DONATE

Sunday, February 22, 2026

Father of the American Nation George Washington

Born February 22, 1732 (Gregorian Calendar)

President George Washington (Image Source: Clark Art Museum. Photo from American History Central)

 

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© February 22, 2026

 

For American History buffs: February 22 is the birth date of George Washington – The Father of our nation (February 22, 1732–December 14, 1799). An interesting tidbit: George Washington was born when the British Empire and American Colonies still used the Julian Calendar. Our modern calendar is based on the Gregorian Calendar. Under the Julian Calendar George Washington was born February 11, 1731 (Wikipedia citation).

 

An interesting Julian vs Gregorian explanation about George Washington from WashingtonCrossingPark.org:

 

Washington’s Original Birthday Was February 11

 

Young Washington as a Military Officer (WashingtonCrossingPark Photo)

 

We all know that February sometimes involves a leap year. But in a little quirk of history, American colonists once had to leap weeks into the future!

 

The British (and by extension, the colonists) waited until 1752 to make the jump from the calendar created by Julius Caesar in 45 BC to the one commissioned by Pope Gregory XII in the 1580s, our current standard. They landed about 11 days off the mark.

 

The solution: At one second after midnight on September 2, 1752, it became September 14.

 

Of course, all birthdates followed suit—including George Washington’s. Born on February 11, 1731 (according to the Julian calendar), George celebrated his 20th birthday on February 22, which is the date we use today.

 

If you’re looking to celebrate that special day with us, you can do so a few days before George’s actual birthday. Washington Crossing Historic Park will celebrate Washington’s 290th birthday on Sunday, February 20.”

 

A good short history of the Founder of the USA George Washington:

 

o   George Washington; American History Central

 

World History Edu examines 12 myths about George Washington. Three I remember from childhood that in the 1950s and 1960s that achieve legendary status among kids:

 

o   The child George owns up to chopping down Cherry Tree to his father. The Moral: George cannot tell a lie, so you shouldn’t either.

 

o   In a feat of strength, George Washington threw a Silver Dollar across the Potomac River. Never happened. There were no Siver Dollars minted even during the Washington’s two terms of Office.

 

o   George Washington tasked Betsy Ross to make first American Flag. No proof exists of the Washington-Ross-Flag connection.

 

HOWEVER my favorite stories about George Washington come from eyewitnesses (friends and enemies) that miliary man Washington was bullet proof. A great summary of bullet proof Washington is found at History’s Vault posted originally on 9/23/25. Below is that full post.

 

JRH 2/22/26

ALWAYS FREE TO READ yet READER SUPPORTED!

PLEASE! I need more Patriots to step up. I need Readers to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100 (PAYPAL or CARD - one-time or recurring). YOUR generosity is APPRECIATED. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

Our Senior Citizen Family Supplements our income. A brief advertisement change. Diana & I are Changing from Happy Healthy Coffee to Magic Coffee. It’s MAGIC because there is a weight loss or weight control emphasis. Clicking the Diana Wellness Store will take you to the NEW store. CLICK the BUY tab and/or JOIN tab. Joining means you get COFFEE discount, can operate your store and recruit your own business & customers. Decide on a level to enter to Network your own Store. DRINK COFFEE and/or MAKE MONEY!:

 

https://dianawellnessstore.com

Have Coffee Customer Question or Earn Money Question - Ask Diana at Facebook Group Good Life Coffee

*******************************

Bulletproof George Washington: Was He Protected by Providence or Luck?


Washington at Monongahela: Untouched, Unshaken, Unforgettable. (History’s Vault Photo)

 

By Vault Keeper

September 23, 2025

History’s Vault

 

George Washington’s survival in battle often defied logic. From the chaos of Monongahela to the daring charge at Princeton, he emerged unscathed while death claimed those around him. His men saw it. His enemies noted it. And Washington himself, though reserved, acknowledged it. Was it providence, luck — or something else?

 

The Battle of Monongahela (1755)

 

In July 1755, a young George Washington rode with British General Edward Braddock into the Ohio Valley. Their mission: to seize Fort Duquesne from French and Native American forces. Braddock’s column — nearly 1,300 strong — marched in European formation through dense forest, unaware they were walking into an ambush.

 

The enemy struck with precision. French troops and Native warriors fired from concealed positions. British officers, easily identifiable by their uniforms and mounted positions, were targeted first. Braddock was mortally wounded. Chaos followed.


Washington, then just 23, had no formal command. Yet he rode through collapsing lines to rally the troops. He had two horses shot out from under him and four bullets pierce his coat, but he was never hit.

 

“By the all-powerful dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability and expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, altho’ death was levelling my companions on every side.”

—George Washington, Letter to John A. Washington, July 18, 1755
Source: Mount Vernon Digital Archive

 

The battle was a disaster for the British. Nearly 900 were killed or wounded. Washington’s survival became a point of fascination. Years later, Native leaders reportedly said they had aimed at him repeatedly but could not hit him. One called him “spirit-protected.”

 

The Battle of Princeton (1777)

 

Fast forward to January 3rd, 1777. Washington, now Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, faced British forces near Princeton, New Jersey. Morale was low. Supplies were thin. The winter was brutal.

 

During the battle, American troops began to falter. Washington rode forward — within thirty yards of enemy lines — and rallied his men with a shout:

 

“Parade with me my fine fellows, we will have them soon!”

—George Washington, Battle of Princeton, January 3, 1777
Source: American Battlefield Trust

 

His officers were stunned. One reportedly covered his eyes, unable to watch what he assumed would be Washington’s death. But again, Washington survived untouched. The counterattack succeeded. Princeton was a turning point in the war.

 

Native Accounts and Battlefield Lore

 

Accounts from Native American leaders — especially those who fought at Monongahela — add a layer of mysticism. One Shawnee chief reportedly said:

 

“He is not born to be killed by a bullet. I had seventeen fair shots at him… but could not bring him to the ground.”

—Attributed to a Native sachem recalling the Battle of Monongahela, as recorded by Dr. James Craik, 1770
Source: Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia

 

While these accounts were often filtered through colonial retellings, they reinforced the myth. Washington wasn’t just lucky — he was untouchable.

 

Cultural Echoes and Presidential Mythmaking

 

Washington’s battlefield survival became part of his presidential aura. Later generations would thread similar myths around other presidents:

 

§  Abraham Lincoln reportedly dreamed of his own death days before his assassination.

 

§  Ronald Reagan survived an assassination attempt in 1981 and later joked about it with characteristic bravado. Some believe his survival marked the end of the so-called Curse of Tippecanoe — a pattern in which presidents elected in years divisible by twenty met untimely deaths.

 

§  Donald Trump, during his presidencies, has often invoked divine protection and destiny in speeches — threading mythic language into political identity.

 

Washington’s “Bulletproof” legend was the prototype. It combined battlefield grit with moral purpose and created a mythic template for leadership under fire.

 

Legacy and Interpretation

 

Historians rarely dismiss the battlefield accounts outright. The chaos at Monongahela and the charge at Princeton were well documented. But when it comes to the myth that Washington was somehow protected, they tend to pause.

 

Some treat it as morale psychology. Others point to terrain, timing, and the unpredictability of musket fire. Few try to explain it fully. Most simply note that Washington kept showing up alive where he shouldn’t have survived.

 

Still, the quotes remain. The coat with bullet holes was real. The horses were real. The men who died beside him were real. And Washington’s survival — again and again — was real.

 

Whether by providence or probability, George Washington’s battlefield record remains one of the most uncanny in American history.

 

🔗 Think that was strange? There’s more. Explore our full Oval Office Oddities archive.

 

References

 

[1] Washington, G. (1755). Letter to John A. Washington, July 18, 1755. Mount Vernon Digital Archive. Retrieved September 2025.

 

[2] Chernow, R. (2010). Washington: A Life. Penguin Press.

 

[3] Ellis, J.J. (2004). His Excellency: George Washington. Knopf. Explores Washington’s leadership style and battlefield instincts.

 

[4] Smithsonian Magazine. (2006). Washington’s War Tactics. Retrieved September 2025.

 

[5] National Archives. (n.d.). Founders Online. Retrieved September 2025.

 

[6] Mount Vernon. (n.d.). George Washington’s Military Career. Retrieved September 2025.

 

[7] American Battlefield Trust. (n.d.). Battle of Princeton. Retrieved September 2025.

 

Copyright © 2026 HistorysVault.com

About History’s Vault


Saturday, February 21, 2026

SCOTUS, Dem-Marxists & RINOs Fail to Stop Trump Tariffs!

President Trump Simply Utilizes a Different Legal Framework to Continue Liberation Day


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© February 21, 2026

 

As Dem-Marxists and anti-Trump RINOs celebrate SCOTUS striking down President Trump’s use of IEEPA to Tariff foreign nations into a better deal with the USA, President Trump pulls an end-run to CONTINUE TARIFFS.

 

President Trump simply utilizes alternate laws enacted by Congress to continue the Liberation Day Tariffs.

 

DETAILS BELOW!

 

JRH 2/21/26

ALWAYS FREE TO READ yet READER SUPPORTED!

PLEASE! I need more Patriots to step up. I need Readers to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100 (PAYPAL or CARD - one-time or recurring). YOUR generosity is APPRECIATED. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

Our Senior Citizen Family Supplements our income. A brief advertisement change. Diana & I are Changing from Happy Healthy Coffee to Magic Coffee. It’s MAGIC because there is a weight loss or weight control emphasis. Clicking the Diana Wellness Store will take you to the NEW store. CLICK the BUY tab and/or JOIN tab. Joining means you get COFFEE discount, can operate your store and recruit your own business & customers. Decide on a level to enter to Network your own Store. DRINK COFFEE and/or MAKE MONEY!:

 

https://dianawellnessstore.com

Have Coffee Customer Question or Earn Money Question - Ask Diana at Facebook Group Good Life Coffee

****************************

BREAKING VIDEO – Scott Bessent responds to Supreme Court tariff ruling

Scott Bessent (therightscoop.com photo)

 

By The Right Scoop (Staff)

February 20, 2026 6:04 pm

The Right Scoop

 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent responded this afternoon to the Supreme Court ruling on President Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs.

 

In short, Bessent doesn’t believe much will change, and that certainly applies to the revenues the US will collect from tariffs.

 

Here’s how he explains it:

 

Bitchute VIDEO: Scott Bessent Responds to Supreme Court Tariff Ruling

[Posted by SlantRight2

Published February 21, 2026

MORE DESCRIPTION]

 

© The Right Scoop 2009-2026. All rights reserved.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tariffs, the Supreme Court, and What Comes Next

Tariffs are not going anywhere. If anything, the fight has only just begun, and the ruling has made President Trump more determined to do what he needs to do to continue to Make America Great Again

 

By Douglas V. Gibbs

February 21, 2026

Canada Free Press

President Trump (CFP Photo)

 

The Supreme Court’s recent decision striking down President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose his Liberation Day tariffs has triggered a wave of confusion, celebration, and among Trump’s opponents premature victory laps. The ruling is far narrower than the headlines suggest. Tariffs are not going away. In fact, the Court may have unintentionally strengthened the legal foundation for Trump’s broader trade strategy.

 

Trump retains multiple statutory avenues for imposing tariffs

 

In a 6–3 decision led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that the Constitution assigns tariff authority to Congress, and that the IEEPA, which was designed for national emergencies, was never intended to give presidents unilateral power to levy taxes on imports. As the majority wrote, “Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly.”

 

The ruling emphasized that in nearly 50 years of the statute’s existence, no president has ever used the IEEPA to impose tariffs (despite the fact that there is a long list of tariffs imposed without prior permission from Congress throughout U.S. History), and that Trump’s sweeping measures represented a “transformative expansion” of executive authority. The Court applied the major questions doctrine, concluding that Congress does not delegate such sweeping economic power through vague language.

 

But the Court’s decision applies only to the IEEPA. It does not invalidate Trump’s tariffs themselves, nor does it prevent him from imposing new ones under other laws Congress has already enacted. Roberts’ opinion rested partly on the idea that the IEEPA is a wartime statute, and “we are not at war with every nation in the world.”

 

Trump retains multiple statutory avenues for imposing tariffs.

 

These include:

 

§  The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232), which allows tariffs on imports that threaten national security.

 

§  The Trade Act of 1974, which gives presidents broad authority to respond to unfair foreign trade practices.

 

§  The Tariff Act of 1930 (Smoot-Hawley), still on the books, allowing product‑specific tariffs when imports are subsidized.

 

§  The Fordney‑McCumber Act of 1922, largely superseded but historically relevant to presidential tariff authority.

 

In other words, the ruling changes the legal pathway, not the policy outcome

 

Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent underscored this point directly: “The decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward… numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue.”

 

Justice Clarence Thomas went further, arguing that the IEEPA itself did authorize Trump’s actions and that the majority misapplied both statutory text and constitutional history. His dissent emphasized that Congress has long delegated tariff‑related powers to the executive, especially in foreign affairs.

 

One major question remains unresolved: the billions of dollars in tariff revenue collected under the IEEPA framework. The Court offered no guidance on refunds, leaving the issue to the U.S. Court of International Trade. Hundreds of refund lawsuits are already pending.

 

Justice Kavanaugh warned the aftermath “is likely to be a mess,” with importers potentially seeking retroactive relief.

 

Trump called the ruling a “disgrace,” but immediately announced a backup plan. Within hours, he invoked the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a new 10 percent global tariff, signaling that the White House had anticipated this outcome.

 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reinforced the message:

 

“The Court did not rule against President Trump’s tariffs.”

 

“Six justices simply ruled that IEEPA authorities cannot be used to raise even $1 of revenue.”

 

“We will be leveraging Section 232 and Section 301 tariff authorities… validated through thousands of legal challenges.”

 

In other words, the ruling changes the legal pathway, not the policy outcome.

 

Even CNN’s legal analysts acknowledged that Trump can still impose sweeping tariffs under other statutes. George Washington University Law School professor and legal scholar Jonathan Turley echoed that reality, stating the administration can still impose tariffs through other statutes. “There’s plenty of runway for the Trump White House in this area of economic policy.”

 

Senator Bernie Moreno (R‑OH) is urging Congress to codify Trump’s tariffs through a reconciliation bill, which requires only 51 Senate votes and cannot be filibustered. But the path is uncertain. Several Republican senators oppose tariffs, and the House majority is narrow.

 

Trump’s tariffs have been remarkably effective and constitutional

 

Still, reconciliation remains a viable option to reverse the Court’s ruling legislatively.

 

The stock market rose slightly after the decision, with the Dow, S&P 500, and Nasdaq all ticking upward.

 

The ruling may influence future uses of emergency powers, create short‑term market unpredictability, and open the door to refund litigation. But Trump and his economic team insist that trade agreements will remain stable and that tariffs will continue uninterrupted.

 

Trump has long called “tariff” the most beautiful word in the dictionary, echoing President William McKinley, who championed protective tariffs as a pillar of American prosperity.

 

As I have written before, Trump’s tariffs have been remarkably effective and constitutional. The U.S. trade deficit has fallen to nearly half of what it was when the Liberation Day tariffs were announced in March. Manufacturing is returning to American soil as companies relocate production to avoid tariff penalties. That means more jobs, higher GDP, and lower long‑term costs of doing business.

 

With the midterms approaching, affordability is central to voters. People vote with their wallets. Democrats know this, and their opposition to Trump’s tariff strategy reflects a political calculation as much as an economic one.

 

The Supreme Court did not kill tariffs. It merely closed one door while leaving several others wide open. Trump has already walked through them.

 

The administration is moving “full‑steam ahead,” armed with statutes Congress itself enacted.

 

The only thing the Court’s ruling accomplished was accelerating the pace.

 

Tariffs are not going anywhere. If anything, the fight has only just begun, and the ruling has made President Trump more determined to do what he needs to do to continue to Make America Great Again.

 

Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks.  Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator.  Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.

 

Content is Copyright 1997-2026--the individual authors | Site Copyright 1997-2026 Canada Free Press