The pictures are disturbing, but the destruction of the East Wing of the White House signifies more than just the construction of an enormous ballroom. Like a dog urinating to mark its territory and to leave a message for other dogs, the ballroom is part of President Trump’s effort to create a legacy.
What do you think? Was the ballroom needed?
The President does not own the White House. Was his decision to demolish part of the existing White House (the East Wing) and replace it with a huge ballroom lawful?
And, was he authorized to undertake the project, even if, as he claims, it is being paid for with private funds?
The White House is designated a National Historic Landmark. I believe it also has the legal status of a National Park. So can Trump order a strip mine in Yellowstone? Could he dam up Yosemite? Arlington National Cemetary is also a National Historic Landmark. So I guess Trump can build a golf course there over the graves of our brave soldiers.
As a former State Historic Preservation Officer, I know that The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 established the National Register of Historic Places and the Section 106 review process. Section 106 mandates federal agencies consider the effects of their actions on historic properties. None of this made a bit of difference to the regime. Why weren’t democrats out in force standing in front of the bulldozers?