Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The brazen defense of shoplifting by privileged elites reveals a deeper rot in our national character. When a New Yorker writer living in a $2.5 million Brooklyn brownstone can boast on a New York Times podcast about stealing from Whole Foods without remorse, we’re witnessing not just isolated hypocrisy but a fundamental rejection of the moral foundations that once sustained American liberty.
This phenomenon, dubbed “microlooting,” is presented as righteous resistance against corporate excess. Jia Tolentino and her fellow leftists argue that stealing from big corporations is justified because “the rich don’t play by the rules, so why should I?” Yet as real working-class New Yorkers like Andrea Jones from public housing correctly observed, “She is hurting me, she is not helping me.” The costs of such theft inevitably fall on consumers through higher prices, while the wealthy perpetrators face no consequences.
What we’re witnessing is the logical endpoint of decades of moral subversion – a systematic infiltration of Marxist ideology into our most cherished institutions. This isn’t random lawlessness but the predictable result of an educational system that has taught generations that all ethics are socially constructed, that property rights are instruments of oppression, and that individual conscience supersedes objective moral truth.
America’s Founding Fathers understood that liberty without virtue becomes license. John Adams wrote that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Similarly, Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the 1830s that religion in America functioned as “the first of their political institutions” – not through government control, but by providing the moral framework necessary for self-governance. He warned that America would endure only so long as it remained “good and religious,” and that tyranny would emerge when the United States moved away from its moral foundation.
We are now living in de Tocqueville’s prophesied moment. The microlooting phenomenon represents a fundamental rejection of the Christian ethic that stealing is inherently wrong regardless of the victim’s wealth. It embodies the moral relativism that declares right and wrong to be determined by one’s perceived victimhood status rather than objective moral principles. This is precisely how communism historically gains cultural footholds, by eroding respect for private property and rule of law through incremental normalization.
The Marxist infiltration has been methodical and brilliant in its execution. By capturing academia first, they’ve produced generations of teachers, journalists, and even clergy who have been inoculated against traditional values. The Frankfurt School’s strategy of “the long march through the institutions” has been devastatingly effective. They understood that to destroy a civilization, you must first detach it from its transcendent moral framework.
When Hasan Piker argues that corporations “factor in theft” and therefore stealing is acceptable, he’s promoting moral anarchy where individual conscience replaces established law. When leftists frame theft as virtuous resistance rather than criminal behavior, they’re engaging in the cultural subversion that has been eroding our country from within.
The hypocrisy is staggering. Wealthy elites like Tolentino advocate for stealing from corporations while living in luxury that the very system they condemn has provided them. As one Reddit commenter aptly noted, “You’re not hurting the corporations. The consequences are felt by the workers who get grilled about their location’s shrinkage numbers and the rest of us that now have to push a button and wait for someone to come unlock the toothpaste cabinet.”
This spiritual battle disguised as political turmoil demands more than legislative solutions. We cannot regulate our way back to moral clarity. The path forward requires something like a great awakening; a restoration of the understanding that rights come from God rather than government, that there is objective moral truth, and that individuals are called to personal virtue rather than revolutionary action against perceived oppression.
The question becomes: how do we foster such an awakening when so many of our institutions have been compromised? The answer begins with recognizing that political solutions alone are insufficient. How can we get our political house in order if we don’t get our religious house in order?
This awakening must begin in our homes and communities, where parents and grandparents pass on not just political values but moral and spiritual truths to the next generation. It requires supporting churches and religious institutions that remain faithful to biblical principles rather than capitulating to cultural pressures. It demands educational alternatives that teach both critical thinking and moral absolutes.
We must also courageously speak the truth, calling out hypocrisy wherever we find it, whether in corporate boardrooms, editorial offices, or academic departments. We must support businesses that uphold traditional values and boycott those that actively undermine them.
Most importantly, we must model the virtues we wish to see restored: personal integrity, respect for property rights, compassion for the genuinely disadvantaged, and an unwavering commitment to truth. The microlooting phenomenon thrives in an environment of moral relativism; it withers when confronted by individuals who live according to principle rather than convenience.
The battle for America’s soul is not lost, but it is urgent. Each small act of moral courage contributes to the larger awakening our country so desperately needs. The Founding Fathers established this republic on a Christian foundation with the expectation that we would remain a moral and religious people. It is time to reclaim that heritage, not through coercion or government mandate, but through the voluntary restoration of individual character and collective virtue through our culture.
The choice before us is clear: we can continue down the path of moral relativism that leads to tyranny, or we can rediscover the principles that made America exceptional. The future of liberty depends not on who controls Congress or the White House, but on whether enough Americans choose to order their lives according to transcendent moral truth rather than the shifting sands of cultural fashion.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Mother’s Day is a special day that has been set aside to honor mothers. It is a day celebrated across the globe. The modern version of Mother’s Day originated in the United States, observed on the second Sunday in May.
Setting aside a special day to honor mothers, and mothering, has been a part of every culture. Mothers birth us into the world, bring us into our family, teach us and nurture us along the way. They listen, and provide words of wisdom when they can. They are the ones who picked us up when we fell, and unconditionally loved us when we journeyed astray.
Festivals and days of the year honoring mothers, and mother goddesses, go back to ancient times. During the Middle Ages a custom developed visiting one’s mother on Laetare Sunday, the fourth Sunday of Lent. In Britain the custom became “Mothering Sunday.” In the United States the modern version of Mother’s Day was established by Anna Jarvis of Philadelphia whose mother was an organizer of various women’s groups who promoted friendship and health. May 12, 1907, she held a memorial service for her late mother in Grafton, West Virginia. Over the next five years the day began to be observed by nearly every state, and in 1914 President Woodrow Wilson called for the day to become a national holiday.
On Mother’s Day florists are on high alert. Restaurants are filled with families enjoying their time with Mom. For some of us, we face Mother’s Day without our mother residing on earth, anymore. For those, it is a time of remembrance, and introspection.
Mothers are life-bearers, a unique gift from God. Our mother gave us life, and in return, at least once per year, we express our gratitude on a special day, honoring her with gifts and a visit, or a phone call when she is far away like my mother is.
Jarvis promoted wearing a white carnation as a tribute to one’s mother. The custom that developed and changed to a red or pink carnation to represent a living mother, or a white carnation for a mother who was deceased. Over time the custom of honoring one’s mother began to include those who served in mothering roles, such as grandmothers, or aunts. Over time the sending of cards and the giving of gifts became synonymous with the day. Bothered by the commercialization of Mother’s Day, Jarvis spent the final years of her life seeking to abolish the holiday.
- Proverbs 1:8-9: “Pay close attention, my child, to your father’s wise words and never forget your mother’s instructions. For their insight will bring you success, adorning you with grace-filled thoughts and giving you reins to guide your decisions.”
- Ephesians 6:1-3: “Children, if you want to be wise, listen to your parents and do what they tell you, and the Lord will help you. For the commandment, “Honor your father and your mother,” was the first of the Ten Commandments with a promise attached: “You will prosper and live a long, full life if you honor your parents.”
- Proverbs 31:10: “Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.”
- Isaiah 66:13: “As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you.”
- Isaiah 49:15: “Can a mother forget her nursing child? Can she feel no love for the child she has borne?”
- Proverbs 31:25: “She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come.”
- Proverbs 31:26: “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.”
- Proverbs 31:28–29: “Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: ‘Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all.'”
- Deuteronomy 6:6–7: “And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.”
- Proverbs 31:31: “Honor her for all that her hands have done, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.”
- Psalm 139:13-14: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.”
- Genesis 3:20: “The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.”
- 1 Peter 3:4: “You should be known for the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God.”
- Deuteronomy 4:9: “Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them fade from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them.”
- Luke 2:51: “And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart.”
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The central constitutional debate surrounding the Trump presidency hinges on a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes the Rule of Law. Critics who accuse Trump of violating this principle operate from a distorted definition that equates judicial rulings with the law itself. This conflation represents a dangerous departure from the Founders’ original intent and from the true foundation upon which American liberty rests. The Rule of Law, properly understood, is not whatever judges declare it to be in any given moment, nor is it merely the collection of statutes enacted by legislatures. As Thomas Jefferson articulated in the Declaration of Independence, the authentic Rule of Law is grounded in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” – a moral and legal order that pre-exists government and stands above the will of rulers, judges, or shifting public opinion. It is a framework rooted in objective moral reality, binding on both the governed and those who govern, discovered rather than invented by man.
This distinction between the true Rule of Law and what I term the Rule of Man becomes starkly apparent when examining the philosophical foundations of each. The Rule of Law is inherent by the Creator, self-evident, applies universally, existed before the emergence of governments, applies individually, is based on moral principles, is unalienable, and is affected by an individual’s pursuits. By contrast, the Rule of Man is provided by government, made evident by the ruling class, applies variably based on the whims of those in power, applies collectively, is based on secularism and relativism, is separable by government mandate, and quells individual pursuits in the name of manufactured concepts of equality or equity. The modern left’s critique of Trump reveals their allegiance to this latter framework; one where judicial pronouncements and bureaucratic edicts carry more weight than the Constitution’s text and the natural law principles upon which it rests.
The Founding Fathers deliberately designed a constitutional system to prevent the very judicial tyranny we now witness. They had watched British judges operate as rubber stamps for the Crown, enforcing political will rather than the law, which shaped their debates at the Constitutional Convention. Even then, the Framers rejected the idea that courts should be the final arbiters of the law or the Constitution. Judicial review, as we now know it, was not granted in the Constitution but was later asserted by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Over time, political elites and the legal class accepted this assertion, and the judiciary gradually elevated itself above the other branches. We have drifted into the same trap the colonists faced under the British Empire: believing that a black robe confers superior wisdom and that judges exist to define the law rather than apply it.
From an originalist perspective, the Trump presidency’s constitutional approach represents a restoration of the Rule of Law. When President Trump questioned judicial rulings that appeared to contradict the Constitution’s text or the natural law principles underlying it, he was not defying the Rule of Law but defending it against judicial encroachment. The Constitution embodies a natural-law framework; its meaning is fixed because the truths it rests upon are fixed. The Rule of Law is fidelity to those moral limits on government – limits that exist to secure God-given rights. When courts rule from ideology rather than law, issue universal injunctions as political weapons, or attempt to micromanage executive functions seeking predetermined outcomes rather than applying objective legal standards, they are the ones violating the Rule of Law, not those who resist such overreach.
The American constitutional system was established as a republic based on the Rule of Law, not a democracy based on the will of the majority or the pronouncements of unelected judges. As James Madison articulated in Federalist No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” The federal government was created to handle external issues and disputes between states, not to dominate every aspect of American life. When President Trump sought to restore this proper balance of powers, pushing back against judicial activism, administrative overreach, and federal encroachment on matters properly left to the states or the people, he was acting in perfect accordance with the constitutional design.
Ultimately, the accusation that Trump violated the Rule of Law by questioning judicial rulings reveals a profound misunderstanding of both the Constitution and the nature of law itself. The Rule of Law collapses when the Constitution is treated as a “living” document rather than the fixed compact it was designed to be, when precedent replaces principle, or when natural rights are redefined by elite opinion rather than natural law. President Trump’s presidency, far from representing a threat to the Rule of Law, constitutes a necessary corrective to decades of judicial activism and administrative overreach that has steadily eroded the constitutional foundations of American liberty. The true defenders of the Rule of Law are not those who blindly accept every judicial pronouncement, but those who insist that human law must align with the pre-existing moral architecture of the universe; a truth that remains constant regardless of which political party temporarily holds power.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Constitution Radio:
Live: https://www.kmet1490am.com/
Program Videos: https://vimeo.com/showcase/11537183
Classic Podcast Page on SoundCloud (for pre-2022 episodes)
★ I am on the road, so we will be replaying last week’s episode.
Meanwhile, on Mr. Constitution Hour on KPRZ and KCBQ:
| A loss of advertising and a failure to receive funding has finally brought Mr. Constitution Hour to an end… this is the final episode on the Salem Media stations in San Diego. Mr. Constitution Hour KCBQ 1170 AM/96.1 FM at 8 pm and KPRZ 1210 AM/106.1 FM, Saturday at 8 pm (All Times Pacific) |
 Mr. Constitution Hour Saturday Night at 8pm Pacific Time. 8:00 PM: KCBQ The Answer San Diego (https://theanswersandiego.com/) and KPRZ K-Praise (www.kprz.com) This Week: Mr. Constitution Hour by Douglas V. Gibbs: Final Episode – A sign caught my attention on an overpass showing how unreasonable Trump’s opposition is. It read, “Healthcare, Not Ballroom.” Doug explains why it is ignorant, to say the least. Then, Mr. Constitution discusses the echo chamber of the political bubble – using the pronunciation of the term gerrymander. Finally, Doug discusses the anti-Christian bias of the Biden administration as discovered by Trump’s Department of Justice. |
 |
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The California hospice system has been plagued by extensive fraud that has exploited vulnerable patients and cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Recent investigations have revealed that state officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, were aware of these issues for years but failed to implement adequate oversight mechanisms. The reality is, nobody has been examining the systemic failures in California’s hospice regulation, the scale of fraud that occurred, the delayed response from state officials, and the policy implications of this regulatory breakdown until now – and I suppose we can thank Minnesota and Nick Shirley for it finally bubbling to the surface. The information we are now encountering draws primarily on a damning 2022 audit report that directly warned the Newsom administration about these issues, as well as subsequent enforcement actions and federal investigations.
The California hospice industry experienced explosive growth between 2010 and 2021, with the number of hospice agencies increasing by an astonishing 1,589% while the aged population grew by only 40% during the same period. This disproportionate expansion occurred within a regulatory framework that was fundamentally ill-equipped to provide adequate oversight. The California Department of Public Health had failed to issue regulations for its hospice licensing process despite having had the authority to do so since 1991, creating a permissive environment that facilitated widespread fraud.
The audit report addressed to Governor Newsom in 2022 explicitly warned that “the state’s weak oversight of hospice agencies has created opportunities for large-scale abuse and fraud.” This warning was not merely theoretical but was based on concrete evidence of regulatory failure and suspicious industry patterns that had been developing for years.
The fraud in California’s hospice system manifested in several distinct patterns that were clearly identifiable in the data. One of the most striking indicators was the excessive geographic clustering of hospices, with sometimes dozens of separately licensed agencies located in the same building. In Los Angeles County, auditors identified 210 active hospice agencies located within one mile of each other on Van Nuys alone; a concentration that defied any legitimate explanation based on patient demographics or healthcare needs.
Another red flag was the abnormally high rates of still living patients discharged from hospice care, despite hospice typically offering care for people expected to live six months or less. This anomaly suggested that patients were being inappropriately enrolled in hospice services solely for billing purposes. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. later confirmed this pattern, noting that investigators identified fraudulent operations because “the patients never died” despite being enrolled in end-of-life care.
The financial scope of this fraud was substantial. According to the House Oversight Committee, providers in Los Angeles County were overbilling Medicare by at least $105 million in a single year. The fraudulent scheme involved signing up patients, creating patient IDs, and charging approximately $6,000 monthly for each patient, regardless of whether they actually received hospice services. In some cases, these “hospices” existed only on paper, with physical locations that were completely abandoned, as evidenced by months of undelivered mail piled up at addresses that had supposedly passed state surveys.
Perhaps most concerning about the hospice fraud crisis is that state officials were explicitly warned about these problems but failed to take decisive action. The 87-page audit completed in 2022 and addressed directly to Governor Newsom detailed multiple indicators of potential fraud and provided clear recommendations for addressing them. Despite these warnings, the California Department of Public Health had never suspended a hospice license and had revoked a hospice license only once since 2015.
The audit also revealed that even when public health officials became aware of possible fraud during the licensing process, they still granted licenses to these hospice agencies rather than denying them. This regulatory negligence occurred despite the auditor’s conclusion that “a network, or networks of individual perpetrators in Los Angeles County are engaging in a large and organized effort to defraud the Medicare and Medi-Cal hospice programs.”
The failure to implement proper licensing oversight was compounded by the absence of basic regulatory standards. As Sheila Clark, a hospice industry observer, questioned: “How did that happen? How do you put a hospice in a burrito stand in California? How do you put a hospice in a tire store in California that all had to be vetted through licensure and through certification and accreditation?” These examples illustrate the absurd extremes to which the regulatory breakdown had extended.
While Governor Newsom did eventually sign legislation in 2021 imposing a moratorium on new hospice licenses, this action came years after the fraud patterns had become established and only after extensive public reporting on the issue. The moratorium, which remains in place but is set to expire, was a belated response to a crisis that could have been addressed much earlier had state officials acted on the warnings they received.
The delayed response has significant policy implications for regulatory oversight of healthcare programs. It demonstrates how regulatory capture and bureaucratic inertia can enable systemic fraud to flourish even when red flags are apparent and explicitly documented. The California case also illustrates the importance of implementing proactive oversight mechanisms rather than reactive enforcement after substantial financial damage has already occurred.
The House Oversight Committee’s investigation into the matter highlights the federal concern about state failures to protect taxpayer funds. In their letter to Governor Newsom, committee members emphasized that “the Newsom administration has been aware of state audit reports of hospice fraud for at least four years but has failed to prevent or detect it and has enabled hospice providers to defraud the American taxpayer and exploit vulnerable patients.”
The California hospice fraud crisis represents a significant failure of state regulatory oversight that allowed millions of taxpayer dollars to be diverted through fraudulent schemes while exploiting vulnerable patients. The 2022 audit report provided clear warnings about these issues, but state officials failed to implement timely and effective responses. This case illustrates the importance of robust regulatory frameworks, proactive oversight, and decisive action when fraud indicators are identified.
The delayed response from the Newsom administration raises important questions about accountability in state healthcare programs and the mechanisms needed to prevent similar failures in the future. While the eventual moratorium on new hospice licenses and the formation of a multi-agency task force represent steps in the right direction, these actions came years after the fraud patterns were established and after substantial financial damage had already occurred.
Moving forward, California and other states should consider implementing more rigorous licensing standards, enhanced monitoring of provider patterns, and stronger enforcement mechanisms to prevent similar crises from developing. The California hospice fraud case serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of regulatory negligence in healthcare programs that serve vulnerable populations and rely on public funding.
It amazes me because when regulation should be in place, Democrats will have nothing to do with it – they would rather regulate when it ought not be, regulating against innovation, production and entrepreneurial energy. Why? Because they are parasites. They would rather justify fraud and corruption because they believe it is a good thing to take taxpayer money and funds from the evil rich to fund their socialist utopian dreams.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Charlottesville Deception: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Manufactured a Crisis to Smear President Trump
By Douglas V. Gibbs
For years, Democratic politicians and their media allies perpetuated one of the most damaging political hoaxes in modern history: the claim that President Donald Trump praised white supremacists at the 2017 Charlottesville rally. This false narrative, which became a centerpiece of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, has now been exposed as not merely misleading but as part of an elaborate deception orchestrated by the very organization claiming to fight hate.
Contrary to the persistent media narrative, President Trump never praised neo-Nazis or white supremacists. In his August 14, 2017 statement, Trump unequivocally condemned these groups, stating: “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence, on many sides, on many sides. It has no place in America.” He specifically denounced “the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups” and called racism “evil.”
The often-misquoted “very fine people” remark was explicitly clarified by Trump when he stated: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” The full transcript shows Trump was referring to peaceful protesters on both sides of the Confederate monument debate, not the violent extremists who clashed in Charlottesville.
The most damning revelation came in April 2026 when the Department of Justice, under Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on multiple charges including criminal defrauding of donors and “manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred.”
The indictment revealed that the “Unite the Right” rally, the very event that sparked the controversy, was organized and financed by the supposedly left-wing SPLC. This organization, which presents itself as a monitor of hate groups, was secretly creating the very hatred it claimed to combat.
The manufactured controversy unfolded with calculated precision:
Beyond the political damage, this deception had real human costs. Heather Heyer lost her life because of the violence that the SPLC helped orchestrate. Millions of Americans were deceived into believing their president supported hate groups, causing unnecessary division and mistrust.
As Trump himself stated: “Two days ago, a young American woman, Heather Heyer, was tragically killed. Her death fills us with grief, and we send her family our thoughts, our prayers, and our love.” The federal government opened a civil rights investigation into the attack, demonstrating Trump’s commitment to justice.
The Charlottesville hoax represents a broader pattern of media deception aimed at delegitimizing Trump’s presidency. When Trump stated, “We stand together against what we saw in Charlottesville today,” the media ignored his clear condemnation of violence and focused instead on twisting his words to fit their narrative.
This manufactured crisis served multiple purposes for the left: it created a false narrative about Trump’s character, it distracted from his policy successes, and it generated fundraising opportunities for organizations like the SPLC that claimed to be fighting the very hate they were secretly funding.
The exposure of the SPLC’s role in manufacturing the Charlottesville crisis demands a full accounting. As Steve Cortes’ article, “Charlottesville: The Deceit Underlying the Hoax,” posted at RealClearPolitics notes, “only a full accounting, now, can begin the process of healing and truth-telling.”
The American people deserve to know the extent of this deception and how it was used to manipulate public opinion. The indictment of the SPLC should be just the beginning of uncovering the truth about how far leftist organizations were willing to go to undermine a duly elected president.
Whatever one’s opinion of Donald Trump, the Charlottesville saga represents “a preventable and despicable tragedy” that “unveils the systemic duplicity of the left in America.” Because their demand for “hate” far exceeded the actual supply, they had to pay to manufacture bigotry so they could then oppose it.
As Trump correctly stated, racism is evil and has no place in America. The real question is why organizations like the SPLC felt the need to create more of it, and why the media helped them hide their deception for so long.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Cortes, Steve. “Charlottesville: The Deceit Underlying the Hoax.” RealClearPolitics, April 24, 2026. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2026/04/24/charlottesville_the_deceit_underlying_the_hoax_154063.html
Trump, Donald J. “Remarks by President Trump on the Violence in Charlottesville.” The White House, August 14, 2017. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-violence-charlottesville/
Trump, Donald J. “President Trump Denounces Racism as Evil in Wake of Charlottesville.” The White House, August 15, 2017. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/president-trump-denounces-racism-evil-wake-charlottesville/
Trump, Donald J. “President Trump on the Events in Charlottesville, Virginia.” The White House, August 15, 2017. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/president-trump-events-charlottesville-virginia/
“Full Transcript: President Trump’s Press Conference on Charlottesville.” The New York Times, August 15, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-charlottesville-transcript.html
“Heather Heyer: Charlottesville Victim Remembered as ‘Very Strong’ Woman.” BBC News, August 17, 2017. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40984700
“Trump’s Charlottesville Remarks: Fact-Checking the ‘Very Fine People’ Controversy.” PolitiFact, August 15, 2017. https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/aug/15/donald-trumps-charlottesville-remarks-fact-checking-v/