Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The complexities of Thomas Jefferson have long fascinated historians and constitutional scholars alike. For decades, we’ve been presented with a narrative of contradictions. He was the man who penned “all men are created equal” while enslaving hundreds of human beings. Yet perhaps these apparent contradictions are not paradoxes at all, but rather the natural tensions of a man navigating the complexities of his time with the limited tools available to him. To truly understand Jefferson, we must remove our 2026 hats and don the eighteenth-century perspective he inhabited.
When Jefferson wrote about equality in the Declaration of Independence, he was not espousing the modern concept of equal outcomes. Rather, he articulated a theological principle: that all humans are created equal in God’s eyes, equally endowed with natural rights by their Creator. This equality of divine origin does not imply uniformity of ability or circumstance. Jefferson recognized that humans possess different strengths, weaknesses, experiences, and circumstances; differences that are not only natural but beneficial to society as a whole.
The modern collectivist vision of equality focuses on equalizing outcomes at the finish line, but Jefferson’s conception celebrated the journey itself – the individual pursuit of happiness within one’s circumstances, taking responsibility for one’s decisions, and learning from both triumphs and failures. This is the essence of liberty: that our destination is a direct result of our choices, good or bad, despite the influences and luck that shape our paths.
Jefferson’s life was marked by significant personal challenges that history often glosses over. While considered part of elite society, he was perpetually land-rich and cash-poor, struggling to maintain the image required of his status. He experienced profound personal tragedies during the Revolutionary period, losing his mother, sister, and wife Martha to illness while shouldering the weight of revolutionary responsibilities.
These losses occurred while he was authoring the Declaration of Independence and serving as a diplomat – roles that demanded his full attention. Yet Jefferson, ever the pragmatist, dealt with these tragedies as needed emotionally and then “soldiered forward” to fulfill his public duties. This ability to compartmentalize personal pain while pursuing public service speaks to his remarkable character.
RELATED: JEFFERSON’S LIBERTY, CICERO’S FULFILLMENT
A crucial turning point in Jefferson’s life came in 1773, just over a year into his marriage to Martha, when he inherited approximately 100 slaves and substantial debt from his father-in-law John Wayles. This inheritance created an impossible situation: Jefferson, who already opposed slavery on principle, now found himself legally responsible for more human beings while simultaneously inheriting the financial obligations that made emancipation virtually impossible.
Virginia’s laws at the time made manumission extraordinarily difficult, requiring provisions for the freed slaves that Jefferson simply could not afford. He was trapped by circumstance. He was morally opposed to slavery, yet legally and financially bound to maintain it. This is not contradiction as advertised by modern critics, but the reality of Jefferson’s life. It was simply the kind of difficult situation people face when ideals collide with practical limitations.
The relationship between Jefferson and Sally Hemings has long been the subject of historical debate and moral judgment. Yet here too, context matters. Sally was Martha’s half-sister. She was the daughter of John Wayles and his slave Elizabeth “Betty” Hemings. By all accounts, she resembled Martha, with light skin and straight hair.
When Jefferson took Sally to France as a teenager, she could have claimed her freedom under French law but chose to return to Virginia with him, reportedly after negotiating freedom for her future children. This detail alone suggests a relationship more complex than simple exploitation.
A recent DNA study seems to confirm Jefferson as the father of Hemings’ children, but it doesn’t necessarily reveal the scandal many assume. Rather, it likely reflects a relationship born of proximity, shared grief (Sally resembling his beloved Martha), and the complicated dynamics of eighteenth-century life, where boundaries between master and slave were sometimes blurred by genuine human connection.
Evidence suggests Jefferson maintained relatively good relationships with his enslaved workers. When he returned from France, a group reportedly carried him up the hill to Monticello on their shoulders. Upon his death, one slave remained by his side until his final breath; actions difficult to explain if Jefferson were universally despised.
This doesn’t excuse slavery or minimize its horrors, but it does challenge simplistic narratives of pure oppression. Jefferson seems to have viewed his enslaved workers as something between family and employees. People for whom he was responsible, even while recognizing the moral wrongness of their legal status.
Jefferson consistently advocated for gradual emancipation rather than immediate abolition. He believed that people who had only known slavery would struggle to navigate freedom successfully. I suppose one might compare the situation to animals raised in captivity who cannot survive in the wild without learning necessary skills.
RELATED: HAMILTON VS. JEFFERSON
This position, while paternalistic by modern standards, reflected his pragmatic approach to social change. He wanted desperately for slavery to end but believed it must happen through a process that prepared both enslaved people and society for the transition. Though he hoped to see this accomplished in his lifetime, circumstances prevented it.
The modern tendency to view history through an oppressor/oppressed lens prevents genuine understanding. When I once explained to three young black women that most Founding Fathers actually believed in the eventual abolition of slavery, one called me “ignorant” and threw my materials back at me. This reaction illustrates how the collectivist mindset has replaced critical thinking with moral certainty.
Frederick Douglass himself evolved from viewing the Constitution as pro-slavery to recognizing its anti-slavery principles. This transformation demonstrates the importance of approaching history with openness rather than certainty, with questions rather than answers.
Thomas Jefferson was neither saint nor villain but a human being navigating extraordinary circumstances with the limited tools available to him. He was a brilliant thinker who articulated principles that transcended his time while practicing behaviors that reflected its limitations.
Understanding Jefferson requires us to embrace context rather than judgment, and complexity rather than simplicity. It requires us to recognize that two things can be true simultaneously: Jefferson was a slaveowner who hated slavery, a man who believed in equality while practicing inequality. These aren’t contradictions but realities – the kind of tensions all humans face when ideals collide with circumstances.
In the end, Jefferson’s story is not about paradox but about humanity: flawed, fallible, yet striving toward ideals that exceeded his grasp. His legacy teaches us that understanding requires context, that judgment requires humility, and that history’s greatest lessons often lie not in the moral certainties we impose upon the past, but in the nuanced realities we discover when we dare to look beyond the surface.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
California Democrats have constructed a legislative fortress around their election practices, attempting to criminalize any scrutiny of their processes while claiming to protect voting rights. The reality is far more sinister – they’re systematically shielding potential fraud from both local and federal investigators.
Consider the evidence: Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco seized ballots in 2025 regarding what appeared to be a rigged redistricting election. California’s response? They sued him, then made it a felony to “interfere with” or “illegally seize” ballots. This wasn’t about protecting voters – it was about protecting potential fraudsters.
Now, as President Trump’s federal government begins investigating California’s election practices, the state’s Democratic legislature has proposed new bills to stop “Trump’s attacks on vote-by-mail.” These include:
AB 282 (Pellerin): Makes it a felony to seize ballots, election records, or certified voting technology before certification
AB 1664 (Jackson): Requires immediate notification to state officials if law enforcement investigates election materials
SB 1418 (Cervantes): Criminalizes taking election materials from officials’ custody
These laws aren’t just about preventing federal oversight – they’re designed to make investigating potential election fraud a criminal act. This follows California’s earlier legalization of ballot harvesting, a practice banned in most states as vulnerable to fraud.
The hypocrisy is staggering. The same Democratic Party that used federal resources to access Republican records during the Biden administration now claims they’re protecting voting rights. The same party that weaponized January 6th to paint all Republicans as insurrectionists now fears federal agents near polling places. They are even claiming that President Trump plans to declare martial law during the upcoming midterm elections.
In their latest move, Democratic leaders filed a 29-page complaint asking a federal judge to keep armed federal agents away from polling places, claiming Trump seeks to intimidate voters. Yet Homeland Security Chief Markwayne Mullin clarified: “The only reason why we would be at polling places is if there is a threat to that polling place or we’re serving a warrant.”
White House border czar Tom Homan confirmed: “I have not seen any operational plans or any discussions on any immigration enforcement operation at polling places.”
Perhaps most revealing was FBI Director Patel’s testimony: “The FBI will follow the law. If there’s a reason to go there because there’s been a violation of the law, we will. Otherwise, we won’t.” He added that the FBI has “election crisis coordinators manned at all 56 field offices” because “election integrity is of paramount importance.”
That last point terrifies California Democrats. They can’t afford anyone sniffing around their election processes – otherwise, their carefully constructed system of potential fraud might be exposed.
This isn’t about protecting voting rights; it’s about protecting a system that has allowed Democrats to maintain power through questionable means. They’ve made investigating election fraud illegal while simultaneously making ballot harvesting legal. They’ve weaponized the legal system to prevent oversight while claiming to “protect democracy.”
The question isn’t whether California Democrats are cheating – they’ve made that legal. The question is whether Americans will allow them to continue building an impenetrable fortress around their election practices, or demand the transparency and oversight that true and honest electoral processes require.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Found at https://protrumpnews.com/trump-shares-top-25-trump-accomplishments-of-term-three/
- Secure Border
- Laken Riley Act (Get dangerous criminal aliens off the streets)
- Lowest Murder Rate in the U.S. Ever Recorded
- Largest Tax Cuts in American History
- Over $19 Trillion in new investments in the United States
- Used Tariffs to stop global redistribution of wealth
- Stock Market All-Time Record Highs
- More Americans Working than any time in history
- Largest investment in U.S. Military
- Brought Venezuela Dictator Maduro to Justice
- Ended Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions
- Standing up to Drug Cartels, Fentanyl flow into U.S. reduced by 60%
- Most Favored Nation agreements reduced drug prices 300-600%
- Terminated failed progressive energy scams, increased domestic energy operations
- Ended EV Mandate and other crippling regulations on American Automobiles
- American Exports at highest level in history
- Abolished DEI policies
- Banned men from playing in women’s sports
- Banned transgender ideology and critical race theory in our schools
- Launched Trump Accounts
- Settled 8 Wars
- Negotiated freedom for living hostages held by Gaza
- Halted all refugee admissions to the United States
- Restored Law and Order in Major Cities (Washington, Memphis, New Orleans)
- Made English the Official Language of the United States
More is on the way…
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Cuban electrical grid collapsed again. Such is the folly of communism. Socialism and its cousins (collectivism, communism, utopianism, communitarianism) fail every time in history because, as Thomas Sowell has explained, “it ignores the fundamental economic problem of knowledge distribution.” No central authority can possibly possess the dispersed knowledge required to run an economy effectively. When prices are eliminated as signals of scarcity and value, as happens under communism, resources become allocated disastrously. Rather than the equality it promises, socialism always gives to the new elite class of party officials while the masses suffer shortages, poverty, a breakdown of institutions and infrastructure, and loss of freedom.
Ayn Rand experienced the Bolshevik Revolution firsthand, and explained in “Atlas Shrugged” that communism fails because it violates human nature. For Rand, communism is fundamentally immoral because it sacrifices the individual to the collective and denies the virtue of self-interest. Rational self-interest is not only moral, but practical. Human beings thrive when they are free to pursue their own values and keep the fruits of their labor. Socialism’s demand for a rejection of individualism and individual natural rights inevitably leads to economic stagnation and spiritual decay. When you remove the incentive of achievement, you remove achievement itself.
Therefore, communism requires force because it must compel people to act against their own interests. Socialism always becomes authoritarian because it must crush dissent to maintain control. Liberty does not need to be enforced because people don’t need to be forced to do what is in their best interest. The forceful authoritarianism of socialism is always accompanied by fear and guilt – to quell any refusal to allow government to take complete control over the economy.
In the end, the choice is always either poverty or imprisonment. Choice, innovation, and individualism become crimes against the state.
Current progressive policies mirror the policies of socialism/communism that destroyed Venezuela’s economy, and has brought Cuba to its knees with failing power grids and a need to shed its communist imprisonment. The same flawed premises that doomed the Soviet Union, Venezuela, and Cuba now animates today’s American Democratic Party. The belief that government can allocate resources better than a free market and free individuals, the demonization of success and innovation, and the promise of equity of outcome rather than equality of opportunity all point to the same failed ideas of fallen communist systems of history. The progressives and democratic socialists have simply repackaged the failed Marxist ideas that destroyed those other countries, painting them as fair wealth taxes that are nothing more than a Marxist redistribution of wealth, saving the planet with the Green New Deal which is nothing more than saying the way to save the planet is to place all energy decisions in the hands of a centralized government, and that we must fight against racism with critical race theory which is nothing more than communism’s strategy of class warfare.
Unfortunately, the younger generation has no memory of communism’s bloody history, and we are no longer teaching it because the communists in the education system have cut that part of history out of their lessons.
Cuba is suffering from a failing electrical grid because communism fails across the board. It violates human nature, economic reality, and the moral requirement that individuals be free to pursue their own happiness. The historical record shows that wherever communism has been fully implemented, it has produced not prosperity, but poverty. Not equality, but a new ruling class. Not freedom, but oppression.
Meanwhile, in America a growing number of Americans are falling for the deception of socialism. A recent poll found that 31 percent of people have a favorable view of socialism. Among those 18 to 29 years old, socialism had a positive approval rating. Among college graduates, 49% approval.
President Donald Trump is not only trying to make sure America doesn’t fall into the trap of communism, he’s also attempting to pull Cuba out of it – which makes sense considering they are only 90 miles off the coast of Florida.
“We want to help Cuba,” President Trump said. “We want to open Cuba up to our people.” At the United Nations he called Cuba a “failed state,” at which the communist Cuban delegation walked out.
Trump said that Cuba has “spent decades coordinating with the left-wing radicals and communist networks here in the United States.” He cited the U.S. State Department, which has stated that Cuba has “cultivated ties to subversive and radical groups” that include the Communist Party USA, Antifa, and the Democratic Socialists of America.
“Communism will never be coming to America, but freedom will be coming to Cuba,” Trump said.
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez said later on Sept. 26 that Cuba remains open to dialogue and commercial ties with the United States.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In Article I of the U.S. Constitution, and again in the Fourteenth Amendment, when the document discusses apportionment, it states that “Indians not taxed” are exempt. In other words, Indians who are still subject to the jurisdiction of their tribes are not to be counted for the purpose of apportionment for the House of Representatives. They are subject to a foreign power, and are not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States, even though technically they reside within the borders of the United States of America.
The lesson is that anyone who may be inside the national boundaries of the United States, but they are still subject to a foreign power, are not to be counted in the census towards how many representatives in Congress a state may receive.
In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling regarding Department of Commerce v. New York blocked the Trump administration’s addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, finding the addition of the question in the manner it was being presented and how it would be enforced unconstitutional by a vote of 5-4. Note that the High Court did not say that asking about citizenship was inherently unconstitutional. The problem was, according to the court, the government did not supply a genuine and lawful justification for adding the question.
Now, in 2026, Trump’s administration has formulated a new rationale. They proposed a rule that would require the Census Bureau to count only U.S. citizens and green card holders for apportionment purposes in the 2030 Census. If implemented, and if it survives the inevitability of a storm of lawsuits from the progressive left, the rule would prevent illegal immigration from distorting the political map. The population-based districts and therefore the number of representatives each state receives (which also, incidentally, influences the Electoral College) would be based only upon the number of citizens and permanent residents in the districts, eliminating the sway of foreign influence and the impact of sanctuary jurisdictions, which has been diluting Americans’ voting power for decades.
The rule is based on a modification of the Census Bureau’s “residence criteria,” which changes the “foreigners living in” the U.S. rule to “only dual nationals or lawful permanent residents would be counted at their usual residence” for apportionment.
On a common sense platform, illegal aliens and other foreigners who are in the United States but are not permanent residents “are not true inhabitants, members of the body politic, or persons with a ‘usual residence’ in the United States due to their lack of a sufficient tie and allegiance.” On a constitutional platform, while they may reside inside the boundaries of the United States, they are subject to a foreign power and may not participate in influencing apportionment or elections due to the limitations in the United States Constitution.
During the fight over the SAVE America Act, the proposed rule marks the latest attempt to place our elections on a proper course, and eliminate foreign influence when it comes to the apportionment of representatives in the House of Representatives. This latest move reflects Trump’s experience dealing with the Supreme Court, and in particular after the case in 2019. During his first term President Trump sought to stop foreign influence by executive order or executive action, launching his opponents into advocacy against him with the claim that the President may not unilaterally exclude certain classes of non-citizens from the Census. So, now he’s pursuing his goals through regulation, and with the kinds of tweaks that ought to survive judicial scrutiny. While, as a constitutionalist, I do not necessarily support the kind of power the federal court system wields regarding this issue, the reality is that the avenue to get it to happen travels through the judiciary.
The proposed rule also contemplates potentially adding a question regarding a respondent’s “legal status.” I figure most respondents who are illegally in the country would not answer honestly, but then again wouldn’t answering in a deceptive manner be considered a criminal act? I don’t know the answer to that one, nor do I know if the Trump administration will prevail on this issue, but the truth is the Trump administration is in line with the Constitution and ought to continue to pursue their attempt to resolve the matters regarding apportionment and elections. In fact, I believe the future of our republic depends upon it.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Kennedy Center Derangement Syndrome
By Douglas V. Gibbs
When President Donald J. Trump decided to make the White House better with a ballroom, his opponents screamed bloody-murder, even though for the first time in history a renovation to the White House was not going to cost the taxpayers one red cent. It didn’t matter than every president has had work done in one way or another to the White House to fit their presidency. It didn’t matter that President Trump, for the first time in history, was going to give the White House a much needed renovation without spending a single tax dollar – instead using his own private money and donors’ dollars to fund the project. The truth didn’t matter. It appalled them because it was an idea that Trump had come up with.
Scott Baio once said, “Trump could cure cancer, and they’d accuse him of putting oncologists out of work.”
RELATED: “HEALTHCARE, NOT BALLROOM”: A SIGN OF OUR TIMES
Now, Trump Derangement Syndrome has moved to the Kennedy Center. Officially the “John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.” The center is considered the natural cultural center of the United States and to the Democrats it is a living memorial to President John F. Kenney. It opened in 1971, and serves as a performing arts venue for theater, ballet, modern dance, classical music, jazz, pop, and folk music. It serves as the home of the National Symphony Orchestra. The location hosts thousands of events and performances each year, including touring Broadway shows and orchestral concerts. It also features free daily performances at the Millennium Stage in the Grand Foyer. It is best known for the annual Kennedy Center Honors, which recognize artists for their lifetime contributions to American culture.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the National Cultural Center Act on September 2, 1958 (Public Law 85-874) so that a “National Cultural Center” may be built in the District of Columbia. The Act established the Center as an independently administered bureau of the Smithsonian Institution. Initial legislation mandated the funds for construction be raised by independent contributions, rather than federal appropriations. The intention, if followed, would truly make the center something that belonged to the people. However, the idea turned out to be an obstacle, and by the early 1960s, the project was still only a thought and in danger of being abandoned due to a lack of funding.
President John F. Kennedy resurrected the project, recognizing the Cold War implications of American cultural projection. He appointed new leadership to the fundraising effort, and called upon Congress to support the issue.
ENJOYING THE CONTENT? DROP A FEW COINS IN THE TIP JAR…
When President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, the trajectory of the National Cultural Center was again in danger. Congress picked up the baton and decided the project needed to be finished as a living memorial to the late president. January 23, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the John F, Kennedy Center Act (Public Law 88-260), amending the previous act renaming the still uncompleted project the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, also designating the Center as a national monument, and allowing for federal matching of funds to supplement private fundraising.
President Johnson broke ground on December 2, 1964. Site excavation and foundation work began in 1965, and continued into 1966. After years of construction, the center made its public debut on September 8, 1971, with a gala premiere in the Opera House. The Concert Hall opened the following night, and the Eisenhower Theater opened on October 18, 1971.
Early on in the second term of his presidency, President Trump took interest in the Kennedy Center, promising to bring the 54-year-old performing arts complex out of disrepair. The board agreed, releasing documentation that described the Center as experiencing “decades of deferred maintenance and critical infrastructure needs.” President Trump and the board reported the Center required a $257 million renovation effort, and provided a detailed look at the condition of the venue to back up their claim. To make the renovations happen, the center would need to be closed as long as two years. Democrats voted against the closure, and protesters began to scream against the plan.
President Trump’s interest in the Center led to the board, who President Trump is head of, voting to add Donald Trump’s name to the center, and the protests became even louder.
RELATED: A SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND LIBERTY: TRUMP’S BIG BALLROOM, AND A HISTORY OF WHITE HOUSE RENOVATIONS
Officials have warned that if the repairs are not done, the building would reach an “end-of-life” moment, and would need to be completely demolished.
The Democrats claimed they didn’t vote against repairs, just the closure. Their attitude was for the center to be kept open as it is being worked on. Trump argued that closing the building is absolutely necessary to complete the work efficiently. “If we don’t close, the quality of construction will not be nearly as good,” Trump said.
In response, a lawsuit was filed against renovations, arguing that major changes could affect the historic integrity of the building.
Executive Director of the Board for the Center Matt Floca responded that nothing was changing. The JFK bust will stay where it is, the marble exterior will remain, “The memorial at large will stay the same.”
The protesters raged. The Democrats raged. They all called Trump a liar, and demanded the center not be closed, it wasn’t in as bad of shape as he was saying, and he was doing it all for his own narcissistic desire to have his name on the center and have his back patted.
Then, during a storm, a part of the ceiling fell – and if people had been in the building for an event, there would have been injuries, and perhaps deaths.
Did the anti-Trump mob finally say, “Okay, a guy who’s been in construction his entire life might know what he’s talking about?”
No. The protests intensified.
The sub-headline at Breitbart reads: “Hundreds of people descended on the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, Friday to protest President Donald Trump’s attempts to renovate and reconstruct it, even though it was recently shut down due to safety concerns.”
Are these people stupid, or something?
RELATED: PRESIDENT TRUMP’S WHITE HOUSE BALLROOM & SCHUMER’S HYPOCRISY
ABC News reported that the protesters assembled outside the Kennedy Center calling for President Trump to be removed as chairman of the center’s board for “failing to protect and manage it.”
That’s all President Trump has been trying to do… protect and manage it. But, in return, he has gotten nothing but political attacks, lawsuits, and protests for trying to do what’s right.
They even formed their own group: The “Hands Off the Arts” organization.
During the most recent protest the leftist protesters gave musical performances, testimonials, speeches, and a concluded with a human chain around the building like a bunch of tree-hugging environmentalists.
What are they trying to save? The building is on the verge of needing to be condemned, Trump has plans to save it, and they are basically screaming “leave it alone and let it rot.”
Meanwhile, despite the protests, “The Board of The Kennedy Center today agreed, almost unanimously, to close the Building for Safety reasons, and so that it can begin the process of Reconstruction. The closing will take place immediately, however, the Renovation and Reconstruction, which is a very large and complex job, cannot begin until such time as the D.C. Circuit rules on the Board’s approved name. If the ruling is a negative one, which it should not be, and is not overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Reconstruction and the Renovation of The Kennedy Center will not take place. The attorneys from the DOJ will ask for an expedited appeal. In the meantime, 17 Million Dollars, raised by President Trump, has been put into The Kennedy Center account to keep it afloat. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”
RELATED: KENNEDY CENTER DAMAGE PROVES TRUMP CORRECT
A chunk of its ceiling fell, and Trump is basically saying that the board put his name on the center due to his work to save it, and so if his name is going to be there due to his efforts for the renovation then that’s the price of renovation. Keep the name of Trump on it, or let it rot and fall – after which a new one would likely be built without Kennedy’s name also on it.
The idiot protesters shouted, “Hands Off! Hands Off!”
ENJOYING THE CONTENT? DROP A FEW COINS IN THE TIP JAR…
If Biden or Obama or any other president had ordered the closure and renovations, they would be celebrating it and saying, “It’s about time” and gladly add their Democratic president’s name to the signage. But because President Trump wishes to fix the malfunction and disrepair beneath the halls and stages, the anti-Trump crowd’s Trump Derangement Syndrome kicked into high gear, and gave us more proof that they don’t care about what’s right, what’s reasonable, what makes sense, or what ought to be done – if Trump is behind it, they are against it.
Breitbart reported in August that “A recent legal filing made by the Trump administration says the Kennedy Center is ‘structurally unsound, fundamentally unsafe, and embarrassing to the Nation’s Capital,’ arguing in favor of an ambitious renovation of the building.” At this point, only fools can actually believe that closing down the center and renovating it is a bad idea.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary