Even the white nationalists are turning on Trump

Iowa has always been the come-to state for Presidents and 2016 was no different for Donald Trump. He took the state 51.1% to win against Hillary Clinton's 41.7, garnering the 6 electoral votes. Des Moines, where I spent several years, went for Clinton as did another major metro area, Cedar Rapids. Iowans are considered good, down to earth, stable people with common sense. That's pretty much true as I can attest to after spending several years in the capital city, but also having experienced a hard-line cliquishness there that forbids outsiders in until proven. I never made it.

I left in the late sixties, never sorry for my decision, and have never looked back. I tell you this to qualify the fact that I am a maverick, always have been, and always will be. Mavericks don't do well in the state, although there is a basketball team there by that name who are apparently winners. But it is people like Tom Godat, a union electrician from Clinton, Iowa, that represents a state that has been a combination of Democrat and Republican in the past, but recently has been attacked by the Tea Party. It elected Joni Ernst to the Senate, something many in the state still can't believe.

But back to Mr. Godat, who has always voted for Democrats, decided to cast his vote for Donald Trump in 2016, not that he particularly thought Trump was best, but because he thought Hillary Clinton was worse. An excellent case in point to shore up the fact that Bernie Sanders should have been the Democrats nominee, not Clinton. Tom now says he is "embarrassed" over his vote. I would suspect that a lot of good people out there are also coming to the same conclusion. What I don't understand is, after viewing Trump's campaign, why wasn't Tom Godat horrified with what he saw?

There were Donald John's comments about Mexican immigrants, about women, about veterans, the disarming of Clinton's bodyguards, saying Obama was the founder of ISIS, sicking the gun nuts on Hillary, encouraging Russia to hack Clinton's campaign, more racism calling for a ban on Muslims in the U.S., saying people in New Jersey were cheering on 9/11, suggesting one of his protesters should be roughed up, referring to his daughter in a sexual way, his bizarre comments about Megyn Kelly's menstrual period, I could go on forever but you get the idea. Why didn't Tom Godat?

Washington Post reporter, Jenna Johnson, and her photographer, Michael S. Williamson, ran into "...more than 100 Iowans [who]explained why so many of them are already disappointed in the new president." It only took four days which means they encountered 25 a day. That's an impressive number of people when you consider that Iowans aren't that open and easy to get to talk to by people they don't know. And then there's Lost Nation, Iowa, where the president received 66 percent of the vote. After Trump's election, the Iowa legislature voted to dramatically scale back the collective bargaining rights of the state’s public workers, distressing my Lost Nation residents.

The Huff Post reports that "thousands" of people across the country are unhappy with their vote for Donald John, and they are tweeting it in response to the "head tweeter's" barrage of lies and misinformation. Here's an example...

“I’m starting to feel like the biggest mistake of my young 23 years of life has been voting for [Trump],” Joseph Richardson tweeted on Nov. 21.

And that's less than two weeks after the November 8, election day. Richardson said it was a bitTrump’s Cabinet picks or the 'very childish' behavior he exhibited at a press conference last week. And he does regret his vote. Sort of." Even if he did it over, Richardson says he still couldn't vote for Clinton continuing with, “I still think Trump would be the better candidate. I’d still regret it. I’d vote for him again but I’d still regret it.” Go figure. But it is this exact kind of reasoning that political pundits were clamoring over during the 2016 election.
unsettling and added, "He doesn’t like

Now here's a guy you just have to shake your head over. Not sure if he is misinformed, full of indecision or just not too bright...

"Bill said he would like Trump to act more like President Barack Obama, who he voted against twice but considers 'an extremely honorable man who served the country fantastically.'”

I could understand a statement that said, served the country "well," or "fine," or even "right." But how can you call Obama "extremely honorable" and a man "who served the country fantastically" but still have voted against him twice? Makes no sense unless there is an ulterior motive. And that's what is wrong with our political system, people voting who haven't the slightest idea what they are doing. There were some that lashed out at Donald John for not following up on his promise to investigate Clinton’s handling of sensitive emails, a decision that also puzzles some of the pundits.

Others voiced their reason to vote for Trump was his promise for change, to drain the swamp. Many of this group think the swamp is fuller than ever, but others believe Trump is following through on his promises. Even the alt-right and its white nationalists are down on Donald Trump. Remember Richard Spencer? The guy "who stood at a podium shortly after Donald Trump's election and, in a video that went viral, shouted 'Hail Trump!' while several in the crowd celebrated the victory with a Nazi salute." He's not sure now his President will be racial enough.

From what I have read, a large number of Trump voters have combined to strongly object over the fact that Donald John did not investigate, subsequently prosecute Hillary Clinton over the email issue. This is a major campaign promise that he broke, and the fact that this is one of the primary annoyances of those who voted for the man, it is yet just one more instance that reflects the amount of animosity toward Hillary Clinton. This was clear from the early 2016 campaigning right through the November election. A leading reason Democrats are in the hole they are now in.

Donald Trump's top adviser and chief White House strategist, Steve Bannon, described Richard Spencer as one of the leading intellectuals of the alt-right movement. CNN reported that...

"Spencer is a white nationalist who believes that there should be a 'peaceful ethnic cleansing,' where people who are not of European descent voluntarily leave the United States."

Not that it is important since this deranged kind of thinking probably has no chance of ever being initiated in this country, but what if they don't leave voluntarily? But just maybe the thought of ethnic cleansing isn't so far out when you consider Trump has already provided the model in his latest Muslim ban of now six countries just announced in Monday's address to Congress. More from Slate on Bannon/Spencer connection...

"In August, [2016] Bannon proudly described his site as 'the platform for the alt-right,' a movement with Spencer as one of its intellectual leaders, again, according to Bannon’s own site."

It is said the Vice President is only a heartbeat away from the presidency. In the case of Steve Bannon, this is a heart beat that could change the direction of the greatest free nation of all time.

What is the real reason that Trump hates the media?

Donald Trump recently banned Journalists from CNN, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the BBC, BuzzFeed, and Politico from a news conference. It was an informal question-and-answer session between a press secretary, Sean Spicer, and journalists, adding Breitbart, The Washington Times and One America News Network. The Daily Beast reports White House spokeswoman Sarah H. Sanders said: “We invited the pool so everyone was represented. We decided to add a couple of additional people beyond the pool for an expanded pool. Nothing more than that.”  

She failed to add that in the addition there was also a subtraction, three of the largest media outlets in the country. Time and the Associated Press boycotted what was called a “gaggle,” with the AP commenting… 

“AP believes the public should have as much access to the president as possible.”

CNN, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the BBC, BuzzFeed, and Politico deemed the move “a troubling development” and “an affront to freedom of the press.” CNN commented further that it was their assumption if you report true facts, it is something the White House cannot handle. Considering Donald John’s first month in the Oval Office where there were 33 lies and misinformation spewing from his mouth on a daily basis, it’s surprising they continue to hold news conferences. It would be my guess the new president of distortion will set a record for untruths.

Here are a couple of comments...

"The New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet said 'nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history of covering multiple administrations of different parties,' adding: 'Free media access to a transparent government is obviously of crucial national interest.'”

"Ari Fleischer, a Trump backer who served as White House press secretary for President George W. Bush, reacted on CNN by conceding that the decision to block certain reporters from the gaggle was 'unwise and counterproductive,' but added: 'There is nothing unusual about presidents meeting with self-selected reporters… and White House staffs do it all the time.' Fleischer echoed some conservatives who said the press largely overreacted to the way Friday’s briefing was handled, and defended Trump’s overall accessibility to the media."

Come on Fleischer, this wasn't just a meeting with "self-selected reporters." It was a meeting with self-selected reporters that barred reporters from three of the country's leading media outlets. But what do we expect from another Republican, even though he was put out to pasture. Fleischer added...

“He [Donald John] is making journalism interesting and great again. It’s a fascinating time to be a journalist because he’s such a fascinating story. And he’s giving the press so much access.”

Can you believe that? Thought you had to have better than a double-digit IQ to be a press secretary. And it would appear Sean Spicer is following in Fleischer's footsteps. Bret Baier of Fox News surprisingly excluded himself from the gaggle, standing with those boycotted. The Wall Street Journal, although attending, said it would not participate in future press events if the administration did this again. The Daily Beast reported other instances...

"During the campaign, multiple news organizations including The Daily Beast, Politico and The Washington Post were blacklisted by the Trump team—barred from attending any campaign rallies, press conferences or other events."

Donald Trump's oligarchy is turning America into the likeness of countries like China, North Korea and Venezuela, with the outlook that he may try and push his power into that of an autocracy. And while the new White House despot attempts to turn our country into a dictatorship, his press secretary, Sean Spicer, is up for the worst of his kind to come along in the history of western civilization. When you consider that Spicer is the middle-man between the most powerful person in the world and the free voice of America; now, that's scary.

Spicer has been a favorite of "Saturday Night Live" recently and is beginning to look a lot like Kellyanne Conway in terms of the amount of misinformation he has thrown at the press. Conway has been chastised and virtually cut off by the media for her consistency of lies on the air, but reporters have nowhere else to go without Spicer. Unless they just stand around and wait on the leaks from the press secretary's office that apparently are frequent. So much so that Spicer had to call a special meeting recently to check staff electronics, including their phones, for evidence of leaks.

According to Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, Sean Spicer is ""...disliked and disrespected by superiors, peers and subordinates alike." Further, "He is so lacking in credibility as to diminish, if not eliminate, his utility in conveying the views of the White House or basic facts about what is going on." This all coming from a reporter from a major U.S. paper located in the nation's capital. Think about this for just a minute. There is a new President that continually hurls lies and misinformation, with his spokesman guilty of the same deeds. Where does that leave the American public?

Especially when they have been told by the Oval Office ogre that the media is the enemy of the people, and some, meaning Donald John supporters, either don't have the intelligence to or simply refuse to realize that this man is a lunatic and shouldn't be believed. In making this unpatriotic saying to the Conservative Political Action Committee for the umteenth time, the President castigated reporters for using anonymous sources and said we are going to do "something" about it. He did not indicate what "something" was, all as if the man is completely oblivious of the 1st Amendment.

If the dictator is planning to do something about dealing with anonymous sources, he'll have to clean his own House first. It was only two hours before Trump criticized anonymous sources at CPAC, exclaiming all sources should be named when, "... an administration official provided a briefing on condition he not be identified," according to USA Today. And here's another quote...

"William McRaven, the retired admiral who planned the 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden, said this week that Trump's attacks on the media may also be undermining democracy itself."

Now let's be honest, there are times the media overdoes a story; as a matter of fact, this was true in
the coverage of Donald John in the 2016 primaries and election. As I recall, there was one evaluation of Trump coverage vs. Bernie Sanders and it was something like 200+ impressions for Trump, about 7 for Sanders. Hillary Clinton suffered as well but not as much as the Bern. Apparently, the old phrase applies, "Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. In any event, we are experiencing a first with an American President who hates the media and is making himself invisible to it.

Here's a comment from Matthew Miller, a spokesman for President Barack Obama's Justice Department...

The sustained attacks show "how worried he is about the repeated reports of chaos, incompetence, and potential wrongdoing inside his administration. His problem, though, is with the facts, not the media, and he’s only making his problem worse the more he runs away from it."

How does one say it? The country is going to hell in a handbasket, an expression I have heard since I was a kid, but have no idea what it means. But in the case of Donald Trump it could very well mean Armageddon.

Political Satire: What is Trump still hiding about Russia?

He's not heavy, he's my puppet 

Whatever it is, it is bad enough that Donald Trump has enlisted the help of Congress, the intelligence community. And now the FBI has refused to cooperate with the White House by downplaying the news stories about Donald John's close ties with Russia. It involves Trump associates’ ties to Russia and the fact that pressure is being applied to cover this up. Greg Miller of the Washington Post said...

"Acting at the behest of the White House, the officials made calls to news organizations last week in attempts to challenge stories about alleged contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives."

Here's some background on the story. According to Politifact...

"The Washington Post reported Dec. 9 that the CIA concluded Russia meddled in the election with the intent to help Trump, rather than to disrupt the election generally. The New York Times produced a similar report. However, the Washington Post also reported that the FBI isn't as confident in this conclusion. These stories are all based on anonymous sources and cannot be independently verified."

 But just last week, the FBI indicated that it would not downplay these same news reports after a request to do so from the White House. Business Insider Politics said...

"Trump administration officials wanted the FBI to disavow the reports and say there was no contact between people associated with Trump and Russia."

Democrats are still pissed over the fact that FBI Director James B. Comey released critical information about Hillary Clinton's email probe just prior to the 2016 election, yet kept quiet on the fact that Trump's campaign team had been in regular contact with Russia. Hillary Clinton accused Donald John of a direct tie between him and Vladimir Putin in one of the election debates, accusing her opponent of joining with the Russian leader to get rid of NATO. And then early in February, Trump voices his support for NATO admonishing member countries for better support.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said that...

 if the White House “contrived to have intelligence officials contradict unfavorable news reports, this represents a new and even more grave threat to the independence of the intelligence community.”

Former CIA director Michael Hayden expressed his concern that intelligence sources were being strong-armed into providing information that was later being interpreted into political speak and then put into the wording that best fit their message. What's new. But considering the Trump administration's  continued praise of Putin and all the action so far to get it out of the media, does that mean there is a smoking gun? And to cap it all off, Donald John has repeatedly criticized the intelligence organizations recently for leaking misinformation.

The leading example of Russian involvement in the 2016 election was the DNC hack where the embarrassing emails from Debbie Wasserman Schultz were uncovered, resulting in her being removed as chair. In this case the federal intelligence community, cybersecurity analysts, the Homeland Security Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a statement saying...

"...they believed people at the top levels of Russian government directed the attack in an attempt to interfere in the election."

Donald Trump took the Miss Universe pageant to Moscow in 2013, and he is known to have other

It might even look like this

business interests in Russia; specifically a desire to build a luxury Trump hotel in Moscow. But since he won't release his taxes, there is no way to know exactly what is going on. There is one thing we know for sure, Donald Trump is about business. He has been criticized time and again over the lack of complete separation between the presidency and his business-related interests. One son recently cost the federal govt. thousands of protection dollars to protect him in work abroad for the hotels.

Business insider Politics reported...

"Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse this week said he was sure the Russia-related cloud hanging over President Donald Trump's administration would not be clearing up anytime soon."

 The Rhode Island Democrat says Lindsey Graham's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism will look at the issue from three perspectives. 1) Trump's relationship with Russia pertaining to his business enterprises; 2) What did these actually do to affect the 2016 election?; 3) How exactly was the Trump staff involved in, if any, shenanigans in trying to swing the election toward Donald John? It is a fact that more Republicans have evidenced their concern over the possibility that Russia might have some part in getting Trump elected.

It is important to note that three important Donald Trump advisers have left the White House staff due to their Russian ties. First, Paul Manafort, former campaign manager and consultant for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine, left early, in August of 2016. Resignation has not been explained. Carter Page, former foreign policy adviser, left in September 2016, with ties to a business consultancy work for state-owned Russian oil giant Gazprom. Page is currently subject to U.S. investigations over his Russian connections. Michael Flynn left recently Feb. 13, for lying to V.P. Pence about speaking with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak in December 2016.

Politifact concluded...

"Based on the evidence, it seems highly unlikely that actions by the Russian government contributed in any decisive way to Trump’s win over Clinton."

Senior research scientist at CNA Analysis & Solutions, Dmitry Gorenburg, lamented over all the ruckus over what might have happened. What the U.S. should be concerned about is the fact that Russia even made the attempt. As an observer to all that has been written, that would indicate to me that the hackers felt they had the means to accomplish their goals and it is accepted knowledge that Putin's minions are known to be excellent cyber thieves. They were able to hack into and steal million from U.S. banks back in 2015.

However, former President George W. Bush said, "...that the American people deserve answers on the alleged connection between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia." This from Donald John's own party plus someone who sat in the Oval Office in the same place where he is sitting now just over eight years ago. And then just this past Friday...

"Republican Rep. Darrell Issa called for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to hire an independent prosecutor to investigate the connection between the Trump campaign and Russia. Issa joins a number of Democrats in calling for an independent prosecutor."

I would expect that kind of rhetoric coming from a career building blowhard like Issa, but GWB is way beyond having to make a name for himself. Apparently the decision of a prosecutor is Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This was Trump's, of course, Tweet response...

“Russia talk is FAKE NEWS put out by the Dems, and played up by the media, in order to mask the big election defeat and the illegal leaks!” 

And finally, Wilbur Ross, who probably will be confirmed Secretary of Finance tonight, is the latest with Donald John's conglomeration of Russian connections. Esquire reports that Ross has an ownership stake in a Cyprus bank in consultation with Russian President Vladimir Putin who was the first to prop up the institution. The magazine also notes that, "Cyprus banks have a long and painful history of laundering dirty money from Russians involved with corruption and criminality."

Well, it just doesn't get any better.

Poltiical Satire: Can the Democrats/Progressives recover? Why not!

The left is in, perhaps, the worst shape it has been in for decades. Not that it has had that much past luck in Congress, the only positive recently being Barack Obama who was stonewalled by the GOP during his entire eight years. But the election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton proves the inability of Democrats to nominate an electable candidate to run against a weakened Republican Party. They had one in Bernie Sanders but blew it allowing Debbie Wasserman Schultz to run the show and bar his nomination through unethical tactics, for which she was fired.

There are all kinds of perceptions of whether or not the Bern would have beat Trump, but what is sure is the fact that he would have given him a better run for his money than Hillary Clinton did. Sanders awakened the younger crowd, which could have been his ace in the hole against Donald John. But this is all history and the focus now is how to bring Democrats/Progressives back to the forefront. If my experience with the Demographic grassroots volunteer organization is any indication of the competency of this group, this is where the most work is necessary.

With both Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders I volunteered my services repeatedly; in both cases, with no takers. That's right, my background in database management, including computer modeling , along with research and market predicting was made available several times to apparently deaf ears. Due to my physical condition I couldn't go out and knock on doors, but time and again I offered to make my full office and experience available. Most recently, I contacted Bernie Sanders' campaign right up to the bitter end of his running for the nomination. Both in my state and national. Nothing.

And today Democrats are divided over how to handle Donald Trump, with one group wanting an all-out war, the other wants to try and guide him to the center. It should be obvious by now to anyone, you don't push Donald John in any direction but his own. And then there's the realization that with all the support to oppose Trump, the congressional Democrats just may not have the power to accomplish what they want. Impeachment now would take some strong support from Republicans and that isn't likely to happen. Of course, 2018 could turn the tide.

Bernie Sanders

But there has always been a leader from the left that stood out when minds were being made up aboutBernie Sanders stood out as the candidate of choice but denied his right. The American public was screaming for change, and the Bern offered that in a way that would most benefit the working class. What they got was Donald Trump, the voice of...Donald Trump.
campaigns and elections to come. Names like F.D.R., John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, unfortunately, Hillary Clinton most recently. There was a clear point at which the obvious was there to see in 2016, and that was when

One Democrat from a left-leaning state, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is Vice Chairman off the Democratic Governors Assn., spoke of massive support for resistance against Donald John's Executive Order banning refugee admissions and travel from seven majority Muslim countries. Gov. Inslee has backed a lawsuit that challenges Trump's Executive Order and commented that by "...undermining Mr. Trump across the board..." The Dems will eventually hope to split Republicans away from the President. Not sure the likes of Mitch McConnell are bright enough.

The Democratic Party is so weakened that several Congress members from red states are afraid to oppose Trump for fear of losing their seats. But what good are those seats to the left if they have no voice. The answer is none. I am having a problem here wondering why we aren't getting fire and brimstone from a team of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer. They are, combined, the strength of the Senate and the Democratic Party. The Republicans doesn't hesitate to gang up against the left when the opportunity presents itself.

However, this is what the Dems are up against. A House and Senate controlled by the GOP. A Republican in the White House, although with such a lack of direction in his first month in office, the unknown will be the biggest problem. And if, probably when, Neil Gorsuch is installed in the Supreme Court, it will be five conservatives against four liberals. Insurmountable odds? Maybe not. Leo Jennings, a Democratic consultant from Youngstown, Ohio, days the Party must adopt a more Progressive economic agenda. Progressives must reclaim the Party.

Jennings, a Sanders supporter, said...

"If we don't start talking about the things that we can do to make it better for all working-class voters, we're bankrupt as a party."

Jennings feels you should lump whites and blacks (people of color) together in the Party's approach, but not rule out identity politics altogether. A state Party organizer who is black said, "If the Democratic Party wants to be around in the future, they need to go left." Precisely what Bernie Sanders was doing when his campaign was ruthlessly side-tracked. The public saw Hillary Clinton as too middle of the road and much too connected to the financial community to be on the side of the consumer. Some Sanders' supporters did vote for Hillary butt it was all too late.

I mentioned the potential magic trio earlier of Sanders, Warren and Schumer, the latter also Senate minority leader, thinking how much power is held by three of the most forceful Democrats in the Senate. What if we now add former President Barack Obama to the formula as a civilian, and Bill and Hillary Clinton, if they are of a mind, plus any other Progressives that want to join the new club. Now, looking forward to 2018, and a takeover of the Senate, and the House too, this consortium could be unbeatable. Is there any reason why these people couldn't and shouldn't work together?

There is at least one skeptic, Chinemerem Onyeukwu, 23, the Party organizer from Ohio, who is worried that, "...Democrats are going to keep running what he called '90s-style campaigns despite Clinton's loss." He has reason to believe that when, in light of the changing analytics of the 2016 Primaries, the Dems were still under the spell of the wicked witch from Florida. There is hope with the election of a new Democratic National Committee head yesterday, Tom Perez. It wasn't the pick of Bernie Sanders and the rest of the Party left, so the future remains to be seen.

Political Satire: Steve Bannon pursues "deconstruction" of what?

Look what we dug up

It is near impossible to find something to admire Donald trump for but Steve Bannon would. It's the fact that the engineer of this runaway train, being called the Trump administration, will never moderate on his issues. That would be commendable, except that many of his issues are insane. Take the immigration Executive Order as one example. Another is targeting Obamacare. There are more. But this is all about something Stevo calls “deconstruction of the administrative state,” and that would mean...

"...the system of taxes, regulations and trade pacts that the president says have stymied economic growth and infringed upon U.S. sovereignty."

It was Barack Obama, a Democrat, who rescued the U.S. economy after Geo. W. Bush, another Republican, put it in the toilet.  Obama has placed it on the path to recovery and it would be in an even better position if the former President hadn't been blocked at every move he made by GOP obstructionists like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. Back to Bannon, here's another biting commentary...

"Former Ohio governor Ted Strickland (D) said Bannon is a 'dangerous person driven by an authoritarian ideology who, I fear, has more influence than anyone in the administration.
This is a mean, vicious, intolerant group. I’ve never seen anything like this in my political life.'”

Finally, for the record, When Stevo was a documentary filmmaker, he promoted former Alaska governor Sarah Palin as a conservative idol for the Tea Party wackos. Need I say more?

The real story...

Political Satire: 33 Days of lies/misinformation from the White House

Have you wondered, will Donald Trump ever get through one day without telling a lie or spewing misleading information? It is doubtful since his first 33 days in office have been fraught with a complete distortion of the facts. But with no remorse. That's the new President of the United States, a gift bestowed on us by a bunch of uneducated, racist, religious nuts. This group probably has a problem with the truth since they are completely removed from reality. And the real problem is that these poor souls still think this lunatic is doing the right thing.

Here's more, and it might be the most alarming; a conservative news service reported that 45% of Donald John's followers trust his administration more than the news media. No doubt the same conglomeration as those covered above. The Washington Post's lead fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, said...

“There’s never been a presidential candidate like Donald Trump — someone so cavalier about the facts and so unwilling to ever admit error, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.”

Yet, the American public just complacently sits back, when there should be an outcry demanding that this maniac either resign or be impeached. But, of course, there is still a blockhead Congress to deal with. What we need is a new visionary from the Progressive ranks to lead the fight. Actually, we had one, and he is the person who should be in the White House now.

The real story...

Political Satire: More never-ending Tea Party stupidity

The Tea Party brain

There is just no end to the idiocy of this organization. You have to wonder how a group with double-digit IQs can hang around so long; probably because there are so many people out there with double-digit IQs. I am talking about the Tea Party, of course, more specifically their continued derision of Barack Obama. Apparently, these blockheads don't know he is out of office, no longer in the White House. Not in a policy-making capacity anymore, and probably doesn't give a damn what the Tea Party thinks or says about him. But they still keep grinding it out. Why?

Because of headlines like this, "BIZARRE: Obama’s CULT Manual FOUND, Claims ‘Clouds Will Part’ When He and Michelle Return," that encourage those double-digits to read their crap and give up their money. The Tea Party has been bankrolled from the beginning by the Koch Bros., David and Charles, guilty repeatedly of favoring their business interests over human life and the general well-being of consumers. The Tea Party follows suit by favoring their ultra-conservative credo and driving issues that benefit their group at the expense of the country. No matter, it will always be stupid.