Cheater’s Penalty

I read this report with sadness:

A man has sued his unfaithful estranged wife after discovering that he is not the father of her eight-year-old son.
The man wants the woman to return ‘every penny’ he spent on the child he thought was his but was actually fathered by someone she had an affair with.
He also wants damages to compensate for distress and wants her to reveal the name of the other man.

My sadness is because of the effect all this will have on the child.  For the cheating ex-wife?  Not a smidgen of pity.

In the old days, a child born within the marriage was assumed both legally and morally to be the child of the husband — and it made a great deal of sense.  Nowadays, with morality in tatters but with scientific tools such as DNA testing, that old standard is unnecessary.

In fact, I believe that all babies should get DNA-tested at birth.  If the baby is born to a married couple and the husband is found to be not the father, then the actual father should be identified and forced to pay child support.  If the woman is unmarried, of course, then the same should apply.  (If she doesn’t know who the father is, then everything that follows is her own fault.)

Adultery that results in pregnancy should carry a penalty of some sort.  The husband should not be penalized for his wife’s infidelity and carelessness.  Good grief:  if sperm donors  are being forced to pay child support (as is beginning to happen in Europe — pure foolishness), then Roger The Lodger should have to face the same consequence.

Oh Yeah, Baby

After the Supreme Court punting on the topic of counting only U.S. citizens in the 2020 Census — what? — I was heartened to see this new development:

A high-profile conservative leader called Thursday for the impeachment of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. after he provided the crucial fifth vote in the Supreme Court decision heading off President Trump’s goal of including a question on citizenship on the 2020 census.
Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union and husband of top Trump White House aide Mercedes Schlapp, said the ruling showed the chief justice was not the conservative-minded jurist he’d been touted to be, noting his previous decision essentially preserving Obamacare.
“I’m for impeaching the chief justice for lying to all of us about his support of the Constitution,” Mr. Schlapp tweeted. “He is responsible for Robertscare and now he is angling for vast numbers of illegal residents to help Dems hold Congress. Enough Deception from GOP judges on the Constitution.”

Considering that most of the past censuses (censi, to be pedantic) in our history did in fact include the citizenship question, I guess I thought it would be a slam-dunk decision in favor of the measure.

And then came Roberts.  Just as he did with fucking ObamaCare, he found some sliver of legal minutiae to enable him to vote on the side of the socialist USSC judges instead of with the traditionalist constructivists.

The hell with impeachment:  warm up the tar and start plucking those geese…

Scum

Somebody explain to me why we should ever — ever — trust the fucking FBI again, when they get involved in this kind of bullshit, trying to entrap a U.S. citizen into committing several federal crimes.

When did they do this?  In 2017:  after Donald Trump’s inauguration as POTUS.

And under whose auspices did they do this?  Why, those of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and DOJ prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, of course.

Why  did they do this?  All in the cause of trying to bring down President Donald Trump and overturn the fully-legal election result of 2016.

So to repeat myself:  somebody explain to me why we should ever — ever — trust the fucking FBI again.  With anything.

Pass It Around

Whatever Lindsey Graham’s been drinking these past few months, can we set up an IV line of the stuff for Senate RINOs like Susan Collins?  This is excellent:

A day after the attorney general said the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller found Trump’s campaign did not conspire with Russia, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham said: “We will begin to unpack the other side of the story.”
He said it was time to look at the origins of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant for former Trump adviser Carter Page, which was based in part on information in a dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who co-founded a private intelligence firm.
Graham told reporters he planned to ask Barr to appoint a special counsel to investigate the FISA matter, which is already being probed by the Justice Department’s internal watchdog, Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

Give ’em a fair trial, then hang ’em.  After we’ve taken down the rotting corpses of the various mainstream media reptiles, that is.

Ye Olde Hanging Tree is going to get a workout over the next couple years… well, it should, anyway.

Bed-Breaking Antics

Apparently this couple were engaged in sex when the bed broke, violently catapulting the woman onto the floor and causing her to break her back.

This being the Modern Era, she sued the manufacturer of said bed for lots of money.  Result:

[Woman] LOSES bid for £1 million damages after judge rules ‘tragic accident’ was down to ‘unusual positioning and movement’

Personally, I blame the Daily Mail newspaper for her injury.  Is it not the Mail which publishes articles such as this?

Couples stuck in a sexual rut need look no further, as a new guide breaks down the most satisfying – yet challenging – new positions to try in the bedroom.
Unveiled by the British lingerie giant Ann Summers, the top five most difficult to master moves will require dexterity on the part of both you and your partner.
According to Ann Summers its top five are the ‘most pleasurable’ positions, but it concedes they’ll take some practice.
The retailer’s resident ‘flexpert’, Charlotte, said: ‘It is important to train your body to be able to contort properly, but it will be worth it for both you and your other half.
‘However you will need to practice regularly if you want to attempt the most difficult sex positions with your perfect partner.’

They even have pictures to illustrate them — just not of actual couples, the cowards, but marionettes:

(Note that the female figure is bent over backwards in this one.  I dunno;  maybe US gymnast Nastia Liukin could do it, but not many others.)

Anyway, I think the Mail  should shoulder at least a little responsibility here;  although that said, I think that if the abovementioned judge is to believed, older women need to be a little more cautious before launching into “unusual positioning and movement”.

And under no circumstances should anyone attempt the notorious “aircraft-carrier-landing position”, which carries a severe risk of injury to those attempting it.  Don’t make me post the picture…