GW took communion which precludes him from being a Deist. Also, GW, by taking communion is approving the vicarious blood atonement for sin, which communion represents. He would know from the Bible that he should not take communion unworthily.

I disagree with you here, OFT.
I mean, I understand the point that for orthodox Christians, communion represents Jesus’s sacrifice to atone for mankind’s sin; and I understand that from the orthodox POV, people who do not accept this meaning of communion are not supposed to partake of it — thus, in theory, participating in orthodox communion ought to signify agreement with the orthodox understanding of what communion is.
However, Christians who are extremely heterodox in their overall theological views may also be heterodox with regard to the rules for taking communion!
And Deists — who don’t believe in revealed scripture — may choose to partake or not partake in Christian communion for their own personal reasons (though, obviously, a Deist who partakes of Christian communion is doing so for reasons that an orthodox Christian could not endorse). But whatever the Bible may say about “taking communion unworthily” is not going to be an obstacle for a Deist, because he doesn’t ascribe any special authority to the Bible in the first place.
In short, I would say that GW’s taking of communion simply proves that this act was not in conflict with his beliefs, or at least that it did not conflict with his beliefs to a degree that bothered his conscience.

No deist of the 18th century took communion.

I’m assuming you have some proof to back up this statement?

It strikes me as unconscionable, or perhaps more honestly a political ploy

From the written synopsis at the Wallbuilder site:

In fact, many modern-day historians claim that our nation’s Founders were a diverse group of atheists, deists, and political revolutionaries.

I doubt you’ll find “many” modern-day historians who claim that the Founders were “atheists and deists” while totally forgetting to mention “Christians” at all.
What many historians do claim, instead, is something closer to “deists and Christians were equally well-represented among the Founders.”
Also, some secularist historians have claimed that if Jefferson or Thomas Paine were alive today, then either or both of them might today choose to self-identify as “atheist” — but this hypothetical recognizes that both men in their own day rejected the term “atheist,” although it was a word known to them.

Taking Communion is prima facie evidence for Orthodoxy, given the educated heterodox rejected it. Especially as GW took Communion in the most Orthodox Fundamentalist sect in the 18th century; the Presbyterians. Meaning, GW knew from his upbringing, and from them before He took it, not to partake unless he believed in what it stood for.

Your statement above is absolutely false. Below are several quotes from Pastors of Churches George Washington attended. Attendance at church signified nothing but a social obligation, having nothing to do with beliefs.
Oft, if anyone would know what George Washington did it would be the Pastors of the Church he attended. But, because this might not align with what you want to believe, it might be hard to swallow.

The closing years of his life, save the last two, were passed in Philadelphia, he being then President of the United States. In addition to his eight years’ incumbency of the presidency, he was, during the eight years of the Revolutionary war, and also during the six years that elapsed between the Revolution and the establishment of the Federal government, not only a frequent visitor in Philadelphia, but during a considerable portion of the time a resident of that city. While there he attended the Episcopal churches of which the Rev. William White and the Rev. James Abercromble were rectors. In regard to his being a communicant, no evidence can be so pertinent or so decisive as that of his pastors.
Bishop White, the father of the Protestant Episcopal church of America, is one of the most eminent names in church history. During a large portion of the period covering nearly a quarter of a century, Washington, with his wife, attended the churches in which Bishop White officiated. In a letter dated Fredericksburg, Aug. 13, 1835, Colonel Mercer sent Bishop White the following inquiry relative to this question:
“I have a desire, my dear Sir, to know whether Gen. Washington was a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal church, or whether he occasionally went to the communion only, or if ever he did so at all. … No authority can be so authentic and complete as yours on this point.”
To this inquiry Bishop White replied as follows:
“Philadelphia, Aug. 15, 1835.

“Dear Sir: In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant.
… I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you. I am respectfully.
“Your humble servant,
“WILLIAM WHITE.”
(Memoir of Bishop White, pp. 196, 197).
In a standard Christian authority, Sprague’s “Annals of the American Pulpit,” written and compiled by Rev. Wm. B. Sprague, D.D., is a sketch of the life of Rev. James Abercromble, D.D. In this biographical sketch is to be found some very important evidence from the pen of Washington’s other pastor, pertaining to the subject under consideration. I quote the following:
“One incident in Dr. Abercrombie’s experience as a clergyman, in connection with the Father of his Country, is especially worthy of record; and the following account of it was given by the Doctor himself, in a letter to a friend, in 1831 shortly after there had been some public allusion to it: ‘With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts; that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation — always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants — she invariably being one — I considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it. A few days after, in conversation with, I believe, a senator of the United States, he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who in the course of conversation at table said that on the preceding Sunday he had received a very just reproof from the pulpit for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candor; that he had never sufficiently considered the influence of his example, and that he would not again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal? arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he never afterwards came on the morning of sacramental Sunday, though at other times he was a constant attendant in the morning'” (Annals of the American Pulpit, Vol. v, p. 394).