Kender Uncensored


Send Me $

Recent Comments

Top Commenters

My Articles at PJ Media

The Imaginary Book

The Drunk Scotsman

The Scotsman

Uncle Kender


Gimme some love

You can email me here


I am THE
Snarky Kender
of the
TTLB Ecosystem

New Tagline:
"Got Kender?"


Technorati search

    Warning Will Robinson!

    Feel free to post comments, rants, or even personal attacks. It simply shows your wish for taunting if you do the latter.

    You can say anything you want here. But if you get stupid I reserve the right to point it out, call you lots of inventive names and laugh like hell.

    Blog Archive

    Blogs I Like

    In no particular order):
    Note: "right" either means this blogger is correct or that they lean right. I know what I mean by it. How do you take it?

    The Other Side Of The Street

    New York Liberals that aren't all that bad
    (for NY Libs)
    The name say it all
    (Pissed Liberals)
    Luna Kitten
    See? I told you I had a liberal friend!!!

    Iraqi Blogs

    101st Fighting Keyboardists

    The Wide Awakes

    More specifically the rest of the world. Very specifically the socialist parts of the EU, (you know who you are france), and the whiny socialists here in the US (you so know who you are, damnable dems).

    Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States, (SCOTUS), decided in a 5-4 decision that it was unconstitutional to sentence minors to death. Now mind you, for those of you in france and other whiny countries I want to make something clear, we do NOT execute kids in the USA.....we do sentence them to death when, AND ONLY WHEN, they commit horrible crimes....usually MURDER!!!!

    Basically kids just got handed a license to kill. Yes they will still go to jail, but now they will live there, at our expense, until they die. Usually if you draw the death penalty you have done something so heinous that life in prison without the possibility of parole is the next sentence down.

    But then you socialist wienies out there probably hate the death penalty too. (funny aside here, how come the same people that fight FOR abortion, the killing of a very innocent child, are also the ones that will fight to keep some murdering piece of garbage alive, and at our expense too?)
    Anyway, the point of this rant is NOT to point out the stupidity of what the SCOTUS did, but rather to take issue with what I have been hearing, and point out some very scary facts to the people on my side of the street.

    I have been hearing that alot of the world is applauding this decision. I have heard soundbites on the radio from people overseas, (don't ask me about it further, I was driving and couldn't write the info down) saying how well the SCOTUS did by following international law. I keep hearing about binding decisions from The International Court of Justice. I keep hearing all of this nonsense spewing from my radio, my tv, and seeing it on my computer screen and I think alot of you need a small piece of info.

    SCOTUS is WRONG!!!

    International Law should only apply on the open ocean. The laws of this land should be based on our founding documents. Making law here in the good ol' US should be based on what is written in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. Basing our laws on international laws and/or the UN charter is wrong, evil, against the sovereign standing of this nation and most likely a case could even be made that it is against the Constitution.

    It is, quite simply, a bold abuse of power by the justices and undermines this country, taking us one step closer to a one world government and a world where the ICJ has jurisdiction over everyone on the planet.

    That sounds far fetched doesn't it?

    OK, hear me out.

    This document here that deals with the jurisdiction, admissibility and applicable laws for the International Criminal Court (ICC) states the following:

    1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

    (a) The crime of genocide;
    (b) Crimes against humanity;
    (c) War crimes;
    (d) The crime of aggression.

    Got that? Good, remeber it, there will be a test shortly.

    It goes on to say:

    2. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

    O.K., here is your first test question.

    What happens if the ICC decides that the crime here in the US that is now simple assault is now a "Crime of Aggression"?

    Answer: You could go to jail for a bar brawl or a spat with a neighbor. It gets much worse.

    It goes on to say, in article six, the bit about genocide:

    For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;
    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    Next test question (a two parter):

    How does this apply to current and relatively recent legislation here in the U.S.?
    What laws already apply here in the U.S. that could be construed to fall under these sections thereby giving jurisdiction over common street thugs here in the US over to the ICC, where the protections of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would not apply?

    Answers: First answer is this already is being enforced here in the US by hate crime legislation. This section is basically hate crime legislation, and could be used to prosecute someone that gets in a fight with someone of another color, religion or sexual persuasion.

    The second answer: See Above Answer

    Let's move onto Section Seven shall we?

    Section seven covers "Crimes Against Humanity":

    1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

    (a) Murder;
    (b) Extermination;
    (c) Enslavement;
    (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
    (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
    (f) Torture;
    (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
    (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
    (i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
    (j) The crime of apartheid;
    (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

    Now at first glance this seems to only apply to government entities. But with a few deft twists of a legal eagles pen this could well apply to you.

    Here's how: Above it states "...when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:"

    Now let us suppose that you someone is a murderer or rapist. I don't want those people running around either, but if they are say, a serial killer, or a serial rapist, does that not fall into the catagory of "systematic attack"?

    I dont' want to hand jurisdiction of even our worst criminals to the ICC.

    Below are paragraphs that outline the rules directly above and expand on defintitions of these terms. Simply because these expanded definitions are here, and sound as if only government can be accused of them, does not mean you or I are safe. I will comment after each one to show you what I mean.

    2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
    (a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;

    Quick comment on this one: Does that last part, "...or organizational policy to commit such attack" sound like it could apply to a street gang or perhaps the KKK of old?

    (b) "Extermination" includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;

    Souns very much like mandated feeding and healthcare of all doesn't it? In fact the case could be made for us to sit around and demand food and healthcare and refuse to work under threat to our governing officials of prosecution by the ICC.

    (c) "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;

    See? Now I am reading this to expand on the paragraph above. If we refuse to work and threaten our elected officials with ICC intervention, we can scream slavery if they try to make us work. (I am seeing the inherent flaws in a socialist world run by the UN, are you?)

    (d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;

    Big problem here. That last part, "under international law". If they create an international law that says there is no such thing as illegal imigration borders are useless. Imagine the population here then.

    (e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;

    One phrase here that keeps this in the realm of ICC jursidiction for you and I: "under the control of the accused". In other words, a kidnapper tortures their victim. We have already seen how that person can fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC, now they are also tried for torture.

    (f) "Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;

    This is, so far, the only one that I have found no fault with so far. Probably because I have has so little experience with this subject. Now that I think about this one, is this a problem somewhere?

    (g) "Persecution" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;

    Right now, today, don't you think Farrakhan would be happy to argue this case against the US in defense of "african-americans"?

    (h) "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

    Again, Farrakhans dream law.

    (i) "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

    It has been argued that this is exactly what W is doing with terrorist suspects.

    3. For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term "gender" refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term "gender" does not indicate any meaning different from the above.

    Does "gender" have another meaning I am not aware of?

    At this point I am going to leave the rest of the document to you, dear readers, and to you socialist sycophants that still believe that W waged an "Illegal" war.

    There was nothing illegal about that war. The UN does NOT tell the US when to act in her defense.

    So take your international law and stuff it up your nosy pretentious asses!!!!!
    blog comments powered by Disqus