Why has politics become a showcase of psychopathology?

Koenigsegg Jesko

What is politics? Merriam-Webster definition: 1a: the art or science of government; b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy; c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government. Then what is government? What is it’s purpose? What is the authority behind governing? By what standards are we to govern and be governed? What uncomfortable questions, what am I, a government nerd?

When a really, really fast car, like a Koenigsegg Jesko, is designed to run on a racetrack and capable of speeds over 200 mph, but is “street-legal”, and almost any yahoo (there’s quite a waiting list) with millions of $$ to spend can purchase one, an important consideration is “how do we keep our buyers from killing themselves and others by running too fast?” Such cars have governors, which are components LIMITING the power that can be delivered by the engine. Governors can be disabled if someone really wants to kill themselves. The point is, the purpose of governing is to limit. Limit what?What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” James Madison.

The founders of our nation understood that there are jurisdictions of government, and that each jurisdiction has it’s own responsibilities. The smallest and most important jurisdiction is self-government. Madison’s quote shows he understood that. Our Constitution was designed for, and by, those folks who can govern themselves. Madison, John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and others all agreed, our government is “intended for a moral people, it will work for no other.” Oops, I slipped that dirty, judgmental word “moral” in. Moral can simply mean, “self governing according to a set of precepts or principles.” Moving on to larger jurisdictions, once a person is mature, capable of self-governing, and finds a spouse and gets married, they form a family, even more so once they have children, and the family is the next jurisdiction of government. Biblically, which is the basis of almost all my understandings, the father is the “head” of the family, the “chief executive officer”, and the wife is the “chief operating officer,” but they are collaborators. When I say the husband or father is the head, I mean that he is the protector who is ready and willing to sacrifice himself for his wife and children. I do not mean he’s the boss or tyrant, but he does need to be the visionary. A family in trouble often starts with a husband who has no vision, thus self-disqualifying himself for true leadership. Women can be visionary in a different way, but in terms of “natural inclination”, men in general are more “big picture” than women, or at least are more comfortable with ideas while women are more comfortable with relationships. Yes, I am generalizing, and it’s my blog, so go write your own if you don’t agree!

The next level jurisdiction is ecclesiastical government, meaning the governing structure of your worship, whether it’s church, or synagogue, or mosque, or whatever, if there’s more than one person involved, it has some kind of governing structure. Then there is civil government, what most people think of as Government. Even within civil government, there are jurisdictions—city, county, state and national. The best government in a republic is delivered at the smallest jurisdictional level. By definition, that’s closest to the voters, those who are actually affected by decisions of government. If voters actually understood our constitution, and the idea of jurisdictions, and the crucial importance of self governing, they would realize that civil government’s purpose is to protect the other jurisdictions—individuals, families, churches—from the encroachments of power hungry politicians and bureaucrats. Until the voters come to their senses, politics will remain the realm of psychopathology. Why do I say this?

If governing were limited to protecting the other jurisdictions, as our founders and our constitution intended, the civil government would attract true patriots, motivated by duty, love of freedom, and respect for the principles of limited government, like George Washington, the only U.S. President who didn’t want the job. He was almost forced into the job, while wanting nothing more than to retire to his farm and relax from the call of duty. The central government, what we misname the Federal government (federal is more accurately the name of our system of national government and state governments, and the fact that the powers of the national government are enumerated while all other powers fall to the states), was responsible for protection of our currency, international trade, and border security. There were three federal crimes: counterfeiting, piracy and treason, reflecting the responsibilities of the national government. In 2009, according to USAToday, there were over 300,000 federal crimes in the US Code. This is evidence of psychopathology. Those crimes are primarily regulatory, many of them propounded by unelected bureaucrats and passed into laws by politicians more concerned with “buying” votes and bribing various constituencies. Look at the result. Donald Trump is President, and I consider him the lesser evil of all Democrat candidates. Yes voters, we are getting what we deserve, we have only ourselves to blame. Our national Koenigsegg Jesko is hurtling at over 200 mph, governor disabled, to where?

“Born this way” has had it’s day.

“born this way” or no gene for gay?

LONDON (Reuters) – A large scientific study into the biological basis of sexual behavior has confirmed there is no single “gay gene” but that a complex mix of genetics and environment affects whether a person has same-sex sexual partners. The research, which analyzed data on DNA and sexual experiences from almost half a million people, found there are thousands of genetic variants linked to same-sex sexual behavior, most with very small effects. Five of the genetic markers were “significantly” associated with same-sex behavior, the researchers said, but even these are far from being predictive of a person’s sexual preferences. “We scanned the entire human genome and found a handful – five to be precise – of locations that are clearly associated with whether a person reports in engaging in same-sex sexual behavior,” said Andrea Ganna, a biologist at the Institute of Molecular Medicine in Finland who co-led the research.

According to Ganna, these genetic variances have “a very small effect” on sexual behavior, and combined, only explain “considerably less than 1% of the variance in the self-reported same-sex sexual behavior.” This means that non-genetic factors, including environment, upbringing, personality, and nurture “are far more significant in influencing a person’s choice of sexual partner, just as with most other personality, behavioral and physical human traits,” according to the researchers.

Since the researchers are Finnish, at least the LGBTQ’ers can’t blame Trump for their opinions, based on a very large sample of over 470,000. Even if LGBTQ-land accepts the conclusions of the study, they will probably still say “less than 1% is still something”, but don’t expect them to go advertising this study, unless the conclusions went the other way.

I particularly wonder why the “born this way” mantra is supposed to be so compelling. Does it matter anyway, now that teachers, government workers and corporate employees are more likely to lose their jobs or be burned by a tweetstorm for denying that women can become men and vice versa, than by upholding “cisgender” heterosexuality. Culturally, it appears that the LGBTQ express is winning, so why do they still parade “born this way” signs in gay pride events? If you’re so proud of where you stick your gonads and your mouth, why are you trying to convince mainstream people that you can’t help yourself? You like what you do, don’t you? I’d better not say any more. No LGBTQ discussion is allowed to mention ACTUAL sexual practices.…not that there’s anything wrong with them……

“Climate change” regatta.

Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old climate activist, arrived in New York City on Wednesday after sailing across the Atlantic on a yacht with solar panels and wind turbines. Forget the fact that carbon is emitted during the construction of the yacht and solar panels. CBS News reported the yacht “had no kitchen, no heating, no fridge and no bathroom.” Thunberg took the yacht to raise awareness about the harmful emissions caused by taking commercial airlines. But even though Thunberg and her crew sailed across the Atlantic using the yacht, it still has to get back. For that, the sailing team for the yacht, known as the “Malizia II” will be flown across the Atlantic to retrieve the vessel.

The spokeswoman, Holly Cova, told the AP in an email that “we only have one boat, so they cannot easily sail over to meet them.” She said this was “an imperfect solution” but thought that offsetting the flights to retrieve the boat was “better than doing nothing.” German news outlet Der Spiegel reported that four flights are required to get team members to the U.S. to retrieve the boat and for other crew members to return. “A spokeswoman for Team Malizia said it’ll be necessary to fly the crew to the U.S. because the high-profile trip with the 16-year-old Swedish campaigner that left Plymouth on Wednesday was arranged at very short notice,” the AP reported.

To offset the carbon emissions created by the flights, the team is paying “organizations that use them to finance climate-friendly projects and thus save emissions elsewhere.” This underscores the fact that being climate-friendly is much easier for the wealthy, who can continue to live as they do now and pay other people to help the planet. For the rest of us, we have to uproot our lifestyles to comply with climate policies.

This same scenario plays out among celebrities and politicians who take private jets while claiming the world will end if we don’t reduce our climate footprint. In January, The Daily Wire’s Emily Zanotti reported that celebrities and activists took more than 1,500 private jets to attend a posh climate change event in Switzerland. Leonardo DiCaprio — one of Hollywood’s biggest proponents of climate change hysteria — continues to use yachts and private jets, as does former Vice President Al Gore. They also have multiple homes and fly far more regularly than the average person, yet they pay others to reduce their carbon emissions so they don’t have to.

All so admirable, except let’s take a peek at Greta’s Wikipedia page and decide what kind of picture it paints:
Greta Thunberg was born in 2003. Her grandfather, Olof Thunberg, says she first heard about climate change in 2011, when she was 8 years old, and could not understand why so little was being done about it. Three years later she became depressed and stopped talking, and was eventually diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), and selective mutism. Thunberg has described the selective mutism aspect of her condition as meaning she only speaks when necessary, and that “now is one of those moments”. Her father does not like her missing school, but said: “[We] respect that she wants to make a stand. She can either sit at home and be really unhappy, or protest, and be happy”. To lower her family’s carbon footprint, she insisted they become vegan and give up flying. She said she persuaded her parents to give up eating meat by making them feel guilty. “I kept telling them that they were stealing our future.” Her mother also gave up her international career as an opera singer. Thunberg has said that she has declined several international speaking engagements because flying would increase her carbon footprints.

This and the description of her “voyage” is a picture of a stolen childhood, the exploitation of an emotionally stunted youngster who in her own family has become the “inmate running the asylum”, and whose fame will crash and burn the moment she is no longer useful to the “adult” controllers who are running her. Erick Erickson has seen through the hypocrisy: “It is eye opening that the left has decided an obnoxious and spectacularly unaccomplished child must be the voice to which we must listen. It is a cult. Her arrival has been met with top of the fold status in various publications as if she is some conquering hero. She is no hero. She is a child. She is known for being brash and rude, which the left says is the super power autism gives her. Yes, they actually believe this. She is known for wanting civic protest to advance her cause. She is the child leader of the global warming cult who got the privilege to sail on a yacht owned by a prince.

“The people who worship you do so because they are using you as a shield against themselves. They demand we not question you and give your ramblings a level of authority most reserve for scripture. It is by faith they believe you will lead them to some promised land. You won’t. Why? Because you are an unaccomplished sixteen year old whose only power is making older progressives swoon and TV reporters smile. The reality is that you are only valuable to them now because you insult the right people and the irony is the very people who now bow down and worship at your feet would have been totally cool with your death had your mother decided you had no value before you were born.” Pow!


The case of the disingenuous aboriginal.

Sounds like a mystery? Disingenuous is such an interesting word. Merriam Webster defines it as “lacking in candor, giving a false appearance of simple frankness.” I don’t know how accurately it fits this case, but let’s try it out. The comments section of my blog has unexpectedly turned into a mutual rant on the value of being “aboriginal”, with my reader wearing that mantle as if it were intrinsically righteous and valuable, and me asking, “so what?” This person lives in Canada. There are three distinctive groups of indigenous peoples recognized in the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, sections 25 and 35: First Nations, Inuit and Métis. I assume he or she is designated First Nation since they are the most numerous. I’ve seen the signs in Canada, and wonder what exactly it means. Certainly, at the least it means that the present day nation of Canada, which has a national flag and anthem, a constitution, a national military force (some of the best snipers in the world!), a central government, provincial governments, and a national expression (“eh”), was not first. The aboriginals were “first”, but were they all one nation, or many nations, or perhaps they couldn’t care less about nation status. I don’t know. What’s worse, I don’t care.

Here is a tiny sample of my reader’s opinion. “But you are as bad as your Mr. Trump IF you think you can now control who can and cannot come to America to try to find a better life than they had at home. That is exactly what your forefathers did, and we allowed them to come and we helped then survive in a world they were not prepared for. HAPPY THANKSGIVING DAY! Go home to wherever your forefathers came from, and see if they accept you back. I doubt it. You have been Americanized. And it shows in your words.” Not to be picky, but who exactly “allowed” our forefathers—more precisely, the Pilgrims who landed in Plymouth, rather than the group who landed in Jamestown earlier—to sail here from Holland? While we are thankful to Squanto for teaching those early Pilgrims how to survive, he was hardly representative of my reader’s royal ”we”. Squanto had accompanied some Englishmen back to England, and when he returned to these shores he discovered his tribe had been wiped out in a plague, no, not deliberately but because they had no resistance to diseases the Europeans carried.

My aboriginal reader hates the United States, seems to like, even love Canada, but writes as if his forefathers were from Plymouth rather than Canada—someone is confused. He wants me and every post-aboriginal immigrant to “go back where we came from”, which would be a mite confusing, since most of us didn’t come from anywhere else and don’t even know from whence our immigrant forebears came. Why should we all do that? Because we aren’t aboriginal? What’s so great and holy about being aboriginal? I asked, and expect a reply any day now, though probably not in time before I finish this blog and really piss First Nation person off. Now the reason I worked disingenuous into this post is, doesn’t it seem disingenuous to write about the sin of not being aboriginal while reading my blog, and writing on a computer, or an iPad, or a smartphone, and surfing the Internet for answers to my penetrating questions? Perhaps I assumed too much. FNP might have found a way to convert smoke signals into HTML, but more likely (I am going to assume FNP is male, since I am a sexist white pig), he also enjoys indoor plumbing, electricity, TV, and frozen dinners. None of those conveniences are aboriginal either.

I pointed out that being aboriginal—being the first or earliest known of its kind present in a region—(or indigenous) hardly gives one a claim to land, unless they can hold on to it, and unless they can develop it they will not be able to hold on to it. He seems to think that the United States is unique when it comes to dispossession of aboriginals. According to IntercontinentalCry.org, there are over 5,000 indigenous peoples around the world, who speak over 4,000 of the 7,000 languages in use today. Many have been treated as shabbily, if not more so, than “native Americans” have. Let’s see: the Ainu in Japan, the Montagnards in Vietnam, the Aborigines in Australia (they don’t even get their own name?), the Maoris in New Zealand, but why go on. “Aboriginal” or “indigenous” designations have quite an “arbitrariness” quotient. In the US, we’re told that our aboriginals came over the Bering land bridge, a “postulated route of human migration to the Americas from Asia about 20,000 years ago.” According to whom? Anthropologists I guess, so technically Canadian and American aboriginals came the same way. What we aren’t told is how many of these tribes displaced, replaced, massacred and enslaved each other. I suppose you’d need a program to follow it all. The probable reality does kind of ruin the narrative of the noble aboriginal who just wanted a peaceful place to lay their head.

But let’s return to the main point. What’s so great about aboriginal? “We were here first” just means “before you”, but how does that idea give you squatter’s rights”? Maybe this concept comes from Palestinian propaganda. The so-called Palestinians have accepted billions of dollars worth of “foreign aid” by promulgating the victim story of a people who were involuntarily dispossessed of “their” land. The timeframe for indigenous seems so arbitrary to me. Back when Abraham fathered Ishmael, then Issac, the present day Israel was the “promised land” that the Lord sent Abraham to. Abraham encountered others living there and co-existed with them. Over 400 years later, the descendants of Isaac returned to the land in their exodus from slavery in Egypt, only this time the inhabitants weren’t cooperative and most were dispossessed with extreme prejudice by the Israelites. Many years later the remnant of the Israelites were carried off to Babylon. They returned again via the decree from Cyrus the Persian ruler. In 70 A.D. the Romans killed most of them living in Jerusalem. Pretty complicated. Where do the Palestinians come into the picture? It hardly matters. At any given time in history in any given land, someone’s displacing someone else, usually with extreme prejudice. Then why does indigenous or aboriginal matter in 2019? If you ask me, it’s an ignorant way of trying to make the present day United States and our ally Israel look bad.

Apostasy Now!

Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.” Psalm 51:1-4.

King David, a man “after God’s heart”, sinned grievously. But when confronted with his sin by the prophet Nathan, he repented immediately. In writing Psalm 51, he showed his understanding that his sin was against God, even more than against Uriah or Bathsheba. William Carey, British missionary and Baptist minister and social reformer, in the same spirit of humility directed in his will that the following inscription and nothing more should be cut on his gravestone:—William Carey, Born August 17th, 1761: Died – -“A wretched, poor, and helpless worm. On thy kind arms I fall.” Charles Spurgeon says, “Only on the footing of free grace can the most experienced and most honored of the saints approach their God. The best of men are conscious above all others that they are men at the best. Empty boats float high, but heavily laden vessels are low in the water. We have need that the Lord should have mercy upon our good works, our prayers, our preaching, our alms-givings, and our holiest things. If mercy be needed to be exercised towards our duties, what shall be said of our sins? How sweet the remembrance that inexhaustible mercy is waiting to be gracious to us, to restore our backsliding, and make our broken bones rejoice!”The vessel of humility is the fittest place from which the true lover of Jesus Christ should imbibe, in which they should bathe, and into which they should pour their fame, or the favor of the world. Instead, in many cases, pride “goeth before the fall”, and eventually they apostasize, fall away, renounce “my Christianity.” Can you renounce what you never had? You might think, “Who are you to judge someone else’s faith, or their heart?” Didn’t Jesus Christ himself say “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.”- John 10:27-29.

From the Vancouver Sun: Esther Yuen has friends who are angry they once took so seriously American author Joshua Harris’s celebrated advice to avoid kissing your partner until marriage. One of them blames Harris’s “purity culture” for his singleness. Harris’s book, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, which sold 1.2 million copies, was “must-reading for the devout Christian teenager in the late ’90s and early 2000s,” says Yuen, a Christian in Vancouver. “I remember girls in my church passing copies of the book around, using it to encourage each other as they waited for their future husbands.” Yuen, a communication specialist who has attended Anglican and evangelical churches, says many Christians have been taken aback because I Kissed Dating Goodbye, an evangelical classic published in 1997 when Harris was in his early twenties, had made him an intimate source of biblical relationship wisdom.His separation and supposed de-conversion has got to be one of the biggest announcements I’ve seen lately in Christian circles. My cousin, a pastor’s wife, contacted me shortly after she learned of the news, was shocked. Growing up in the church, many of us assumed that Harris did things ‘by the book’ and thus, would forever and ever have a blissful, perfect marriage,” said Yuen. Like many, Yuen in part owes the evangelist’s changes of heart to the decision to move to Vancouver, “a city that prides itself on inclusivity.”

No, fame does not a Christian, “an intimate source of biblical relationship wisdom”, or even a wise person make. When Jesus “holds you in His hand”, can you have a mere “change in heart”? Pride = Apostasy, unless you truly repent.

Let’s play “Monopoly Socialism!”

Twitter unknown and “professor” (must be a low bar for that title) Nick Kapur was not happy about Hasbro’s parody adult board game, Monopoly Socialism. Nick went so far as to do an extensive tweetstorm that provided great fodder for Ted Cruz to demonstrate his wickedly funny sense of humor, which hit the nails on their collective heads. We could do the Venezuela edition: start out (in 1950) with the 4th highest GDP per capital in the world: end starving in the street with massive shortages of food & medicine. We could do the Russia/USSR edition: the “old timey” playing pieces are all the tech the common people are allowed. When Yeltzin toured a TX supermarket in 1989, he told his comrades that if their people—who faced breadlines—saw the choices in the US “there would be revolution.” We could do the Cuba edition: start (in the 1950s) as the world’s top sugar producer; end up earning $25 per month and risking your life to put your children in rafts seeking freedom. We could do the East Germany edition: you build a wall across your living room; put all the food, technology & prosperity on one side; erect machine guns on the wall; and shoot anybody who tries to get to the West. Or we could do the University edition: you imagine a magic money tree; you give everything free to anybody who wants it; nobody works, studies, or innovates; and everybody gets an A!

Though Kapur claims he bought a game so “you won’t have to”, I still want to buy the game, so I looked first on Amazon. $90! No way. Target claimed to have the same game for half that, and eBay had all sorts of buying choices for even less. Walmart doesn’t claim to have it…yet, but they will. Or I can wait until someone buys it, loses interest, and resells it on Craigslist or Letgo or OfferUp. That’s capitalism for you. If we had a socialist system, and you wanted to buy this game, you’re an enemy of the state, since it satirizes Socialism, but you’d still have choices—the Gulag or the gun. Personally, I would prefer 9mm to the cerebellum to 9 years hard labor, but then I’m lazy. However, let’s fantasize about buying the game in a socialist system. First, I go to the huge central market, and wait in line to get in. There’s always lines, even though there are few shoppers. The linetender‘s union insists on having a linetender to regulate the flow, such as it is. Once I get inside, there is no game on the mostly empty shelves, and the dust gathered is a sign that there hasn’t been a game there for weeks, at least. There’s no customer service person to ask. Fortunately, due to the thriving black market in popular items, an entrepreneur sidles up to me, flashing a game (and fortunately nothing else) under his trenchcoat.

He assures me that it’s in the original Hasbro shrink wrap, and that the police will look the other way for a suitable bribe. When I hesitate, he tells me with a “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” that some fool from a capitalist country said he could get the game, delivered to his door, without waiting in a line, from his choice of Amazon, eBay, Target, Letgo, OfferUp, Walmart, and a bunch of other capitalist fantasy outlets. Neither of us are fooled, such things don’t exist. As of today, the Target part might be correct.

“Monopoly: Socialism” pokes fun at the flaws of command-and-control economies and also mocks health food and veganism. The game was released with little fanfare, but last week Kapur tweeted his displeasure at the game, creating a firestorm of controversy. Amid this controversy, “Monopoly: Socialism” disappeared from the Target website, and the company did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the game’s availability. Target had clearly been selling the game online, and it had been available at this link. As late as August 22, “Monopoly: Socialism” was available for purchase. Why should Target care about the opinion of a humorless so-called professor at a minor college, delivered in a tweet no less, the laziest form of communication?

Yes, I am really praising CNN for something.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders scolded the crowd at a Minnesota State Fair Q&A on Saturday for cheering on the death of billionaire philanthropist David Koch. An audience member was given the microphone to ask Sanders a question and began with, “Yesterday, oligarch David Koch passed away,” which prompted applause from his fellow audience members. “And we’re going to be dealing with his pollution and the radicalization of his politics. He’s made a killing off of the misery of other people, and I want to talk about retroactive justice,” he continued. “How would you follow up for the victims of folks who are coming down in the future generations?”

Sanders, however, wasn’t pleased with the cheering. “I don’t applaud, you know, the death of somebody. We needn’t do that,” the 2020 Democratic presidential contender said. He continued, “I think what we can say is that the Koch brothers and other billionaires, because of this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, have been able to spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to represent the wealthy and the powerful, and the fossil fuel industry, which is where the Koch brothers made a lot of their money.” Note how quickly the rhetoric reflex takes over after his lukewarm admonition to the crowd. But Sanders’ lukewarm admonition is still better than brazen hostility. The incident comes as Koch’s Friday passing was met with celebration from some liberal activists. HBO’s Bill Maher gladly joined in, rejoicing on Friday’s episode of Real Time with Bill Maher.”F–k him .. I’m glad he’s dead,” Maher said. He hates Koch because Bill loves people so much.

But bless CNN, they actually dialed back the rhetoric and presented a more balanced (nuanced?) portrayal of the Koch organization. “The Koch brothers were best known-and vilified by Democrats–for their role in politics, and they used their vast wealth to build a sprawling array of think tanks, foundations and political groups to spread their small-government, free-market message. In some elections, the Koch network rivaled the spending and scope of the national Republican Party, and analysts view their activism as helping to have fueled the Tea Party movement. The organization already was in midst of transformation when David Koch stepped away from his formal roles. The Koch groups now are called Stand Together and have made more investments in philanthropy and policy issues, such as K-12 education. David Koch was most active in Americans for Prosperity. In June, Americans for Prosperity announced four new political action committees and said it would wade into primaries to help incumbent politicians, including Democrats, who side with Koch on trade, immigration and other issues.

But in the era of President Donald Trump-whom Charles Koch pointedly declined to support in 2016-the network has undergone a significant shift in focus, upping its commitment to work across party lines on top priorities, such as promoting free trade and creating a path to permanent legal status for undocumented immigrants brought to the US as young children. Their activism made them villains to Democrats; then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, once denounced them as ‘power-drunk billionaires’ out ‘to buy the country.’ But it also put them at odds with Trump, who called them a ‘total joke’ last year after Charles Koch and his top lieutenants publicly criticized the administration’s trade policies.”

So can anyone explain to me why folks like Bill Maher, who hate Donald Trump, also hate the Koch brothers, who are at odds with Trump?