Why I Am No Longer a Democrat

(Tip o' the tinfoil hat to constant reader CC)

     The "Democratic" National Committee and the "Democratic" Party are now officially two conjoined rotting corpses. They are literally dead to me. As proof of this, when presented with a new voter registration form yesterday, I knew I didn't have to register again. Mine and Mrs. JP's voter registration status remain in effect in perpetuity until we move or other circumstances warrant a change. However, I filled it out and submitted it yesterday changing my party affiliation from Democrat to Independent (joining 53% of unenrolled Massachusetts voters.).
     And the reason I did this, which was long in the making and not one made lightly, coincided with the breaking but buried news that Judge William Zloch threw out the DNC fraud lawsuit, which effectively put the kibosh on the "Democratic" Party as a legitimate one. You can be forgiven if you'd never heard this late-breaking item from yesterday. With Hurricane Harvey beating the shit out of Texas, Trump pardoning fellow racist and felon Joe Arpaio and the Mayweather/McGregor fight, something like this would slip through the cracks.
     Yet the political and historical implications of this decision to effectively kill the "Democratic" Party, one fittingly made by a Republican appointee of Ronald Reagan, should not be underestimated. Because Zloch's decision (which can be read in full here [pdf]) to dismiss this case, thereby disallowing it to proceed to federal court, essentially shoves a glavius down the gullet of anyone who tries to pretend that the United States has a two party system of government.
     Yes, the world's oldest political party tried to reach its 200th birthday but didn't quite make it.
     To be fair to Hillary Clinton, the entire fault for this cannot be placed like a flaming bag of dog shit on her doorstep in Chappaqua. However, the lion's share of the blame must rest on her shoulders. After all, it was under her guidance that the DNC and its massively corrupt and corruptible superdelegate system of stooges put identity politics above party integrity, the sole identity being earnestly touted, of course, Hillary Clinton's and no one else's.
     There were six counts listed against the DNC, The DNC Services Corp and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. There were as follows:
     Count 1, fraud by the DNC Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class.
     Count 2, negligent misrepresentation by the DNC Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class.    
     Count 3, violation of Section 28-3904 of the District of Columbia code by the DNC Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class.
     Count 4, unjust enrichment by the DNC Donor Class.
     Count 5, breach of fiduciary duty by the Democratic Party Class and
     Count 6, negligence by the DNC Donor Class.
     The crux of the lawsuit filed in the Southern Florida District Court was that the "donor class" and "Sanders donor class" two of three identified, that pool of people stupid enough to actually give money to the crooks of the DNC, were hoodwinked out of their money when the DNC told them one thing ("Oh, sure, we'll be impartial, whatever that means") and did another ("LOL! You actually fell for that? Hell, yes, we supported Queen Hillary and you should've known that.").
     And that last sentence was actually the defense used by Bruce Spiva, the DNC's attorney. "You should've known we were in the tank for Hillary the whole time, we didn't make any serious claims to the contrary and, well, caveat emptor, motherfuckers."
     In fact, this is what Spiva did, in fact, say in court (pdf) July last year:

“But here, where you have a party that’s saying, We’re gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we’re gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right.... [T]here is no right to — just by virtue of making a donation, to enforce the parties’ internal rules. And there’s no right to not have your candidate disadvantaged or have another candidate advantaged. There’s no contractual obligation here.”

     Amazingly, despite that brazen of an admission of rampant political corruption and misrepresentation on the part of the "Democrats", it worked and Spiva and the rest of the defense team got their motion to dismiss. Because Spiva's sarcastically hypothetical situation, candidates being chosen over cigars in smoky back rooms, is precisely how Hillary Clinton got the nomination. By hook and lots and lots of crooks.
     It's hard if not impossible to understand why Zloch said and believed the things he did but one fact is clear: While the DNC and its officers and chosen candidate were engaging in a long-term, systemic campaign of corruption, obfuscation and gross misrepresentation of its avowed goals and policies (Which were rewritten after the disastrous 1968 Democratic convention), the defendants still did not violate federal law, thereby making the case ineligible to be heard and reviewed in federal court.
     Whether or not that's true, that means the defense and their aggrieved clients have been effectively cheated out of several salient issues needing to be heard and spoken about more often without closet right wingers shouting them down and crying, "Fake news!"
     Among these issues are the extremely suspicious death of Seth Rich, who was almost certainly Julian Assange's source of information.
     The obvious Russian hack of the DNC's servers as well as Clinton's unsecured servers and John Podesta's email account. This issue also keenly pertains to the identities and contact information of countless Democratic donors.
     The disturbing relationship between Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her former IT guy, Imran Awan, the Pakistani who, along with his family and friends, would've sold state secrets (if he hadn't already) to anyone if the money was right.
     It could have all come out and had been thoroughly unpacked and minutely, forensically examined for the first time, possibly leading to further lawsuits. Now, thanks to Judge Zloch, it will not.
     That's why it's highly entertaining to see "Democratic" Party officials, machine "Democrats", who are publicly lauding the judge's decision. It's entertaining in a Schadenfreude way because allowing the lawsuit to continue is the one thing that would've offered the most hope that the DNC would eventually regain its true north. That the party apparatchiks who brought about this fraud and, like Tom Perez, the current DNC chair, to ensure such fraud and deception continues clear into next year's midterms and beyond would've been expelled like so many little wouldbe Boss Tweeds.
     And I mention Boss Tweed for good reason. The biggest power broker in 19th century Tammany Hall had his downfall in 1871. However, that did not stop corruption from flourishing in Manhattan. Tammany Hall remained its epicenter. And, while the latter-day "Democratic" Party is just a high tech version of Tammany Hall (Oh, let's just call it what it is: Tammany Hall 2.0), putting the kibosh on all its operatives, from Hillary Clinton on down, would've gone a long way toward putting oil on the waters among disenfranchised Democratic voters and donors.
     But these "Democratic" scumbags are high-fiving each other because they know Zloch granting the DNC's shysters their motion to dismiss means business will go on as usual. It may not even result in an immediate drastic change in the DNC's balance sheets since social media tells me there are still plenty of fucking idiots out there who still insist there's a world of difference between the DNC and the RNC, between the Republican Party and the "Democratic" Party...
     ...despite the fact they both show contempt for their own voter base, will illegally kneecap one candidate in favor of a good ole boy (or girl), that they will skew primaries and entire elections and that they all work for the same Wall Street banks and corporations.
     But if history teaches anything, evil will eventually be caught by the consequences of its actions, that it is all-consuming. We do not have a two party system of representative government. We don't even have one. They're both, as Michael Collins puts it, "the Money Party", with just one wing of that party being more extreme than the other. And both wings belong not to an eagle but a tattered vulture, sick of its own sin but addicted to it.