“That the Smithsonian had become dominated by curators, scholars and ideologues who genuinely don’t like their nation very much and who wanted to use the museum exhibits to promote an “America is racist, sexist and a blight on civilization” narrative is, I believe, beyond reasonable debate: smoking guns include the original signage for the Enola Gay (portraying the bombing of Hiroshima as a war crime) and the deliberate omission of Clarence Thomas in the National Museum of African American History & Culture. The problem is real, and President Trump’s understanding that the museums are a significant battlefield in the culture wars should be welcome. However, I question whether there is any way to avoid over-correction, with the Smithsonian swinging from being an agent of cultural self-hate furthering the agenda of victim-hustlers, to being a purveyor of jingoism, God Bless America revisionism and “My country, right or wrong” historical air-brushing. I also question…oh, heck, I know that Donald Trump does not possess the broadness of mind, the historical sophistication, or the objectivity necessary to avoid botching what is a very important mission.

“I pride myself on having at least a substantial amount of those qualities, but I’m not sure about how much to emphasize slavery and racial discrimination in our history between the disparate poles of “The 1619 Project” and the “America courageously expiated the curse of slavery in blood” position. Was Western expansion a saga of heroism and American exceptionalism or “genocide,” as today’s Left would have it?

“I wish I believed that there was an achievable, non-political, societally beneficial middle ground, but try as a I may, I don’t. All I know is that the Smithsonian’s orientation has become anti-American, and that this is destructive, foolish, unfair and wrong. Trump’s targeting of the museums is as justified as his assault on colleges and universities, but whether the cure here will be worse or at least as bad as the disease is a troubling question.”

I stand behind that position still, but boy oh boy it was wonderful to see Rep. Gill, who is building a deserved name for himself as “The Gotcha! King,” brutally expose the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History director, Anthea Hartig, for what she is, and, by extension, what the Smithsonian has become.

Watch the entire first clip, where Hartig is forced to defend the indefensible, her institution stating that “objectivity” and “politeness” were markers of white supremacy. (Her defense is to deny what is in black and white.) The second clip is funnier, true: that’s the one where the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History director, after agreeing that Mickey Mouse is not “racist,” is asked why the Smithsonian informs visitors that Mickey’s design was based on black-face minstrels, the epitome of Jim Crow era racism. She defaults to the claim that the assertion is just fact, but it is not fact: academics committed to the narrative that American culture is soaked in racism concocted that theory out of pure confirmation bias. Neither Ubi Iwerks nor Walt Disney, the two primary creators of Mickey, ever hinted in any correspondence or written notes that the mouse was meant to denigrate blacks, because, you see, he wasn’t.

The major “tell” according to these scholarly race-baiters is that Mickey (eventually) had gloves on his hands. “White gloves helped animators make grand, expressive gestures visible on early black-and-white film, but they also directly mirrored the costuming of minstrel performers,” one source says. Oh. Well that settles it then. Mickey also wore shoes, which directly mirrored the costuming of…well, everybody. And when Mickey first appeared, in “Steamboat Willie,” he didn’t wear gloves…see?

Never mind. I’m sure Walt and Ubi were being very careful to s-l-o-w-l-y turn Mickey Mouse into Al Jolson in “The Jazz Singer.” But wait—Al wore “blackface,” right? Here’s Mickey:

Isn’t his face white? Well, never mind, let’s not be picky. After all, “The character’s large white eyes, wide mouth, and silhouette echoed the caricatures of live minstrel shows,” says another “scholarly” source obviously regarded as gospel by Ms. Hartig. Hmmm…his silhouette is that of…a mouse.

Well, never mind: “Early Mickey Mouse cartoons frequently relied on music, dance, and a mischievous “trickster” persona reminiscent of minstrel archetypes.” Would it be unduly cruel to point out that the “trickster” persona is a staple of comedy across centuries and cultures, including, just as a sample, Hermes, Dionysus, Odyseus (!), Loki, Till Eulenspiegel and Puss ‘n Boots long before Mickey, and Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson, Jerry Lewis and this guy…

…long after Ubi drew Mickey?

But…but…Mickey relied on “music and dance”! Right. I’m not going to even bother dealing with that.

In short, the “Mickey is a Jim Crow relic” smear is crap, like so much of the race-baiting, anti-American narratives inflicted on the U.S. by Smithsonian indoctrination agents like Anthea Hartig. Our national museum shouldn’t be promoting crap. Can we agree on that?

Thanks, Rep. Gill.

Now do CNN.