Before I got to high school, the term was “illegal alien”. This was the technically, legally correct term.

According to the INA, The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States — 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3)

The term “illegal alien” is not used, but no term is defined within the INA for illegal aliens.

Now the term “illegal alien” was used to create faux outrage, “Nobody is Illegal!” was the scream.

They then became “aliens”, then “undocumented migrants”, and then “undocumented works” and finally, “migrants”.

All of these language changes were done with purpose and evil in the hearts of the manipulators.

Who wants an “illegal alien” living with them? How worries about an undocumented migrant living with them. One sounds much more “criminal” than the other.

This worked so well, that today, and every day, I hear leftists scream about “she was just a Maryland mother, she had committed no crimes.”

She committed the crime of entering this country illegally. That is a crime.

In the Second Amendment community, we’ve seen the infringers pivot to “assault weapons” to “gun safety” to “prevent gun violence”. The words are designed to hide the actual intentions.

The Education Industry

There is a community that I’ve labeled the Education Industry. This includes teacher’s unions, school boards, school administrators, the Department of Education at all levels, and the vendors selling into these groups.

One of the worst things about the EI, is that it isn’t interested in good results, it is interested in looking like they are providing good results.

I’ve had many people within the EI tell me that it is impossible to use objective standards to “grade” teachers. Then proceeded to prove it by informing me that judging teachers by how well their students do, doesn’t work.

These same people have then told me which teachers in the school are good or bad. They know what makes a good teacher, they know what makes a bad teacher. They are not willing to turn those into written, objective, criteria.

When my children were younger, there was an incident in the classroom. I was brought in to hear about how my son had misbehaved.

“Your son hit one of his friends.”

“He hit Jimmy? I’ll have to speak with Jimmy’s parents to find out what happened and make sure they can patch it up.”

“No, it wasn’t Jimmy.”

Turns out that the “friend” that he hit was the classroom bully and had no friends.

She was my son’s “friend” because everybody in the room was a “friend.”

The research strongly suggested that students with good social interactions and with a strong support base of friends performed better.

This meant that schools that wanted to have students perform well, they needed friends.

Since you can’t force people to be friends, they just redefined all classmates as “friends”. Instant solution. Everybody has friends now. They will all do better.

Nope, of course not. This is just industrial-sized cheating.

Nothing more than the marathon runner who trotted off the starting line, ran a mile, got on the subway and then to the ending line.

They waited “long enough” then rejoined the other runners for the last mile, mile and a half.

They caught her because her time put her in world-class times.

She wasn’t “cheating” in her mind, she “didn’t want to disappoint her daughter.” So she cheated.

The EI cheats all the time.

“No Child Left Behind”. The EI turned to malicious compliance and malicious misunderstandings to create a disaster.

If you read the bill, if you read the statements made around it, you quickly realize that the goal was to make sure that no child was shorted the opportunity to succeed.

If you were a little slow, more resources would be provided, to help you reach classroom standards. It was also supposed to help the gifted children, making sure they also received extra resources.

Instead, it became BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). No child left behind meant that schools couldn’t hold students back.

Their Learners

One of the latest pushes was “the learning mindset” where the EI would create “lifetime learners”.

I’m a learner, I’m always attempting to learn something new. I don’t always succeed, but I darn well try. If you’ve been following this blog, you’ve read about the things I attempt to learn.

People that have a learning mindset naturally do better at learning things.

We want learners in our schools. We want to encourage learners.

Knowing how important having a lifetime learning mindset is, the schools have ditched the term “student” and replaced it with “learner”.

Now everybody is a learner. It says so right on the label.

My teacher explained to me that calling them “learners” was encouraging them to have that learning mindset.

I reached over and picked up something on the table. “This is the medal of honor. It is awarded to those that do amazing, heroic acts, putting the lives of others before their own. I’m giving this to you to encourage you to do amazing, heroic acts, putting the lives of others before your own.”

I was lucky, she got it and I didn’t get slapped.

You can call it day when it’s night, you can call it good when it’s bad, that doesn’t make it so.

Tariffs

I work with people that are dealing with tariffs. I needed to update a custom web application which handles purchase orders, inventory control, warehousing, sales orders and a bunch of other things.

The owner explained to me how tariffs were going to affect them. I gave some of that in the Thursday’s post.

What does it come down to?

American goods are becoming competitive in other countries. As more than one person has pointed out, there are no American-made cars on the road in Japan. The cost of the tariffs into Japan are high enough to alter consumer choices.

As other countries lower their tariffs, they are lowering the prices of American-made goods, this in turn increases demand for American-made goods.

The price you pay for goods is based on what the market will bear, not on the cost of production. Every leftist will tell you that when they talk about pharmaceuticals. “It only cost them $15 to make this, and they are charging over $1000!!!!”

When they are talking about tariffs, they are talking about tariffs on the $15, not on the $1000.

Pricing Goods and Services

The boss calls in his best salesman and yells at him costing the company money. He is selling widgets for less than it costs to make them. How the heck does he expect the company to make any money!

The salesman beams, leans in and says softly, “I’ll make it up in volume.”

In a different situation, I once listened to the CEO of Cray Research give a speech. He was telling a humorous story about how he was out selling a super computer to Apple that was designed on Apple computers.

He and Cook got a chuckle out of it. They were then discussing their income streams. Cook mentioned a number and our CEO was happy to respond with “That’s just about what we made last year.”

Cook looks him in the eye, “I’m talking about per quarter.”

Cray sold million dollar computers, Apple sold thousand dollar computers. They sold so many more that they were making more than Cray.

Every businessman attempts to set their prices to get as much as the market and their conscience can bear.

That elementary equation is Price*volume. My profit on a sale is price-cost. If my profit is $1000 per unit and I sell 10 units, I make $10,000. If my profit per unit is $100 per unit and I sell 1000, I make $100,000.

The price you see is always profit + cost. In most resale stops, the profit is multiples of cost.

It costs $0.50 to make a glass of lemonade. You don’t sell it for $0.75, you sell it for $5.00. If your costs double, to $1.00 per glass, you can still keep your price at $5.00 and advertise your sacrifice selling more.

So here is the dirty secret, spelled out, again. If I am assembling a computer with parts bought in China, my price will be multiples of what I paid for those parts, and the tariffs only apply to my cost of getting the parts.

Typescript vs. JavaScript

The power of a scripted language is that you can see the results of your changes instantly. In 1976, I was writing code on an PolySci 8080 computer. I think I got that name right.

The language was BASIC. As I typed each line, the computer told me if the syntax was correct. Instant feedback.

I moved to assembly language. That was done in an instant assembler on the Apple II. Again, instant feedback on syntax errors.

As I moved forward, I learned different languages, PASCAL, FORTRAN IV, FORTRAN V, COBOL, Compass, C and some other assembly languages.

These separated the process of creating a working executable into: Edit, Compile, and Link. You could then execute (run) the resulting “binary”.

Compile times for even small programs took a noticeable time. I wasn’t aware of how long it took until I wrote my first test program on the Cray X/MP.

Same edit process. Then I ran the compile and link process.

The time it took was so short that I spent 5 minutes trying to figure out what I had done wrong.

The power of most of the languages above, outside the Assembly languages, was strong typing and good structures.

It was worth it to have slower test cycle times to have those features.

Then came some more modern languages, JavaScript, Python, Perl, PHP, and others. These do not have strict typing. JavaScript being one of the worst.

Consider the following, what is 10 + 100? The answer is logically 110. What is 10 + “100”? Logical, 110 is the answer. Except that in JavaScript the answer is “10100”.

What we want or expect is for the language to convert the string “100” to the value integer value 100. Then we are adding the integer 10 to the integer 100, resulting in 110. But JavaScript says that adding the integer 10 to the string 100 requires converting integer 10 to the string “10” then concatenating “10” with “100” resulting in “10100”.

TypeScript is simply adding strong typing to JavaScript. Then a TypeScript transpiler/compiler writes the code out as pure JavaScript. The original C++ did a similar thing. The C++ “compiler” translated C++ to pure C. Then it used the C compiler to create assembly code which was linked to create an executable.

The process is going relatively smoothly. Unfortunately, JavaScript is not my favorite language, see “no typing and weird implicit type conversions” above.

This means that I’m having to learn a new workflow. I’m getting there.

Question of The Week

What is the most outrageous lie you’ve heard from a leftist political leader, this week?

Update

The world is ending because the United States is imposing tariffs on other countries. This will cause the economy to crash.

Amazon was going to put up a “this product cost you $x in tariffs” to drive home just how evil tariffs are.

That is not what happens.

Let’s consider a tool I purchased recently. It cost me $45, it was made in China.

According to Amazon, since there is a 145% tariff on China, that means that $18.37 of that price is me paying a tariff.

This is garbage. Not true. There is no way to know what I am paying in tariffs because that is decided by the vendor.

To understand tariffs, we need to understand the difference between cost and price.

Let’s assume I’m buying lots of widgets from a vendor in Canada. According to the US government, there is a 145% tariff on those goods coming into the US.

Using the Amazon system, if we would see this particular item on Amazon for around $0.99 with $0.59 of that being “tariffs”.

This particular widget cost $0.58 cents. This is the amount the Chinese seller gets per unit. It costs $0.01 to get it shipped over to Canada.

This puts the total cost to the vendor at $0.59. This includes any tariffs imposed by Canada or export costs imposed by China.

The customer is buying these widgets from the vendor for $0.80/unit.

Using the Amazon model, this would mean that the tariffs would be $0.47/unit. If this were the case, the vendor would make negative $0.12 per unit. This is not viable. Something else must be happening.

There is something else happening. That is, that the vendor first sells the widget at cost to himself in the United States.

This means that he is paying a tariff on his cost of the item. Which is $0.58 with a tariff of $0.85. This makes the breakeven point on this product $1.44

The vendor and the customer have negotiated how much each will pay of the tariff. They agree to split the tariff 50/50.

This means that the breakeven point is now $1.02, meaning that the vendor loses $0.22/unit. The cost to the customer is now $0.80 + $0.43 = $1.23.

The customer will lose $0.24 per unit sold on Amazon instead of the $0.19 he was making before the tariffs.

The reality is that this widget is listed on Amazon. The price is $2.83/unit.

The Canadian vendor is not going to eat any of the tariff costs, that will be passed on to the customer.

The customer’s cost will go from $0.80 to $1.66.

Your price will go from $2.83 to what?

It will likely stay at $2.83. Why?

Because if they could sell the product at $3.83 they would already be selling it at $3.83. It is that simple.

Will it go up a little? Maybe. What if it went up enough to cover the entire cost of the tariffs? That would take it to $3.69/unit. That is still a much smaller percentage than what Amazon and the media would have you believe.

Which brings us to reality, once again. The price of this item will probably go to $3.33 per unit. A cost increase of $0.50/unit.

This is the complexity of tariffs, much of the pricing calculations are done well outside the view of the final user.

At every stage, the price of the good is set at the maximum that the market will tolerate. If that means that profits go down, profits will go down. If profits go down too much, then that seller will go out of business.

Situational morals at work again.

It is being reported, and I haven’t heard anybody deny it, that two or more U.S. Citizens under 10 were “deported”.

Well, they weren’t actually deported, their mother(s) were deported. Their father may or may not have been deported as well.

This is what happens when an illegal alien is detained, they are given due process to challenge the removal before an immigration judge. If that judge finds that you are in the country illegally, they will sign a removal order.

The illegal alien can appeal that to a higher immigration judge. If they agree, the removal order remains. They can then appeal outside the immigration court system, I don’t know how that works.

These mothers had that due process, there were removal orders issued against them.

Those mothers then had to make a very difficult decision, leave the children who were born in the US here in the US or take them with them.

In one case, the child had a serious medical condition.

In these cases, the mothers opted to take their children with them. Those children remain U.S. Citizens, they can return to the United States at any time. Hopefully, they haven’t become MS13 or TDA members before they do return.

This is what Trump wanted, according to the dog whistle people. He wants to deport people he doesn’t like. He wants to deport U.S. Citizens who he declares are enemies of the state. This is proof.

In other news, an illegal alien mother was deported, choosing to leave her US Citizen children behind. Isn’t it horrible how Trump is choosing to seperate families?

I have been a fan of shawarma since I tried it back after the first Avengers movie. I wanted to see what it was like because I knew the scene of them all eating shawarma at the end of the movie was actually them eating, and it sparked my interest. I totally fell in love. The flavors are amazing, and it’s very easy to make dairy free. This is a fairly quick dinner if you set the meat to marinate the evening before. It comes together fast, and hits the table with a minimum of mess and fuss.

Ingredients:

• zest and juice of 1 lemon
• 1 tbsp tomato paste
• 1 tsp ground coriander
• 1 tsp ground cumin
• 1 tsp smoked paprika
• 1/2 tsp freshly ground black pepper
• 1/2 tsp ground turmeric
• 1/4 tsp cayenne pepper
• 1/4 tsp ground cinnamon
• 2 tbsp plus 1/2 cup full-fat Greek yogurt, divided
• 5 tbsp extra-virgin olive oil, divided
• kosher salt
• 2 lbs boneless, skinless chicken thighs, sliced into 1/2″ strips
• 2 garlic cloves, grated or finely chopped
• 2 tbsp tahini
• 2 tbsp plus 1/4 cup chopped fresh parsley, divided
• 1 cup cucumber, finely chopped
• 1 cup cherry tomatoes, quartered or halved
• 1 medium red onion, sliced into 1/4″ to 1/2″ wedges
• toasted pita, for serving

In a large bowl, mix together the lemon zest, tomato paste, coriander, cumin, paprika, black pepper, turmeric, cayenne, cinnamon, 2 tbsp yogurt, 2 tbsp oil, and 2 tsp salt. Alternatively, you can use a pre-made shawarma mix, which is what I did, though I still added the tomato paste in. I get mine from Auntie Arwen. Add chicken and toss to coat. Let marinate 30 minutes or overnight.

When you’re ready to make your meal, use a small bowl to whisk garlic, tahini, lemon juice, 2 tbsp oil, and the remaining ½ cup yogurt together. Stir in 2 tbsp parsley. Refrigerate at least 20 minutes or until you’re ready to use it.

In a medium bowl, toss together the cucumbers, tomatoes, a heavy pinch of salt, and the remaining parsley. Refrigerate until ready to use.

Arrange a rack in lower third of your oven; preheat to 425°F. In a small bowl, toss onions, ½ tsp salt, and the remaining 1 tbsp oil until onions are coated. Transfer onion mixture to a large baking sheet. Arrange marinated chicken around and over the onion wedges in a single layer. You’re going to need to use your hands, and it’s messy, but it’s worth it. If there’s any marinade left in the bottom of your bowl, drizzle it over the chicken on the pan.

Roast the chicken until cooked through and some lightly charred bits form. If you want to be sure it’s ready, an instant-read thermometer should registers 165°F, and it will take about 25 minutes to cook. During the last ten minutes of cook time, add a pizza pan or baking pan with pitas on it, to toast. You can put them in dry, or you can brush them lightly with olive oil. Take the pitas out before they get too crispy; you want them to be able to fold taco-style around your other ingredients.

To serve this, put out the salad, tahini yogurt sauce, and the meat in separate containers. Give everyone a pita or two, and then layer the ingredients onto the pita. Fold like a taco around your ingredients, and eat. Alternatively, you can halve your pitas and stuff the meat and veg inside the pockets.

You and I have morals. We have a moral compass. Everybody has morals.

As Allyson likes to say, “My morals haven’t changed.” She is the same person today as she was last year. Morals are consistent.

According to Denise Prager, “Thou shalt not murder.” This was mis-translated to “Thou shalt not kill” much later.

I have no problems with “Thou shalt not murder” being a part of my moral code. “Thou shalt not kill” is not a part of my moral code.

I eat meat, this means that an animal was killed by me or for me. I have no issues looking evil in the face and deciding that my life is worth more than his life.

I do not believe I would ever commit murder.

“Thou shalt not steal” is another one. For me, this has turned out to be situational. Have I taken things that do not belong to me? Yes. That’s stealing.

Did I have good cause to do so? At the time I thought I did.

Regardless, not stealing is part of my moral code. I strive to maintain my moral code. Not for the love of God above or the fear of hell below, it is because I believe my moral code is the right thing to do.

I was taught my moral code by my parents and the environment which I grew up in.

When I was at University, we used to play poker. One of the players was very lucky. Not good play, but too many good cards. So I learned how to manipulate cards. Yes, he was cheating. I caught him out. Once I did, the game was played more fairly.

But that ability to manipulate cards fascinated me. I did a lot of practice and was ok at it. Not good. I knew enough to be a little dangerous.

At one of the local bars, I was playing with a deck of cards, it was a bar where you could request many sorts of games, such as Acey-Deucey.

The waitress was interested, so I bet her, cut for high card. If you cut high, I’ll pay double, if I cut high, I get the drink for free.

Four rounds and I won each round. With the ace of spades if I needed high and the 2 of diamonds if I needed to go low. That deck was cold

This was cheating. It was stealing. It was and is against my morals. When I left, I left a tip to cover the cost of my drinks plus another 50%. She didn’t get the double she was hoping for, but she didn’t lose money either.

Note, at the time the standard tip on a $2 drink was $0.25. She got $12 for my 4 drinks, not the $9 if she had not played.

This is morals in action.

The left has a set of morals that appears to be very situational.

J6 is a riot, an insurrection, an armed coup attempt. People running around burning cities is a protest.

They approve of the people doing the burning; thus the situation says that it is a moral protest. They disapprove of the right gathering to protest, that means it is an evil insurrection.

Judge Dugan is an example of that. Their moral compass has spun because they approve of what she did. Because they approved of what she did, the arrest warrant was “fake”, all she did was misdirect the agents, people exit through that door all the time.

Their moral compass shifts depending on “who”. Their moral compass shifts depending on the “intentions” of the person acting.

All references can be found at United States v. Dugan.

In looking for a good image to use of the Judge, I found an article written in the third person by Hannah Dugan about how wonderful she is and all the good she has done, and that she will not answer any other questions.

She is lawyered up HARD. Which is the only correct thing to do.

The Armed Attorneys described using a lawyer for communications with authorities as “you can’t incriminate yourself when you use a lawyer.” The example the gave went something like:

FBI agent: Do you know Jim Jones?

You: No, I don’t know Jim Jones.

FBI: You’re under arrest for lying to a federal agent.

Why? They have video proof of you interacting with Jim Jones 9 months, 7 days, 14 hours ago at a party where he was introduced to you. Along with 50 other people.

FBI agent: Do you know Jim Jones?

You whisper in your lawyer’s ear: No.

Lawyer: My client disavows knowing Jim Jones.

You walk out free. Your lawyer’s words are hearsay, not an admission or statement by you.

IANAL.

Back to Dugan.

The Charges

18 U.S.C. § 1505 Obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States.

18 U.S.C. § 1071 Concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest.

My reading of §1505 is that it wasn’t the judge physically obstructing or impeding, it was that the judge impeded the arrest which impeded the proceeding to get him out of the country. The act of concealing an individual to prevent his arrest is also impeding.

The Internet Lawyer Wanna Be (like I am) are focusing on only one part of the complaint. That seems to be because they can’t defend the other part.

Prosecutor: Mr. V. Illen then used his 9mm Glock to put two rounds into the victim’s head. Killing him.

Mr. Illen: I don’t own no Glock in 9mm, I used a .45. You got to set me free, you made a mistake.

It doesn’t work like that. A single error does not entirely invalidate a charge. There will be parts that people get wrong.

It is also the case that the word “or” has meaning in the law. Impeding is a word like “infringing”, it doesn’t take much to meet the requirements of impeding. It takes more to get to obstructing.

The Charging Document

ECF No 1 is the complaint in this case. The complaint is the charging document.

The Charging Document must contain the name of the accused, the specific crimes allegedly committed, the date, location, and relevant facts surrounding the alleged crime, and a clear and concise statement of the elements of the offense.

This document is what leads to an arrest warrant.

This complaint has a Judge’s signature on it. From this, I will guess that the magistrate judge found probable cause to issue the arrest warrant. In other words, I can’t find the actual arrest warrant.

What was the initiating event?

Eduardo Flores-Ruiz was charged with three counts of Battery, Domestic Abuse, Infliction of Physical Pain or Injury.

In other words, another wife beater.

When he was charged, his identification was transmitted to the federals. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations were notified and did a records search.

That research found his Alien Registration File (“A-File”). Turns out that Flores-Ruiz was issued a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal on January 16, 2013. He was kicked out of the states into Mexico through the Nogales, Arizona, Port of Entry.

This happened under Obama.

This is an illegal alien that has an order for removal. Who has had all due process afforded him under the Obama DoJ. Who was removed from the country. He then crossed the border illegally, again.

An arrest warrant was issued for Flores-Ruiz by an immigration official.

This is the normal procedure. He had his due process in 2013.

The Feds went to the courthouse to arrest Flores-Ruiz. This is a common procedure.

The arrest warrant for Flores-Ruiz

The two types of warrants that we are used to are “arrest warrants” and “search warrants”. These fall into two different categories, judicial and administrative.

The Constitution does not tell us who issues warrants. This comes from case law.

The Supreme Court, through its case law, has established that it requires a judicial arrest warrant to enter a private location owned by the target of the warrant.

An arrest warrant for you allows the cops to enter your home to arrest you. They cannot search your home under that arrest warrant, but they can observe that which is in plain view.

They cannot enter your mother’s home to arrest you without consent, with just an arrest warrant.

With a judicial search warrant, they can enter the location identified by the search warrant without consent. The search warrant would list you as the thing they are searching for. Once they find you, they can arrest you with an adjacent arrest warrant.

With an administrative arrest warrant, the cops need consent to enter any private location, including your home. This is why you hear about agents waiting outside of courtrooms to affect an arrest. If all they have is an administrative warrant, they can’t legally enter the courtroom (private area) to arrest someone.

The arrest warrant for Flores-Ruiz was an administrative arrest warrant. After he was arrested, he would be able to contest the removal order. No need to send him through a court process.

This warrant does not require the Judge to do a damn thing to help Law Enforcement in arresting Flores-Ruiz.

…hive of scum and villainy…

Six ICE ERO members arrive to arrest Flores-Ruiz. ERO A, CBP A, FBI A and B, DEA A and B. They were in plains clothes.

ERO A and CBP A presented credentials to security guard, stated they were there to make an arrest. The guard passed them on to the Sheriff’s office. The Sheriff’s office requested that the arrest wait until after the completion of the scheduled hearing. This is standard. ERO A and CBP A agreed. They moved to the public hallway outside the courtroom.

Before ERO A and CBP A arrived, FBI A and FBI B had advised the courtroom deputy that they were there to arrest Flores-Ruiz. Again they agreed to wait until after his hearing before the judge.

The deputy notified a shift sergeant at the Sheriff’s Office.

A public defender came out and took pictures of some arrest team members. Fortunately, not all of them were together, so she missed at least one.

Flores-Ruiz arrived and was greeted by his attorney, and then the two entered the courtroom together.

The public defender spoke with the judge’s clerk. She told the clerk there ware ICE agents in the hallway. She described them to the clerk.

The clerk then informed Judge Dugan. Dugan became angry, left the bench to enter her chambers. Flores-Ruiz was in the gallery, waiting for his hearing.

Judge Dugan and another Judge came out into the public hallway to confront the known arrest team members. Dugan was visibly upset, angry, and confrontational. After determining that they were there for a court appearance, she ordered them out of the courthouse. They refused.

She then demanded to see a judicial warrant. They replied they had an administrative warrant. She said that it was no good. They argued that it was within the public areas of the courthouse.

She then ordered the arrest team to the chief judge’s office to talk to him.

The unidentified agents remained on post.

Judge Dugan then proceeded to look for more arrest team members before returning to her chambers.

The team members at the Chief Judge’s office learn that he is not in the building. They are then connected to him via phone.

(It appears that the Chief Judge had no problems with arrests being made in the courthouse, as long as they were done in public areas. It sounds like it was a cordial conversation)

The courtroom deputy reported to the other team members that Judge Dugan was attempting to expedite Flores-Ruiz’s hearing.

Flores-Ruiz was moved from the gallery to the Jury Box. The deputy reports that this is highly unusual.

Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer started to towards the public exit of the courtroom. Judge Dugan then ordered them to come with her. She took them to the “jury door” which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse.

Conclusion

This judge actively worked to obstruct and impede the arrest of a wife beating illegal alien. She actively hide him for agents seeking to arrest him.

She broke the law. The government now needs to prove that in a court of law.

So what is this giant proof of “fascism”?

There was an illegal alien in this judge’s court. There was a detainer issued for the illegal alien. There was an ICE agent there to detain the illegal alien.

When the judge heard this, she told the illegal alien to hide in the jury room. When the ICE agent asked where the illegal alien was, the judge indicated that he had left via an alternative door.

The illegal alien then made a run for it but was captured by ICE.

After an investigation, an arrest warrant was issued and the FBI arrested this judge for obstructing an ICE arrest.

I’ve not looked further than Kash’s statement and the NPCs screaming. The more they scream, the more I know they are on the wrong side of the issue. I have no proof that there was an arrest warrant issued. If the FBI did not have an arrest warrant, then this arrest was illegal (IANAL). Since I have trust in Kash Patel, I will assume with confidence that they did have that warrant.

To get an arrest warrant, the FBI must submit evidence establishing probable cause to a federal magistrate or federal district court judge. This is how it is done.

Judges are not above the law. If she had made a legal ruling, there are different paths, instead she stepped outside of her authority as a judge, outside of her position to obstruct the arrest of an illegal alien.

A.A.R.P. with SCOTUS

This is just sitting there, waiting for the Justices to give an opinion. This is a motion for terrorists being removed under the Alien Enemies Act to be paused.

The legal argument is that the terrorists haven’t been given enough warning to petition for a hearing. The argument also includes statements that the warnings are only printed in English, so the terrorists don’t know what is being put in front of them.

This is mostly a nothingburger. I suspect the Supreme Court will let the Fifth Circuit do something then will say, yes, what they said.

Trolling Garcia

The amount of world-class trolling going on makes my heart sing. The RNC is offering to pay Democrats to fly down to El Salvador to attempt to see Garcia.

There is a question of the Login Act, but all in all, this seems to be a gift that just keeps on giving.

His wife has taken to posting all images of herself with her wife-beating husband, with cute hearts over his tattoos. It doesn’t matter, the images are already out there.

Ally is reporting that even some of her leftist friends are starting to get a clue about this.

It Is Always A Surprise

I ordered a small fiber switch (L2) from somebody in China. It arrived. What I was expecting was a box around 1U high, 6 inches wide, and 4 inches deep along with a 12v wall wart.

What I got is 1U high, 9 inches wide (have rack), and 4 inches deep. It has an internal power supply and uses a standard three prong power cord for 110v AC feed.

I’ve not tested it yet. If it handles jumbo packets, this is a going to be a winner for me.

Oh, it showed up with this cute power cord. Standard female at one end, to plug into the box, and the other end had two round prongs with the third prong removed/missing. I think that what I am seeing is a British style power cord.

Fun with CSS

Every time I start working with CSS, I end up frustrated. Why? Because I’m generally starting with somebody else’s base and I need to modify things.

In this case, I needed to make the logo a little larger. Look it up in the debugger. Add a new class, modify the height, no change. Turns out that somebody was taking advantage of SCCS and so had created a more specific selector of .header .logo img which was firing instead of my .trog-logo

Used the correct selector, things got much better.

Also JavaScript

JavaScript, jQuery, Bootstrap, jQuery-ui, custom.css, main.css, bootstrap.css, oh my.

Everything is magic when significantly complex. Don’t breathe hard, it will break.

Question of the Week

What is the most ludicrous thing you’ve heard somebody on the left say this week?

And on the right?