were at the historic Tun Tavern located at a wharf in Philadelphia. Yes, Captain Samuel Nicholas recruited rugged, tough war-fighting men for the Continental Marines, primarily along the Philadelphia wharf area and in the city's taverns. 

Captain Samuel Nichols was an innkeeper who was commissioned by the Continental Congress to recruit men from taverns in Philadelphia's wharf area, including his own tavern, the "Conestoga Wagon Tavern," and Tun Tavern, which were known to attract seafaring men and patriots. No, those taverns on the wharf area were not typically the sorts of places where high society pampered individuals were found. No effeminate perfumed types need apply. 

He sought "a few good men" who had the "right stuff." While he sought capable men from Philadelphia willing to support the patriotic cause of the American Revolution, he wanted rough men tough enough to handle the demanding work of a Marine. And yes, because the Continental Congress specifically mandated that Marine recruits be "good seamen, or so acquainted with maritime affairs as to be able to serve to advantage by sea when required," Capt. Nichols knew he needed tough-as-nails sailors, fishermen, stevedores, longshoremen, and other maritime workers. 

The men he chose were not drunks or the dregs of society. They were not the lazy, the loafers, nor the barflies, braggers, or boasters.

Continental Marines needed to be rugged, hard men because of the multifaceted, dangerous, and physically demanding nature of their duties both at sea and on land during the American Revolutionary War. Their roles required a high degree of physical toughness and resilience for several reasons.

The primary mission of the Continental Marines was to serve as amphibious infantry, "soldiers of the sea," capable of fighting effectively on land after long voyages at sea. This required physical conditioning to transition immediately from shipboard life to ground combat, often conducting raids and seizing enemy seaports.

And yes, Marines were shipboard security. It was a crucial duty to provide onboard security for the ship's captain and officers. During naval engagements, Marines were essential for manning ships' guns and cannons alongside the rest of the crew. Marine acted as sharpshooters stationed in the ship's masts, the fighting tops, to target enemy officers, helmsmen, and gunners. This demanded steadiness, accuracy, and the ability to operate in the chaotic and often cramped environment of a sailing warship.

And please, don't think that life at sea wasn't harsh. Life on an 18th-century naval vessel was extremely arduous. Life at sea in the 1700s was characterized by poor sanitation, limited fresh food and water, cramped living spaces, and the constant physical rigors of sailing. Marines had to endure these conditions while maintaining discipline and readiness for sudden combat or boarding actions.

The Marines were often called into action far from their ships, participating in major land battles such as the Battles of Trenton and Princeton. These campaigns involved marching, enduring winter conditions with General Washington's army, and engaging in direct, close-quarters combat, all of which demanded significant endurance and a tremendous amount of grit.

And here's something else, even the Continental Congress realized that America could not use Continental Army soldiers as temporary Marines. They tried and failed to make that work because Continental Army soldiers wanted nothing to do with doing what Marines do. So instead, the Continental Congress ultimately commissioned Samuel Nichols to recruit men specifically for the Corps. 

The nature of the expected duties meant recruiters actively sought individuals with the physical and mental fortitude to meet the combined land-and-sea challenges that lay ahead. Their uniform was unlike that of the Continental Army soldiers in that it included a leather high collar to protect against cutlass slashes during boarding actions, a feature that contributed to their nickname "Leathernecks" and symbolized the physical dangers they faced.

 
These demands fostered a culture that valued physical grit and mental resilience, traits that remain central to the Marine Corps' identity today.

So, how did Capt. Nichols build the Marine Corps? Well, Capt. Nichols knew Marines had to be men not afraid of hard work and dedication to the cause of freedom. He required practical, capable, hard, fighting men for sea duty, men who were men of substance rather than perfumed men of boast and appearance. His choices of those who wanted to sign up were deliberate because he was building a Corps of capable war fighters, not a social club.

Capt. Nichols embodied an authentic leadership style built on substance, integrity, and a willingness to act, guided by a moral compass. His actions were crucial for building the morale and esprit de corps of a Corps of Marines. His men trusted him because he was disciplined, fair, and devoted to duty. Yes, all attributes that established a precedent for generations of Marines to follow.

As for his men being battle-tested, they were not high-society types. Instead, his men understood the risks of service and were ready to fight. The initial success of the Marines in the 1776 raid on Nassau, the first amphibious landing in Marine Corps history, proved that Capt. Nichols had assembled the right kind of men for the job.

 

That's how our beloved Marine Corps was born. The first Marines were men with practical skills, men well-suited to his goal of creating tough, rugged fighting men, men who understood discipline, men with the inner qualities that it took to be Marines. 

What sort of inner qualities was he looking for when looking for Marines? Why weren't everyone at Tun Tavern who wanted to join allowed to join? Not all were chosen to be Marines, even when they wanted to be Marines. 

That goes to the inherent inner qualities of Marines — Honor, Courage, and Commitment — which have been the official core values of the U.S. Marine Corps for 250 years. These values are supported by a set of leadership traits — integrity, discipline, and initiative — that have shaped the mindset of Marines forever. 

Courage is defined as the mental, moral, and physical strength to overcome fear, do what is right, and make tough decisions under pressure. Commitment is that inner voice, that spirit of determination and dedication, that "can-do" attitude, that leads to professionalism, discipline, pride, and the relentless pursuit of excellence. Marines' mindset has not changed in 250 years. 

Marines are decisive, able to make sound and timely decisions. Marines are dependable. We adhere to the qualities of reliability and accountability for our actions. Marines are held to the standard of accountability and fulfill obligations.

Marines take the initiative by taking action and solving problems independently. Acting on one's own to do what is right is what Marines do. Marines have endurance and have shown throughout our history that we can withstand physical and mental hardship. Marines have the mental and physical stamina to persist through challenges. 

As for adaptability, Marines can adjust to and operate effectively in dynamic, challenging environments. As for enthusiasm, Marines get things done because we maintain a positive, energetic attitude. 

Living by a moral compass is what Marines do. And yes, Marines live by a moral compass by practicing integrity and adhering to a moral and ethical code. Moral uprightness is what makes a Marine a Marine. It is what enables Marines to weigh facts and make sound decisions, giving fair and equal treatment to all. 

Faithfulness to country, the Corps, and fellow Marines, while prioritizing the needs of others over your own, is what integrity to yourself is all about. Integrity is vital to being a Marine, and it has been that way for 250 years. Our ability to look ourselves in the mirror at any given moment and say without hesitation that we did what was right is as important as taking our next breath. It goes to who we are, our character, and self-worth. It goes to who we are to ourselves. 

As Marines, our personal integrity is vital because it speaks to our honesty and moral uprightness, and to our ability to uphold our commitment to our uncompromising code of conduct. Integrity is said to be that thing that we practice even when no one is watching. And yes, our personal integrity is essential to the mission's success, as it ensures Marines can be relied upon. 

A Marine's word is their bond, and their statements are considered a factual basis for trust. Marines must be ethical and moral in all situations, guided by the core values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment. 

Marines are expected to take responsibility for their actions and decisions, both positive and negative. Our sense of accountability involves taking responsibility for one's actions and decisions, fulfilling obligations, and holding others to the same standards. So yes, integrity builds trust among fellow Marines, which is crucial for functioning as an effective team, especially in high-stakes combat situations. And in the end, we demonstrate a commitment to duty and our values that go way beyond personal gain. It goes to a dedication to doing what is right.

For a Marine, integrity is not just a catch phrase. Integrity builds trust. And really, whether some people understand it or not, trustworthiness is a crucial element in a profession where the stakes are high and people must rely completely on each other. Our personal integrity is a core value. It speaks to our sense of duty, our ethical values, honesty, accountability, and adherence to an uncompromising code of conduct. 

Integrity is the key to doing what is right. It is the inner strength to consistently do what is right, even under pressure. It is what enables us to make difficult decisions. And yes, our code of integrity includes respecting human dignity, showing concern for fellow Marines, and fostering a strong sense of unit cohesion and trust. It is a foundational principle reinforced from the moment of enlistment and considered essential for success in the Corps, both in combat and in our daily life.

A Marine's adaptability, strategic thinking, and strong decision-making skills are supported by a personal sense of honor, the foundation of a Marine's character, which involves integrity, honesty, and responsibility. It means never lying, cheating, or stealing, and respecting human dignity. Marines have the mental, moral, and physical strength to overcome fear, adhere to a higher standard of conduct, and make tough decisions under pressure.

Marines live a life of loyalty and faithfulness to our country, the Corps, our families, and our fellow Marines. Our sense of loyalty is reinforced by our commitment to doing what's right and is rooted in a spirit of determination and dedication that fosters professionalism, self-discipline, and an unrelenting drive for excellence in all endeavors. That has been the case since our birth as Marines.

Of course, doing the right thing, even when it's difficult, and following our moral compass to guide a Marine's every action is not easy. And yes, it's a high standard to live up to. It's just too hard for some to do. It's too hard for some to live the life and do what it takes to live it. But that's why not everyone can be a Marine.

As Marines, a title earned and never given, one we will have for the rest of our lives — especially if we live up to it — we share an intense loyalty, trust, and brotherhood/sisterhood. Our bond is formed through shared, rigorous training and challenging experiences. Our bond is summarized by the motto Semper Fidelis, "Always Faithful." It is essential for unit cohesion and combat effectiveness.

We share the intense difficulty of recruit training, our boot camp is like no other, and subsequent shared operational challenges. We adapt and overcome mental, physical, and emotional obstacles together. This creates a profound, lasting connection. Our bond results in absolute trust in fellow Marines to "watch your back" and assist one another, whether in a combat zone or in civilian life.

As for our sense of purpose and identity? We share the experience of earning the title "Marine." Let's be real here, it's true that "you don't join the Marines — you become one". This, in itself, creates an identity and a deep sense of pride that binds all Marines, past and present.

And here's something more. The bond we have as Marines often lasts a lifetime, extending beyond active service. The phrase "Once a Marine, Always a Marine" captures this persistent connection and shared identity. Is our bond, as a cultural cornerstone that ensures teamwork and a willingness to sacrifice for one another, a critical component of the Marine Corps' effectiveness as an elite fighting force? Yes, it is. It's what makes us who we are. 

Because Marines live by their strict moral code in action, not just talk, and because of our bond, I wish all my brother and sister Marines a very happy 250th birthday.

Happy Birthday, Marines!

Semper Fi!

  

Tom Correa

Presidents Have Always Renovated, Updated, & Changed The White House

Since 1901, the official name of the White House is the "White House." It's official name was the "Executive Mansion." It was sometimes referred to as the "President's House." And, believe it or not, some even referred to it as the "President's Palace".

President Theodore Roosevelt officially changed the name in 1901 by Executive Order. In fact, he followed that up with a letter directing that official papers now be addressed "White House" instead of "Executive Mansion". So yes, while that may not seem as big as the other things that have been done to the White House by almost every president that has lived there, it was a big enough deal at the time to make the newspapers. 

As reported in The Morning Tribune, Volume XIV, Number 25,  June 18, 1901:

Naming the White Home.

Why is the president’s mansion in Washington called the White House? It has been so called for years and years, and now no one thinks of using any other name, although “Executive Mansion” is the official term. The name "White House" is a reminder of the Second War with England. 

On August 24, 1814, the British army captured Washington and burned the public buildings, the president’s mansion being among those to suffer. It was damaged to some extent, and to hide the fire stains, it was painted white, and white it has been painted every year or two since. 

The home of Washington’s mothér was called the “white house,” and this may have suggested the name, but the fact that the mansion was so assiduously painted white after the War of 1812 doubtless brought the term into popular use. 

-- end of news report June 18, 1901.

Reported in The Times Gazette, Volume XXXXIII, Number 28, October 12, 1901:

It’s the White House.

President Roosevelt has made his first social reform. Society folk in Washington have always called the residence of the President, the "Executive Mansion." They thought that sounded better than the “White House."

President Roosevelt has announced that the words "Executive Mansion" must come off all the stationery around the place and the words "White House" be put on. He says that maybe it don’t sound quite so well, but there are some forty-five executive mansions scattered around among state capitals, and there is only one "White House." So "White House" it is going to be, and nothing else. 

-- end of news report October 12, 1901.

So, who were the people referred to as the "Society folk" in Washington, D.C., those critics who didn't like President Theodore Roosevelt officially changing the name of the "Executive Mansion" to the "White House"? 

Well, in 1901, the "Society folk" in Washington, D.C. referred to the prominent and influential social circles of the time, which included members of Congress, political elites, government officials, and wealthy families. They were the city's high society, including those involved in the diplomatic community, the national government, the press, and the arts. Yes, politicians, government officials, their families, and the diplomatic corps would have formed a core part of this social stratum. No, not much different than the way things are today.

Wealthy and established families who lived in D.C. and had generations of their family in office for longer than they should have been would have also been considered part of D.C.'s high society clique. Add to that the literary and arts crowd and their circles of wannabe intellectuals of the time, today that would be the celebrity crowd who didn't finish high school but will most likely receive honorary doctorates from liberal colleges they donate big dollars to, the same crowd that's still buying into the Climate Change/ Global Warming hoax. Yes indeed, they're the same ilk that's around today.

In 1902, President Roosevelt started renovations that modernized the White House. He made significant changes to the White House, including overseeing the removal of the Victorian-era conservatories to the west of the White House residence. The renovations involved removing those Victorian-era conservatories (greenhouses), which some preservationists valued for their "traditional charm." The glasshouses used for growing plants were removed and replaced with what we now call the "West Wing," which houses the president's office and key staff offices.

Yes, President Theodore Roosevelt caught a lot of flak from Democrats for removing greenhouses and moving the president's offices to the West Wing. Democrats also criticized him for separating the president’s private residence from the presidency's growing administrative functions. The demolition of the conservatories sparked outrage among history preservationists as well as horticultural enthusiasts. And yes, his political opponents seized on the criticism of Roosevelt and his supposed destruction of historical architecture, and ran with it for all it was worth.

The Washington Post said, "Roosevelt's attempt to ‘modernize’ the White House has destroyed its historic value and does not seem to have made it much more desirable as a residence." His critics also argued that Roosevelt’s modernization prioritized utility over history. Does that sound familiar? It should, Democrats in 2025 are using the same old playbook against President Trump for his renovation of the East Wing. 

Of course, the way Democrats lost their minds in 1901 was nothing compared to how they attacked and ridiculed Theodore Roosevelt's 1902 White House renovations. They were angry about cost overruns, private funding, a wood carvers strike, the removal of Victorian-era conservatories, and more. They claimed he was making "changes to the building's historical character" of the White House — the same line of garbage that President Trump's critics are using today to attack his renovation of the East Wing.

As for Democrats accusing President Roosevelt of extravagance and imperialism? The $65,000 cost, which is worth $2,448,655.00 today (2025), prompted his Democrat critics to accuse Teddy Roosevelt of lavish spending while questioning whether a new office wing was necessary, given that existing spaces had sufficed for so many years. Democrats scrutinized the $65,000 bill for the West Wing construction as a "significant expenditure."

His Democrat opponents were quick to label the cost of the West Wing as "wasteful." And yes, Democrats said that changes to the White House were on the lines of an aristocratic "palace" rather than a "house fit for a democratic leader"— a common criticism from the media of Presidents who undertook major renovations throughout history, especially Republican Presidents.

Just as Democrats attacked President Roosevelt over what they saw as the loss of historical elements, citing how the removal of the Victorian-era conservatories (greenhouses), which were a traditional feature of the White House grounds since the time of Thomas Jefferson about a hundred years earlier, today Democrats are attacking President Trump for renovations being made on the East Wing of the White House which was built in 1942.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt renovated the White House in many ways, including modernizing the electrical system, remodeling the kitchens, adding an indoor swimming pool in the West Terrace in 1933, and adding the East Wing in 1942. FDR built the East Wing to add more office space for the First Lady's growing staff and so she would be able to hold social functions. As for the social functions in the East Wing, attendance was limited to about 200.

The renovations President Trump is currently making to the East Wing will increase occupancy of the East Wing to just under 1,000 people. Yes, using the building for the exact same purpose as it was designated for in 1942, just bigger and better able to handle larger gatherings in the future.

As for the East Wing, here's something to think about. A small East Wing structure, which was initially called the "East Terrace" was built in 1902 during Theodore Roosevelt's administration to serve as a formal entrance for visitors and to provide a cloakroom for large social events.

The original 1902 East Terrace was built under President Theodore Roosevelt, as part of a larger renovation of the White House. The expansion and evolution of the Theodore Roosevelt's East Terrance came later when it was made bigger with the building of the East Wing in 1942 by Franklin Roosevelt.

As for the 2025 modernization of the East Wing by President Donald Trump has come under fire, it is merely the evolution of a building in constant transition over its lifetime -- a project to replace the existing structure with a new ballroom and further modernization of the East Wing.

While President Trump's critics attack him for his "modernization" of the White House, which they feel destroys the building's historic value and original character, it should be noted that even President Franklin Roosevelt had his share of critics -- many who were not very kind in their attacks of the president over his building the East Wing in 1942.

People were critical of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's White House renovations, particularly the addition of the East Wing in 1942, for a couple of reasons. First, it was perceived as wasteful spending given that the renovations occurred during World War II, congressional Republicans and other critics labeled the expenditure as extravagant and unnecessary during a time of national crisis and economic recovery efforts.

The controversy surrounding the East Wing construction was centered on the allocation of funds and resources during wartime and political debates over the expansion of presidential power and image, rather than practical considerations.

While other changes during his presidency, such as installing a swimming pool in the West Terrace and modernizing the electrical system, nothing attracted the same level of political scrutiny as the East Wing addition. Part of the reason for that had to do with the East Wing housing the Office of the First Lady primarily for First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt's political and social events. Eleanor Roosevelt used the East Wing for her activism while also hosting events -- including her weekly press conferences which she reserved for female reporters.

Of course, while the East Wing was built for social functions and to house the offices used by the First Lady, its construction also hid a wartime bunker for the president. It's true, the East Wing was built in 1942 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt to conceal a new Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) during World War II. It was the underground bombshelter, an emergency bunker, for the president during World War II. And yes, it was built in the strictest of military secrecy. In Congress, the building of a bunker for the president and its secretive nature fueled suspicions about its necessity and the president's motives.

All in all, for the American public, the East Wing's construction was said to be very controversial due to wartime rationing and hardships on the American people. As for Congress, the secretive nature of the construction, tied to military purposes of building the president a bunker, further fueled resentment, especially with cost overruns and Congress allocating funds that many saw as being needed for the war effort.

Let's remember, it was a time when Americans were being asked to sacrifice for the war effort, buy bonds, make do with less, and go without. Americans were asked to make significant sacrifices during World War II, including strict rationing of goods like food, gasoline, and tires. Americans participated in scrap metal and rubber and cooking fat drives. Americans were asked to buy war bonds to help finance the war effort. And yes, Americans also contributed by planting "Victory Gardens" and volunteering, as everyday life was altered to support the national war mobilization.

As for rationing? The U.S. Governments issued ration books to limit the purchase of essential goods such as sugar, meat, butter, coffee, gasoline, and tires. As for the scrap drives? The public was urged to collect and donate a wide variety of scrap materials, including metal, paper, rubber, and cooking fat -- which was used to make glycerin for explosives. As for saving and making things stretch? Americans were asked to conserve energy and fuel, even to the point of reducing non-essential activities like taking long showers. And here's something else, Americans worked longer hours in factories to produce military supplies, with many goods like cars and refrigerators disappearing from the market until after the war.

As for war bonds? Americans bought war bonds and stamps to provide the government with the funds needed for the war. As for Victory Gardens? Millions of Americans planted their own gardens in their backyards and even vacant lots to help with food shortages on the home front.

So yes, indeed, while Americans were being asked to sacrifice, many Americans saw President Franklin D. Roosevelt as someone not sacrificing and instead spending needed funds on a building to expand the office space for the First Lady, for her expanding staff, and so she would have a place for her social functions. Many saw the building of the East Wing as extremely selfish. 

Because of the perception of what was taking place, the public was not happy and saw FDR and the First Lady as putting their own self-interests ahead of the nation's needs.

So yes, it is accurate to say that the construction of the East Wing in 1942 was highly controversial, and the public was not very happy about it. The construction of the two-story East Wing of the White House had a negative public reaction during the ongoing war. Many saw the construction of the East Wing as wasteful spending during a national crisis.

Was there a perception of vanity on the part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt? Believe it or not, while some today accuse President Donald Trump of vanity, back in 1942 there were those who accused President Franklin D. Roosevelt of using the East Wing project to enhance his image and add a "vanity" project during a time when the public was making sacrifices for the war effort.

Besides accusations of "self-aggrandizement," critics accused Franklin Roosevelt of using the project to bolster his imperial image as president. Does that sound familiar? It should, accusing a president of acting like a King has been a go-to piece of hate that newspapers have been using since the beginning of our nation.

Don't think so? Think about this. In 1792, the cornerstone was laid and construction of the White House began. In 1804, President Thomas Jefferson, who was, in fact, an accomplished architect himself, added the east and west colonnades to connect the main residence to service buildings. Jefferson's colonnades faced immediate criticism for their cost to the American taxpayer.

The National Intelligencer newspaper published editorials questioning their "extravagance" and the necessity for a government building. Some newspapers echoed his political opponents and critics by saying he is turning the presidency into a monarchy.

It's true. In Congress, Jefferson's opponents accused him of acting like a "King" and said that Jefferson's alterations reflected aristocratic tendencies. At the time, Jefferson's critics said the colonnades' classic architecture clashed with "the democratic simplicity that the White House was supposed to embody."

The South Portico was added by President James Monroe after the original White House was rebuilt following the War of 1812, after the British army burned down the White House on August 24, 1814. It wasn't until 1817 that construction of the new White House began.

President Andrew Jackson had the North Portico added in 1829. The grand entrance addressed the building's lack of a formal entryway on its north side of the building and was meant to match the South Portico added by President Monroe. The North Portico’s construction, which Congress appropriated $24,729 (approximately $850,000 today), was extremely controversial at the time.

The United States Telegraph attacked President Jackson for "prioritizing grandeur over the needs of ordinary citizens." His critics portrayed the portico as a symbol of his lavish presidency. Some critics also felt the portico's classical design was "too ostentatious for a democratic republic."

In Congress, Jackson's Whig opponents questioned the cost and the need for the addition, arguing that the funds could have been better spent on infrastructure or debt reduction.

Indoor plumbing was first installed in the White House in 1833 under President Jackson, with running water initially used for drinking and fire protection. In 1833, an engineer designed a system to pipe water from springs in Franklin Park to the White House. A "bathing room" was added later.

As for indoor plumbing and a "First bathroom"? A "bathing room" was added to the East Wing shortly after the running water system was installed. President Franklin Pierce is credited with installing the first modern bathroom with a tub, toilet, and running water in the 1850s.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln renovated and updated parts of the White House. When the Lincolns moved in, the State Floor and private quarters were in a "miserable condition". Mary Todd Lincoln oversaw the extensive refurnishing and redecorating. The renovation included new carpets, French wallpapers, draperies, and a new gilded Rococo Revival suite for the Blue Room. The project went over budget, leading to the purchase of new items, such as a French porcelain dinner service and the now-famous Lincoln Bed -- though it's likely never actually used by the President.

It's true. President Lincoln never slept there. The Lincoln Bedroom, as it is known today, was actually President Abraham Lincoln's office and cabinet room during his presidency. It was not his actual bedroom. Much later, it was converted into a guest room. In reality, the designation of the "Lincoln Bedroom" did not take place until after World War II to honor Lincoln’s legacy.

The Lincoln renovations initially cost the American taxpayers $20,000 at the time. The initial $20,000 appropriation was exceeded twice, requiring two supplemental appropriations to pay for what was seen as Mrs. Lincoln's "spending spree." Of course, the initial $20,000 in 1861 would be worth $736,309.00 today.

Why did the Lincolns renovate and update the White House? Historians agree that the White House had deteriorated during President James Buchanan's single term. While Mary Todd Lincoln saw the renovations as necessary to restore the mansion, the public viewed her actions differently.

The national press and Lincoln's political opponents used the costly renovations to attack the Lincolns' "imperial presidency." Opponents focused on the spending as a sign of wasteful extravagance, especially during a time of national crisis. However, some historians have noted that Mary Lincoln intended to restore dignity to the "Executive Mansion," which had fallen into disrepair and had lost public esteem. Of course, while Mary Todd was aware of public cynicism, she was determined to make the White House a national showpiece.

Why was there so much criticism? The nation was in the midst of a Civil War. Public perception was that the Lincolns were living in extravagance. President Lincoln's vocal critics in the North, the newspapers owned and ran by Copperhead Democrats who wanted to see the nation split in two and for Democrats in the South to keep their beloved slavery, ridiculed President Lincoln and compared him to a King because -- among other reasons, the expensive redecorations that they saw as extravagant and inappropriate given the wartime hardship.

President Chester Arthur, known for his refined tastes, undertook a lavish redecoration of the White House interior from 1881 to 1883. He hired designers to transform its public rooms with color, ornate furnishings, stained glass, and a Victorian aesthetic. His redecoration was met with mixed reactions.

The New York Times praised the aesthetic improvements but criticized the $110,000 cost (nearly $ 3.5 million today), calling it extravagant for a public building. In fact, it was the largest cost spent on the White House since its reconstruction after the War of 1812.

Critics in the press, including Harper’s Weekly, accused President Arthur of "turning the White House into a 'palace' unfit for a democratic leader." In Congress, Democrats decried the expenditure as wasteful.

Electricity was first installed in the White House in 1891 during President Benjamin Harrison's administration. Electrical wiring was also installed in the State, War, and Navy buildings next door. Was there a fear of electricity at the time? Yes, in fact, electricity was so new that President Harrison and his wife, Caroline, reportedly feared touching the light switches for fear of electric shock. The White House's use of electricity helped to build public acceptance and trust in the new technology.

We talked about how, in 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt started renovations that modernized the White House. Theodore Roosevelt made significant changes to the White House. He oversaw the removal of the Victorian-era conservatories to the west of the White House residence. The glasshouses used for growing plants were removed and replaced with what we now call the "West Wing," which houses the president's office and key staff offices. Theodore Roosevelt is responsible for moving the president's offices to the West Wing. He also separated the president’s private residence from the presidency's growing administrative functions.

The demolition of the conservatories sparked outrage among preservationists and horticultural enthusiasts. The Washington Post said, "Roosevelt's attempt to ‘modernize’ the White House has destroyed its historic value and does not seem to have made it much more desirable as a residence."
His critics also argued that Roosevelt’s modernization prioritized utility over history.

The $65,000 cost, which is worth $2,448,655.00 today, prompted his Democrat critics to accuse Teddy Roosevelt of lavish spending while questioning whether a new office wing was necessary, given that existing spaces had sufficed for so many years.

President William Howard Taft renovated the White House by expanding the West Wing and constructing the first Oval Office in 1909. He also had a "Sleeping Porch" built on the roof in 1910.

President Calvin Coolidge renovated the White House, with the major project in 1927 being the rebuilding of the roof and the addition of a third floor to the main house. This was prompted by an engineering report that found the original roof trusses were weakened and that the attic was being overloaded, necessitating a structural repair and expansion.

As part of this project, a third-floor solarium, or "Sky Parlor," was also constructed. 1927 Renovation: An engineering report found the White House roof structure was unsafe due to years of alterations and an overloaded attic. The attic was converted into a full third floor, providing more living space. It was then that the original wood trusses were replaced with a steel frame. As for Coolidge's Solarium? A third-floor sunroom, which First Lady Grace Coolidge called her "Sky Parlor," was added over the South Portico. Imagine that.

We talked about how President Franklin D. Roosevelt renovated the White House in many ways, including modernizing the electrical system, remodeling the kitchens, adding an indoor swimming pool in the West Terrace in 1933, and how he added the East Wing in 1942 for more office space for the First Lady's staff as well as to hold more of her social functions. Some say the East Wing was built specifically to hide the construction of the underground bunker that FDR had built during World War II.

The most significant renovation in White House history took place under President Harry Truman. Because engineers believed the White House was in danger of collapse due to weakened wooden beams, outdated plumbing, and electrical systems, the structural deficiencies necessitated a complete gutting of the White House's interior. That took place from 1948 to 1952.

The $5.7 million project, which is approximately $60 million today, involved dismantling the interior, preserving only the outer walls, and rebuilding with modern materials, including steel and concrete.

The scale of the Truman renovation shocked the public and drew intense scrutiny. Preservationists mourned the loss of original interiors, while media outlets questioned the project’s cost during the post-war economic recession.

In addition to the gutting, Truman proposed adding a balcony to the second floor of the South Portico. Now known as the Truman Balcony, it provides the first family with a private outdoor space and enhances the building’s aesthetics. The Truman Balcony was one of the most contentious alterations to the White House. Truman’s opponents in Congress accused Truman of misappropriating the White House for personal indulgence, reminding him that "this building belongs to the American people" and not him.

Public opinion was divided. Some appreciated the balcony’s practicality while others viewed its $16,000 cost as frivolous during the economic recession after World War II. 

Of course, no conversation about Harry Truman's White House would be complete if we don't talk about Truman's bowling alley. The Truman bowling alley is a two-lane bowling alley in the basement of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, originally installed in the West Wing for President Truman in 1947 as a birthday gift. Truman's administration formed a White House Bowling League in 1950, with teams made up of Secret Service agents, secretaries, groundskeepers, and other staff.

It was originally located on the ground floor of the West Wing, which is now the Situation Room. President Eisenhower closed the alley in 1955, and it was moved to the basement of the adjacent Old Executive Office Building (now the Eisenhower Executive Office Building). The two-lane bowling alley was moved in 1955 and has been used by various presidents, including Richard Nixon who had a separate one-lane alley built under the North Portico which was later renovated and is still in use today. Access to the Truman bowling alley is currently restricted to White House staff and their invited guests.

The original bowling alley was used by President Johnson and his wife, Lady Bird, after it was relocated. President Nixon had a separate, one-lane alley built underground beneath the North Portico, which he used frequently. It was later renovated and remains in use today. 

President John Kennedy oversaw the interior restoration to turn the White House into a museum of American history, he also personally constructed the modern Rose Garden on the grounds in 1962. The site was previously a garden created by Ellen Wilson in 1913. It replaced Edith Roosevelt’s 1902 Colonial Garden.

In 1970, President Richard Nixon converted the White House's indoor swimming pool, the pool built in 1933 by Franklin Roosevelt, into the Press Briefing Room to accommodate the press corps. The decision to cover the pool was met with anger from Democrats in The New York Times, who called it an assault on FDR’s legacy.

President Jimmy Carter added solar panels to the White House roof.

While President Bill Clinton didn't do anything to the White House itself, he closed Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular traffic in front of the White House, citing security concerns after the Oklahoma City bombing. The Secret Service recommended closure to protect against vehicle-based attacks.

Yes, President Obama added a basketball court to the White House. Obama had the White House tennis court converted into a full-size basketball court to allow for games with more players. Obama scheduled games with staff, aides, and visiting teams. These games were a well-known part of his time in office. It's true. Obama often played pickup basketball games with staff and other guests, which were a notable part of his White House years.

Actually, there's no telling how much time he actually spent doing his job as president between playing basketball, golf, and watching sports on television/ In fact, President Barack Obama stated in a 2014 ESPN Radio interview that he spent most of his mornings watching ESPN's SportsCenter, primarily to stay informed about sports without being "inundated with a bunch of chatter about politics".

So now, as for presidents renovating, updating, and changing the White House, well, according to most historians, the White House has been renovated and reshaped by the visions and priorities of almost every one of its occupants. From adding colonnades, to bathrooms, to indoor toilets, to adding whole buildings in the form of the West Wing in 1902 and the East Wing in 1942, to the monumental gutting of the entire inside of the White House during the 1950s, to adding a swimming pool, a bowling alley, a basketball court, and more, the place that Americans know as the "White House" has evolved and evaolved and evolved ever since it was rebuilt after being burned to the ground in the War of 1812.

The White House remains a living symbol of our enduring American republic. It is a constantly evolving national landmark. And like it or not, each change brings out critics who want to attack, ridicule, and demean the occupant of the White House at the time. 

In the case of President Trump renovating the East Wing and rebuilding it to expand its use, many of President Trump's critics are partisan Leftist propagandists in the Mainstream Media. Most have their own political agenda, and they act out with selective indignation over anything he does. Studies have shown that coverage of President Trump's time in office in most major outlets is overwhelmingly negative. In fact, one study found that 72% of media coverage of President Trump is negative by design. Yes, by design by the Left.

That's why Trump supporters like me ignore the selective indignation of the Leftist propagandists who cannot truly call themselves objective or impartial journalists. They're not. Their intense negative emotional and cognitive reactions to President Trump, his actions, and his public presence are irrational and disconnected from what he is actually doing to better the lives of Americans. 

Because of that, and their hyped notion that he is acting like a King, I believe they cannot be trusted. While being accused of acting like a King is something other presidents have faced, in the case of President Trump, it is a media criticism that stems from an emotional and psychological condition rather than a rational, fact-based assessment of his presidency and policies. 

As for the East Wing of the White House, I believe it will most likely be beautiful. Yes, even though Democrats hate it before it's finished -- all because President Trump, a Republican, is building it. And frankly, that's childish and sad.

Tom Correa