A Millennial Stamps His Feet and Turns Blue In The Face

...because the voters don't like standard useless Republicans any more.

Goodbye, Republican Party. And Good Riddance.

"Ruination is obviously what a majority in both parties have enthusiastically endorsed, especially the predominately “conservative,” “Christian,” “Republican” states that turned out in droves for a left-wing vulgarian who, when he’s not bragging of his adultery or fantasizing about dating his daughter or mocking POWs and the disabled, has taken to perpetuating conspiracy theories about how his former opponent’s father killed JFK. Of course, he said this on Fox News while the empty vessels on their morning show sat by and nodded submissively.

But this is par for the course with Trump. He’s not above calling your wife ugly if you cross him or sending his surrogates out to accuse you of being a serial adulterer. As a guy reportedly linked to the mob, and who’s been credibly accused of brutal rape, and who used to pal around with an infamous international pimp and pedophile, you’d think he’d shy away from repeating rumors. But Trump doesn’t shy away from anything, save the truth.

Trump, as Sen. Ted Cruz finally observed hours before the end, is a pathological liar. He lies about everything, all the time, relentlessly. Even when there’s no real need or reason, like when he brazenly lied about Mike Tyson’s rape conviction after Tyson endorsed his campaign. And so on. I don’t need to list all the times Trump strayed from the facts, nor the conflicting positions he’s taken on every issue, nor the litany of other charges that can be leveled against him. All of these things are known, yet he was still handed the banner of the Republican Party and appointed its standard bearer. Let others suffer the degradation of marching behind him. I’ll be somewhere far away, shaking my head in disgust."

These morally superior drones can pack-up and go live in Timbuktu, where they cease to have the ability capitulate to the Left on every possible occasion to do so.

Trump's mere presence is like a colon purge for this human waste. And like a colon purge, once their out, don't let them back in.

Trump and the Mob

If you have to use mob-run businesses to get any service for your legit business, are you actually "related" to the mob? Politifact and Cruz say "yes".

Yes, Donald Trump has been linked to the mob

It’s important to note that Trump hasn’t been charged with any illegal activity, and it’s reasonable to argue that he was unaware or even a victim in some cases. But Cruz has a point that the mogul has been linked to the mob for decades.

Mob control a ‘fact of life’

Before we detail Trump’s alleged ties, none of this proves that Trump was happy doing business with the mafia or even in cahoots with them at all.

La Cosa Nostra had a virtual monopoly on concrete in New York at the time Trump was adding his name to its skyline in the 1980s. And the mafia’s control over building supplies and labor unions meant that the crime families had a hand in most construction projects in Manhattan.

Trump and other major developers "had to adapt to that situation" or build elsewhere, said James B. Jacobs, a mafia expert who was part of a state task force on organized crime.

"That was the fact of life, that was the way it was," he told PolitiFact. "The contractors and developers weren’t pure victims. You could bribe the mob-controlled union leaders and get relief from the more arduous conflicts. But we had no information that Trump was any different."

And exactly NO information that Trump actually did that. Apparently every building that went up in NYC was linked in that fashion to the mob. So what if you buy a plate of lasagne in a restaurant that is "linked" to the mob? Are you also "linked" to the mob? This is headline-smear targeting low-information voters who won't READ THE WHOLE THING.

Comments of the Day

From Thomas Sowell's article at Spectator:
First commenter:

"The wall will never be built. In the unlikely event that Trump wins the presidency he'll grant amnesty so fast it'll make your head spin. He will torture his erstwhile base with betrayal after betrayal and they will grovel before him for crumbs. It's going to be ugly. Oh well."

Second Commenter replies:

"You mean he will be a typical Republican??"

How John Roberts Created Trump

I agree with this almost completely. I hadn't thought about this for a while, but it was the last nail in the coffin of "conservatives" and Republicans for me. John Roberts had ObamaCare in his hand. He ignored the US Constitution completely. He demonstrated that politics rules the judiciary, not any concern for the US Constitution, and therefore the rule of law is dead in the USA. Oh sure there were other final touches, such as giving the House to the Republicans who immediately provide all the funding that a Democrat could possibly want.

The voters created a Republican majority, and the Republicans demonstrated no will whatsoever to halt or even slow the rising Leftward tide. The only chance the nation has is to destroy the Republican Party and to remake it into an actual opposition party that respects both the US Constitution and the separation of powers which gives Congress the responsibility to set the agenda for the president.

The bi-coastal elitist myopics have no clue what is happening to them or why. The war has finally been joined, and the sides are being taken by weeding out the RINO, spineless and unprincipled crony politicians. Good riddance.

Yes. Good riddance to the Bushes, to all the CUCKservatives, to John "Traitor" McCain, to all the "NeverTrumpistas, to the rioting Children of Satan who have attempted to stop Trump from being heard and succeeded. Send them all to Canada or to Londonistan if they boast that they will leave if Trump is elected.

Yes. Trump is a strongman. Yes. Trump is uncouth. Yes. He can be obscene. And yes. He cares nothing for the paleo-Republican cronyism that the party parasites demand of him. If Trump is corrupt it is nothing compared to the soulless GOPe. They demanded that Trump support the final nominee, and they immediately abandoned Trump and the primary voters when he became the final nominee: how could any pile of slime get slimier?

The destruction of the GOPe has begun, and I celebrate its impending renewal as a principled, constitutional, fierce opponent of all the cronies in the hopelessly decadent bi-coastal oligarchies. And if it doesn't self-renew, then I will remain a non-Republican. And I'll continue to prepare for the ultimate demise of the republic due to social and political incoherence.

"Roberts essentially told would-be Trumpistas not to bother the courts with important issues, that if you want to beat Obama you have to get your own strongman—complete with pen, phone, and contempt for the Constitution. So they did, bypassing several flavors of constitutional conservative in favor of a populism that knows nothing but “winning.”

Roberts and Trump have one thing in common: a belief that judges should stop striking down laws and just let political majorities rule, individual liberty be damned.

It’s such a shame, and deeply ironic. A constitutional moment had actually arrived in 2010. Remember, the people had risen up against crony capitalism, against bailouts and out-of-control government in every aspect of our lives. Real constitutionalists were sent to Congress—Massachusetts even elected a Republican senator in a bid to stop Obamacare—and state legislatures turned red based on opposition to federal overreach.

The last domino, the White House, was poised to fall, too—would have already if any A-list constitutionalist had run in 2012—with the most talented and intellectually vibrant GOP primary field since Ronald Reagan ran unopposed in 1984. But then Roberts ushered in the Trump tornado. Constitutional conservatism simply couldn’t survive judicial conservatism. The genteel Roberts and the vulgar Trump thus have one thing in common: a belief that judges should stop striking down laws and just let political majorities rule, individual liberty be damned.

In sum, the constitutional moment expired on the shoals of Roberts’s judicial restraint. Even Scott Brown, the Republican briefly elected to “Ted Kennedy’s seat,” endorsed Trump.

Instead of teaching the people that our republican form of government works, we’re left with the false empowerment of a self-consuming democracy.* Comes now our own Peron, leading his modern-age descamisados down the road to a “Great America” that could genuinely have existed if Roberts had only done his job."

This Says It All

Depressed media blame themselves for Trump's rise

Donald Trump effectively secured the Republican nomination for president this week and many in the media are asking themselves: How could we let this happen?

The billionaire businessman barreled his way through the primary, knocking out more than a dozen current and former governors and senators, and it is widely believed that he did so by seizing the zeitgeist of disaffected and discouraged voters. Yet, big voices in the national press believe his success is their failure.

"The Republican horse race is over and journalism lost," wrote New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg on Thursday. "In the end, you have to point the finger at national political journalism, which has too often lost sight of its primary directives in this election season: to help readers and viewers make sense of the presidential chaos; to reduce the confusion, not add to it; to resist the urge to put ratings, clicks and ad sales above the imperative of getting it right."

Liberal Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus sang a similar tune. "We underperformed our constitutionally protected role," she wrote on Tuesday, after Trump's closest rival, Ted Cruz, withdrew from the race. "Sure, every campaign cycle features hand-wringing over the primacy of the horse race over the substance. This one feels demonstrably worse."

She said that the news media were "mesmerized by the bright, shiny object that is Donald Trump" and "collectively failed to plumb his gaping lack of policy knowledge and proposals."

"Our role is, or should be, to provide the information essential for voters to make an informed decision," Marcus wrote. "We fell short."

So to clarify, their role was to get revenue, when it should have been to destroy Trump and make the world safe for the first vagina-genitalia president.

The MSM cannot learn. The reality is that Americans fully understand that a) the MSM are 100% turds; b) 100% of the MSM is further Left than Sanders but wants Hillary to be first Vagina-genitalia President; c) the MSM are 100% turds. That's the reason that every time the media tried to kill Trump's presidency, Americans understood that a) and c) are the only pervasive characteristics of the MSM. So Americans, at least those who care whether the president is an incompetent, seditious criminal regardless of genitalia, reveled in Trump's roughshod trampling of the media when they needed it.

But the MSM thinks it failed, because it failed to meet the expectations for the propaganda arm of the Democrat Leftist Party. They failed to protect the putative vagina genitalia president from the thorough incineration she will now be receiving from a real opponent. Yes. They are failures of all types.

Obscene Science and Dr. Mengele

It is becoming possible that in the near future that Dr. Mengele would appear to be a normal researcher by these morphing standards.

Scientists smash record for human embryos grown in the lab in revolutionary breakthrough

"A human embryo has been grown in a laboratory for twice the length of time than was previously possible in a breakthrough that could “revolutionise” medicine but also raises fresh ethical questions about when life begins.

Since scientists first fertilised an embryo in a test tube in 1969, they have never managed to keep one alive for long after the point at which the foetus implants in the womb, normally about seven days.

However researchers at Cambridge University have now grown embryos for 13 days -- a process they only stopped to avoid breaking the current legal limit of about 14 days.

The ability to observe a human embryo as it grows during this “most enigmatic and mysterious” stage of life in a lab should shed new light on genetic diseases and disabilities.

And it could help improve the dismal failure rate of IVF embryos -- currently up to 70 per cent do not successfully implant – and lead to better understanding of miscarriages."

Even though the fetus was obviously alive, and its life is admitted to, the death of that human is treated as just more junk protein laying around the lab. When this is off-shored to Korea or Taiwan, the soulless experiments will be extended, as the redefinition of "humanness" is expanded to accommodate ever more inclusive categories. But that is OK, you see, because they have all the moral authority to decide at what point in a life killing is OK, and how to redefine life and personhood as if that makes it moral.Scientists smash record for human embryos grown in the lab in revolutionary breakthrough

Ow!! My Eyes, My Eyes!

I can't unread this...

Caitlyn Jenner to Pose Naked With Gold Medal for 'Sports Illustrated'

Caitlyn Jenner will appear on a summer cover of Sports Illustrated wearing “nothing but an American flag and her Olympic medal,” a source reveals in the latest issue of Us Weekly.

Please Bruce - keep your pants ON.

And that Gold Olympic Medal was given to Bruce, not Caitlyn.

Everything You Know...

...Has a half-life.

Who Will Debunk The Debunkers?

When looking very deeply into dogma, be prepared for what you might find.

"This loose behavior, Rekdal wrote, made the transposed decimal point into something like an “academic urban legend,” its nested sourcing more or less equivalent to the familiar “friend of a friend” of schoolyard mythology.

Emerging from the rabbit hole, Sutton began to puzzle over what he’d found. This wasn’t just any sort of myth, he decided, but something he would term a “supermyth”: A story concocted by respected scholars and then credulously disseminated in order to promote skeptical thinking and “to help us overcome our tendency towards credulous bias.”

[...]

It seems plausible to me, at least, that the tellers of these tales are getting blinkered by their own feelings of superiority — that the mere act of busting myths makes them more susceptible to spreading them. It lowers their defenses, in the same way that the act of remembering sometimes seems to make us more likely to forget. Could it be that the more credulous we become, the more convinced we are of our own debunker bona fides? Does skepticism self-destruct?

And as for Darwin?

"Sutton’s allegations are explosive. He claims to have found irrefutable proof that neither Darwin nor Alfred Russel Wallace deserves the credit for the theory of natural selection, but rather that they stole the idea — consciously or not — from a wealthy Scotsman and forest-management expert named Patrick Matthew. “I think both Darwin and Wallace were at the very least sloppy,” he told me. Elsewhere he’s been somewhat less diplomatic: “In my opinion Charles Darwin committed the greatest known science fraud in history by plagiarizing Matthew’s” hypothesis, he told the Telegraph. “Let’s face the painful facts,” Sutton also wrote. “Darwin was a liar. Plain and simple.”

Darwin has elsewhere been charged with outright theft of some 60 pages of Wallace's text, specifically the 60-odd pages which contain the actual "theory" of evolution. Maybe Wallace stole it from Matthew first.

But most noted ideological skeptics won't ever be skeptical of their hero; Darwin makes Atheism seem legit. If you don't... can't question it, that is.

It's Immoral to Kill Animals, So We'll Kill You: Vegans Threaten Apostate Meat Eaters

Top L.A. Vegan Restaurant Owners Receiving Death Threats for Slaughtering Animals

Money Quote:

"The reason we're so upset is that veganism is a belief system..."

The Abortion Slippery Slope Is Real: Time to Abort Ethicists

Killing one's progeny is now so common that it is just another thread in the social fabric, which is a shroud.

Declaring War on Newborns

The authors point out that each of these conditions​—​the baby is sick or suffering, the baby will be a financial hardship, the baby will be personally troublesome​​—​​is now “largely accepted” as a good reason for a mother to abort her baby before he’s born. So why not after?

Yes. People who are personally troublesome should be aborted... at any age. That is the ethic of the totalitarian elitist, the one who is able to decide life/death for others, all for the common good of, well, that doesn't matter: "Common Good" is enough, and it is non-specific, a benefit to any rhetoric.

“When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.” (Their italics.) Western societies approve abortion because they have reached a consensus that a fetus is not a person; they should acknowledge that by the same definition a newborn isn’t a person either.

And of course we need to tell everyone exactly how "person" should be defined:

Neither fetus nor baby has developed a sufficient sense of his own life to know what it would be like to be deprived of it. The kid will never know the difference, in other words. A newborn baby is just a fetus who’s hung around a bit too long.

And an ethicist is just an arrogant elitist who has "hung around too long". Not a real person; a parasite. What parasite is defined as a person?

As the authors acknowledge, this makes an “after-birth abortion” a tricky business. You have to get to the infant before he develops “those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.” It’s a race against time.

The article doesn’t go on for more than 1,500 words, but for non-ethicists it has a high surprise-per-word ratio. The information that newborn babies aren’t people is just the beginning. A reader learns that “many non-human animals … are persons” and therefore enjoy a “right to life.” (Such ruminative ruminants, unlike babies, are self-aware enough to know that getting killed will entail a “loss of value.”) The authors don’t tell us which species these “non-human persons” belong to, but it’s safe to say that you don’t want to take a medical ethicist to dinner at Outback.

But what about adoption, you ask. The authors ask that question too, noting that some people​—​you and me, for example​—​might think that adoption could buy enough time for the unwanted newborn to technically become a person and “possibly increase the happiness of the people involved.” But this is not a viable option, if you’ll forgive the expression. A mother who kills her newborn baby, the authors report, is forced to “accept the irreversibility of the loss.” By contrast, a mother who gives her baby up for adoption “might suffer psychological distress.” And for a very simple reason: These mothers “often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible.” It’s simpler for all concerned just to make sure the loss can’t be reversed. It’ll spare Mom a lot of heartbreak.

Now, it’s at this point in the Journal of Medical Ethics that many readers will begin to suspect, as I did, that their legs are being not very subtly pulled. The inversion that the argument entails is Swiftian​—​a twenty-first-century Modest Proposal without the cannibalism (for now). Jonathan Swift’s original Modest Proposal called for killing Irish children to prevent them “from being a burden to their parents.” It was death by compassion, the killing of innocents based on a surfeit of fellow-feeling. The authors agree that compassion itself demands the death of newborns. Unlike Swift, though, they aren’t kidding.

Because "progress" requires more change away from norms, it will never stop. Every change, such as abortion, becomes a norm, and therefore in order to have progress the culture must change even further from that norm. Constant change evermore toward the darkness is required in order to pursue progress. And that's why darkness is rationalized as "good", and the darkness is redefined as "light".