Tag: Foreigners

And A Not-So Joyeux Noël To You

Behind Enemy Lines, Morons & Idiots

In our family’s Great Catholic Tour of Europe back in 2008, we ended our trip in Paris in late December.

Most unusually, I got sick — some kind of Frog flu — and so when the kids wanted to go out and join the crowds in the Champs-Élysées on New Year’s Eve, we sent them off with a couple bottles of cheap champagne, hoping like hell that they wouldn’t disappear from our lives forever.  They didn’t, of course, even though there were about 600,000 people jammed along that famous Paris thoroughfare, all partying like frat boys.  As the city of Paris made travel on the Metro free from 6pm till 6am on Jan 1, the kids went from our apartment on the Place de la Bastille all the way up to the Arc de Triomphe and had the time of their lives.


(yes, it was also witch’s tit cold)

I wouldn’t think of doing that nowadays, of course, but never mind because:

The Champs-Élysées has been Paris’s symbolic place for celebrations since the Liberation parade in 1944. This is the year it ends.

Paris has canceled the iconic New Year’s Eve concert on the Champs-Élysées due to security threats (by migrants; they won’t say it’s because of migrants, and they will never address the problem). They are at the point of no return.

Now the French will have to watch the fireworks on their televisions.

They brought it on themselves, of course:  the French brought Africa into France, and have discovered that in so doing, they’ve not turned Africans into Frenchmen, but France into Africa.

Telle stupidité.

Malice Aforethought

Journalist Scum, Legal Stuff, Trumpism

I haven’t been keeping up with the Trump vs. BBC saga much, because as a rule trials make my eyes glaze over.  This one, however, may be different:

MAKE no mistake, Donald Trump’s $5billion (£3.7billion) defamation lawsuit against the BBC, filed yesterday, is a formidable document: it is a tightly constructed, meticulously argued claim that accuses the Corporation not merely of error but of intentional deception on a scale that, if proven, could be the most damaging legal defeat in its history.

Filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the complaint names the BBC, BBC Studios Distribution, and BBC Studios Productions as defendants. It seeks $5billion in damages for defamation and for alleged violations of Florida’s consumer protection laws.

What makes the filing so potent is that it weaves the BBC’s factual admissions, internal whistleblowing, patterns of bias in BBC coverage, timing, motive and governance failure – caused essentially by the BBC acting as its own judge and jury – into a coherent narrative of wrongdoing.

…and the article just gets better and better as Dave Keighley lays it all out for TCW’s Brit readers.  Read the whole thing.

Best part of all this?  The suit has been filed in Florida, where Trump’s a longtime resident (at Mar-A-Lago, for my Brit Readers).  In Florida (as opposed to NYfC or Kollyfornia) the jury is going to be made of Floridians, nay even a goodly number of Trump voters who, if all goes Trump’s way, will deliver a sound financial wacking to the BBC’s corporate pee-pee.

Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of smug, Leftist assholes, who will have their bias and underhanded skulduggery exposed to the entire world.

It’s just too bad that in the end, the financial penalty will be borne by the BBC’s license holders, i.e. the public, rather than by the BBC executives who perpetrated this travesty.

But hey… all the more reason for the Brits to dump the whole licensing bollocks altogether.  The public hangings can come later.

Well, Now

Immigration, Legal Stuff

Seems as though there’s a teeny hole in the Constitution after all:

Twenty-five Republican attorneys general have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, challenging birthright citizenship.

“The idea that citizenship is guaranteed to everyone born in the United States doesn’t square with the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment or the way many government officials and legal analysts understood the law when it was adopted after the Civil War.

“If you look at the law at the time, citizenship attached to kids whose parents were lawfully in the country. Each child born in this country is precious no matter their parents’ immigration status, but not every child is entitled to American citizenship. This case could allow the Supreme Court to resolve a constitutional question with far-reaching implications for the States and our nation.”

I have to say that this little feature always nagged at me (despite being a one-time immigrant myself).  The idea that anyone born in the U.S. had automatic citizenship seemed on its face to be unreasonable — I mean, I think that we are the only country in the world that allows for this in our legal system.  (There might be a couple of others, but I suspect that these might be countries where nobody wants to live anyway.)

Whatever, I’d like to see this whole “anchor baby” situation disappear.  The child should be a citizen of the home country of either the mother or the father (if known).  If nobody knows who the father is (a regrettably-common feature of modern-day life) and the mother were to die during or soon after childbirth, then I might be prepared to accept automatic citizenship for the baby, if only for humanitarian reasons.

Anyway, I’m glad to see that the issue may soon be resolved one way or the other.  I’ll leave it to your imagination to figure out who might oppose this initiative by the various attorneys-general.