Category Archives: GOP

by

There’s a Scandal Alright–Just Not Where You Think

committee I’ve long wondered at the seeming inability of the GOP to remember that we actually keep records of  “that stuff”. They continue to forget that. I give a pass to the typical TeaPotter who is so ill-informed that they are left with nothing but misspelled phrases that they either paint on cardboard signs or attempt to regurgitate from memory. They can’t be expected to actually, you know, KNOW history.

As you know doubt know, the GOP has been looking for a way for five long years now to bury this president. All of their schemes have come to naught for quite obvious reasons, but even when we thought things might, just might, return to some semblance of normalcy after their debacle of 2012, well, sadly they learned nothing.

Some of their own kind (Pat Toomey)  even admit, that their membership so hates this man that they will vote NO on legislation as publicly supported as universal background checks. So of course we expected that rottweiler of a thug, Darrell Issa to continue his determination to find SOMETHING that can bring down this administration.

Benghazi was their choice, aided and abetted by one John S. McCain, who had a personal vendetta and was more than willing to rattle the sabre of “coverup” at least as it pertained to Susan Rice, a woman we can now categorically say was unfairly maligned and mistreated by Johnny and his misogynist guy pal, Ms. Lindsey.

Let me just say this simply. The Benghazi “scandal” is nothing more than a witch hunt. And history explains it all to us.

Darrell “my brother did it” Issa is chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. That is, innocent as it sounds, a very powerful committee, and one Issa has used since 2010 when he assumed chairmanship, to conduct endless hearings into the Obama administration, hoping to find ANYTHING that can be used to harass and drive from office the Negro in the White House.

It is also the only committee that is allowed to issue subpoenas under the chairman’s signature only. However, this has seldom been the practice. Normally, given that grave power, the Chairman has sought the agreement of a full committee vote before so proceeding. This has been  the case except for only two occasions in modern times. Hint: this is where the history gets important.

The most notable occasion when the Chairman took sole control over subpoenas was under the chairmanship of Dan Burton, (R-IN). Mr. Burton had a serious case of the ass against one William J. Clinton. Like Darrell, Dan fairly lit up the committee with his constant and outlandish claims of wrongdoing.

This resulted in a scandal of course–Mr. Burton spend years, over 1,000 subpoenas, and 7 million bucks of taxpayer money, trying to prove that there was scandal to be found in the fund-raising practices of the Democratic Campaign organization. Copies of audio tapes from a “witness” were released. Later it was determined that the tapes had been severely “edited” to appear quite different from their original content. Burton fired committee staff man David Bossie, the supposed “editor”.

However, the scandal went further, and finally, there were calls for Burton to step down himself. He never did of course.

Well, here we go again.

Mr. Issa decided that Burton’s sole possessor of the subpoena was a good thing,  and re-instituted the practice again. This brought a rather lengthy and well-reasoned letter from Elijah Cummings, ranking minority leader on the committee, and a man with a memory. He pointed out that unilateral usage of the power of subpoena had gotten the GOP into serious trouble once before, and it was better to return to the normal and regular practice of bipartisan issuance of these orders.

Of course, Mr. Issa declined rational behavior and has as we all know run a one-man-show of Obama attack. And the expected result has occurred.

For weeks the GOP has harped that the Obama White House was engaged in a cover-up regarding Benghazi. That cover-up has never been spelled out well, but it seems to have revolved around the White House changing the talking points (which implicated Rice somehow), to protect the State Department (and Hillary Clinton) from being accused of malfeasance.

This claim was bolstered by information from e-mails circulated between the  parties involved. We were told this by the GOP. Jonathan Karl broke the story for ABC, claiming as the GOP had alleged, that State Department officials had participated in changing the talking points, along with the White House. Karl implied that he had seen the emails himself and “quoted” from them.

When the true emails were brought forth, they told a different story–one that indicated that neither the White House nor the State Department had played a part in the versions discussed and finally issued by the CIA for distribution (i.e. to Susan Rice).  Now of course Karl claims he never actually saw any e-mails but his “source” shared “notes” with him of what he/she read.

The fair meaning  of what Karl claimed and the actual truth leave little doubt that there was a deliberate attempt to portray the White House and State Department in a bad light and to provide proof that they had acted politically with the intent to deceive. Since the e-mails were the subject of subpoenas, the likely “source” is undoubtedly someone on Issa’s committee.

It is ironic in the end that all this Benghazi “scandal” has been in part to dirty the White House, but also to begin the long process of discrediting Mrs. Clinton. While nobody is all that surprised by the GOP’s doing that, it must be remembered that when all efforts were directed toward destroying the President, the GOP actually held Mrs. Clinton up as the “ray of sunshine” in the otherwise dismal Obama landscape.

Now that the President seems invincible to their machinations, Clinton, the new threat, became the new target.

It’s all so predictable.

And that is what needs be investigated it seems–why are my tax monies being used to manufacture scandals for Republican political gain?

Riddle me that Batman.

Related articles
by

The Benghazi Hustle

benghazi-hearings-hdb-1-4_3_rx383_c540x380Here we go again. Everybody hold tight because this merry-go-round is speeding around the curve and headed for–well just about anything that the GOP imagination can dream up.

In a valiant attempt to turn a mole hill into a mountain, Republican Tea Snorters are busy twisting and feigning shock and awe at the shameful and deliberate attempt by the Obama Administration to get “brave Americans” murdered by, well, you know, their true friends.

If one reads the headlines of the extreme-stream media, here is what you will find:

“Benghazi Witness: First Time in my Career that a Diplomat Has more balls than somebody in the Military.”

“Benghazi revelations today could obliterate Obama’s Credibility and Sink Hillary’s 2016 ambitions.”

“Issa seeks more whistle blowers after dramatic Benghazi hearing.”

“Two key witnesses refuse to testify at Benghazi hearing.”

“Benghazi Makes Watergate look like kindergarten: The End of Obama”

“Hillary perjured herself on Benghazi?”

“Benghazi Whistleblower: You Should have Seen what Clinton Tried to do to us that night.”

And on and on it goes.

Here’s what I think we know at this point.

  1. A YouTube video riled up Muslims around the world and demonstrations were being held in a variety of places, Egypt among them.
  2. A demonstration occurred at Benghazi, that was violent.
  3. Ambassador Stevens was fairly well known to favor less security rather than more in an attempt to be open to the residents of the country.
  4. Republicans had steadfastly refused State Department requests for more money to beef up security around the world.
  5. The Ambassador and three others were killed in the first attack.
  6. Air support could not have reached the outpost for hours, a minimum of 5-7 according to the military.
  7. There was no basis for suspecting a second attack.
  8. There were no deaths or serious injuries sustained in the second attack.
  9. A team of FOUR, a military security forces was located at Tripoli but they were concerned about security there, and even John Bolton admitted that they were unable to determine whether the four men should leave that facility for Benghazi when the deaths had already occurred and there was no reason to suspect a second attack.
  10. Senator Tom Corker from Tennessee, sat on the Senate hearings on Benghazi and said that he read all the material and thought he knew what happened and was satisfied.
  11. The President termed the attack a “terrorist attack” the day following the attack.
  12. That Susan Rice delivered the cautionary remarks that we were unsure what happened based on material supplied her by others in the State Department or other agencies.
  13. That Al Qaeda is not an organization so much as an idea, and many Islamic groups claim “affiliation” without benefit of any actual connection. To this day, we don’t know I don’t think who this group consisted of.
  14. There was no reason to believe that naming it other than a terrorist attack was some how beneficial to the White House in the midst of an election. Most presidents, following some catastrophe or other see their polling improve as people tend to “rally round” the Administration. If the President had war mongered the event, the GOP would have been arguing just the opposite–that he was making it much worse than it was in order to gain sympathy.

The bottom line to me here is simply. The Benghazi outpost was under-secured. Certainly the GOP bears SOME responsibility for that fact as do congressional Democrats who agreed that they didn’t need additional funds. There was apparently not good plans in place for an emergency like this. There should have been.

Beyond that, it was a sad tragedy. But let us remember. Americans are dying around the world every day. They are dying in service to the country, and as employees of corporations doing business in dangerous places. These four were doing their jobs. They perhaps did not receive the full support they should have, but such is life in dangerous occupations. I don’t mean to minimize it, but it should not be overstated either.

The GOP tried to make this into some scandal during the fall of 2012 to hurt the chances of the President to be re-elected, and enhance their candidates chances. That didn’t happen. Now they see polling that suggests that Hillary Clinton, if the nominee will beat any Republican so far put forth, easily and soundly.

Is it hard to see why this is happening now? Of course not. This is just an attempt to dirty up Clinton and force her to not run.

That’s my take on it.

And what is yours?

Republicans are united in their insanity that this will lead to impeachment.

Do you?

Related articles
by

If You Talk From Your Ass, I Guess You Talk From Three Sides of Your Mouth

wayne-lapierreHalf the civilized world has now reacted to the bilge that comes out of the anal region of Wayne La PEE PEE Pierre, so I won’t bore you with more.

Except this.

Part of me secretly snickers at how the NRA, along with all the Right-wing elites, (read Fox, corporate interests, and GOP politicos), play their audiences for a fool. I mean to the rest of normally functioning America, you are always saying, “how can people be so stupid to not get it?”

Get what?

Oh, get that the Right-wing elites get the little people, mostly working class but definitely middle class wannabes, to do their bidding. They do this by such blatant lying and cursing of the truth, that, well, it only works if you are burdened with a lack of grey matter with which to discern reality.

I mean, face it, smart people are not listening to Fox, only those who are (how can we say this delicately?) intellectually challenged respond to that crap. It’s really a combination of lack of intellectual acuity and lack of interest in well, thinking, that motivates the average working Joe to “just let Fox do it”–the thinking that is.

How else can you explain Wayne’s rant at the NRA conference and the illogical crap he spewed to ears who can hear, but alas cannot decipher the message?

Wayne says, (not wanting to exploit a tragedy of course), that the poor people of Boston “cowered” behind their locked doors, wishing for all they were worth that they had guns with which to protect themselves against the monster bombers roaming the streets.

Now such a statement defies intelligence. Boston has no laws against the ownership of firearms. Everybody in Boston prior to the bombing there, has all the firearms they wanted. Nobody was cowering without defense unless they were of a mind that ownership of firearms was not a thing for them.

Now Wayne is not stupid. Insane, maybe, but not stupid. He knew that. He knew nobody in Boston was wishing they had guns. If they had wished such a thing, they would have bought one, or many. But Wayne is talking to stupid Teapotters out there. And frankly one can’t assume they don’t know this. For Teapotters think that background checks = national registry = confiscation of guns=abandonment of the 2nd Amendment=last step before communism=end of the world. They truly do believe that. They believe it because Fox and Wayne have told them so.

And as one listened to the endless parade of new civil war mongering that passed as “speeches” at the NRA convention, one cannot help but understand that these people really truly don’t know any better. I’m not sure that one of their survivalist “stores” isn’t designing the Teapotter uniform even as we speak, in anticipation of the coming militia call-up ordered by Wayne and his band of boobs.

Which is all kind of amusing since Kelly Ayotte is scrambling to make herself “understood”. See, she really does support background checks. Really, really, really. It was just the mainstream media and it’s awful use of “tapes of her answers” that got everybody all confused. Or her explanation that background checks would impose burdens on gun sellers that was unfair, that got taken out of context–the context being the word salad she wallowed in while trying to figure out what to say.

But Ayotte too is well aware that she is playing to a weak audience. She raises the NRA claim that those persons denied the right to buy weapons under the current NICS system aren’t prosecuted enough. That is a straw argument and Ayotte knows it, although she hopes her audience doesn’t. She calls all those rejected by NICS as “criminals”. They aren’t of course, they just don’t qualify for gun ownership. She bemoans that this is the problem with the system–police and prosecutors aren’t using their resources to prosecute a person who the system has successfully prevented from buying a gun. I mean wow, better they should get that year’s probation while the rampage of house break-ins continue from lack of police power. There are priorities and then there are priorities!

Meanwhile, Jeff Flake from Arizona has had a change of heart as well. Likening his popularity in Arizona to that of “pond scum”, Flack now alleges that the reason he opposed the legislation was that it made it a “commercial sale” if I emailed you and said I had a gun and would you like to buy it. Jeff is now sure that “that can be worked out” and he had happily join the majority and vote for background checks.

I rather think that his resemblance to pond scum had a lot more to do with his decision than did the flimsy made up email crap.

While the NRA continues it barrage of hate spewing and fear mongering, it seems that the tide is turning. Frankly nothing points that out more clearly than looking at who spoke at the NRA and who didn’t. Rick Santorum? The “don’t forget me,”  girl, Sarah? Glenn “I’m madder than any hatter” Beck? Surely you jest?

With a lineup like that, I mean does it say it all? Where were the Rubio’s? The Graham’s? The Ryan’s? The Cantor’s? Where were they? Oh, they quietly whispered, “gosh darn Wayne, you know my heart is with you, and I’ll work tirelessly behind-the-scenes, but I can’t AFFORD to publicly support you. You understand. Elections coming. Can’t rile up the folks now can we? *wink*wink*nudge*nudge. Just don’t ahh, mention that you invited me okay?”

Did I mention that we, the sane ones are NOT GOING AWAY this time?

Did I mention that?

You heard me? I don’t have to shout?

Good.

PS: I hear that some of these boobs are calling for an “armed march” on Washington on the 4th of July. Good luck with that.

Related articles
by

Stop Projecting Your Crap on Me!

neurosisA couple of ideas got to floating around in my head, and the best way I know to get rid of them is to bore you with them. Think of yourselves as my therapists. Cheap treatment eh?

Anyway. You know for the longest time, I figured that humans, being humans, and not giraffes or hermit crabs, probably thought pretty much the same way. Not the same opinions, mind you, but they processed in similar ways.

You know the drill, gather the information (in your head), sort through it, categorize it, and in the end define your “opinion”. As you came across new facts, you tweaked your opinion, were happily confirmed in your opinion, or ditched it for a better one.

A couple of remarks by folks the last week or go, brought me to the utterly sure conclusion and “opinion” that that is simply not the case. Most people might operate as above, but whole groups of people do not, and I think they are identifiable.

Know thy enemy various sage warrior types tell us, and indeed it’s true. But one cannot do that if one just assumes that your enemy thinks like you do. Often they don’t.

It has happened more than once that a commenter on this or one of my other blogs will bemoan the fact that “the people who need to read this won’t.” And that seems undeniably true. I’ll explain further in a moment.

The other statement that struck me (because it was not at all true) went something like this: “You criticize everybody on our ‘side’ as wrong, and you think everybody on your ‘side’ is right.” Actually no.

So in trying to fathom these two statements I realized that indeed, we don’t think alike.

Now this is not a new concept I suppose, for it’s well documented that the certain minds do operate quite differently, yet I had never see it in how they process information.

The fundamentalist mind is a mind in terror. It doesn’t like the world as it exists, and finds it both chaotic and scary. So it creates an illusory perfect world that works for them. If everyone were to behave in the “right” way, then their lives could finally be happy and safe. They are prone of course to religious fanaticism, finding this a perfect vehicle for achieving the world they want. They also are, if you hadn’t noticed, unreservedly conservative.

In fact, they aren’t conservative by any known definition at all. They are reactionary in their outlook. And it is this that causes them to process information so very differently.

As we engage in the back and forth of normal dialogue and debate, one thing becomes obvious. Liberals and progressives read all the material offered up by the reactionary right. We read it, find the errors in it, check out the sources, check out the backgrounds of the writers. Then we make our objections and our arguments. Reactionaries don’t return the favor. They studiously refuse to read any material you offer to them as proof of the point you contend.

At first I saw this as a manifestation of passive-aggressiveness. And partly, that is probably the case. However, it goes much deeper.

The reactionary is on very unstable logic grounds. They somehow intuitively know this. The people I debate with are frightfully uninformed about basic information and what information they do have comes from unreliable sources that makes them even worse, mis-informed.  They tend to engage in hit-and-run tactics. They present the information, and when you show them the reasons why it is unreliable, they don’t argue the facts, they simply argue that you are “just against the conservative point of view.”

That is because that is how they operate. They read ONLY what pleases them and reinforces their predetermined beliefs (ones that serve their purposes). They are not interested and don’t want to contend with information that is contrary to what they believe, because they are comfortable in their world and don’t want it disturbed. Facts might do that.That might cause them to have to think. Horror of horrors they might find out (as liberals and progressives do every day), that they have to change their mind about something.

Talk about upset the apple cart! How is one to survive in this insane world without the anchor of truth, justice and the American Way on your side? How to live with a book that is the recipe for how to live?

The reactionary right will always claim that the liberal/progressive is the same as they are. They truly believe that. They believe that MSNBC and CBS are “just as bad” as Fox at telling lies. They believe that en mass the Democrats are just as evil as the Republicans.  To them, proving that Fox is an awful “news” outlet and not to be trusted, means nothing, because to them, MSNBC is no better. There is no distinction in their mind whatsoever, no shades of grade, not qualitative difference.

They cannot fathom for instance that some liberals on some subjects are very unhappy with the President. That some are very unhappy with Harry Reid. They don’t think we “know” that Democrats are often as guilty of self-serving greed as Republicans. When we agree with them that MSNBC is often lousy at news, they are taken aback and think we are lying.

They refuse to see a qualitative difference, because they don’t engage in any media EXCEPT right-wing blathering. They assume we are all alike, just opposites. We know they are not the same, because we engage in both.

It is true that the people who need to read things which would help them see themselves in a mirror, won’t. No amount of asking them to will work because it is just too damn dangerous. A created worldview is a fragile thing. It cannot bear the light of reason or facts. It crumbles in the daylight, and therefore  must be kept safe.

I believe what I believe because it suits me, and I read what tells me I am right. I do not read what threatens that. Ever. I simply project my own closed mind onto everyone else. They are just like me. I am not ignorant. Fox is really fair and balanced, at least it’s no worse than the rest.

Such minds are not reachable.

They are locked away, growing dusty and angrier by the minute.

They are more susceptible to demagoguery.

They are sure they are right, and no fact will ever be allowed to tarnish that shiny bag of beliefs.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

A lot of minds out there are being wasted.

 

 

by

Meet the Original Libtards!

ConstitutionOur friendly Tea Party “Patriots” often tell us that they love the constitution. In fact it takes second place only to that timeless book, the Bible–the one God wrote to tell us how to behave. Probing, (as I am always wont to do), I discover that it’s not only the constitution that is revered, but of course the “founding fathers” who, as you know, among other things, brought us the constitution.

That always amuses me ever so much.

Sadly, it seems common to the PayTREEots not to dig too deeply into the mantras they are taught by Fox and people like pseudo-historian David Barton. If they did dig a bit they would find that their adulation is ironic to say the least. Barton of course would have them believe that the FFs were all deeply religious men and that they basically made the Declaration and Constitution tracts which God hopefully would  approve of wholeheartedly. The truth of course lies quite a ways left of Mr. Barton’s imaginative ramblings.

We all know that many of the founders of our fair republic were anything but religious in their leanings. Jefferson is notable for his refusal to believe in the truth of any of the bible’s miracle stories, actually editing them out of his personal bible. (You can see his bible with all the little cut-outs somewhere, probably at Monticello). The other giant, Franklin might be defined as a deist at best.

This should not be surprising since all the FF were the rich elites of their day, and were well read. And what they read and what inspired them (oh you must remember this from high school) were the likes of Locke, Rousseau and Voltaire. All were “men of the enlightenment”. You could easily add Isaac Newton and Spinoza to the mix as well. They were men who started to see that the world could be explained through normal observation and reasonable deductive conclusion. Some, like Newton, were men of science, who were uncovering the physical laws that governed the universe.

In all cases, they were the heretics of their day as well, rejecting the church’s claims that the bible was the only resource needed to explain the world. Some professed a belief in God, but not in the traditional sense of their day.

The explosion of new thought spread across Europe and Britain, and eventually to America where it inspired Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and others to reject the “god-given” circumstances of both colonialism and monarchy. They were “enlightened” to perceive the world differently and their place within it differently. They could finally conceive of themselves as in control of their own destinies.

They formed a government based on enlightenment principles of freedom, democracy, and most of all reason as the basis for rule. They ushered in the concepts of capitalism, markets, the scientific method, religious tolerance (read tolerance to practice what YOU believed, or be free to believe nothing). It was a movement based on equality and commonality and shared responsibility.

In effect, they were the liberals of their day. They were the heretics to the religious right with all their talk of reason and science. They brought forth a new type of government.

The conservatives of their day? They were Tories.

It thus is so very ironic to think of Tea Party adherents touting their love and admiration for our Founding Fathers, today. In the time of our founding, such people would have been sending their sons to stand with King George III.

But of course Tea People never think that deeply.

I can see why.

It is just too embarrassing.

by

The Stupid Chronicles April 27, 2013

james-tracyLook closely at the picture attached here. This is the face of lunacy. You now know exactly what to look for when you casually saunter down the street. When you see lunacy, run!

This man’s name is James Tracy. No not Dick Tracy. He bears not brain-sharing with the great detective of comics. No James is one of those rare nuts who actually somehow made it through grad school and got a degree, and purports to teach our youth.

If you have a child enrolled in Florida Atlantic, I’d suggest you shut off the funds now, and get your kid immediately.

James is certifiable. James “teaches” (I use the term loosely of course) communications and, get this, conspiracy theory. James is a conspiracy. A conspiracy to appear like a normal human being.

James believes the Boston Marathon bombing was “staged”. For all the world, to him, it looks like a pre-organized drill.

In short, the event closely resembles a mass-casualty drill, which for training purposes are designed to be as lifelike as possible. Since it is mediated, however, and primarily experienced from afar through the careful assemblage of words, images, and the official pronouncements and commentary of celebrity journalists, it has the semblance of being for all practical purposes “real.”
….

With the above in mind, photographic evidence of the event suggests the possibility of play actors getting into position after the detonation of what may in fact have been a smoke bomb or similarly benign explosive.

And goody of all goodies there is a video!

And you can read more of Tracy’s insanity at his own blog.

New Hampshire makes another appearance in the crazy parade with an entry from their state legislature. Stella Trembley, oh STELLLLLLA, what have you done now? Stella

Stella no doubt in communication with Mr. Tracy, has her own theories about the Boston Marathon bombing.

Stella pays attention to that great witless Beck, so she posted this on Beck’s site:

Just as you said would happen. Top Down, Bottom UP. The Boston Marathon was a Black Ops “terrorist” attack. One suspect killed, the other one will be too before they even have a chance to speak. Drones and now “terrorist” attacks by our own Government. Sad day, but a “wake up” to all of us. First there was a “suspect” then there wasnt. Infowars broke the story and they knew they had been “found out”.
http://youtu.be/axQtAFtmtVA

Yes, I’m sure that Stella believes that George Bush ordered the 9/11 tragedy as well.

Note as well that the YouTube link she gave on her comment is from none other than career nut Alex Jones.

We did mention that Ms. Stella is a Republican didn’t we? No? Well you knew that anyway didn’t you?

One thing you can be sure of, the stupids are well, really really stupid. That’s why they are so endearing, when they are not annoying gnats in need of swatting.

Such is the case of Representative Tom Shaw, who resides at the Iowa State House, where he plays tiddlywinks most of the day long until it’s time for his chocolate milk and nap break.

tom-shaw-199x300Tommy is still mighty angry at the justices of the Iowa Supreme Court, who several years ago had the temerity to actually follow the constitution and declare Iowa’s refusal to allow gays to marry, well, unconstitutional.

Tommy figured out a neat plan to punish the four remaining justices (three were defeated for re-election after a tissue of lies campaign forged by one VanderPlatts and his homophobic friends).

Tommy has offered up a bill directed just at these four justices, cutting their salaries from $163, 200, to just $25,000.

Tommy thinks it’s constitutional.

Tommy is of course an idiot.

Tommy can usually be spotted at the capital building in Des Moines, being led around by his thinking-brain dog Charles.

Tommy also wears Depends and poops in them regularly, so people learn to take a wide berth when seeing him.

From Iowa, we move a bit north and east to my original neck of the woods–Michigan.

platkoHere we find Gloria Platko, a Democrat up in Buena Vista County. She doesn’t seem particularly fond of township supervisor Dwayne Parker, whom she referred to with the “N” word.

She also adjectived that word with “arrogant”.

Gloria, poor dear, was unaware that she was being taped when she made the remarks.

She regrets them of course. NOW.

She assures us she is no racist, because in that time-honored defense, “she’s eaten Thanksgiving dinner at the homes of blacks before.”

She said she probably should have used the word ignoramus.

Sorry, Gloria, that word is taken. You have that dubious distinction of owning the word.

Give back your salary.

It’s always a good bet that Donald Trump can make a stupid list.

trump-stewThe first question or observation one makes about The Donald, is how could stupid make that much money?

Donald doesn’t like Jon Stewart much.

That would be obvious, since Stewart, like all good thinking people tends to point out Donald’s numerous stupid moments.

Donald has another major flaw other than being stupid. He’s very thin-skinned and fights back, hate to use the phrase, but it fits, “like a girl.”

You know what I mean, all snotty and so forth.

So to “get back” at Stewart for being, well, really brilliant at what he does, Trump said,

I am smarter than Jon Stewart will ever be because he is so stupid and because his real name is not even Jon Stewart. It’s something much more Jewish-y. So, ha! Also: he is overrated.

He tweeted it too.

So there, Jon Stewart: It’s all out now. You’re a JEW!, or Jewish-y at least. Take that!

Trumpet head remains, as always,  an idiot.

Oh Gosh, that was a joke Donald, don’t sue me!

hi-there

Related articles
by

Can You Understand a TeaPotter?

Anatomy-of-a-Tea-BaggerOkay, I confess. I don’t understand the TeaPotters. It’s not for lack of trying. I truly have tried.

What the problem seems to be, is that in order to understand them, you have to forget a whole lot of stuff you know. Like facts about history, your basic understanding of the constitution, things like that. It helps if you are fairly uninformed about science too.

Wikipedia defines them thusly:

the Tea Party movement tends to be anti-government, anti-spending, anti-Obama, anti-tax, nationalistic, in favor of strict immigration legislation[26] and against compromise politics. Since the 2012 elections, many local Tea Party factions have shifted their focus to state nullification of the health care law, and protesting the United Nations Agenda 21.[27][28][29][30][31][32] The Tea Party is skeptical towards the courts, shows a commitment to individualism and takes an originalist view in constitutional interpretation. [33] The Tea Party is opposed to the bailouts, stimulus packages, and has expressed an interest in repealing the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments. It is also in favor of amending the Constitution to grant states the right to veto

federal laws. It is known as the Repeal Amendment.[34]

yourhealth

Read that part again. They are generally in favor of an originalist” view of the constitution. Now I know a few teapotters myself, and I am categorically sure that they wouldn’t have a clue about what originalist even means, let alone how it might apply to the constitution. That is defined as one of two things, “original intent” or “original meaning”. That would require at minimum a thorough knowledge of the Federalist Papers. Again, the teapotters I know haven’t read that collection EVER.

But here’s what really strikes me as hysterical. In the same breath that they tell you that the constitution is the most important document (next to the Bible of course) ever created by mortal and or immortal hands, they are, as stated above, not so sure we shouldn’t repeal the 16th and 17th and then add an amendment of two. So this perfect document ain’t so perfect after all.

And don’t forget the 14th Amendment which Teapotters don’t like because of that Section 1 giving citizenship to all those born within its confines. (read anchor babies!!)

See, that’s the crazy logic merry-go-round one is forced to ride upon if one wishes to “understand” the average teapotter.

tea-klux-klan-dumb

I think what they mean, and it’s only a guess since trying to figure out the logic behind a teapotters beliefs is a bit like trying to find a tiny white pearl in a ton of newly fallen snow, is that they like the Constitution, except some of those amendments. Some is the operative word here since the one they embrace with both of their beer-huggin’ arms is the 2nd.

Now the 2nd has many scholarly definitions, but to a teapotter it’s real simple: I can buy all the sexy sounding, and biggest killin’ machine guns that are marketed and go to war against the Feds should they “tread on me”. The usual teapotter has watched a tad too many John Wayne movies in his white privileged life, and is darn certain that an armed march on Washington is just what the country needs.

The 1st Amendment is okay as far as it goes. I mean THEY have a right to say what they wish, but Muslims?–well not so sure about them. And that part about separation of church and state, well that don’t mean good Christians should be hampered in their right to display their version of God in every public place–all others are lucky that they can practice their versions behind closed doors–and that’s somewhat iffy too.

If they argue that the Constitution broadly protects a persons right to be left alone, they see that as selective as well. Women have no rights to be left alone when it comes to their reproductive body parts. White men have always known better where that’s concerned. After all, it’s their responsibility to ensure the survival of the white race.

funny+teabagger+signs

Gays have all the rights in the world as long as they do things heterosexually. Anything else is against God’s wishes as they see it, though they aren’t too sure why God created gays anyway. Most assume gays are just willful and stubborn adherents to a lifestyle they find more “fun” than hetero life. One is never quite sure whether they are complaining or not.

Blacks (who are never called African-American) could be just as good as white people if they would only act more white. Just try harder!

Most teapotters are happy to tell you just how hard they have had to work for EVERYTHING they have, and boy you should be impressed by their sacrifices. What is left unsaid of course, is that they feel cheated by their country because as they walk down that last bit of road to the pearly gates, they definitely aren’t living the life they feel entitled to.

That of course is due to the feds who take all their money in taxes and give it to the “lazies” the “takers” the 47%’ers, and other such names. Since they are not deemed worthy of respect, they aren’t really entitled to any of the constitutional things any way.

Mostly it comes down to as best I can tell is this: Teapotters want the country run by white people and they don’t want to pay for anything beyond a big old military. The Constitution was written by them, for them, and about them. It doesn’t really apply to anyone else. Anyone getting in the way of “their way of life” is to be declared an “illegal” “enemy combatant” or some other such “backward, heathen reprobate” and dealt with by means that Jack Bauer would approve of.

screen-shot-teabagger-calls-self

PS: If you are not white, male and Christian, you can of course be left fairly alone as long as you act white, male and Christian.

The TEA PARTY: brought to you by free market big business. You fell for that one too teapotters.

Solution to the teapotter problem: send them all back to high school and start all over again.