Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Mystery Solved, and Other Nonsense


So, I have often mentioned the twits, er spammers, who leave ridiculous comments on old posts, which automagically go into moderation. I have often pondered into the wee hours of the night, just what the point of doing that is. Well, seems they ain't so stupid after all. Not calling them smart, just acknowledging that there is a method to their madness. Go, RTWT*, I'll wait here.
Along with each of these comments, the commenter included a URL link to some web site. The URL in a typical spam comment links to a web site that advertises cheap "name brand" merchandise, Russian brides, or get-rich-quick schemes. The spammers get paid for each link that they can successfully embed somewhere on the web, such as on my blog. As you might know, internet search engines use the number of "incoming links" as a measure of how important a web site is, and therefore how high it should appear in the search results. The goal of the blog spammer is to embed many links in many blog articles so that internet search engines rank their sponsoring web site highly when someone searches for something like "cheap viagra." (Source)
Kind of interesting. Now if they only had a method of detecting when a site has moderation for old stuff turned on. So they would LMTFA.** Though some of those comments are, at best, slightly amusing.

So yes, another mystery solved. Now if I could just figure out why Blogger occasionally eats perfectly good, non-spam, FDA-approved comments. Alas, some things will ever remain beyond our ken.


Alright, so much for the mystery, on to the other nonsense...

The President's signaling of an intent to issue an Executive Order to end "birthright citizenship." Which probably will run afoul of the Supremes, as Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states -
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.
The Pedia of Wiki has this tidbit -
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Arguably one of the most consequential amendments to this day, the amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official.
The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, nullifying the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. The Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted in such a way that it does very little. (Source)
(I added the bold text, just in case you're wondering.) So yeah, that amendment was basically added to correct an earlier mistake by the Supremes. One of the biggest problems with this amendment is that the former states of the Confederacy couldn't rejoin the Union until they ratified this amendment.

What this tells me is that the Founding Fathers were very smart guys and that most of the politicians that have followed them were mental pygmies, at best. (Can anyone here say "Prohibition," how about the direct election of Senators? I knew you could. Two very bad ideas used to "fix" problems which would have sorted themselves out over time.)

My take, "birthright citizenship" is an inherently bad idea, in these days and times. However, I don't think you can override it via Executive Order either. If you could, we wouldn't have the 2nd and we'd have a highly modified 1st (think hate speech). Article V Convention anyone? No, please, no. Let the LIVs loose on the Constitution? No, just no.


Boston Red Sox win the 2018 World Series over the Los Angeles Dodgers...

Now I'm not taking the credit for this, but since The Missus Herself and I moved to Little Rhody from Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, the New England Patriots have won the Super Bowl (or would you prefer I called it "The Big Game" Monsieur Goodell) five times. Something they had never done before. Also, the Boston Red Sox have won the World Series four times. Prior to our arrival here, the last time they had won that was 1918. Just before Kaiser Wilhelm was ousted!

As I grew up in New England, I can't really take credit for those championships, not to mention the fact that I didn't actually play on any of those teams. Perhaps it's The Missus Herself? I know she made me a winner.

Coincidence?

So yeah, other nonsense.

Call this "The Post Where the Sarge Takes Credit, sort of, for the Success of the Patriots and Red Sox." Or something...

Oh yeah, almost forgot...

Happy Halloween!
(Source)
For those who indulge in such things.





* Read the whole thing. Yes, I added it here.
** Leave me the (ahem) "fire truck" alone. Yup, added that one as well.

30 comments:

  1. Ya, not a fan of birthright citizenship but trying to resolve it via Executive Order is the wrong way to go. We elect a President not a king, although from 2009 into 2016 I often wondered about that. Might as well take credit for the Red Sox and Patriots success Sarge, things like defense, pitching staffs, Tom Brady, coaching, et al means little eh........:)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Look at the President's past tactics. He blows hard, and the result is a win win for the US. He proposes killing NAFTA, Canada and Mexico fall all over themselves to renegotiate. Better deal made. If he'd killed NAFTA, that would not have hurt us either as we could negotiate with them individually. Win win.

    If he pulls the executive order out, it will be challenged. Then it winds up at the feet of a mildly conservative supreme court that will have to decide if the 14th (written to target the children of slaves) is applicable to people who defy the immigration laws we have. Win win. It will provide clarity, which we don't have now.

    The more I see of this guy, the more I like. He fogs the news cycle with tweets, like a kid running a stick down a fence to jazz up a dog. The result is the unveiling of the ever more ridiculous media and leftist/socialist/communist acolytes. And they don't get it, so we get to see them in all their gory glory.

    And now we know, the L/S/C side of the US hates everyone that isn't them. They hate the flyover country, they hate any one who loves this country. And they want to fight it out. He's blown their smoke screen away, and we can see them for the flaming, furious, haters of all things American that they are.

    You can't get to where you are going, if you don't know where you are. And boy, do we know where we are now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All good points STxAR, I know why the 14th was put in there. Bad idea then, worse idea now. However, it is what it is, we can interpret it away by the argument that it was meant for the former slaves, which it was, the Left is always arguing that certain amendments don't mean what they mean because of the historical context. They are always flat wrong on the Bill of Rights. Creating an amendment to the Constitution rather than passing legislation was (to me) Congress being lazy (surprise, surprise) and trying to bend the Southern states to their will. Should have been a law, not an amendment. Just my two cents.

      Delete
    2. What STxAR said. Activist federal judges in the 1960's and 70's interpreted the 14th to include the concept of illegal 'anchor babies,' which went right along with Fat Teddy Kennedy's revamping federal immigration laws under that swine LBJ (hwack-ptooie!)

      Nowhere in the world can you sneak into a country, pop out a squirt, and said squirt be considered a citizen of that country. Except by leftist activists in this country working for mysterious reasons to destroy this country.

      Yes. Finally. An EO that will force clarification. Yay. For the win.

      And, as an additional fun aspect of the EO, it will act like a duck-call, summoning all the quacks and hacks to pop up and expose themselves. Suddenly, right in time for Halloween, the leftist zombies have been unmasked. Yay!

      Delete
    3. I certainly like your take on this Beans!

      Delete
    4. I think STxAR and Signor Fagioli are on the right track. The EO is the opening volley in the negotiation and The Donald is a master at that.

      Delete
  3. Just signing the executive order will get the discussion going ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which I think is what the President has in mind. (At least that's what I hope.)

      Delete
  4. Say what you may about President Trump, but he has the liberals all screaming that we must obey the Constitution. Is there anything that this man cannot accomplish?

    ReplyDelete
  5. But an executive order...that's how 0 got all of his Socialistic desires put into place...and the next President (Trump) was able to ditch them...because they weren't actual laws. A future Dem President could do the same thing with this executive order, no?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true.

      Which is why we have a Constitution.

      Delete
  6. Happy Halloween to you, too!

    I think I'll go as a grumpy conservative old dude who just doesn't give a flying (sexual intercourse word that starts with "f".) Might have to work hard to find the costume, though...

    As to baseball, well, let's see if Boston burns, or if the idiots and free-range-looters manage to keep themselves under control for once. Let us hope that clarity and reason wins out over stupidity and greed, for once. Hopefully. But there's always tonight. I predict the celebration does more damage than the British in 1775.

    Other than that, what RTHT were we supposed to read?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heh.

      For the RTWT, click on the (Source) link after the blurb. (I know, that was pretty vague in the original.)

      Delete
  7. Constitutional convention to repeal that tidbit about Birthright Citizenship? Maybe not. It says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and non-citizens may not be considered subject to our jurisdiction, and thus their offspring. Then again, neither are illegal aliens subject... so we technically couldn't jail them for breaking the laws of immigration, just deport.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting point. However, everyone within the United States, unless they are on a diplomatic passport, is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," Non-citizens are subject to our jurisdiction, for instance, if they rob a bank, they can be prosecuted and sent to prison. Sure, their home country can bitch about it, but all persons within the United States are subject to the law of the land, so to speak. But still an interesting point, be interesting to know what other laws may apply in this case.

      Delete
    2. There's got to be more to it than that, otherwise the phrase would not have been inserted; it would be superfluous. I understand from some posts elsewhere that there was considerable discussion over every part of this amendment. Obviously I need to fire up the Cornell Law School web site and Constitution.org and go reading about it. Did that for the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, and it was illuminating.

      /
      L.J.

      Delete
    3. Cornell Law School's site is very good!

      But yeah, there has to be more to it.

      Delete
    4. Well, am only half way done with the ruling, but the Supreme Court covered it thoroughly in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

      Bottom line, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" goes way back into English Common law and was "universally understood" to exclude children born to alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State. So far I'm not seeing any daylight where an Executive Order could overturn birthright citizenship.

      Can deport their parents all day long, but the kids are still U.S. Citizens, wherever they reside and grow up.

      /
      L.J.

      Delete
    5. That's my take on it too, L.J., it was poorly done after the Civil War. Now we're stuck with it barring a Constitutional Convention, and I don't like the can of worms that might open!

      Delete
  8. It might be easier to declare certain areas and cities in the USA no longer part of the USA and make the people living there use passports to come into our country.

    Thanks for the post.
    Paul L. Quandt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can imagine that you've already made a list of those areas/cities. I'm betting that a lot of those are in California, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.

      Delete
    2. You missed Washington State.

      Paul

      Delete
    3. Indeed I did. Little Rhody is close, not that far gone yet, but we shall see come the 6th.

      Delete
    4. I've voted R for years, and the "Dark Side" of WA keeps winning.

      Delete
  9. As usual, the ever efficient Ann Coulter has uncovered the real details of the issue at:http://takimag.com/article/the-true-history-of-millstone-babies/

    Many people who have never so much as looked at her books, much less picked one up and read it, dismiss her as a lightweight. They miss that she footnotes her work more thoroughly than a law clerk working for a supreme court justice. She cites primary sources and not secondary or tertiary and made up sources.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She's absolutely right about the background of the amendment. I didn't know that a law had to be passed to make American Indians citizens. They weren't covered by the 14th Amendment. Which does raise any number of interesting points. Fun times ahead. Especially if the demonrats gain any ground.

      Delete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)
Can't be nice, go somewhere else...

NOTE: Comments on posts over 5 days old go into moderation, automatically.