Sep 032015
 

Defiant Kentucky Clerk Taken Into Federal Custody

In short, Kim Davis is an elected county clerk in Kentucky who has refused to sign same-sex marriage licenses on religious grounds. The Supreme Court has ruled that same sex marriages are the law of the land, and have ruled that there’s no such thing as a religious exemption. And thus, Kim Davis has been held in contempt of court. People expected fines to be levied… but she has actually been jailed for it.

Here’s an interesting quote from the US District Judge who issued the order to have Davis jailed:

“If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”

Huh. Regardless of your opinion on same sex marriages… I kinda dig the idea of public officials whose job it is to uphold the law getting tossed into the hoosegow for not upholding the law. Imagine it: mayors of “sanctuary cities” or Presidents who refuse to deport illegals all getting sent to the Fed Pen. Heh.

IRONY ALERT:

According to Wiki:

In 2014 … Davis ran for the clerk office as a Democrat. She defeated Republican John Cox in the November 2014 election, becoming the Rowan county clerk.

And what’s more, Judge David L. Bunning, who had Davis arrested and put into jail, was nominated for United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky by, wait for it… President George. W. Bush in 2001.

So, once again, it’s Republicans smacking down Democrats on the issue of human rights and following the Constitution.

themoreyouknow

 Posted by at 12:41 pm
Sep 032015
 

China shows off secret ‘carrier-killer’ missile at Victory Day parade

While the US has spent decades and many millions of dollars throwing money down the rat-hole of scramjets to create airbreathing hypersonic missiles, the Chinese have apparently fielded a Mach 10 anti-ship missile with a range of 900 miles. They’ve done this by just building a sizable ballistic missile, a straight-up solid propellant rocket. Not as advanced or as neato as a scramjet cruiser, but it’s faster than any conceivable airbreather and, big as it is, it’s transportable by truck. One of these would presumably be able to poke a hole straight through the likes of an aircraft carrier.  Of course, nobody in the west is all that sure about how accurate this thing is; it has some form of terminal guidance, so at least in theory is should be pretty accurate.

Photos of the truck-transportable missiles (in canisters) at the link. (Might be copyrighted, dunno)

If the Chinese demonstrate that this missile is accurate and is capable of trashing a carrier, it could really mess with the balance of power in the region. Missiles like this would be difficult to intercept, and would likely push US Navy aircraft carriers well away from Chinese territory. Not just mainland China, of course, but also away from Taiwan and the South China Sea

Also note just how old-school Commie Chinese military parades look.

 Posted by at 8:27 am
Aug 282015
 

Both from the Daily Fail, but still…

The inoffensive everyday phrases used by reporter Alison Parker that earned her a death sentence because Flanagan deemed them ‘racist’

And…

University of Tennessee tells staff and students to stop using ‘he’ and ‘she’ – and switch to ‘xe’, ‘zir’ and ‘xyr’ instead

Huh.

So, what links these two? Both are cases of people who are defined by their ability to be offended by the inoffensive. Both are cases of people who think that the imagined  slights they wrap their lives around are so serious that they feel the need to take it out on others. Both are likely pointers towards the society of tomorrow where wholly *insane* people control the very words people use.

 Posted by at 5:44 pm
Aug 282015
 

The concept of “anchor babies” is much in the news lately. The idea is simple… non-US citizens get into the US via means  legal or otherwise, have a baby on US soil, the baby is automatically a US citizen (via “birthright citizenship”), and now the family is “anchored” to the US and can’t be deported. And now that they’re anchored here, they can bring in even more family.

Lots of people have a problem with this, and for good reason. In the US, birthright citizenship is established via the 14th Amendment, a fact I’ve heard a lot of talking heads dispute. Some want to amend the Constitution to remove birthright citizenship for illegal aliens; others claim that the 14th Amendment doesn’t actually provide birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, that we only *assume* it does because the Supreme Court has ruled that way. But there’s a problem… what the Amendment actually says:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” is really freakin’ clear.

Now, you might not like the fact that the 14th does, in fact, provide for birthright citizenship of the children of illegal aliens. But… it does. That’s the way it’s written. It might not have been what the writers of the amendment had in mind, but that doesn’t matter; all that matters is what the Constitution says. Re-interpretting a clearly written clause to mean something it clearly doesn’t mean is some rat-bastard skulduggery and should be wholly avoided. So, what to do?

First option would be to amend the Constitution to simply point out that birthright citizenship is only for those whose parents, at least one of ’em, was here legally at the time of birth. To be blunt… this ain’t gonna happen. Amending the Constitution in a way that would deny a whole bunch of future Democrat voters? Not going to pass.

There is, however, a simpler solution. Accept the reality of birthright citizenship. Accept the new citizens into the fold. And… kick their parents out. This is in fact the way the current legal system seems to see it; a minor US citizen cannot sponsor a family member to come into the US legally until the age of 21. So just because the kid is a US citizen means *diddly* about legalizing the parents.

Many have complained about deportations because they “break up families.” Well, boo friggen’ hoo. If a mother and father make a habit of robbing banks, the justice system isn’t going to decide against jailing them because they have kids. So, give the illegal alien parents a choice: sign over their kid to the US to go into the foster system, or take the kid with them back to their homeland. Eighteen years later the kid can return on his/her own as a US citizen, but that doesn’t mean he/she can bring other family members.

To do otherwise would be to accept that the US immigration code rewards criminal actions. I believe pretty much everyone will agree  that if a law it written so that criminality is rewarded, that law ain’t right. Changing the US code to preclude the *families* of birthright citizens from profiting from anchor babies would seem far easier than amending the Constitution.

So it seems to me the best way to deal with anchor babies is to simply enforce the immigration laws as they currently are: deport illegals when they’re caught. Simple.

Another issue about anchor babies is that a lot of people seem to assume that this is a phenomenon sorta specific to illegals from Latin America. But the majority of illegal aliens as a whole seem to be coming not from the south, but from the west… Asians coming to the US legally and overstaying their visas. Additionally, “birth tourism” seems to be a phenomenon largely Chinese in origin, where pregnant Chinese women legally come to the US on “vacation” and stay long enough to give birth, giving their child US citizenship. And then… they and their child return to China. The idea seems to be that 18 or so years later the kid can come to the US and claim citizenship and then being the process of sponsoring the parents. This seems to be a dubious prospect… why would a kid necessarily *want* to do this? It is at the very least thinking in the very long term.

 Posted by at 3:30 pm
Aug 202015
 

If the answer is “no…” Well, the question then becomes “where will the *Germans* go when *they* are  forced to flee?”

Germany refugee riot injures 15 after Koran defaced

We seem to be entering an exciting era of low-rent mass invasions. The US has been successfully invaded by many millions of illegal aliens; Europe is now being overwhelmed by refugees fleeing crappy cultures… and bringing those crappy cultures with them.

I still think that the best possible solution to the “refugee problem” is to collect refugees into training facilities, train them up in basic military tactics, wait until a sufficient critical mass of trained refugees are onhand… and them ship them back, armed with infantry weaponry. Germany is looking to have 650,000 refugees show up this year; three or four years of that should provide Germany with an army of at least a million more or less adequate soldiers. A million  such soldiers sent to Syria en mass would do much towards taking down both the Assad regime and Islamic State. The US has somewhere between 11 million and 40 million illegals; should be able to form an army of between 3 and 10 million out of that. Sent to Venezuela, they could create their own nation out of that failed state.

 Posted by at 10:00 am
Aug 182015
 

Gawker recently posted an interview with a politically active feller. It starts off thusly:

Gawker: Your involvement in electoral campaigns is mainly organizing for progressive Democrats?

Interviewee: Yes, mainly progressive Democrats and independents at every level, whether it be city council, state rep, Senate, Presidential. I was really active in both Obama campaigns. Actually I was his precinct captain for his Senate campaign in Illinois.

OK. So who’s being interviewed?

A) Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager

B) A Baltimore Mayoral candidate

C) The national chairman of the Communist Party USA?

I’ll give you a moment to ponder that.

 Posted by at 12:12 pm
Aug 182015
 

Sure, why not:

BOMBSHELL: China and America already at war: Tianjin explosion carried out by Pentagon space weapon in retaliation for Yuan currency devaluation… Military helicopters now patrolling Beijing

Because a chemical plant built and operated in a nation run by communists couldn’t *possibly* catch fire without aid form American space weaponry.

Come for the “Rods from God,” stay for the “vaccines cause autism” and the transition to “Shemitah” (“Blood Moon” gibberish).

 Posted by at 6:52 am
Aug 172015
 

For no reason, no reason whatsoever, here are a few bits of US Federal law to read and ponder:

US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 93, 1924:

Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

——

US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 73, 1519:

Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

——-

This is of course all of purely academic interest. No real-world applications whatsoever.

In entirely unrelated news…

Clinton Emails: 305 Messages Need Further Review, Court Documents Say

 

 Posted by at 2:08 pm
Aug 162015
 

A Russian tabloid has been flacking an audio recording that purports to a conversation between CIA operatives discussing bringing down the MH17 777 and blaming it on the Russians.  Give it a listen. Reportedly a lot of Russians think this is pretty convincing. But people who are well versed in English… well, I’ve heard better line-reading by talentless airheads in bikinis pretending to be quantum physicists on Syfy/Asylum movies. The main speaker sounds like someone *attempting* an American accent. Another feller can’t decide if he’s English or Australian.

Someone clearly half-assed this piece of “evidence.” A lot of people seem to think that the Russian FSB (successor to the KGB) created this in order to try to shift blame of the downing of the jetliner to the US; but it is so laughably bad that it seems more likely that:

1) The tabloid pushing it created it  – hardly a new event in the history of yellow journalism

2) The FSB actually *did* create it, but made it intentionally crappy in order to make people think the *CIA* created it in order to smear the Russians. Less likely, but maybe…

 

 Posted by at 3:09 pm