Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I remember when my parents’ black and white television showed the amazing scene of the moon landing. I was just a little tyke, but the image remains branded on my brain to this day. As a child I became obsessed with space. I have drawings from my elementary school years of the solar system I fashioned, and space capsules I dreamed my be the next to visit the moon. Then, after six landings, the lunar exploration ended.
The cancellation of Apollo missions 18-20 was driven by budget concerns. And, I am not sure the politicians had the stomach to push like President Kennedy had. The political reality was that the Nixon administration (a Republican president) was facing significant budget pressures from the Vietnam War, domestic spending priorities, and economic challenges. The Apollo program was extraordinarily expensive (about $280 billion in today’s dollars), and with the Cold War race to the Moon already had already been won. Public and political support for the continued massive spending had simply diminished. It not only was outside our budget, but it no longer paid political dividends, either.
NASA’s mission shifted to things like Skylab and the “Mission to Planet Earth.” The scientific community had developed new interests in studying Earth from orbit, which did in fact yield valuable climate and environmental data – especially considering the growing theories about how humanity may, or may not be, influencing changes in the climate’s global temperature.
The Space Shuttle program seemed to be a return to the space exploration thing I found myself interested in, and it turned out it had been conceived during the Nixon administration as a more cost-effective way to maintain space presence, but it had its share of setbacks, as well.
The Columbia disaster investigation revealed technical and organizational issues at NASA, rather than insulation changes driven by environmental concerns that some of the hard-lefties tried to claim. The foam insulation problem was a known issue that wasn’t adequately addressed across multiple administrations. With these kinds of internal issues, and again the budgetary concerns, the Space Shuttle program eventually also came to an end.
Then, President Trump emerged with the kind of energy that President Kennedy provided. And, a new two-step space race was emerging – first, returning to the Moon, and then achieving a human landing on Mars. The Artemis program represents a new American commitment to return to the Moon, with NASA’s budget receiving support across political spectrums. The rise of commercial space companies like SpaceX has also transformed the economics and capabilities of space exploration in ways that weren’t possible during the Apollo era.
The torch lit by Apollo was never truly extinguished, but merely passed to a new generation of dreamers and builders. As we stand on the precipice of humanity’s return to the Moon and our eventual journey to Mars, we are reminded that the spirit of exploration is not bound by budgets or political cycles, but by the unquenchable thirst for discovery that defines our species. The legacy of those early astronauts who first left their footprints in the lunar dust lives on in every rocket that pierces the heavens and every child who looks up at the night sky with wonder. America’s greatest days in space are not behind us, but ahead, waiting to be written by those bold enough to reach for the stars once more.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A fifth Eric Swalwell accuser has come forward alleging sexual misconduct after the California Democrat resigned from Congress and suspended his California gubernatorial campaign. Lonna Drewes delivered jaw-dropping allegations she claimed happened in 2018, stating that Swalwell raped her, choked her, and drugged her while his wife was pregnant. Swalwell has denied all of the sexual assault allegations that have recently surfaced about him.
Lefty billionaire Stephen Cloobeck says he had severed ties with Swalwell and asked him to leave his mansion. Cloobeck has left the Democratic Party over the scandal, considering himself a Blue Dog Democrat. As the sexual misconduct allegations have surfaced, Swalwell lost nearly all endorsements and the increased scrutiny could lead to a criminal investigation.
The problem is these kinds of people once they rise in the ranks believe themselves to be untouchable, said accuser Ally Sammarco. “He never thought that the consequences of his actions would follow him.”
Eric Swalwell’s biggest mistake was going against Democratic Party leadership. The leftist progressive Democratic Party machine will stop at nothing to capture and maintain power, even if it means taking out one of their own. When he was caught having an affair with Chinese Spy Fang Fang, he was still a useful idiot. But, when he decided to enter the race for governor in California without leadership’s permission, potentially splitting the Democratic Party vote in the Golden State’s jungle primary as two Republicans rose to the top of the polls, he became a problem, and the Democrats decided to take him out.
He wants the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, a standard he and his party never granted Trump or Kavanaugh; but when you cross horns with the Democratic Party elite, the punishment is quick, severe, and thorough. And when the Democratic elite struck, the media jumped right in, more than willing to broadcast as if it was a surprise the story of Swalwell’s sexual misconduct – a truth that had been an open secret in Democratic Party circles for well over a decade. The beginning of the end started with a report regarding the allegations by the San Francisco Chronicle. CNN follow that up pretty quickly, and despite Swalwell’s denials, the story swelled and crossed the country from sea to shining sea before Swalwell could stop the bleeding.
Swalwell was only a local politician before the Democratic Party decided to make him a contender. Once they decided he was their useful idiot to mold his war chest grew by the millions of dollars pretty quickly. He rose from obscurity to notoriety quickly, becoming Nancy Pelosi’s golden boy. He was the guy being groomed to step in behind Gavin Newsom once they either put him somewhere important, or set him aside. Swalwell was the next big thing in the Democratic Party.
Party leadership elites, labor unions, donors, and lobbyists all got behind Swalwell. They elevated him and protected him as he rode the big blue elevator toward the top floor. To the Democrats it takes a village to create a success, but it can also take a village to take you down, and now Swalwell knows this to be true all too well. They knew who he was and what he was, but they propped him up and played the game until he got too big for his britches. Now, the media and his former allies say he’s a monster. When he decided to run for governor, and risk splitting the Democratic Party vote in California, someone pulled together the rumors, the women, and the allegations. Then, the press got wind (and there was no coincidence there), and unleashed it with a blow torch.
In a press conference, President Trump’s Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt said of the sudden firestorm, “I think it’s also quite plausible, as you point out, Jack, that there were many other Democrats in this town on Capitol Hill who knew about his perhaps illegal behavior, certainly his disgusting and inappropriate behavior. And why were they silent for so long? I think those are questions that must be raised of the sitting representatives including Mr. Gallego [Ruben Gallego, U.S. Senator, Arizona], and I hope the journalists in this room will do their jobs and the journalists on Capitol Hill will do their job and ask Democrats in power how they knew about such despicable behavior from one of their elected representatives for so long, but never said or did anything about it.”
The Democrats knew that Swalwell was a creep, but he was a valuable piece on the game board. He was obedient and easy to control. And, him being a creep gave them exactly what they needed to keep him under control. His behavior was a gift for them. There’s a reason they didn’t get rid of him after his Fang Fang affair – he was still a useful idiot, and as long as he was useful, they would protect him.
During and after Fang Fang, Swalwell became Pelosi’s eyes and ears in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, eventually becoming the top Democrat on the CIA subcommittee. It wasn’t until January of 2023 that Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy removed Swalwell from the Intelligence Committee – eight years after Fang Fang, and eight years after Pelosi had put Swalwell on that committee.
The rumors about Swalwell’s sexual behavior was already bubbling around, too. Fang Fang was a manifestation of Swalwell’s inability to keep his desires in his pants. Pelosi surely knew about his behavior. She was the queen (perhaps still is) of the Democratic Party. Yet, she kept Swalwell in place. She knew everything about everyone. Politicians. Pundits. Family members of political people who caught her interest. Pelosi knows more about people than the mafia. So, if she knew about Swalwell’s behavior all along, does that not point to the consideration that what is happening to Swalwell is a Pelosi-ordered political hit?
Of course, everyone in Washington D.C. knew. They spend time together. They take trips together. They talk to each other in whispers. Swalwell was well known to be a guy who was willing to take advantage of the fact that there were women around him that needed things, or liked hanging in that kind of crowds, and was willing to do whatever they thought was necessary to perhaps get a little more ahead. To get a few favors. Or to be in cahoots with the right people.
Congress even has a slush fund for settling lawsuits that might pop up regarding sexual misconduct and other workplace disputes – and the thing has been around since 1995.
So, if the Democrats and the machine in Washington knew all about Swalwell, why was the information suddenly released now? Am I right that it was a political hit job?
Jack Posobiec recently talked to Madison Cawthorn, former United States Congressman, and he said, “I came out and said what was going on inside Washington D.C., something I assumed was common knowledge across America…the Swamp did what the Swamp always does. They systematically targeted and attacked. You know, the Swamp is so accustomed to the uniparty, you know both sides of the aisle, so accustomed to patriots getting elected to Congress, getting there for the first time, and then realizing, oh, this is too big of a problem for me to tackle on my own, I’m really not gonna be able to get anything done, and these people offer me power, they offer me a position, they offer me money, why would I try and mess up this apple cart…I might as well ride it as long as I can. I called the Swamp out, and then leadership called me into the office and said, ‘hey listen, we can make sure you have a swimming primary, everything is going to go great, you’ll have a great election, we just need you to be a team player.’ I held my ground. I said ‘no.’ And you saw exactly what happened. They unleashed all hell upon me trying to destroy my name, trying to the reputation of myself and the reputation of my family. But even that wouldn’t stick, Jack, it wasn’t enough. So, then they changed my state constitution to go in and redraw my congressional district to give me a very moderate, easily confused, and easily manipulated district. Why do they do this, Jack? Because they wanted to cover up the sexual perversion and the drugs that are being done inside of Washington D.C. And, Jack, I didn’t have to wait for vindication that came just now when we saw Tony Gonzalez have everything that came out with him, what happened with Eric Swalwell, which has been – you know – the fact that it didn’t come out earlier is insane because he sleeps with Chinese spies – but, really, just mere months after I was ousted out of office by members of our own party and on the other side of the aisle, then we saw sex tapes coming out of staffers video-taping themselves inside of the Senate Hearing Chambers, and then we find cocaine inside of the White House. This kind of behavior inside of Washington D.C. is pervasive. I thought it was disgusting. I thought the American People needed to know. And the Swamp destroyed me for it…by proxy you’re let know, hey, if this happens you’re going to be sued for this and you’re going to be sued for that, you’re going to be attacked for this, you know, maybe you got a speeding ticket here, or we’re going to call your governor and have your state police try and give you tickets every second they can. They are going to make your life very very difficult. And, you know, I live a pretty great life, I have an amazing family. My friends are really true and loyal friends. So, I felt pretty untouchable. I am financially extremely secure, blessedly so…even me they were able to attack so ferociously, and so aggressively, and they wanted to use me…he’s a superstar within the MAGA movement, and if we can take him down, imagine what we can do to you. And that is essentially what the environment is like inside of Washington D.C….everybody is trying to do everything they can to not upset the apple-cart…then they’ll offer them carrots. Wouldn’t you like the subcommittee chairmanship? Imagine all the good you can do if you didn’t take this one guy down – he was just having a little fun…it’s very different if you are someone inside of Washington D.C. who is married and is out gallivanting with women…and usually it’s so they can hold it over someone’s head, whether it is a honey pot operation or whatever, but in most circumstances…hey, you are not that funny, you do not randomly significantly get more attractive… and three outrageous looking tens walk up to you and say, ‘hey, we’d like to have a foursome,’ I promise you, you are not that funny or not that attractive – they are there to hold leverage over you. And that is what’s going on…once they get caught inside one of these rings of people holding these things over their heads, ‘well, if this is being held over my head, I might as well go ahead and go out and have a good time.’ And, so they start willfully going out and doing this…I do know there’s a lot of sexual perversion, a lot of people who don’t care about the rings they wear on their left hands.”
Once the blackmail folder is filled with images and videos and potential testimony against you, they’ve got you. Vote the right way, follow the leadership’s directions, and things will be fine. Step out of line, the word goes out, and you become just another useful idiot that has been transformed into a statistic. Goodbye.
The Democratic Party controls its members through blackmail, and Swalwell is simply one of the most recent cases of a political hit job because he stepped off the narrow bridge they wanted him to walk on. They have a blackmail file on all of their members, and it’s the tool they use for leverage and control until it’s time to let the hit job fly.
Pelosi put out the hit on Biden because he became a liability. Now, Swalwell became a liability, and now it was time to make him gone. According to Senator Josh Hawley, Nancy Pelosi was the one that put the hit out on Swalwell. And she’ll keep doing it until she passes the baton to the next Democratic Party elite that replaces her on the throne.
Senator Josh Hawley has since proposed a bill to strip members of Congress of their pension should they be convicted of a sex offense.
Swalwell rose in the ranks because they knew they could control him. Once he put the Democratic Party at risk in California by running for governor, he had gone too far, and the hit went out on him. It’s the same playbook time and time again. Play ball, or you will get whacked.
Remember, they tried to go after Trump, but he saw it coming, and fought them the entire way. Fortunately, for Trump, despite the accusations, Trump was clean as a whistle. He was an outsider, too, which made the game even more difficult for them to play.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
  |
| The truth about the Democratic Party’s Blackmail Files is Rising to the Surface… |
| Patriots’ Soapbox Presents: Douglas V. Gibbs LIVE Friday: 2-4 Pacific/5-7 Eastern Patriot’s Soapbox has moved!!! Watch on Rumble (and catch the episodes when you miss them at Rumble!) https://rumble.com/user/PSBNews https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1MYxNwWbNnQKw |
 |
 |
by Douglas V. Gibbs
The Founding Fathers viewed freedom of speech as a fundamental, natural right and an indispensable “bulwark of liberty,” necessary for checking tyranny and discovering truth. They championed robust political debate and conscience-based religious freedom, believing that suppressing opposing views leads to oppression, whereas free speech allows folly to die of its own poison.
Benjamin Franklin and George Washington stated that without freedom of speech, society would be led like “sheep to the slaughter,” and James Madison described it as a principal pillar of free government. They viewed public debate as a duty, allowing the people, as the “only censors of their governors,” to correct errors in government. They argued that the freedom to think and express thoughts is essential to human liberty, protecting both the majority and minority.
The founders championed the right to criticize government, rooted in events like the John Peter Zenger case, which affirmed the right to challenge officials. When it came to religious speech, Thomas Jefferson advocated for complete liberty of conscience, arguing that government has no jurisdiction over human opinions, a view designed to ensure freedom for all faiths.
“Freedom for the Thought We Hate” developed through the Enlightenment, recognizing that protecting speech is critical to liberty even when it is disagreed with, as freedom of thought is not merely for those who agree with the majority, but for all. They believed that free deliberation allows truth to survive while “folly” dies of its own poison.
While the Founders often held high standards for civil discourse, they aimed to protect the right of dissenters to live in peace, rather than demanding ideological conformity.
This foundational principle of free speech stands in stark contrast to how it is being challenged today. As a constitutionalist, I disagree with a vast array of my opponents’ views and what they have to say. I debate them, try to correct them, and warn them that their opinions, behaviors and even lifestyles are dangerous, filled with potential consequences that is dangerous for them and perhaps even society. I also petition government for a redress of these things, and I vote to put people in office who agree with my stance on things – but you will never hear me say, no matter how much I disagree with someone’s opinions, that the law should be used to silence them or to only celebrate my way of thinking.
The opponents of the Constitution, however, seems to think that their leftwing thinking gives them the authority to intimidate you, silence you, and destroy your right to free speech. They seem to say, “we believe in free speech as long as it agrees with us.” Totalitarian governments do not tolerate criticism. The CCP arrests dissenters, and Iran executes them. Does not the progressive leftists in this country realize that their crusade to silence MAGA, Trump and Christians bears a resemblance?
This troubling trend manifests in various ways across our society. We are reminded of the story of Paige Ostroushko who, along with her family, violently assaulted Turning Point USA journalist Savannah Hernandez. Based on what was said, it was an attack against Hernandez for ideological reasons, with Ostroushko calling Hernandez a “fu**ing piece of sh** Turning Point b**ch.”
This type of behavior is not an isolated event. We can go all the way back to 2015 when we saw anti-Trump gangs chasing down MAGA supporters like animals, and attacking them in groups of violent mobs, beating them down to the ground.
The intimidation extends beyond physical violence to threats against public figures. Erika Kirk, the widow of Charlie Kirk who founded Turning Point USA, recently canceled an event appearance after receiving serious threats. She was set to appear alongside Vice President J.D. Vance, who still attended despite Erika canceling her appearance.
Perhaps most concerning are the systematic attempts to codify speech suppression into law. In California, Democratic legislators are working on legislation to silence citizen journalists like Nick Shirley who exposed the Somali daycare fraud scandal in Minnesota. The new law, AB 2624, would silence citizen journalists and threatens these journalists with large financial penalties to dissuade them from reporting on public interest stories in the name of protecting migrants from being reported for wrongdoing. In short, expose corruption, and you will be punished. Your freedom of speech will be silenced to protect the guilty.
The federal government has also been complicit in this assault on free speech. During Biden’s presidency, the federal government collaborated with pro-abortion groups to silence pro-lifers, according to a recent report released by the Justice Department. The Biden-era Justice Department aggressively applied the FACE Act against pro-life activists, operating using a two-tiered system of justice conducting selective prosecution based on beliefs. The Biden Justice Department monitored pro-life activists for years before charging them, while providing significant support to abortion clinics and ignoring or downplaying vandalism and attacks against pregnancy resource centers. The report says federal prosecutors “authorized aggressive arrest tactics” and withheld evidence that defense counsel requested while also attempting to screen out jurors based on religion. The Biden DOJ requested an average sentence of 26.8 months for pro-life defendants in FACE Act cases, compared with 12.3 months for pro-choice defendants.
It’s one thing to disagree with someone, and engage in civil discourse – it’s another to use violence or the law to silence the speech of someone else, the latter being actions the leftist democrats have been guilty of for a very long time, violating the very principles behind what brought us the Bill of Rights in the first place.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As we’ve just passed another April 15th, many of us have felt that familiar knot in our stomachs as we signed over a portion of our hard-earned money to the government. The question that often arises in the hearts of believers is: “What does God’s Word say about taxes?” Is taxation biblical? Is it right for Christians to participate in a system that often seems wasteful, corrupt, or contrary to our values?
The most direct answer from Scripture comes from Jesus Himself in Mark 12:17, when He was confronted with a politically charged question about paying taxes to Caesar. Holding up a Roman coin, He delivered one of the most profound statements in all of Scripture: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
In these few words, our Lord established a principle that would guide His followers for millennia: There is a proper place for earthly government and a proper place for divine authority. The coin bore Caesar’s image, so it belonged to Caesar. But we bear God’s image, so we belong to Him.
Government is a “necessary evil,” as some philosophers have noted. Romans 13:1-7 provides a look at government’s role and our relationship to it. Paul wrote, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”
This is not to say we are to become blind subjects of a government that violates God’s principles. God expects us to be active participants in political things and to do the work to create a godly culture and to influence our government to operate in a godly manner. But, regardless of that government’s policies, we are to operate legally within its authority as long as we are not violating God’s Law to do it.
That said, when Jesus Christ walked the Earth, taxes were far more oppressive than what we may experience toady. The Roman tax system was designed not just to fund the government but to enrich the ruling class and subjugate conquered peoples. Tax collectors were often despised collaborators who enriched themselves by collecting more than what Rome required.
Jesus never led a tax revolt. He never encouraged His followers to withhold their money as a form of protest. Instead, He taught submission to authority while calling His followers to a higher citizenship in heaven. All authority, after all, ultimately flows from God Himself.
The early Christians lived under one of the most brutal regimes in history, yet they paid their taxes. They didn’t compromise their faith, but they didn’t refuse to render to Caesar what was Caesar’s either.
Getting back to the “render unto Caesar” passage (Mark 12:17), we also need to recognize that the verse carries a much deeper meaning than simply acknowledging that coins with Caesar’s image belonged to Caesar. When we consider it alongside Malachi’s teachings about God’s ownership of all precious metals, we discover a profound theological truth.
In Malachi 3:8-10, God accuses Israel of robbing Him by withholding tithes and offerings. This passage establishes a fundamental principle: everything ultimately belongs to God, including our material possessions. As Haggai 2:8 states, “The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the Lord Almighty.” This divine ownership claim is foundational to understanding Jesus’ response about taxes.
When Jesus held up the Roman denarius and said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” He was making a profound theological statement about ownership and stewardship. The coin bore Caesar’s image, so it could legitimately be given to earthly authorities. But the deeper implication is that everything, including the coin itself, ultimately belongs to God, who is the true owner of all creation.
In using such argumentation, Jesus subordinates the taxation issue to the greater demand of God upon our lives, but he does not thereby deny the validity of taxation, even that of the potentially abusive Roman system. Nor does he deny that money belongs to God.
Malachi 3:3 further reinforces this principle with the imagery of God as a refiner and purifier of silver and gold, suggesting that God has the right to purify what belongs to Him because He is the ultimate owner. The Hebrew term “segullah” used in Malachi 3:16-17 refers to “valuable property, that which is laid by, or put aside, hence a treasure of silver and gold,” emphasizing God’s special claim over precious things.
So when Jesus said to render unto Caesar, He wasn’t just establishing a practical principle for civic obedience. He was teaching a profound truth about dual ownership: while we have legitimate obligations to earthly authorities, our ultimate allegiance and everything we possess belongs to God. The coin may temporarily bear Caesar’s image, but all silver and gold ultimately bear God’s image as their Creator and rightful Owner.
This perspective transforms how we view taxes not merely as a civic duty but as an act of worship that acknowledges God’s supreme ownership over all our resources, even as we faithfully fulfill our obligations to human governments.
The Pharisees and Herodians were trying to trap Jesus with a politically charged question about paying taxes to Rome. If Jesus said “yes” to paying taxes, He would lose credibility with the Jewish people who resented Roman occupation. If He said “no,” He could be reported to Roman authorities as a revolutionary. Jesus brilliantly turned their trap back on them by first asking for a denarius, the Roman coin used for paying the tax.
When they produced it, He asked whose image and inscription were on it. They replied “Caesar’s,” and only then did He give His famous response: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
This was a masterful exposure of their hypocrisy. As one scholar I once heard explained: “Basically, give Caesar his money that bears his image and give your life to God, because you bear his image.”
The religious leaders were carrying Caesar’s coin, bearing the image of a pagan emperor who claimed divinity, while claiming to serve God alone. By producing the coin, they revealed their own compromised position.
This connects directly to Malachi’s critique of the priesthood. Malachi 3:2-3 specifically addresses the priests, saying God “shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.” The passage continues with God’s accusation that the priests had robbed Him by withholding proper tithes and offerings.
Jesus was essentially saying: “You’re so concerned about whether to give money to Caesar that you’re carrying his image in your pockets, yet you’ve been robbing God of what is rightfully His. You’re more faithful to earthly authorities than to God Himself.”
The religious leadership had become like the money changers Jesus later drove from the temple; those who “exploited the religious zeal of the visitors to Jerusalem” by exchanging foreign coins for Jewish money “at an exorbitant profit.”
They had turned worship into commerce and compromised their spiritual authority for financial and political expediency.
Jesus’ response exposed their misplaced priorities. They were focused on the relatively minor question of whether to pay taxes to Caesar while ignoring the greater issue of their own unfaithfulness to God. They were meticulous about ceremonial purity while being corrupt in their hearts, which was exactly what Jesus condemned them for elsewhere (Matthew 23:23-24).
The deeper meaning of Jesus’ statement is this: If you’re so concerned about giving Caesar what bears his image, then how much more should you give to God what bears His image, namely, yourselves, created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27)? The religious leaders had failed to render to God the things that were God’s, while scrupulously maintaining their relationship with Caesar’s system.
This aligns with Malachi’s broader critique of a priesthood that had become corrupt and unfaithful. Malachi accuses them of offering “blind sacrifices” and keeping the best for themselves while giving God the defective animals (Malachi 1:6-14). Similarly, Jesus exposed the religious leaders of His day as those who “devour widows’ houses” while making long prayers (Mark 12:40) and being careful to tithe even the smallest herbs while neglecting justice and mercy (Matthew 23:23).
In both Malachi and Jesus’ “render unto Caesar” statement, we see a prophetic critique of religious leadership that had compromised its integrity and failed to give God His rightful place as the ultimate authority.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Trump’s Triumphal Arch
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A listener on one of my programs posted in the chat a question about Trump’s plans to build a giant arch. This particular chatter tends to troll the chat room, and I had not seen the news about President’s Trump’s proposal regarding the Triumphal Arch, so I told him I’d get back to him on it. I didn’t want to fall into a gotcha moment in the middle of my broadcast.
It turns out that President Trump has indeed proposed the construction of a 250-Foot arch near Arlington National Cemetery. The White House has released renderings of the proposed triumphal arch, a structure that would sit on the Memorial Circle roundabout at the southwestern end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge along the Potomac River. If constructed, it would become the tallest triumphal arch in the world.
Why not? We’ve built grand monuments before.
The renderings show the towering arch featuring a central figure resembling the Statue of Liberty, along with gilded eagles and lions. Inscriptions on the structure include “One Nation Under God” and “Liberty and Justice For All.”
The base of the monument, if it gets constructed, would be guarded by four gilded lions, while two large eagles flank the central figure.
According to sources, at 250 feet tall, the arch would stand more than twice the height of the Lincoln Memorial, which rises to 99 feet. It would also exceed the height of Mexico City’s Monumento a la Revolucion by about 30 feet and tower more than 80 feet above the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which the design closely resembles.
With America’s 250th birthday coming up, it makes sense that Trump would want to construct something for the semiquincentennial celebration. He builds things. That’s one of the things he does. And all I remember us getting in 1976 for the 200 year bicentennial was a mural along the 91 Freeway in Southern California, which was finally, recently, touched up and made readable, again.
Trump believes America’s capital ought to be adorned with things that echo America’s greatness. He’s got a number of plans for things like a National Garden of American Heroes, which would feature 250 statues, as well as renovations to the White House, and of course the Triumphal Arch.
“I am pleased to announce..[a] MOST BEAUTIFUL Triumphal Arch…This will be a wonderful addition to the Washington D.C. area for all Americans to enjoy for many decades to come!” the president said on X.
Funding for the arch would come in part from federal sources, as opposed to the Grand Ballroom with is slated to be paid for by nothing but private funds. A recent spending plan for the National Endowment for the Humanities includes $2 million allocated directly for the project, along with $13 million in matching grants reserved for its development.
Trump showcased models of the arch during a White House fund-raising event tied to his proposed $400 million ballroom, a 90,000-square-foot expansion that would replace the East Wing.
Approval for the arch remains forthcoming.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary