jump to navigation

Good video – Kingship of Christ, or Kingship of Satan October 30, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Latin Mass, priests, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

I’m out of time, been meaning to post this video all week, enjoy!

We have a choice folks, submitting to the kingship of Jesus Christ, or the kingship of satan more and more prevalent in our society.  Choose wisely.

Advertisements

Court decision paves way for Australian style gun ban in US? October 30, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, manhood, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
comments closed

I doubt it, while the decision is wrong and threatening it is also totally opposed to recent US Supreme Court precedent in several substantial rulings of the past few years (most notably, Heller).  But how long will the majority that has generally interpreted the Second Amendment so generously last?  I report, you discuss. Or not:

On Monday, the Court of Appeals for the Second U.S. Circuit issued a long awaited decision on the constitutionality of the most drastic gun control law in U.S. history, the New York SAFE Act of 2013.  The Second Circuit ruled that nearly all of the law does not violate the Second Amendment.

The SAFE (“Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement”) Act was presented to the New York State Senate and passed into law in 15 minutes.  No debate was allowed, and senators did not have time to read the bill before voting it into law. [It is the most disastrously repressive gun legislation passed in this country since 1968, at least.  I firmly believe the USSC wants to hear this case, and wants to rule on this act.  I am quite confident they will find it unconstitutional, but who knows which way Anthony Kennedy’s magic 8 ball will read that day?]

The SAFE Act is a complete ban on the sale or transfer of all military-style semi-automatic rifles manufactured within the past several decades.  It is a total ban on the AR-15, AK-47, M-14/M-1a, HK G3, Steyr AUG, and many other civilian copies of military firearms.  Prior to the passage of the law, Gov. Cuomo publicly stated that he was considering “confiscation” of existing rifles, but the final version of the law allowed existing owners to keep their rifles as long as they registered them with the State.  Upon the death of the owner, the rifle will be confiscated; it cannot be transferred to an heir within New York State.

The SAFE Act also enacted a complete ban on the possession of all firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.  The law contains no “grandfather” provision for previously legal items.

Beyond that, the SAFE Act banned all private transfers of firearms, except among spouses, parents, and children; it created an ammunition purchase background check and ammunition purchase registry; it banned the private sale of ammunition except from a licensed dealer; and it created a secret reporting requirement under which “mental health professionals” must report anyone suspected of being a “danger” to the State Police for mandatory gun confiscation.

Now that the Second Circuit has upheld the law, residents within the court’s jurisdiction have no recourse except to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court – where there will be a guaranteed four votes against the Second Amendment.  As I wrote last year, Gov. Cuomo and former Mayor Bloomberg, the backers of the SAFE Act, were betting that the law will be upheld by the Supreme Court, thus paving the way for a national version of the law (which has already been introduced in the Senate by Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.).  Indeed, Cuomo immediately called for a national SAFE Act as soon as the Second Circuit issued its ruling Monday.

The Second Circuit’s decision comes only one week after both President Obama and Hillary Clinton publicly praised the Australian and British mass gun confiscations of the 1990s.

Which is an interesting corollary. We know Obama used heavy pressure and threats to induce the Supreme Court (re: John Roberts) to find the unconstitutional Obamacare constitutional in 2013. There were threats again this year in a similar case.  And then there was the very heavy pressure applied to the Supremes in the Obergefell decision this year imposing sodomite marriage on the states.  Did the demonrat party apparatus inveigh heavily on the 2nd circuit to support this unconstitutional assault on the rights of Americans?  Will they do so again if it goes to the Supremes?

Well, even if the Supreme Court either dodges or caves, the SAFE act has been largely a dead letter, at least in terms of the mandatory submission to the government of so-called large capacity magazines for their destruction and the registration of “assault weapons” (for later confiscation).  Apparently, virtually no one in the affected states has complied:

Since New York’s SAFE Act gun control law went into effect in January 2013, a total of 23,847 people have applied to register their newly defined assault-style weapons with the State Police.

Those individuals have registered a total of 44,485 weapons.

The statistics, hidden from the public for more than a year by state officials, were given to Rochester-area lawyer Paloma Capanna on Monday in response to a lawsuit she filed on behalf of radio host Bill Robinson.

Folks, this is stunning, buy any measure.

As Frank Miniter noted last year just days before the registration deadline, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) conservatively estimated the number of firearms that qualify as “assault weapons” under New York’s law were “at least” one million firearms.

We now know that less than 4.5% of the “assault weapons” in New York were registered with the state as required by the draconian 2013 law, despite threats and warnings from hysterical New York Democrats and their allies in the media.

This is an even greater refusal rate than was experienced in next door Connecticut, where anti-gun laws rammed through a similar law in the wake of Sandy Hook saw at least 85% of the Constitution State’s gun owners defiantly refuse to register their firearms, some going so far as to dare Governor Dannel Malloy and the Connecticut State Police to attempt confiscation. [Which won’t happen, not yet anyway. Not even in our draconian, illiberal day  is there sufficient resolve on the part of our increasingly repressive government to try to lock up hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners.  Perhaps some day, but not yet]

Just don’t comply. No one can force you to do anything. They can drag you to jail. They can ransack your house. They can scream bloody murder and make all kinds of threats, but they can’t make you do anything against your will or conscience.  So if your state is one that declares all manner of firearms illegal, it’s a real shame about that boating accident where they all fell down to the bottom of the lake, idn’t it?

And it’s not just guns. This kind of passive resistance to illegitimately exercised governmental authority may have to become a regular recourse for a lot of us.  It’s a perfectly acceptable means of passive resistance.

Anyone know where the bishops of New York and Connecticut stood on these gun grabs?  Are they lockstep in favor of the USCCB’s very anti-gun ownership outlook?

China’s horrific one child policy may be ending, but it’s probably far too late October 30, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, demographics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

Two news pieces came out yesterday regarding the Chinese government’s apparent plan to end their draconian one child policy.  Directed largely at urban dwellers (rural folks could frequently get “dispensations” for two and sometimes three children), this policy saw much horrific behavior on the part of the Chinese government and immense suffering inflicted on people.  It also led to a severe imbalance in China’s population – since boys are so preferred in Chinese society, girls were routinely aborted or killed at birth so the family could have a male heir.  I’m a male chauvinist pig, but that’s a severely messed up mentality.

The core problem with this policy – aside from the brutality of it all, which has resulted in the deaths of likely hundreds of millions over the past 40 years – is that when you limit a population to one child per couple, you cause a demographic implosion.  No matter how far back you care to go, so long as couples are limited to one child, any number of grand parents, great-grand parents, great-great grand parents, etc., will have only ONE grand child, great-grand child, great great, etc., ad infinitum. It is a great way to completely wipe out a population over the course of 10 or 15 generations.

The other thing this kind of evil policy does is to instill in souls a truly corrosive set of beliefs.  Once you get people accustomed to having one or no children, even when you want them to start having more, they’ve already adopted the “no-reproduce” mentality and even huge incentives to reproduce wind up having no effect.  We see that in Europe, Russia, Japan, and other nations today.  So now that the Chinese government is set on “generously” allowing two kids per urban family, this article prognosticates that its probable very few will take up the offer:

China’s population of working-age adults started shrinking in 2012, and by 2050 the country will be home to fewer than 1.6 workers for every retiree, according to a 2013 report from the Paulson Institute. That’s comparable to aging, slow-growth countries like Japan and Singapore. In response, the regime is hoping to spark a baby boom.

Unfortunately, by this point, even a two-child policy may be too little, too late. [And it leaves this satanically repressive “family planning” apparatus in place] Most Chinese outside the big cities can already have two, and sometimes more, children. Meanwhile, a recent, limited opening in several cities failed to turn up many urban couples interested in having a second child.

The reasons aren’t unique to China: As societies become wealthier and concentrate in cities, couples choose to have fewer kids. A peer-reviewed study from 2012 found that between 2000 and 2005, urbanization accounted for a net decline in fertility in all but three of China’s provinces. The government could try enforcing maternity-leave policies better and providing more generous childcare subsidies. But such policies haven’t really succeeded in Singapore or Japan, and there’s little reason to think that they’d work any better in China.

The author then goes on to recommend that China try to “import” labor – basically, to steal the most vital resource of other countries, it’s people, just as we see many US business leaders doing with Hispanic labor today.  A relatively high wage country like China (wages have exploded there in the past several years) can certainly attract workers from lower wage countries like Burma, Cambodia, Laos, etc., but what impact does that labor drain tend to have on those abandoned countries?  Evidence from the Western hemisphere suggests it leaves those former countries mired in poverty, and severely inhibits their own ability to develop organic economic growth.  But such is the zero sum game of the corporate capitalist.

For some examples of the kinds of horrors the one child policy has engendered, here is another article sent along by reader MFG:

His wife was seven months pregnant with their second child when the group of people barged into his home and took her away. He followed them to the local hospital, where — against medical advice and despite his pleadings — they jammed a needle into her belly.

“They grabbed my wife’s body like they were grabbing a pig, four or five people holding her hands and legs and head, and injected a shot into her belly,” the man said, asking not to be named for fear of retribution. “Neither my wife nor I signed any consent form.”

Ten hours later, she gave birth to a boy, wriggling and faintly crying. But the doctors in southern Hunan province would not even let her hold the dying infant, the husband said, putting the baby in a plastic bag and instructing him to pay a cleaner a small sum to bury it on a nearby hill.

The incident happened not during the horrors of some Mao Zedong-inspired mania in the 1950s or 1960s, but in 2011, in the Internet age and when China was walking proudly on the global stage as a major power…….

……In 2012 alone, official statistics show 6.7 million women in China were forced to have abortions under the one-child policy. Rates in previous decades often topped 10 million a year. As a result, experts say, suicide rates among women in China are significantly higher than among men in contrast to global norms.

This is EXACTLY what results from the apotheosis of leftist sexular paganism, communism.  Leftism is a materialist, utilitarian ideology.  Taken to its logical conclusion – communism – creates governments that treat humans like cattle and has caused mass slaughter in every single country that has been forced to endure them.

And as we see around the world today, in spite of the mountains of evidence indicating the unavoidably evil nature of leftist systems of government, it seems more and more that the self-anointed elites of our society are determined to push a reluctant world in that direction, even creating a one world superstate where there will be no alternative to the nightmare of amoral materialist leftism.  Things like China’s one child policy aren’t accidental by-products of leftism/communism – it’s what they do.  They are the essence of leftism.  We see so many leftists in our own country calling for unlimited abortion on demand and without apology, they advocate for the slaughter of the elderly and sick because they are no longer productive, they even argue in favor of “post-birth abortion” – child murder – as an inalienable parental right.  Leftism is uniquely sick because it is a uniquely diabolical and deliberately anti-Christian mindset.  It’s evil consequences are an inseparable part of its evil beliefs.

But you knew that already.  Well, maybe someone will stumble on this blog who doesn’t.

The bestest most awesomest Flightline Friday EVER!!! October 30, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Flightline Friday, fun, non squitur, silliness, Society, technology.
comments closed

I’ve done two posts on the F-14 Tomcat in the past year (roughly) and I generally like to mix it up a bit more, but I stumbled on a video presentation that is simply too awesome not to include.  It features former Grumman VP Mike Ciminera discussing the whole of the F-14’s development, from early technological antecedents like the XF10F Jaguar to the failed F-111B program and then onto the VFX program that spawned the F-14.  Something to keep in mind – while Grumman certainly had been examining potential F-111B replacements from mid-1967 on (and perhaps a bit before that), the VFX program didn’t get started until early 1968 and Grumman was selected by the end of the year.  Two years later, in December 1970, the Tomcat made its first flight, and entered squadron service a mere two years after that.  Two more years, and she was in combat service flying off the deck of USS Enterprise off the coast of Vietnam.  For a totally new aircraft type of the 4th generation, 6 years from conception to combat is very, very impressive.

As is this video.  Ciminera discusses the VFX competitors briefly, then really delves into the F-14 design features that made it such a very unique and capable aircraft, especially given its size.  I had forgotten a bit that the F-14 could do many of the same high-alpha maneuvers that have so wowed airshow crowds when the Su-35 has done them.  Not quite to the same degree, but close, and 30 years before.

Some really neat info below. Tomcat enthusiasts will love the video, its an hour well spent.  One incredible thing I learned – the Tomcat, due to its unique aerodynamic control surface configuration, could pull 7.5 Gs at Mach 2.  There are very, very few aircraft that have ever been able to do that.

Switching subjects to one of MY all time favorite aircraft (I seem to have a soft spot for losers and also rans – explains a lot!), several excellent videos on the Northrop YF-23.  Competitor to the Lockheed-General Dynamics F-22, the YF-23 was essentially an all-Northrop product, even though they were ostensibly “teamed” with McDonnell Douglas in the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) competition (in contrast, General Dynamics made several key contributions to the F-22 design, and those contributions probably resulted in the F-22 getting the win, or at least being competitive.  Boeing was also on the Lockheed-General Dynamics team, but it’s unclear what they contributed).

The first video is probably the best single video providing an overview of the YF-23 design and development.  She was a fine looking aircraft, and would have looked even better in production.  There were some problems not mentioned in the video, however.  While the YF-23 was generally viewed as being more stealthy than the YF-22, and Northrop claims their RCS was lower in most aspects, there was one glaring counter to that claim – the engine fan blades were radar-visible from certain angles, contra the YF-22, where the engines were buried so deeply they could never be seen by radar. This is most significant, because not only are those whirling chunks of metal huge radar reflectors, they can even be used to positively ID an aircraft (radar signal processing having become so advanced it is possible to discriminate engine fan blade returns, and by noting characteristics of their geometry, RPM, etc, discern engine and thus, aircraft type – this is called “non-cooperative target recognition”).

Where you can see the light coming through the engine nacelle, that's where the engine would be visible to radar. You can see how a ground radar could see up in there at certain angles. On the F-22, no such view exists.

Where you can see the light coming through the engine nacelle, that’s where the engine would be visible to radar. You can see how a ground radar could see up in there at certain angles. On the F-22, no such view exists.

Also, the YF-23 used Space Shuttle like tiles – but even more complex and advanced – to line the engine troughs at the back end of the aircraft.  This provided good rear-aspect stealth (something the F-22 does not do as well), but given that these tiles are air-cooled with millions of tiny perforations and that each one has to be laboriously hand-placed, USAF probably was right to be concerned over maintainability.

PolymerStew 623A

Another factor against the YF-23 was that it would “only” be able to carry  7 AAMs internally vice the F-22’s 8.  In fact, even that 7 was a stretch, in “normal” configuration the number was 5.  That was seen as a potentially serious handicap.

In other areas, the YF-23 was much faster and much more maneuverable at supersonic speeds.  We don’t know what the limits of that performance were, but the YF-23 with the GE YF-120 engines was reputed to be much faster, longer ranged, and capable of sustained maneuvering (i.e., fighting) at supersonic speeds.  Most aircraft can only maneuver gently at such high speeds, so that was a significant advantage. The YF-22 was better at the slow speed flight and severe angles of attack, thanks to its thrust vectoring engine nozzles.

There’s a lot more, but I’m running out of time.  To the videos.  First, the very good overview video:

This second video features discussions by YF-23 test pilots Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg.  This is also a truly excellent video, giving all kinds of details regarding why the Advanced Tactical Fighter was developed, and then about the aircraft itself:

Two more videos on the YF-23, both walk arounds by the same two test pilots Metz and Sandberg.

Thanks to Western Museum of Flight and Peninsula Seniors Videos for uploading these.