We Targeted Civilians

Did the A-Bomb force Japan to surrender?
Probably not. [1, 2]

As the table below shows, 67 Japanese cities had already been firebombed by the time the A-bombs were used. Neither of the A-bombs caused as much destruction as conventional American firebombing did, a technique they learned in Germany. From a strategic perspective, the A-bombs were neither new nor different. They were irrelevant. The Emperor of Japan's personal order of surrender didn't mention the atomic bombs. At all.

But how did we learn to firebomb? In Dresden and other German cities, Americans discovered that under the right conditions of temperature, humidity and wind, along with the right mixture of incendiary and explosives, entire city centers could be burned down.

For the bomb mix, we needed only to drop incendiaries that ignited on contact, along with high-explosives that had a 20 or 30 minute timer. The timer allowed time for local fire departments and ambulances to congregate around the burning buildings, where the high explosives would then detonate and destroy all the medical and fire personnel trying to administer humanitarian aid to survivors.

That's right.
We deliberately targeted doctors, nurses and firefighters.
We targeted civilians, non-combatants, old people, women, children, in World War II.

Both the RAF and US bomber commands knew they were simply not hitting military targets. Between 50% and 93% of the time, the bombs didn't even hit within 1 to 5 miles of their military targets.

Bombing accuracy was so abominable that a 1941 British report stated that there was only a 22% chance of a bomber crew finding its way to within 5 miles of its target and for heavily defended targets in the Ruhr, the percentage dropped to 7%.[5] Even late in the war, when radar use became widespread the specially modified “pathfinder” aircraft were used to mark targets with incendiaries; bombing accuracy had increased to a 50% chance of a bomb falling within a mile of its target....   strategic bombing was a failure.... even at the height of the bomber offensive in 1944, [German] armaments production actually increased.

Curtis LeMay, head of US Strategic Bomber Command, knew he was committing war crimes:

As far as casualties were concerned I think there were more casualties in the first attack on Tokyo with incendiaries than there were with the first use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The fact that it's done instantaneously, maybe that's more humane than incendiary attacks, if you can call any war act humane. I don't, particularly, so to me there wasn't much difference. A weapon is a weapon and it really doesn't make much difference how you kill a man. If you have to kill him, well, that's the evil to start with and how you do it becomes pretty secondary. I think your choice should be which weapon is the most efficient and most likely to get the whole mess over with as early as possible. 

Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.... Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier.

Even the US Air Force admits Hiroshima suffered only minor military damage:

"[Hiroshima suffered] slight industrial damage... Its shipping activities had virtually ceased by the time of the attack, however, because of sinkings and the mining of the Inland Sea....Though small workshops numbered several thousand, they represented only one-fourth of the total industrial production of Hiroshima, since many of them had only one or two workers. The bulk of the city's output came from large plants located on the outskirts of the city; one-half of the industrial production came from only five firms. Of these larger companies, only one suffered more than superficial damage. Of their working force, 94 percent were uninjured. Since electric power was available, and materials and working force were not destroyed, plants ordinarily responsible for nearly three-fourths of Hiroshima's industrial production could have resumed normal operation within 30 days of the attack had the war continued."

Meanwhile, in Nagasaki, the conventional bombing on August 1 did more damage than the atom bomb did:

"Shortage of raw materials had reduced operations at these four Mitsubishi plants to a fraction of their capacity. Had the raw material situation been normal and had the war continues, it is estimated that restoration of production would have been possible though slow. The dockyard, which was affected mainly by the 1 August attack rather than by the atomic bomb, (emphasis added) would have been able to produce at 80 percent of full capacity within 3 or 4 months. The steel works would have required a year to get into substantial production the electric works could have resumed production at a reduced rate within 2 months and been back at capacity within 6 months, and the arms plants would have required 15 months to reach two-thirds of their former capacity."

In the pre-war years, the US condemned Japanese, Italian, and German aerial bombing of civilians. Despite this, the British deliberately bombed civilians in Germany. The Americans went one step further, and deliberately targeted civilians in Japan.

On 9 March 1945, 300 B-29s dropped half a million small incendiary bombs on the Japanese capital. The ensuing firestorm consumed 13 square miles of the city and killed an estimated 100,000 people. From this raid forward, American strategic bombing effort shifted from a Trenchard-Mitchell counter industry focus to a Douhet strategy based upon inflicting maximum damage on population centers (i.e. morale bombing). 

We called it "morale bombing" because "terror bombing" sounds kind of nasty. But, no matter what you call it, the effect was the same. In fact, due to LeMay's strategy of deliberately targeting the civilian population of Japan:

Between May and June 1945, Japan’s six largest cities fell to the torch of 20th Air Force B-29’s. By the end of the war in August, 58 of 62 Japanese cities with populations over 100,000 had been burned. In all, 178 square miles of urban area were razed amounting to 40 per cent of Japan’s total urban area. Twenty two million people, 30 per cent of the population, were rendered homeless. 2,200,000 civilian casualties were reported and over 900,000 fatalities were suffered, more than Japan’s combat casualties in the Pacific of 780,000.

Much has been written about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the devastation unleashed by atomic weapons. While revolutionary in nature, they added comparatively little damage in comparison to the amount of total damage inflicted on Japanese urban areas by the B-29 firebombing campaign. 

Name of firebombed Japanese city	City % destroyed	Equivalent in size to the following American City
Toyama	99	Chattanooga
Fukui	86	Evansville
Tokushima	85.2	Ft. Wayne
Fukuyama	80.9	Macon
Kofu	78.6	South Bend
Kuwana	75	Tucson
Hitachi	72	Little Rock
Nara	69.3	Boston
Tsu	69.3	Topeka
Okayama	68.9	Long Beach
Mito	68.9	Pontiac
Takamatsu	67.5	Knoxville
*Hiroshima*	67
Shizuoka	66.1	Oklahoma City
Tsuruga	65.1	Middleton
Hachioji	65	Galveston
Nagaoka	64.9	Madison
Maebashi	64.2	Wheeling
Matsuyama	64	Duluth
Imabari	63.9	Stockton
Gifu	63.6	Des Moines
Kagoshima	63.4	Richmond
Toyohashi	61.9	Tulsa
Hamamatsu	60.3	Hartford
Yokohama	58	Cleveland
Isezaki	56.7	Sioux Falls
Ichinomiya	56.3	Sprinfield
Kobe	55.7	Baltimore
Kochi	55.2	Sacramento
Kumagaya	55.1	Kenosha
Tokyo	51	New York
Akashi	50.2	Lexington
Wakayama	50	Salt Lake City
Himeji	49.4	Peoria
Hiratsuka	48.4	Battle Creek
Tokuyama	48.3	Butte
Sakai	48.2	Forth Worth
Saga	44.2	Waterloo
Chosi	44.2	Wheeling
Utsunomiya	43.7	Sioux City
Numazu	42.3	Waco
Shimizu	42	San Jose
Kure	41.9	Toledo
Sasebo	41.4	Nashville
Uhyamada	41.3	Columbus
Chiba	41	Savannah
Nagoya	40	Los Angeles
Ogaki	39.5	Corpus Christi
*Nagasaki*	39.2
Siumonoseki	37.6	San Diego
Kawasaki	36.2	Portland
Omuta	35.8	Miami
Osaka	35.1	Chicago
Yokkichi	33.6	Charlotte
Omura	33.1	Sante Fe
Okazaki	32.2	Lincoln
Kumamoto	31.2	Grand Rapids
Aomori	30	Montgomery
Oita	28.2	Saint Joseph
Miyakonoio	26.5	Greensboro
Miyazaki	26.1	Davenport
Nobeoka	25.2	Augusta
Fukuoka	24.1	Rochester
Moh	23.3	Spokane
Sendai	21.9	Omaha
Yawata	21.2	San Antonio
Hbe	20.7	Utica
Amagasaki	18.9	Jacksonville
Nishinomiya	11.9	Cambridge

Democrats vs. Republicans

The difference between Republicans and Democrats:

Republicans say 

1) Dead people in Chicago can't vote in elections, but 

2) Dead people from 1779 should determine how we interpret the Constitution.

Democrats say the reverse.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Transgenders for Contraception!

National Review holds a strange opinion. It asserts Barack Obama's latest insistence that public schools accept transgenders will be the death of the public schools. "Homeschooling will triumph!" shout the conservatives.

No, it won't. Homeschooling won't make a difference unless parents stop living the life of Bruce Jenner. The idea that my biology must yield to my fantasy identity began with contraception. As long as parents contracept, they are acting out Bruce Jenner's life in front of their children.

Both vasectomy and tubal ligation are individual attempts to assume a voluntary gender identity that does not match the reality: the unwanted reality is "fertile", the desired identity is "sterile". Like the woman who pours drain cleaner in her eyes because she wants to be blind, the vasectomy or tubal ligation patient victimizes himself/herself.

In that sense, the use of contraception (e.g., the pill, condoms, the IUD, etc.) is very similar to the drag queen, Bruce Jenner. Users don't actually cut off body parts to force reality to yield to voluntary gender identity, rather, they play the part for awhile to see if they like it.

But how many Americans will reject these facts, because it offends their self-image? How many contracepting Americans are willing to accept that they are essentially being Bruce Jenner? And how does a contracepting parent showcase to their children anything other than Bruce's own confusion?

Homosexuality: An Addictive Disorder

The Clean Slate Addiction Site tells us that addiction is a choice, not a brain disease:

if the promise of a ticket to the movies is enough to double the success rate of conventional addiction counseling, then it’s hard to say that substance users can’t control themselves...to clarify the point, if you offered a cancer patient movie tickets as a reward for ceasing to have a tumor – it would make no difference, it would not change his probability of recovery.

According to the New York Times, it may be a learning disorder:

The studies show that addiction alters the interactions between midbrain regions like the ventral tegmentum and the nucleus accumbens, which are involved with motivation and pleasure, and parts of the prefrontal cortex that mediate decisions and help set priorities. Acting in concert, these networks determine what we value in order to ensure that we attain critical biological goals: namely, survival and reproduction.

In essence, addiction occurs when these brain systems are focused on the wrong objects: a drug or self-destructive behavior like excessive gambling.... Once that happens, it can cause serious trouble.

The learning disorder that is addiction may be the result of trauma or it may originate in a lack of social bonding. It may also be the result of a dopamine imbalance in the brain.

However, according to the National Council on Alcohol Addiction and Drug Dependency (NCADD) gene predisposition accounts for about 50% of addictive disorders. 

Whether a person decides to use alcohol or drugs is a personal choice, influenced by multiple biological, familial, psychological and sociocultural factors. But, once a person uses alcohol or drugs, the risk of developing alcoholism or drug dependence is greatly influenced by genetics. Research shows that genes are responsible for about half the risk for alcoholism and addiction, and while genetics are not the sole determinant, their presence or absence may increase the likelihood that a person will become alcohol or drug dependent. 

What does all of this have to do with homosexuality? As Psychology Today points out, even if addiction is not really genetic, it is certainly the case that addiction travels in clusters. What does it mean to say addiction travels in clusters? It means that if you suffer from one addiction, you are more likely to have a second or third as well. For instance, the NIH tells us smokers are more likely to drink, Someone who both smokes and drinks is more likely to use drugs. Smokers are more likely to suffer from eating disorders. The combinations are endless.

Medical News tells us men are about twice as likely to suffer from some form of addiction as women are. By purest happenstance, most studies show there are about twice as many homosexual men as homosexual women. Now, you may think this doesn't prove much. If that was all that could be brought forward, you would be right. Unfortunately, that isn't all there is to it. So, with all of the foregoing in mind (choice, genetics, learning disorder, lack of social bonding, clustering), let's see where homosexuality falls in the addiction spectrum.

The National Eating Disorders Association tells us homosexuals have a higher rate of eating disorders than the general population:

• In one study, gay and bisexual boys reported being significantly more likely to have fasted, vomited or taken laxatives or diet pills to control their weight in the last 30 days. Gay males were 7 times more likely to report binging and 12 times more likely to report purging than heterosexual males.
• Females identified as lesbian, bisexual or mostly heterosexual were about twice as likely to report binge-eating at least once per month in the last year.
• Elevated rates of binge-eating and purging by vomiting or laxative abuse was found for both males and females who identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual or “mostly heterosexual” in comparison to their heterosexual peers.
• Compared to other populations, gay men are disproportionately found to have body image disturbances and eating disorder behavior (STATS). Gay men are thought to only represent 5% of the total male population but among men who have eating disorders, 42% identify as gay.

The American Lung Cancer Association tells us homosexuals smoke at much higher rates than the general population:

"Although few studies have examined the link between sexual orientation and smoking, it is clear that LGBT individuals have a higher smoking rate than the general population. Only six states have published reports on tobacco use by sexual orientation: Arizona, California, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington. All six of these states found significantly elevated smoking rates in the LGBT community. A 2009 review of 42 separate studies measuring tobacco use among lesbians, gays, and bisexuals reported consistently higher prevalence of smoking among sexual minorities.2 Other studies have reported smoking prevalence among gay and bisexual men is 27% to 71% higher and for lesbians and bisexual women, 70% to 350% higher than prevalence observed for comparable gender groups in the general population.3"

The Pride Institute tells us homosexuals have higher rates of alcohol abuse:

In the LGBT community, research suggests that alcohol abuse and dependence occurs at even higher rates than in the mainstream population. Independent studies collectively support the estimate that alcohol abuse occurs in the LGBT community as rates up to three times that in the mainstream population. Said another way, alcohol abuse is estimated to occur in up to 45% of those in the LGBT community. 

The Lesbian and Gay Foundation, in union with the University of Lancashire, tell us homosexuals have higher rates of illegal drug use and abuse:

... new figures suggest that gay people are seven times more likely to take illegal drugs than the general population, with one in five of those surveyed showing signs of dependency on drugs or alcohol.  

More than a third of gay, lesbian and bisexual people took at least one illegal drug in the last month, according to the largest study of its kind.  

The National Asian Pacific American Families Against Substance Abuse group informs us of a Yale University study that reports homosexuals are over-represented in gambling addiction self-help organizations:

One of the few existing studies on problem gambling in the LGBT community was conducted by two prominent researchers in the field of problem gambling studies, Jon Grant of the University of Minnesota Medical School and Marc Potenza of Yale University Medical School (Grant and Potenza, 2006). The study was conducted in 2006 with a sample of 105 treatment‐seeking men who had sought treatment for pathological gambling. The researchers found a substantial overrepresentation of gay and bisexual men among this sample of pathological gamblers (21% of the sample self‐reported as gay or bisexual) (Grant and Potenza, 2006). The researchers also reported greater impairment and a higher incidence of impulse control and substance use disorder among these gay and bisexual men.

Atlantic Magazine informs us that homosexuals beat each other up. A LOT:

In 2013, the CDC released the results of a 2010 study on victimization by sexual orientation, and admitted that “little is known about the national prevalence of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking among lesbian, gay, and bisexual women and men in the United States.” The report found that bisexual women had an overwhelming prevalence of violent partners in their lives: 75 percent had been with a violent partner, as opposed to 46 percent of lesbian women and 43 percent of straight women. For bisexual men, that number was 47 percent. For gay men, it was 40 percent, and 21 percent for straight men.

Update: Rutgers re-confirmed the findings on interpersonal violence in LGBTQ+ relationships. 

American Addiction Centers tell us homosexuals use drugs all out of proportion to the normal population:

• The rate of alcohol abuse in gay and transgender individuals may be as high as 25 percent compared to 5–10 percent in the general population.
• The use of tobacco products is significantly higher in gay individuals than in heterosexuals; some studies suggest 200 percent higher.
• Gay men are far more likely to use amphetamines than heterosexual man (as much as 12 times more likely).
• Gay men are nearly 10 times more likely to use heroin than heterosexual men.

The Wisconsin Arson Insurance Council undertook a study funded by FEMA, which found 25% of serial arsonists are homosexuals. One-third of thrill-seeking arsonists are homosexual. In fact, it is so typical for arsonists to be homosexual that homosexuality is actually one of the criteria of the US firefighter arsonist profile.

The arsonists also had poor military performance and records with only two of seven completing a term in the military with an honorable discharge. One-half had tattoos and one-fourth had some type of disfigurement. The sexual preference of the serial arsonists reflected 25 percent who identified their preference as homosexual or bi-sexual. ...[The thrill seeking arsonist] is most likely to be heterosexual but nearly one-third are bisexual or homosexual.

An additional study, funded by National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) and the Department of Justice, found 29% of arsonists were homosexuals. Even Wikipedia, in it's article on firefighter arson, recognizes the link.  Similarly, the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) found that homosexuality was linked to arson (p. 17). Homosexual arsonists even have their own Tumblr E-Zine.




Reuters and the Guardian tell us homosexuals actually act out sexually with both sexes. Remarkably, homosexuals are more likely to be involved in an unintended pregnancy than are heterosexuals.

Overall, about 13 percent of heterosexual females and about 14 percent of females who only had male sexual partners had been pregnant, compared to about 23 percent of lesbian or bisexual females and about 20 percent of girls who had male and female sexual partners.

About 10 percent of heterosexual males and those who only had female sexual partners experienced a pregnancy, compared to about 29 percent of gay or bisexual males and about 38 percent of males with female and male sexual partners. 

Correlation or Causation?
For those who would argue that all of the above is merely correlation and not causation, this poses a serious problem. If homosexuality is not simply a sexual addiction, that is, if homosexuals were really homosexual, they wouldn't be involved in unintended pregnancy at all, much less would they generate more unintended pregnancies than heterosexuals. That fact alone tells us what the problem actually is: homosexuals are addicted to sex.

As even Slate admits, both male and female homosexuals have higher numbers of partners than the normal population.

Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men. But there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature. Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.17 Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.

Again, this merely confirms the earlier point: there is no way to make sense of the these numbers unless we recognize that homosexuality is simply one more addiction in a spectrum of addictive behaviors displayed by addictive personalities. In fact, the differences between homosexual addiction and normal activity is so enormous that it creates basic disconnects for both the homosexuals under study and the heterosexuals studying them:

[G]ay reporter Gabriel Rotello provides [data] for the United States, citing the book Homosexualities. It indicates that in the late 1970s, 75% of gay men had had more than 100 sexual partners in their lives... Further, 43% of gay men reported more than 500 partners and 33% more than 1,000. 

One well-known gay man boasted that by age 26 he'd had about 3,000 male partners, though he could see how people who had not been in the "fast lane" like him could barely envisage such sexual statistics. The differences with Rotello's heterosexual friends were so great that, when citing these figures, neither the gay nor straight people could believe them. Some found 100 or more partners a year inconceivable, while the gays could not comprehend people having so few encounters in life!

The NAADC, the National Association of Addiction Professionals, recognizes the links between homosexuality and addiction. It even produced a Powerpoint series outlining the various addictions that homosexuals habitually engage in.

For someone who has a genetic predisposition to become addicted, homosexuality is one way for that addictive predisposition to express itself.  Instead of, or in addition to, being addicted to alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, gambling, eating disorders or a host of other harmful behaviors, the homosexual is (also) addicted to maladaptive sexual expression. This maladaptive activity is, according to the NIH, just as physically unhealthy as alcoholism, drug abuse or any eating disorder. The homosexual should be viewed as an addict who is committing slow suicide. The maladaptation which causes alcoholism and other addictions, like homosexuality, may be treatable. It is possible that either serotonin or dopamine treatment can slash addictive behavior by up to 90%.. 

Speaking of suicide, some would argue, despite the evidence presented here, that homosexuality is not a choice. They would argue that attempting conversion therapy on homosexuals is deadly. After all, it is alleged that people who go through such conversion therapy have a high suicide rate:

People who have gone through conversion therapy face 8.9 times the rates of suicide ideation, face depression at 5.9 times the rate of their peers and are three times more likely to use illegal drugs and be at high risk for sexually transmitted infections.

Of course, the article that makes this statement then links to a PDF that you would think substantiates the assertion. But here is where it gets very odd indeed. The PDF that is the "source" for the statement says exactly the opposite. The referenced 2009 APA study ("Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation")  actually says:

Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE (sexual orientation change efforts). 

So, as of 2009, even the APA could find no evidence of a higher suicide rate among those who go through conversion therapy. So, what is the suicide rate of homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders? Well, it is much, much higher than that of the general population. In fact, the suicide rate for those who have not undergone conversion therapy is even higher than it is for those who have undergone conversion therapy:

According to surveys, 4.6 percent of the overall U.S. population has self-reported a suicide attempt, with that number climbing to between 10 and 20 percent for lesbian, gay or bisexual respondents. By comparison, 41 percent of trans or gender non-conforming people surveyed have attempted suicide

So, those who argue against conversion therapy quote studies that actually show conversion therapy results in a lower suicide rate for homosexuals. It's almost as if they specifically misrepresented the results. They appear to have deliberately lied about the fact that conversion therapy lowers the risk of suicide. How odd.

In fact, homosexuality is just one more disorder in a whole spectrum of addictive disorders. It should be viewed as such and treated as such. As long as the professional psychological community is in denial, the high rate of injury and death among homosexuals will continue.


UPDATE:
Here's a shocker. Everything I've documented above is now confirmed in this meta-study

The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property—that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.... 

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.

Jason Hill, a homosexual man writing in the Federalist, agrees that the homosexual lifestyle revolves around addiction.

Promiscuous sex and drug use are not exceptional or marginalized currents in gay culture. They are an omnipresent force in every register, crook, and cranny of the gay world. The new and disturbing “Poz Me” trend merging in gay culture needs to be nationally discussed. This culture consists in underground online sites where gay men who are HIV negative hook up with men who are not and beg to be “breeded” by HIV-positive men.

And this Townhall article provides even more information and links.

Considering the above non-biased, replicated, empirical and irrefutable scientific facts, its little wonder that an earlier study in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE), determined the “life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”

UPDATE:
Homosexual "marriage" doesn't improve health outcomes. Which is no surprise, given that homosexuality is itself an addictive disorder.

UPDATE:
Cambridge study affirming disproportionately poor impulse control, mental disorders and eating disorders. 2004 confirmation that it is an addictive disorder and a 2020 confirmation that it is a form of OCD.

UPDATE:
Conversion therapy REDUCES suicide (by up to 80%), just as I indicated above.

UPDATE:

Here is a BMJ letter confirming that homosexuality is an obsessive-compulsive disorder

Here is PubMed study that reached the same conclusion: "Conclusion: Same-sex sexuality is associated with impulsive/compulsive behavior and addiction."

Here is another study by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,  reaching the same conclusion

American Addiction Centers reach the same conclusion. 

Healthy Life Recovery, same conclusion.

List of Links

https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/homosexuality-treatable-obsessive-compulsive-addictive-disorder

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30982481/

https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/eating-disorders-lgbt-populations

http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/tobacco/lgbt-issue-brief-update.pdf

http://pride-institute.com/programs/lgbt-treatment/lgbt-alcohol-addiction/

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/drug-use-seven-times-higher-among-gays-8165971.html

http://www.napafasa.org/resources/PGP.Problem%20Gambling%20and%20the%20Lesbian,%20Gay,%20Bisexual%20and%20Transgender%20Community%20Rev.11.0322.pdf

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/a-same-sex-domestic-violence-epidemic-is-silent/281131/

https://americanaddictioncenters.org/lgbtqiapk-addiction/gay

https://americanaddictioncenters.org/lgbtqiapk-addiction/crystal-meth-addiction-gay-community

http://www.wiarsonhotline.org/pdfs/2012%2006%20WAIC%20Newsletter.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighter_arson

https://www.tumblr.com/flamingzine/106742594029/flaming-a-queer-arson-zine-is-finally-here-did

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/oct/24/3

http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/22/almost-everything-the-media-tells-you-about-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-is-wrong/

http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/16/loveless-narcissistic-sex-addicts-a-gay-man-critiques-his-community/

http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2016/08/28/the-entire-lgbt-narrative-just-crumbled-n2211099

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cns-spectrums/article/links-between-sexuality-impulsivity-compulsivity-and-addiction-in-a-large-sample-of-university-students/6E51FC70C52590C02797A4FCD2B3D8E1

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2018/07/14/Study-Same-sex-marriage-legalization-may-not-have-improved-health/9461531513244/

https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/homosexuality-treatable-obsessive-compulsive-addictive-disorder

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30982481/

https://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/press-announcements/20230613/samhsa-releases-new-data-lesbian-gay-bisexual-behavioral-health

https://americanaddictioncenters.org/lgbtqiapk-addiction/why-substance-abuse-is-higher-within-the-lgbtq-community

https://healthyliferecovery.com/lgbt-and-addiction/

Putting Islam into the Schools

The US Department of Education wants educators to put Islam into more of the school curriculum. I think it is a GREAT idea.

Personally, I have incorporated Islam into a lot of subjects. In math, I point out that algebra was NOT invented by Islam and "Arabic" numerals were actually stolen by the Muslims from the Hindus.

In history, I point out that Islam rapes, tortures, enslaves and kills more people than any other faith system. Muslim pirates provoked the first declared war that America ever got involved in, the Marines' first action on foreign soil was against Muslims who had enslaved Americans, the first time the American flag was raised on foreign soil, it was over the Muslim capital of Tripoli. I take great pains to point out that, from the earliest years, Muslims have always fought in our wars, they have just never fought on our side.

In literature, I point out that all the Muslim countries combined have translated fewer books into Arabic over the course of 500 years than Spain translates into Spanish in the course of one year.

In science, I point out that Islamic countries produce useful work in only three areas: falconry, camel breeding and water desalinization. Furthermore, despite comprising over one-seventh of the world's population, only one Muslim has ever won any Nobel Prize in science. Ever.

In medicine, I point out that Islamic countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan are the only remaining hotbed of wild polio virus. Also, up to half the world's Muslims are inbred due to their propensity of marrying daughters off to their first cousins on the father's side, thus Islamic populations (like Jewish populations) suffer from much higher rates of otherwise preventable genetic disease. 

Like their Muslim cousins, Jewish populations have no theological concerns with first cousin marriages either. For instance, Elsa Einstein (18 January 1876 – 20 December 1936) was the second wife and cousin of Albert Einstein. Their mothers were sisters, thus making them maternal first cousins. The couple were also paternal second cousins (i.e. their fathers were first cousins). The Talmud and Maimonides encourage marriages between uncles and nieces. Thus, a high rate of incestuous relationships may just indicate a high percentage of Muslim or Jewish ancestry in the population.

There are a lot of places Islam can be put into the curriculum, and I agree with Obama on this point - it SHOULD be put into the curriculum.

The Trumpkin Wall

The "Trumpkin Wall" may soon replace the term "Potemkin village" in reference to the gullibility of suckers. Consider:

1) If the wall is built, America will functionally LOSE territory, since the wall has to be built well back from the Rio Grande in order to abide by treaty regulations. By definition, we will functionally be ceding all territory south of the wall to Mexico.

2) If the wall is built, it will be built using American funds. Even if the US penalizes money transfers to Mexico, we will be taking money earned in the US, money that was supposed to have gone to US citizens in order to build the wall. So, Mexico will pay for whatever is built using US funds. The joke is on us.

3) Trumpkins are suckers.

ICBMs vs Voting the Down Ticket

Many #NeverTrump voters insist that we must at least still vote. They say that voting the down ticket is still necessary and useful. But Trump proves that won’t work. After all, Ted Cruz was the quintessential down ticket vote for the last decade, and that down-ticket vote failed. But why did it fail? To understand this, we need only consider why the MAD American policy on nuclear ICBMs works, and understand where it can fail.

MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, worked only to the extent that our missile shield didn’t. If the enemy launches 10,000 nuclear-tipped missiles, our shield had to be 100% effective. If it were any less effective, one missile would get through, and we couldn’t know which one it would be.

Now, the missile shield was useful, in the sense that it accomplished unilateral disarmament of the other side. That is, if our shield was 50% effective, then 50% of the opposition’s weapons were functionally neutralized: the shield reduced the enemy's effective throw-weight by 50%. But, ultimately, no one launched a nuclear war because we knew we couldn’t guarantee that all of the opposing force could be stopped. If only one nuke managed to hit a high-value target, we might easily see our entire strategic position unravel in front of our eyes.

When MAD fails

This year’s Republican presidential election demonstrates the problem in spades. Of the 17 candidates running, at least fourteen were down-ticket candidates. All of the down-ticket candidates lost. ALL OF THEM. LOST. One nuke got through, and the country will now go up in flames. That one missile got through because American citizens wanted it to get through.

It doesn't matter how many good down-ticket candidates are placed into office. Sure, it's easy to do it when no one is paying attention. But, when Americans do pay attention, they choose the nuke. They will nuke those down-ticket candidates. Constantly. Mercilessly. Until one of their nukes gets through. And one of their nukes will always get through. As soon as the public focuses its attention, the person in the down-ticket office dies or is neutralized (Kim Davis, Ted Cruz, et. al., this means you). When the nuke the American public delivers is the Presidency, as it was with Obama, as it will be with Trump/Hillary, we will watch our strategic position evaporate before our eyes. Trenches aren't really good defenses against nukes.

Today, it is clear that Obama and the liberals have won the culture wars. Yes, he won. Yes, they won. Many people argue that since we survived eight years of Obama, we can survive another four or eight of Hillary or Trump. But this statement assumes a falsehood. We didn’t survive eight years of Obama. We died. I will say it again: Obama and the liberals won.

Let me explain.

What we were

We think of America as a single country, a mature entity, a rock-ribbed, unchanging reality. That isn’t true. America has been many different countries in the last 200 years.

At its founding in 1789, America was 90% agrarian in population. Dueling in the streets was legal, ordinary and expected. Slavery was legal in every state, states had religious tests for holding office, the tax burden was nearly non-existent. While we had mercantile tendencies, we were still essentially an honor-based society.

Fifty years later, (1830s) we were a different country. Half the states had outlawed slavery, dueling still happened, but was dying out, industrialization had begun, urban populations had already begun a century-long increase. There were still no federal taxes that directly affected the individual. Geographically, the nation had more than doubled in size, permanently changing our self-image.

Fifty years after (1880s), we were a different country again. Only 43% of the population was agrarian, but 15% were involved in the new industrial processes, mostly as small artisan shops on farms. The federal tax burden was increasing. 3.4% of the population now lived in cities over 1 million in size. The West was nearly completely settled, but Alaska had just been purchased. The last duel was fought in the streets of Fort Worth, TX (1887), slavery was gone, religious tests were gone, abortion was affirmatively outlawed, there was still almost no mandatory schools for children. Immigration from central Europe had caused a population spike.

Fifty years later, (1930s) we had changed again. Now we were a fully industrialized country, only 20% agrarian, while fully 20% was involved in manufacturing. All states required mandatory schooling for children, about 30% of the population graduated high school, and high schools had gun clubs, some with WWI-era machine guns to use on the high school rifle range. Abortion was a heinous crime against humanity. Dueling was outlawed everywhere, Massive immigration from the Mediterranean regions had caused an urban population explosion.

Today, we are 80% urban, perhaps 8.8% of the population are engaged in manufacturing, only 2.6% agrarian, producing more food and products than ever before in the history of the country. Abortion is now not only not a crime, but affirmatively a right and sometimes a social duty. The sale of the corpses of aborted children and their organs is tacitly accepted. Automation steadily eats away jobs in virtually every economic sector. Immigration from Central and South America is causing a population spike. Nibbling a pop-tart into the shape of a gun is grounds for expulsion. The national attention is focused on people who don't even know what sex they are or what bathroom they should use.

What we have become

This is the new America. May 3, 2016 marked a demarcation line, a sea-change. By choosing Hillary and the Donald as our nominees, we have broken the last bonds with an honor-based society, we have broken with being men and women of integrity. Trump and Hillary make no pretense of having honor, allow us to carry no illusion that they have integrity, or even that they have a policy that can be articulated. The country that elected Obama twice has now demonstrated that his election was no aberration. We will be ruled by increasingly narcissistic despots from here on out.

We have deliberately nominated two people who are proven and demonstrable liars, even supporters of rape (when it pays them). Yes, today you can laugh at a child who has been raped, you can call a convicted rapist a “real man”, and still gain the nomination to be President. We have nominated two people who boldly and nakedly pursue nothing but money, power and their own self-interest, celebrities who hold up, as examples, other celebrities who have successfully performed the ultimate acts of self-interest (rape and abortion).

Now, many of us have not surrendered our principles. Many of us refuse to support either of these nominees. But we are now clearly in the minority, and an extreme minority at that. In the past, Americans chose to be ruled by Christian principles, even if we did not always live by them. By nominating these two, the vast majority of Americans demonstrate they no longer wish their principles to be even nominally Christian. This current crop of Americans has successfully redefined the culture to the point where most are comfortable with naked narcissism. The country we once belonged to no longer exists.

America has once again changed, become a new country, and the Constitution is no longer fit to be our founding document. It is too good for us. We need a document fitted for the servile crudity that we have become. If you need further proof, contemplate this: Trump supporters say that he is the superior candidate because “nobody knows what Trump will do.” That is, Trump supporters argue that America-at-large has become the Democrat Congress it elected in 2008. That is, we have become a people who no longer debate issues, rather, we pass a bill, elect a President, in order to find out what is in it.

But even that is a lie. We know what Trump will do. We just comfort ourselves by telling ourselves this lie, pretending to ourselves that we are ignorant of what comes next. We know. We know what comes next.

What does it mean to be an American? With this last clearly defined change, this last clearly defined choice, we can look back at the last eight years and look forward to the coming eight years, perhaps even the span of a full generation, and we now clearly see what it means to be an American, as the Frenchmen of the Vendee looked towards 1789 Paris and saw what was coming. What it means is the Deluge. What it means is Obama, Bernie, Hillary and Trump. It means the narcissism of rape and child murder, celebrated every day. It means "the greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters."

As a citizen of the Vendee might have said about France, so I am today sad to say, I am no longer an American. I am a man without a country. America was a great country while it lasted. I forlornly hope it doesn't kill too many others while it goes through its death throes.

As a country, America is finished.

Bathroom Wars

The solution is simple.

If someone of the wrong sex walks in, scream.
Scream like you're in a horror movie and Jason's bloody knife is inches from your jugular.
Scream, scream, SCREAM!!!!!!!!

That makes YOU the victim and THEM the perp.
You are welcome.

Getting Back to the Mass

Traditionalists are famous for their sacrifices.
People, we are told, will drive hours to attend a Traditional Latin Mass.
Why?

Well, often, they make that sacrifice because they don't understand the Mass very well. As one traditionalists told me: "I don't feel like I've been to Mass unless it's the TLM."

Wow - so many errors packed into one little sentence:

1.  Catholic Faith is reduced to feeling
2.  Feeling is so screwed up that it cannot detect Christ at a valid Mass
3.  Implicit assertion that personal feeling is infallible 
4.  Implicit refusal to acknowledge the validity of the Novus Ordo
5.  It's all about ME, not about God.

How is this not Protestantism?

And then they wonder why bishops aren't interested in encouraging this attitude.
Yeah, there's a mystery.

Trump's Delegate Problems

In Colorado, Donald Trump's "best people" directed their own supporters to vote for Ted Cruz delegates. No one else made such a monumental unforced error.

In Washington state, Donald Trump's "best people" sent email reminders to vote for delegates to Washington D.C. voters. And, to add insult to injury, the email reminders were several days late.

In South Carolina, Donald Trump's failure to do due diligence caused him to lose "five of the six delegate seats on the ballot in South Carolina’s 3rd and 7th congressional districts."

Indiana hasn't even voted yet, but Trump's failure to pay attention to delegate selection means he will capture none of the delegates. Worse, as of April 9th, less than a week ago, he seemed completely oblivious to it.

New York: he failed to begin working voters by the October deadline for party registration. His ignorance of the deadline was so thorough and complete that Trump even admitted his own family won't be voting for him. They are all registered Democrats. Their opportunity to switch to Republican and vote in New York's closed Republican primary expired over six months ago.

Louisiana: Trump's failure to understand the Art of the Deal meant he let all unbound delegates walk. Cruz is reported to have picked them up. In Georgia and Tennessee, Trump's failure to close the deal with the delegates means Cruz managed to get several pro-Cruz delegates elected as convention representatives: these delegates are only bound to Trump for the first two votes.

California: Cruz has been building a ground game for a year. Trump just declared his Statewide Director on April 13. California's delegate registration deadline is May 7.

Wyoming: Trump's own manager gave up hours before the vote even began.

Nebraska: Trump never even sent people in to look for delegates.

Trump has a fake on-line army. He also has an artificial 22% boost in delegates, courtesy of the GOP rule system. If he really thought the system was unfair, he could give back his unearned 22% delegate bonus.

Instead, Trump whines not only without apology, but with great pride. No, really, he is proud of his whining. Trump acts like a garden-variety welfare queen, insisting he should get more than he already hasn't earned, and blaming all of his unforced errors on George Bush Ted Cruz.

Update:
Cruz has now grabbed Missouri and half of Pennsylvania's delegates.

Amoris Laetitia

The new papal apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, is out.

A few words may be in order.
Here is a summary of what I found to be highlights (your may find others, when you look):

This is news to the folks at EWTN
#50 Distractions abound, including an addiction to television.

Homosexual unions are again condemned.
#52 We need to acknowledge the great variety of family situations that can offer a certain stability, but de facto or same-sex unions, for example, may not simply be equated with marriage. No union that is temporary or closed to the transmission of life can ensure the future of society.

Islamic practice of FGM is specifically called out as reprehensible:
#54 The verbal, physical, and sexual violence that women endure in some marriages contradicts the very nature of the conjugal union. I think of the reprehensible genital mutilation of women practiced in some cultures, but also of their lack of equal access to dignified work and roles of decision-making. History is burdened by the excesses of patriarchal cultures that considered women inferior, yet in our own day, we cannot overlook the use of surrogate mothers and “the exploitation and commercialization of the female body in the current media culture

One of the more beautiful passages in the exhortation:
#72 The sacrament is a gift given for the sanctification and salvation of the spouses, since “their mutual belonging is a real representation, through the sacramental sign, of the same relationship between Christ and the Church. The married couple are therefore a permanent reminder for the Church of what took place on the cross

Article #75 has a great description of exactly how the grace of marriage works

Pope Francis notes opportunities:
#78 When a couple in an irregular union attains a noteworthy stability through a public bond – and is characterized by deep affection, responsibility towards the children and the ability to overcome trials – this can be seen as an opportunity where possible, to lead them to celebrate the sacrament of Matrimony.

Another beautiful passage:
#80 Nonetheless, the conjugal union is ordered to procreation “by its very nature”.84 The child who is born “does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfilment”.85 He or she does not appear at the end of a process, but is present from the beginning of love as an essential feature, one that cannot be denied without disfiguring that love itself.

#81 A child deserves to be born of that love, and not by any other means, for “he or she is not something owed to one, but is a gift”,87 which is “the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of the parents”.

Article #83 has a great exhortation against abortion

Bishops, take note:
#84 At the same time I feel it important to reiterate that the overall education of children is a “most serious duty” and at the same time a “primary right” of parents....Schools do not replace parents, but complement them.

Bishops, priests, DREs: stop trying to replace parents
#85. The Church is called to cooperate with parents through suitable pastoral initiatives, assisting them in the fulfilment of their educational mission. She must always do this by helping them to appreciate their proper role and to realize that by their reception of the sacrament of marriage they become ministers of their children’s education.

Articles #91-94 are a great passage on what "patience" means. In fact, the whole discussion through #119 is a wealth of material for meditation.

Note the difference in attitude towards children
#124 In the words of Saint Robert Bellarmine, “the fact that one man unites with one woman in an indissoluble bond, and that they remain inseparable despite every kind of difficulty, even when there is no longer hope for children, can only be the sign of a great mystery”.

Another beautiful passage:
#170 A child is a human being of immense worth and may never be used for one’s own benefit. So it matters little whether this new life is convenient for you, whether it has features that please you, or whether it fits into your plans and aspirations. For “children are a gift. Each one is unique and irreplaceable… We love our children because they are children, not because they are beautiful, or look or think as we do, or embody our dreams. We love them because they are children. A child is a child”.186 The love of parents is the means by which God our Father shows his own love.

Pope Francis paraphrases Pope Benedict:
#186. When those who receive it turn a blind eye to the poor and suffering, or consent to various forms of division, contempt and inequality, the Eucharist is received unworthily.

Important advice for newlyweds
#190 In some marriages, one spouse keeps secrets from the other, confiding them instead to his or her parents. As a result, the opinions of their parents become more important than the feelings and opinions of their spouse. This situation cannot go on for long

Possibly the most beautiful passage in the document:
#221 Might we say that the greatest mission of two people in love is to help one another become, respectively, more a man and more a woman? Fostering growth means helping a person to shape his or her own identity. Love is thus a kind of craftsmanship.

This passage speaks for itself:
#242 At the same time, “divorced people who have not remarried, and often bear witness to marital fidelity, ought to be encouraged to find in the Eucharist the nourishment they need to sustain them in their present state of life. The local community and pastors should accompany these people with solicitude, particularly when children are involved or when they are in serious financial difficulty”

Re-iterating constant teaching
#243. It is important that the divorced who have entered a new union should be made to feel part of the Church. “They are not excommunicated” and they should not be treated as such, since they remain part of the ecclesial community.261 These situations “require careful discernment and respectful accompaniment. Language or conduct that might lead them to feel discriminated against should be avoided, and they should be encouraged to participate in the life of the community. The Christian community’s care of such persons is not to be considered a weakening of its faith and testimony to the indissolubility of marriage; rather, such care is a particular expression of its charity”.

#246 Divorce is an evil and the increasing number of divorces is very troubling.

#247 With regard to sharing in the Eucharist, ‘the decision as to whether the non-Catholic party of the marriage may be admitted to Eucharistic communion is to be made in keeping with the general norms existing in the matter, both for Eastern Christians and for other Christians, taking into account the particular situation of the reception of the sacrament of matrimony by two baptized Christians. Although the spouses in a mixed marriage share the sacraments of baptism and matrimony, eucharistic sharing can only be exceptional and in each case according to the stated norms’ (Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 25 March 1993, 159-160)”.

Nothing new on homosexuality
251. In discussing the dignity and mission of the family, the Synod Fathers observed that, “as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”. It is unacceptable “that local Churches should be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies should make financial aid to poor countries dependent on the introduction of laws to establish ‘marriage’ between persons of the same sex”

Bishops, take note:
263. Parents rely on schools to ensure the basic instruction of their children, but can never completely delegate the moral formation of their children to others.

On Correcting children (read through #274, but here is a highlight)
268. It is also essential to help children and adolescents to realize that misbehaviour has consequences. They need to be encouraged to put themselves in other people’s shoes and to acknowledge the hurt they have caused. Some punishments – those for aggressive, antisocial conduct - can partially serve this purpose. It is important to train children firmly to ask forgiveness and to repair the harm done to others.

BRILLIANT!
#274 A person may clearly and willingly desire something evil, but do so as the result of an irresistible passion or a poor upbringing. In such cases, while the decision is voluntary, inasmuch as it does not run counter to the inclination of their desire, it is not free, since it is practically impossible for them not to choose that evil. We see this in the case of compulsive drug addicts. When they want a fix, they want it completely, yet they are so conditioned that at that moment no other decision is possible. Their decision is voluntary but not free. It makes no sense to “let them freely choose”, since in fact they cannot choose, and exposing them to drugs only increases their addiction. They need the help of others and a process of rehabilitation.

Good to remember for training spouses - they have to learn to trust each other
#279. Nor is it good for parents to be domineering. When children are made to feel that only their parents can be trusted, this hinders an adequate process of socialization and growth in affective maturity.

Great summary on sex education
#283. Frequently, sex education deals primarily with “protection” through the practice of “safe sex”. Such expressions convey a negative attitude towards the natural procreative finality of sexuality, as if an eventual child were an enemy to be protected against. This way of thinking promotes narcissism and aggressivity in place of acceptance. It is always irresponsible to invite adolescents to toy with their bodies and their desires, as if they possessed the maturity, values, mutual commitment and goals proper to marriage.

Nancy Pelosi, please call your office:
#297 Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion.

The Church's declaration on a particular marriage's validity/nullity CAN be wrong:
#298 There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”

Interesting
#301 Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well;341 in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.

A quote from the Summa (I-II, q. 94, art. 4.)
#304 I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects… In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all… The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail”.347 It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations. At the same time, it must be said that, precisely for that reason, what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule.

Justice through Mercy
#305 Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God. Let us remember that “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties”

The Republican's Open Convention

I am a Cruz supporter. Cruz has been working to close the nomination deal. Either he does, or he doesn't. That's his problem.

It isn't "unfair" if he doesn't manage it.

Same with Trump, Kasich or anyone else. Everyone knew how things worked going in, or should have. Everyone certainly had time to find out how things worked over the last year. There's nothing unfair going on - this is how the process works. It's not news. Whatever candidate gets nominated is the one who is able to close the nomination deal.

You can complain about the GOP backroom establishment all you want. That won't change the facts. Everyone knew the facts going in. This is life. Conservatives don't whine about how badly life treats them, or how things are unfair. The world doesn't owe us anything, nor does the process owe any of the candidates anything. The process is the process, it is a well-known process.

That is all.

Trump and The Hunter's Snare

Recently, Donald Trump made a statement about punishing women for trying to get an abortion. While he has walked those remarks back, many of his supporters continue to insist that Trump was essentially correct - women should be punished for abortion.

Here is the transcript of Trump's abortion remarks, with the relevant portion below:

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman.
TRUMP: Yeah, there has to be some form.
MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What?
TRUMP: I don’t know. That I don’t know. That I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: You take positions on everything else.
TRUMP: Because I don’t want to -- I frankly, I do take positions on everything else. It’s a very complicated position.
MATTHEWS: But you say, one, that you’re pro-life, meaning you want to ban it.
TRUMP: But wait a minute, wait a minute. But the Catholic Church is pro-life.
MATTHEWS: No, let’s not talk about my religion.

Has the pro-life side (a) ever said women should be punished and (b) displayed inconsistency by saying women should not be punished? After all, if it is murder, shouldn't the one attempting murder be punished?

The answers are (a) no, no state in the Union has ever prosecuted a woman for attempting to have an abortion, nor has the pro-life side ever attempted to get that to happen and (b) no, it is not inconsistent to say that the abortionist should be punished while the woman should not be.

Consider: a man who attempts suicide has, according to pro-life principles, also attempted to commit murder. So has anyone who assists such a man in his suicide attempt. Yet pro-lifers have always insisted that only doctors who assist suicide (e.g., Dr. Kevorkian) should be prosecuted, not the man who attempts it or who hires Dr. Kevorkian to assist him in completing it. 

For those who insist Trump is correct to punish women, I ask a simple question: would you also support prosecuting and punishing those who attempt suicide?

And for those who do not like this analogy, keep in mind what Planned Parenthood itself celebrates as a pro-abortion attitude:

In a magazine article some years ago I wrote, “No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.”

To my surprise, this line revealed a place of agreement in the midst of the deadlock. Not only was it quickly picked up by sympathetic pro-lifers, but it was “Quote of the Week” in Planned Parenthood’s Public Affairs Action Letter, and “Quote of the Month” in the Pro-Choice Network newsletter. Apparently pro-choice partisans could agree with pro-lifers that, no matter what their political differences, abortion was a miserable choice.

We don't punish people who are trapped by the hunter's snare. We punish the people who ensnared them. 

Trump answered as a pro-abort Democrat imagines a pro-lifer would answer. He is wrong, and all who agree with him are wrong.