Flashback Friday -- Stiff Little Fingers

Outrage and adorable babies

Idaho judge orders 19-year-old statutory rapist not to have sex until he is married

Judge Randy Stoker sentenced Cody Duane Scott Herrera of Twin Falls to five to 15 years in prison, but he suspended the sentence for a one-year rider program. If the unmarried Herrera completes the programme, he’ll be released on probation, which requires celibacy unless he weds.

I don't know what to be more outraged about. The fact that another rapist is going unpunished, or that a judge in America thinks he can order someone not to have sex.

Stoker said the probation condition is needed because Herrera told presentence investigators he’s had 34 sexual partners. “If you’re ever on probation with this court, a condition of that will be you will not have sexual relations with anyone except who you’re married to, if you’re married,” Stoker told Herrera.

How many consenting adults this pig has slept with is none of the court's business. It really seems that this judge is more upset about the number of partners that this scumbag has had than the fact that one of those partners was fourteen years old.

 

 Also, no he has not.

And I do NOT like being put into a position where I feel like I'm sticking up for a lowlife like Herrera because I am NOT sticking up for a lowlife like Herrera, I hope he never has any kind of sex ever again in his life. But if this judge can order a chum bucket like him not to have sex, what's stopping him, or any other judge, from deciding someone else should be forced to remain celibate? Maybe someone the judge feels has made too many babies or maybe the judge just has a sincere religious belief that people should not get any action before their wedding night. I don't know, but if we allow judges to start telling people what they can and can't do with their naughty bits, that can not end well.

Also, start putting rapists in prison, goddammit! Even if they are young white men with bright futures.


And speaking of government officials who want to take us back to Puritan times:

Tennessee GOP Lawker Files Bill To Make Children Born Through Artificial Insemination Illegitimate

An excuse to post pictures of adorable babies? Yes, Please!

Seriously, though. . .

A bill filed by a Tennessee Republican aims to make children born through artificial insemination illegitimate.

Really? How is that. . . how is that even still a thing? Who still makes a distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" babies? Are there still people out there saying "you can not inherit our father's title, for you are a bastard!"

WMC reported that state House Representative Terry Lynn Weaver is sponsoring HB 1406 to repeal Tennessee current statute, TCA 68-3-306, which declares that children born through artificial insemination are the "legitimate" child of the mother's husband.

I don't know which is a sadder statement, the fact that this nincompoop is trying to repeal this law, or the fact that this law had to be passed in the first place. Was there a problem with couples going to fertility clinics and then the husband saying What? I'm not the biological father? You whore!"

Does the law in Tennessee distinguish somehow between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" children? Is there some benefit given to those whose parents were legally married, or denied to those whose parents weren't? I can't imagine even in Tennessee that "legitimacy" holds any legal status.

Pictured: Totally legit.

So what is even the motivation for trying to make this change?

Last year, Weaver was one of 53 GOP lawmakers who got involved in a same-sex marriage divorce that dealt with the custody of a child born through artificial insemination. Weaver and the other lawmakers asserted that the lesbian wife of the child's mother should not be considered a "legitimate" parent under the current statute.

Of course! Of course it has to do with the gay! Of course it has to do with a way to try and hurt or punish same sex couples. Of course! How did I not guess?



Okay, one more adorable baby, and then it's off to bed!

Trying to keep up with the insanity

It's getting really hard to keep up with all the insanity, it comes at you so fast these days.
There was inhuman monster Ted Cruz congratulating a woman for having MS:

Beautiful moment: @tedcruz defends cutting Medicaid by wishing woman with multiple sclerosis "congratulations on your struggles" pic.twitter.com/6PJBmHqRis

— CAFE (@cafedotcom) February 8, 2017

There's the constant stream of lies coming from Spicer:

Spicer falsely says Atlanta hit by Islamist terror attack

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, pointed to Atlanta several times recently while defending President Donald Trump's executive order limiting travel from seven majority-Muslim countries.
Spicer mentioned Atlanta alongside cities where Islamist terrorism has been carried out.


"What do we say to the family that loses somebody to a terrorist -- whether it's Atlanta, or San Bernardino or the Boston Bomber? Those people each of whom had gone out to a country and then come back," Spicer said while speaking to ABC News' Martha Raddatz on the January 29 edition of This Week about the White House's controversial executive order limiting travel.

I've lived in Atlanta since 2005 and I'm fairly sure I would remember if there was a terrorist attack.
To my knowledge, the only terrorist attack ever to happen in Atlanta was carried out by this guy:

who had not "gone out to a country and then come back."
Also, not a Muslim.
Or Arabic.
Or Middle Eastern.
Just plain old Christian white trash.



And speaking of which. . .

White supremacists who carried out bombings & mass shootings will no longer be targeted in counter-terrorism program https://t.co/Ys48yc4b0f

— Mike Rosenberg (@ByRosenberg) February 1, 2017

And it seems to be the perfect time to stop monitoring white supremacists. . .

Georgia white supremacist under FBI investigation after police find evidence of ricin in his car

Erin Corbett
08 Feb 2017 at 17:28 ET        


William Christopher Gibbs, a 27-year-old man from Fannin County, Georgia is under FBI investigation after driving himself to the hospital last week, claiming he came into contact with the deadly substance ricin.
Fannin County Sheriff Dane Kirby confirmed that Gibbs’ car tested positive for ricin, a deadly poison that is found in castor beans. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the substance can come in the form of a powder, a mist, a pellet, or can be dissolved in liquid and just a small amount of it can kill. The CDC notes, “It would take a deliberate act to make ricin and use it to poison people.”

And of course Spicer wasn't done. He also said that he believed that if Coretta Scott King were alive today that she would support Jeff Sessions for Attorney General, because in his fantasy world, I guess she would have become less bothered by racism over the years?

Sean Spicer: I Hope Coretta Scott King Would Support Jeff Sessions Today

Also, if Winston Churchill were alive today, I'm fairly sure he'd side with Germany.
And if George Washington were still around, I'm fairly certain he'd be a British loyalist..
And if Liberace were still with us, I feel confident that he would be an incorrigible skirt-chaser.



And I'm 100% certain there was a lot of insanity I missed. Probably more has happened since I began typing this post. There's just no way to keep up.

The scariest thing I've seen from the Trump regime yet.

During a portion of the meeting that a press pool was permitted to observe, Eavenson complained that a senator from his state was offering asset forfeiture legislation that Eavenson thinks would aid Mexican drug cartels.

“Who is the state senator? Want to give his name? We'll destroy his career,” Trump said, prompting laughs from the room.

I don't know what is the most chilling part of this little exchange.
Is it the Texas sheriff complaining about the possibility of having to actually convict someone of a crime before depriving them of their property?
Is it Trump's godfather-esque offering to use the power of the Presidency to ruin a man's career?
Or is it the laughter that erupts from the assembled law enforcement community? (as far as I can see, none of the press was laughing. I sincerely hope none were).

Also, this is how they act when they KNOW the cameras are on them. Imagine what they're like behind closed doors!

They find a new low

Just when you think they can't sink any lower. . .

GOP lawmakers look to penalize refugee resettlement charities

• By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services
• Feb 3, 2017 Updated Feb 4, 2017

PHOENIX -- Unable to block the federal government from sending refugees to Arizona, six Republican lawmakers want to penalize the charities that help them resettle here.

Sen. Judy Burges of Sun City West, who is leading the effort, told Capitol Media Services she wants to "have a discussion'' about how refugees wind up in Arizona and what costs are incurred by the state.

Well, for a start, I'd say that stopping charities from helping them will add to the cost to your state, but I'm guessing that's not really your point.

 Also, that's not how you have a discussion. You don't threaten to punish the people who disagree with you as a discussion starter.

State Sen. Judy Burges

The potentially more far-reaching part of her legislation would impose a fine on charities of $1,000 a day for each refugee it helps place in the state. And if a refugee is arrested, the charity would be financially liable for the cost of arrest, prosecution and incarceration of that person.

Burges conceded that she is using that approach because, realistically, it's the only option available to her to stem the flow of refugees.

 

When the United states accepts refugees, the United States decides where to resettle them. And, as you should have learned over the last several months of asshole Republican governors trying to keep refugees from their states, individual states do not get to decide whether or not the new arrivals can live in their state. Punishing charities won't change that, it will just make the refugees' lives even harder.

But as other states that have taken similar steps have found, approval of SB 1468 would not stop the refugees. All it would do is mean the federal government would continue to send people to the state, only without cooperation and coordination with the state.

And there is nothing that stops refugees from moving to Arizona once they're in the country legally.

Except the fact that it's Arizona.

The measure concerns Ron Johnson who lobbies for Catholic Charities, one of the groups involved in helping refugees resettle in the state.

"Obviously we're all concerned with proper vetting and national security,'' he said.

"But that's not something we do with Catholic Charities,'' Johnson explained. "Once they're here, we help them: find a job, find a place to live, learn the language, all kind of good things that help them be a part of society so they're not dependent on the government.''

 But of course, the cost to the government of AZ is not really what concerns people like Burges. Pretending to worry about costs is a more polite way of saying 'we don't want them durn furriners in these here parts."

 And if punishing catholic Charities for actually acting Jesusy is what it takes, well these fine upstanding Christians are willing to do just that. As long as it hurts brown and black people most.

"To punish the Good Samaritans that are trying to help them is a bit misplaced,'' Johnson said. "These people are already here.''

Burges was unsympathetic.

"I've talked to Ron Johnson myself,'' she said. "And I know that they get millions of dollars to administer these programs.''

 

Yes. I'm sure that's it. Catholic Charities is just raking in all that sweet sweet government cash, that's why they're doing this. Just like all those climatologists are pretending global warming is real so they can get their greedy hands on some of that sweet sweet grant money. That's probably it ecxactly. No one ever does anything good to help people without an ulterior motive!

"She's probably talking nationally,'' Johnson responded, noting there are more than 80,000 refugees being resettled this year.

"I won't deny that helps keep these program running,'' he continued. But Johson said it would be wrong to say that Catholic Charities is somehow making money on the programs.

"There's also local donations to help make ends meet,'' he said.

Burges said she wasn't saying that groups that work with refugees are in it for the money.

"As a charitable organization, they feel it's their responsibility,'' she said. But she said the state needs to have some say over who comes here.

No. No the state doesn't. That's not how this works. At least not yet.

Two Republican U.S. senators from Texas last month introduced legislation designed to let governors block the federal government from resettling refugees in their states.

 

 As crafted by Ted Cruz and Ted Poe, the State Refugee Security Act would require the federal government to notify a state at least 21 days before a refugee is resettled there. A governor, at his or her "sole discretion,'' could veto the move absent "adequate assurance that the alien does not present a security risk to the state.''

 No. States do not get to overrule the Federal Government. Here's a little light reading you might want to take a minute to peruse:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 It's from a little document you may have heard of called the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. You know that document you all claim to love and revere so much. States do not get to overrule the federal government.

 Also, I know you like to pretend that refugees just walk up to the US embassy and get flown over here no questions asked, but they do actually go through a very long, very strict vetting process. The fact that they are being brought here to the United States, THAT IS your assurance that they do not pose a threat. There is no better assurance. A refugee is about a million times less likely to pose a threat than the guys hanging around the shooting range thumbing through issues of Soldier of Fortune and listening to Alex Jones. But of course safety isn't really your concern either, is it?