Your administration is full of imbeciles.

As if you expected me to say anything different . . .

Let's take a look at the latest bits of insulting lunacy, shall we:

• Your "president" actually handed the German chancellor a fake invoice for what he thinks is backpay due for NATO spending!  Not only that, but the calculations go back to 2002, it is in the amount of £300 BILLION (yes, with a B), and that amount includes freaking INTEREST!! Clearly he has no clue how NATO works.  But didn't he also threaten to pull us out of it, too?
• Your "vice-president" continues to sit back on his holier-than-thou high horse to break Senate vote ties that will significantly, and potentially (heaven forbid) irreparably, harm millions of citizens.  First it was to confirm the ignorant Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary, thus threatening the livelihoods of thousands of educators and, perhaps even more damning, the education of thousands of children.  Today it was using his religious beliefs to allow states to defund Planned Parenthood, thus taking away health care from thousands of women across the country.  Knowing that his entire argument is about an uber-Christian ideal of pro-life, he apparently hasn't read the information that NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING GOES TO ABORTIONS!!!  The money he has just voted against giving to this organization will do so much more harm to women who need PP's other services.
• Your Environmental Protection Agency head his/your fearless leader have signed off on another order essentially dismantling all progress we have made towards the fight against climate change, continuing to ignore all science; and once again arbitrarily killing off one more thing President Obama did during his tenure just because it was his.
• White House aides supplied the reports to your House Intelligence Committee chair to help support the ridiculous wiretapping claims.  Meanwhile he continues refusing to recuse himself in the Russia investigation, now claiming it is Democrats who aren't really serious about it, thus trying to throw up yet another distraction to make it go away.
• And finally (today), your "first daughter" (is that even a thing when she is a grown woman formerly with her own life?) is making her White House role official rather than just taking up an office.  Personally, I still don't understand how she and her husband are allowed to have these positions.  According to U.S. Code › Title 5 › Part III › Subpart B › Chapter 31 › Subchapter I › § 3110, which addresses the employment of relatives (copied from Cornell University Law School, emphasis mine):

(a)For the purpose of this section—

(2)

“public official” means an officer (including the President and a Member of Congress), a member of the uniformed service, an employee and any other individual, in whom is vested the authority by law, rule, or regulation, or to whom the authority has been delegated, to appoint, employ, promote, or advance individuals, or to recommend individuals for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement in connection with employment in an agency; and

(3)

“relative” means, with respect to a public official, an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister.

(b)

A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.

(c)

An individual appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in violation of this section is not entitled to pay, and money may not be paid from the Treasury as pay to an individual so appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced.

          Now, true, the L.A. Times articles says she will not be paid, so seemingly in compliance with
          subsection c (or whatever it's called at this point in the document) above; but I am more
          concerned with subsection b which says it is not allowed.  Now that said, I would argue that
          the law needs a little tweaking, too, as subsection c sounds to me like it says "So a relative
          really shouldn't be employed, but if they are anyway, it's okay so long as they're not paid."
          Come on, folks; which is it you're more concerned with, nepotism or salary?  But I digress
          (speaking of diversions) . . .

So my point today is there is a lot of BS continuing to transpire in Washington.  It is all happening right under our reap-what-you've-sown noses, and we are all going to suffer for it.  I am fearing more and more that nothing is going to happen to get this tyrant removed early, that we are stuck for the full four years with this disaster.  It may not sound like such a long time, but a lot of damage can happen in four years, and it is going to take a lot longer to dig ourselves out, whenever it is he must finally leave.  I really don't know how to protect my family from what is to come, and that scares me more than anything.