A Thought on Crimes by Children

Posted on by
Reply

Serious crimes are adult crimes, regardless of the age of the perpetrator. The perpetrator needs to be seriously punished for the crime, too. But sentencing a 14- or 15-yr-old to life in prison for a murder? What about the 6-yr-old who brought a gun to school and shot his teacher? I doubt if he understood the magnitude of his act, even though he likely knows the words to say and could say them.

I tend to agree with the Supreme Court Justice who worried about life sentences for children.

Serious crimes are adult crimes. Full stop. But who’s responsible for them, really? The child who did the deed needs punishment, as I said, but he’s also able to be reeducated, or at least worth the attempt.

However. It’s the parent or parents, whether biological or adoptive, who raised the child, who led the child astray or who let him wander astray through negligently absent parental attention.

I suggest this alternative: try the child as an adult for his adult crime, but put him into a juvenile detention and education environment. Adjudicate a suitable jail term for the crime; apply the sentencing guidelines for the crime committed, but apply the upper end of the guidelines to the parents—both of them if they’re present in the family.

Mom and pop should be in jail for the crime their child, for whom they are irrevocably responsible, committed.

Jokes This Time

Posted on by
Reply

Q: Why don’t blind people go skydiving?
A: It scares the hell out of the dog.

There were three ninjas, and each thought they were the best ninja in the land. So, one day, they went to the old master and asked him who was the best ninja in the land.
“Hmm…,” he replied, “we shall see.”
The next morning, the three ninjas met by the riverbank with the old master. He withdrew a small box from underneath his robes and went to the first ninja.
He opened the box, and a fly flew out. With one swish of his sword, the first ninja sliced the fly neatly in half.
“Very impressive,” said the old man, “but we shall see.”
He went to the second ninja. The ninja’s sword swished through the air twice, and the fly fell neatly into four pieces.
“Very impressive,” said the old man, “but we shall see.”
He then went to the third ninja and took out a small box. The ninja swished his sword, and the fly flew away.
The third ninja stood with a smug look on his face.
“Why do you look so prideful? You failed; the fly flew away!” the old man said.
“Yes,” the third ninja said, “but he will never have children.”

Graffiti on wall of a hotel room:
Werner Heisenberg might have slept here.

Why did the elephant change his socks? Because they were dirty.
Why do elephants paint their toenails red, yellow, orange, green, and brown? So they can hide in a bag of M&Ms.
Which elephants live in the Arctic? Cold ones.
How can you tell if there are three elephants in the bathtub with you? You count them.

Buddy Hackett told this one:

This guy is driving down the road at about 45 mph when he notices a chicken running beside him on the passenger side keeping up. This amazes him so he decides to speed up a bit. Now he’s doing 50 and the chicken is right there next to him. It’s at this time he notices the chicken has three legs. He increases his speed to 55 and the chicken leaps out ahead of him and crosses over in front of him and runs down a side street.
The guy slams on his breaks turns around and follows the chicken up the side street. There standing in the road is this farmer. The guy asks the farmer if he’s seen a three-legged chicken go by and the farmer says yep, matter of fact that’s my chicken. I raise three legged chickens. To which the guy asks, why would anyone raise three legged chickens? The farmer says well now think about it. Do you like drumsticks? Yes, the guy says. and your wife? Does she like drumsticks? Of course, says the guy. Well now suppose you have a guest over for dinner and he likes drumsticks? That’s pure genius says the guy. How do they taste? he asks the farmer and the farmer replies, I don’t know, we’ve never caught one.

Retarded or Crooked?

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) has called Minnesota’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Tim Walz retarded. Having watched this Party politician stumble and mumble his way through a failed campaign for Vice President, and especially during the only Vice President debate in which he was willing to participate, I’m forced to conclude that the characterization (which is rude, but Karens notwithstanding, it’s no slur) isn’t entirely inaccurate.

But wait….

Minnesota’s Department of Human Service Employees has more.

[T]he Minnesota DHS, wrote on X that Walz is “100% responsible for massive fraud in Minnesota.”
“We let Tim Walz know of fraud early on, hoping for a partnership in stopping fraud but no, we got the opposite response. Tim Walz systematically retaliated against whistleblowers using monitoring, threats, repression, and did his best to discredit fraud reports. In addition to retaliating against whistleblower[s], Tim Walz disempowered the Office of the Legislative Auditor, allowing agencies to disregard their audit findings and guidance.”

This comes in relation to the massive Wuhan Virus fraud in which Minnesota was an enthusiastic participant and which Walz had been permitting that participation despite those warnings.

[T]he Feeding Our Future fraud scheme, which prosecutors say involved more than $250 million in stolen funds from a federally-funded child nutrition program and has already resulted in over 50 convictions. Many of the individuals charged come from Minnesota’s Somali community.

It’s hard to see how such large fraud could continue for so long unless the governor, at best, cavalierly turned a blind eye to it.

Thus: retarded or crooked? Maybe both.

A Union MFWIC Brags about Disrupting Americans’ Holiday

Posted on by
Reply

The lede laid it out.

Holiday travelers heading to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) faced severe disruptions as hundreds of protesters blocked the road outside during one of the busiest travel periods of the year, according to reports.

These were perpetrated by the United Services Workers West, a union that represents security officers and that is disputing with Flying Food Group, one of LAX’s largest airline catering contractors and by the Unite Here Local 11 which has 32,000 hotel workers across Southern California and Arizona.

The disruptions included blocking access to LAX’ main airport building, blocking a major street into the airport, blocking access to the airport’s main pickup and drop-off zones, and interfering with passenger flow in one of the airport’s other terminals.

There’s this from Susan Minato, Co-President of Unite Here Local 11:

[She] defended the timing, arguing that demonstrations during peak travel periods are necessary to draw attention.
“It is a busy time of the year, no question,” she said. “But that’s also how you get some attention.”

You have gained my attention, Madam. I’m calling for the decertification of your union and of the USWW and the termination from employment of those members who participated in these disruptions. Neither your union nor the USWW were picketing this employer or attempting to block its receipt of supplies. You were deliberately interfering with wholly unrelated Americans who were trying to go about their own business instead of yours.

That’s unacceptable.

Clemency

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) has said he’ll cancel all of the Executive Orders and anything else that was not directly signed by Crooked Joe Biden that Biden instead signed with an autopen. Potentially, Trump could go farther.

Trump could potentially revoke Biden’s legislation or the dozens of pardons he issued, including to family members. Biden also gave thousands of commutations at the end of his presidency. Still, legal scholars say there is no mechanism to undo clemency after it is granted.

The prior question, regarding clemency, though, is whether it was granted in the first place. That would hinge on, among other things, whether the autopen was used illegally by others—viz., he didn’t authorize its use—to grant those clemencies. That will be hard to prove.

There’s also the question of the legislation signed into law by autopen. Even were it shown that the legislation signed by autopen was illegally signed, canceling that legislation would be a dicey matter legally—the laws have been in effect for some years—and practically: canceling that legislation would reopen, even more explosively than at the time, the arguments and conflicts that accompanied those legislations during their development and passage. Especially since all of the legislation would have to be canceled if one of them is. Trump won’t be able to pick and choose which to cancel.

Back to clemency: Trump would be able, functionally, to pick and choose which clemency act to cancel or to retain; he can simply reissue clemency for specific cases.

He cannot simply reissue specific legislative acts.

Any of that autopen-related withdrawal, though, will come at very considerable political capital expenditure. As a lame duck President, Trump doesn’t have much of that. But with three-plus years left in his term, is this clemency question the place to spend that capital?

Maybe not. Almost certainly not on the matter of legislation.