Wednesday - February 21, 2007

Gitmo Detainees Denied By Court

Here we go again. The filthy scum lost their legal trickery again. I’m referring to the lawyers representing the Gitmo detainees. The last time we went through this, the Supreme Court said no, it wasn’t right the way they were being handled and Congress should write a law specifying how they should be handled. So Congress passed legislation (which was signed into law).

So the detainees managed to contact a new bunch of lawyers who filed suit again, alleging the new law was unconstitutional. So now we’ve come full circle and once again a federal appeals court has upheld the law and told the detainees to go take a hike - which means it is now going to the Supreme Court AGAIN.

If SCOTUS has any sense at all they’ll decide not to even hear this farce of a case. I urge Chief Justice Roberts to toss this one. HOWEVER ... Democrats in Congress are already rattling their chains and now that they’re in power they want to change the rules (and the law) again. You can guess who the bleeding heart lamestream media is rooting for.

Lawyers ... Democrats ... Media. They themselves need to be detained at Gitmo. Although my personal preference would be to drop them all off on Devil’s Island with the other snakes and sharks ...

Court Endorses Law’s Curbs on Detainees
_{WASHINGTON (NY TIMES) - February 21, 2007}

A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a new law stripping federal judges of authority to review foreign prisoners’ challenges to their detention at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The decision set the stage for a third trip to the Supreme Court for the detainees, who will once again ask the justices to consider a complex issue that tests the balance of power among the White House, Congress and the courts in the murky context of the fight against international terrorism.

It also prompted some senior Democratic lawmakers, who have fought the Bush administration on the matter before and who now hold sway in Congress, to vow enactment of a law more favorable to the prisoners.

The Supreme Court previously ruled twice that federal statutes empowered the courts to consider Guantánamo prisoners’ habeas corpus petitions challenging the grounds for their detention. In response to those rulings, Congress twice rewrote law to limit the detainees’ avenues of appeal. The most recent rewriting was at issue in Tuesday’s 2-to-1 decision.

That law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, was signed by President Bush last October. Its enactment followed the Supreme Court’s rejection of his administration’s earlier arguments that the right of habeas corpus — the fundamental right, centuries old, to ask a judge for release from unjust imprisonment — did not apply to foreigners being held outside the United States as enemy combatants.

The new law explicitly eliminated the federal courts’ jurisdiction over habeas challenges by such prisoners. It instead set up military panels to review the justification of detention in individual cases, with limited right of appeal to the courts afterward.

In its ruling Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the new law did not violate the constitutional provision that bars the government from suspending habeas corpus except in “cases of rebellion or invasion.” Two of the three appeals court judges, citing Supreme Court and other historical precedent, held that the right of habeas corpus did not extend to foreign citizens detained outside the United States.

The majority decision was written by Judge A. Raymond Randolph, whose two earlier opinions on habeas corpus and Guantánamo prisoners had also favored the Bush administration. Those opinions were reversed by the Supreme Court, but on statutory grounds rather than constitutional ones. The dissenting judge on Tuesday, Judith W. Rogers, said the new law did violate the constitutional provision restricting the suspension of habeas corpus.

Administration officials welcomed the decision as a vindication of its position on the rights of detainees, after years of its halting efforts to create a legal process that would withstand tests in court.

“The decision,” said Erik Ablin, a Justice Department spokesman, “reaffirms the validity of the framework that Congress established in the Military Commissions Act permitting Guantánamo detainees to challenge their detention through combatant status review tribunals with the opportunity for judicial review before the D.C. Circuit.”

Lawyers representing the detainees vowed to seek a new review by the Supreme Court. Shayana Kadidal, a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents many of the detainees, said, “This decision empowers the president to do whatever he wishes to prisoners without any legal limitation as long as he does it offshore.”

Mr. Kadidal said the ruling encouraged “a contempt for international human rights law” and “such notorious practices as extraordinary rendition”: sending terrorism suspects abroad for interrogation, where, rights advocates say, they may face torture.

Democrats now in control of Congress said they would move quickly on legislation they recently introduced that would unambiguously give federal courts the right to consider detainees’ habeas petitions.

“The Military Commissions Act is a dangerous and misguided law that undercuts our freedoms and assaults our Constitution by removing vital checks and balances designed to prevent government overreaching and lawlessness,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Last week Mr. Leahy joined a group of other Senate Democrats, including Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, in introducing the legislation restoring habeas rights for the Guantánamo prisoners. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, also endorsed that measure last week, and said Tuesday that he believed the dissent from the new appeals court decision would ultimately prevail in the Supreme Court.

But other Republican lawmakers, including Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both of whom also serve on the committee, applauded the ruling.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/21/2007 at 09:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Terrorists •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Exit Britannia

No one should be surprised that the Brits are starting to pull out of Iraq. Neither should anyone be complaining either. Our friends have done an admirable job in the south of Iraq and from what I can see and hear, they have accomplished their mission and it’s time for them to go home.

To me this is not a bad sign but rather a good sign that progress is being made in Iraq and bodes well for our own future in that benighted country. The Brits took responsibility for the south of Iraq which is almost entirely Shiite so the Brits have not had to contend with the sectarian violence we have seen in Baghdad.

They have lost 136 troops but have managed to get their area under control and turn things over to the Iraqi troops and police - which is what the US hopes to do in the rest of the country - if Congress quits trying to meddle in the conduct of the war. At least the British government hasn’t acted like a bunch of spoiled children, stabbing each other in the back over Iraq and maneuvering for political edge - like the blowhards in Washington have been doing.

No, our British allies have quietly gone about doing their job and now they are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and can prepare to leave. We owe them a big thanks for their efforts and for sticking by us when the rest of the world thumbed their noses at us.

Now, if only the US Congress can put away their surrender flags long enough for US troops to accomplish the same thing, this all might come out OK in the end. We shall see. So far, the surge in Iraq is paying dividends. Significant progress has already been made in quieting the boiling cauldron that is Sunni-Shiite hell that is Baghdad.

To our Brit friends I can only say, “Thanks, Mates!”. We owe ya one ...

Blair to Announce Iraq Withdrawal Plan
_{LONDON (MYWAY NEWS) - Feb 21, 1:00 AM (ET)}

Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce on Wednesday a new timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks, British media reported.

Blair will also tell the House of Commons during his regular weekly appearance before it that a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient, the British Broadcasting Corp. and The Sun newspaper said, quoting government officials who weren’t further identified.

The BBC said Blair was not expected to say when the rest of Britain’s forces would leave Iraq. Currently, Britain has about 7,100 soldiers there.

The announcement comes as President Bush implements an increase of 21,000 more troops for Iraq, but while some of the other coalition partners are pulling out: The Italians and Slovaks have left, and the Danes and the South Koreans want to start withdrawing.

Blair and Bush talked by secure video link Tuesday morning, and Bush views Britain’s troop cutbacks as “a sign of success” in Iraq, said U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

“While the United Kingdom is maintaining a robust force in southern Iraq, we’re pleased that conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the Iraqis,” Johndroe said in Washington.

Britain has long been the most important coalition member in Iraq after the United States. But Blair knows the British public and politicians from his own Labour Party want the troops out as quickly as possible, and don’t want to see Britain stick with the United States in Iraq for the long haul.

Militarily, a British withdrawal isn’t likely to have much effect on the stepped-up U.S. operation in Baghdad or the war with the Sunnis in Anbar province west of the Iraqi capital. However, Iraqi forces could have a tough time maintaining security in mostly Shiite southern Iraq, including Basra city.

Blair’s Downing Street office refused to comment on the report, which also said Blair would tell the Commons that if the situation worsens on the ground on Iraq, his new game plan could change.

A British government official confirmed that Blair would make a statement to the Commons on Wednesday on the status of British forces in Iraq. The official spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.

Johndroe said that “the United States shares the same goal of turning responsibility over to the Iraqi Security Forces and reducing the number of American troops in Iraq. ... President Bush sees this as a sign of success and what is possible for us once we help the Iraqis deal with the sectarian violence in Baghdad.”

“We want to bring our troops homes as well,” Johndroe said. “It’s the model we want to emulate, to turn over more responsibilities to Iraqis and bring our troops home. That’s the goal and always has been.”

At a news conference in Brussels on Jan. 15, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he was not bothered that Britain was “planning a drawdown at some point this year in their forces in the south.”

He said Basra’s security situation was much different than Baghdad’s.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/21/2007 at 02:10 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Fragged Again

_{Michael Ramirez - Investors Business Daily}

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/21/2007 at 02:01 AM   
Filed Under: • Military •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - February 20, 2007

Though The Looking Glass

“Too Close!”

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/20/2007 at 05:49 PM   
Filed Under: • Art-Photography •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Lost!

HEY! I know that base down yonder. All those trees and that river to the right. That huge chunk of support buildings to the left. I been here before. In fact, The Skipper has flown into and out of this base many times while he was in the USAF. During the winter months up in North Dakota, SAC used to have what they called “incentive flights” to allow airmen to fly down South for a few days to build up morale. They loaded us up in those web seats in the back of a KC-135 and hauled us (freezing to death) down to Dixie. Which is where this base is. And it’s on my mind. Now tell me where I am!

_{(Click image for larger 1065x915 in popup window)}

_{(Photo from Google Earth Desktop)}

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/20/2007 at 04:36 PM   
Filed Under: • Fun-Stuff •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Motivational Poster Of The Day

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/20/2007 at 02:48 PM   
Filed Under: • Motorvators •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day (so far)

LET ALIENS VOTE: ACTIVISTS
_{(NEW YORK POST) - February 20, 2007}

Immigrant-rights activists yesterday renewed their push to allow legal noncitizens to vote in the Big Apple. A bill that would grant permanent residents and other legal immigrants the right to vote in municipal elections has been stalled in the City Council since last year.

“More than 50,000 adult noncitizen taxpayers in those two districts are disenfranchised by citizenship voting laws,” said Cheryl Wertz, of New Immigrant Community Empowerment, referring to today’s special election for council seats in Brooklyn and Staten Island.

Councilman Charles Barron (D-Brooklyn), the sponsor of the Voting Rights Restoration Act, said that years ago, when immigrants were mostly European, they had voting rights.

“Then when the complexion of immigrants changes, then all of a sudden, the laws change,” he said. Ron Hayduk, a CUNY professor, concurred, saying immigrants voted in national elections from 1776 through 1926.

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/20/2007 at 02:02 PM   
Filed Under: • Illegal-Aliens and Immigration • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Jackass

No, the jackass is on the right. That’s a donkey on the left. 

_{“Crossroads" -by- Cox & Forkum}

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/20/2007 at 01:48 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Humor •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Criminals With Guns?

The editors at the NY SLIMES are deeply concerned. They are worried that you and I are being protected by criminals ... with guns ... in the military. They make out like the Army is just grabbing every murderer, rapist and bank robber off the street, handing them a gun, throwing them in the front lines and forgetting about them.

WRONG! Anyone who has served in the military knows better. To listen to the editors here, you’d think the Army is going to hell thanks to extended tours during the current conflict. I’m so glad the TIMES is looking out for our brave troops but it’s obvious none of them ever served. If they had they’d know that in the military the first thing you learn is discipline. Next is cooperation. Finally, comes responsibility.

Over the course of the last few centuries there have been millions of “bad boys” who redeemed themselves by serving in the military. The ones who don’t shape up are quickly sent packing.

The TIMES seems to think the Army needs to do a better job of selling itself to our young people. That would be the same young people the TIMES and their Liberal readers encourage to hate the military. The TIMES also wants the Army to treat the troops better and ignore logistical needs. Aren’t you glad we have these wonderful military experts at the TIMES to help us straighten out the military? GRRRRRR ....

I have a better solution that is a win-win situation for everyone. Why don’t we establish four-year mandatory service period for all high school graduates. When you graduate from high school you have a choice: (1) enlist in any of the armed services for four years, or (2) sign up for service in the Peace Corps for four years. When your four years of service are complete ... BINGO! ... you are entitled to four years of fully paid college education -or- an equivalent lump sum payment to be used to start a business.

It’ll work, I tell you. The kids who love this country and like the idea of military service get to do what they want and get rewarded for it. The Leftist peaceniks who hate America and despise the military get to help the poor, downtrodden people of the world and get rewarded for it too. Either way, we build generations of individuals who have learned to endure hardship and understand what it means to be of service to our country and the world.

Forget the whining editors at the TIMES, let’s do the right thing by our kids. Teach them to be real ... and reward them for it. This country will be a much better place for it.

Moral Waivers and the Military
_{(NY TIMES) - February 20, 2007}

The Iraq war has plunged the Army into a vicious cycle of declining standards. Multiple, extended tours of duty have sapped morale and blighted recruiting. New plans for a larger overall force could reduce pressures but would also mean that recruiters would have to meet higher quotas.

To keep filling the ranks, the Army has had to keep lowering its expectations. Diluting educational, aptitude and medical standards has not been enough. Nor have larger enlistment bonuses plugged the gap. So the Army has found itself recklessly expanding the granting of “moral waivers,” which let people convicted of serious misdemeanors and even some felonies enlist in its ranks.

Last year, such waivers were granted to 8,129 men and women — or more than one out of every 10 new Army recruits. That number is up 65 percent since 2003, the year President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. In the last three years, more than 125,000 moral waivers have been granted by America’s four military services.

Most of last year’s Army waivers were for serious misdemeanors, like aggravated assault, robbery, burglary and vehicular homicide. But around 900 — double the number in 2003 — were for felonies. Worse, the Army does no systematic tracking of recruits with waivers once it signs them up, and it does not always pay enough attention to any adjustment problems. Without adequate monitoring and counseling, handing out guns to people who have already committed crimes poses a danger to the other soldiers they serve with and to the innocent civilians they are supposed to protect.

There is a long and honorable history of young people who have had minor scrapes with the law joining the military and successfully turning their lives around. But those who have committed more serious crimes, especially those involving weapons, vehicular homicide or sexual abuse, should generally be denied moral waivers. And those who do qualify for waivers should be monitored, counseled and carefully supervised.

The fastest way to drop the rate of moral waivers would be for the Army to rebuild its recently tarnished reputation among less problematic young Americans. That will require an end to involuntarily extended tours of duty and accelerated, multiple redeployments into combat. The military is America’s face to much of the world. It ought to present the best face of American youth.

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/20/2007 at 11:44 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Military •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day (so far)

In case you haven’t noticed, Kim Jung Il is seriously mentally ill - or as my cousin Leroy would put it, he is batshiat crazy. And he is in charge of an entire country. And he has nukes. Today he is pissed at Toyota and Nissan and any other Japanese car. Who knows what will irritate him tomorrow - perhaps jelly beans or flavored condoms. It’s anybody’s guess. Stay tuned ...

Kim Jong-il Orders Japanese Cars Confiscated
_{(KOREA TIMES) - February 19, 2007}

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has ordered most Japanese cars in the communist country seized in a sign of his growing discontent with Japan imposing severe sanctions after the North’s detonation of a nuclear bomb last October, the Yonhap News Agency reported Monday quoting informed sources.

“After he paid tribute to the Kumsusan Memorial Palace on Jan. 1, he saw a Japanese car that wasn’t working blocking the road and gave a National Defense Committee edict to seize Japanese cars,” Yonhap quoted a source familiar with the North Korean situation as saying, asking to remain anonymous.

In North Korea, senior government officials have German-made Mercedes-Benzes, while midlevel officials and Japanese North Koreans drive Japanese cars. Most North Korean institutions also operate Japanese cars for official purposes.

Under Kim’s order, all Japanese cars are to be seized or banned from the streets, except for ones given as gifts to secret service agencies, prestigious movie stars and athletes, Yonhap reported quoting the sources.

“Since the measures took effect, the discontent of car owners in Pyongyang has been growing. It remains to be seen whether the authorities will be able to implement them fully, because most of the cars operating in North Korea are Japanese,” another source was quoted as saying.

According to the report, Kim’s sudden order might be connected with Japan’s push for sanctions against North Korea since the country staged its first-ever nuclear weapon test in October.

Japan’s sanctions included banning the Mangyongbong-92, a North Korean ferry that served as a major trade conduit between the two countries, from entering Japanese waters.

It has also adopted a series of measures against a pro-North Korean residents’ association in response to its suspected role in North Korea’s nuclear and other weapons programs.

The General Association of Korean Residents in Japan, better known as Chongryon, the group’s official Korean name, acts as North Korea’s de facto representation in Japan, which does not have formal diplomatic relations with the communist country.

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/20/2007 at 02:02 AM   
Filed Under: •   
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Nuke Iran!

Democrats here in the US started this bullshit and now the insanity has spread to Britain. First, Democratic Congressmen and Senators started mouthing off to the media that “Bush better not invade Iran”. They specified no penalty to be applied to Dubya if he did but I can only surmise that their plans would include impeachment and torture followed by a public hanging.

Then the madness spread across the pond and Britain’s Guardian picked up the “Iran Conspiracy” story and ran with it. Now, finally the BBC piles on and gives the whole plan away in today’s news. Hell, if Hitler had this much notice and details about D-Day, most Frenchmen would be speaking German today.

Actually, the plans to invade Iran were worked out years ago and have just been laying on a shelf at the Pentagon ... waiting. No, I’m not kidding. That’s the military’s job - plan for the worst and hope for the best.

When the President rings up the SecDef and says “I need a plan to invade Iran”, he doesn’t want to wait months for the logistics to be worked out. That is why there are entire teams at the Pentagon whose sole job is to play “what-if” scenarios and develop plans for all contingencies.

Come to think of it, I seem to recall the military drawing up something called War Plan Red in the 1920’s to be used in the event war broke out between the US and Britain. The BBC might want to keep that in mind if they continue to reveal our secrets.

As for Iran, they should pay no attention to the two carrier battle groups steaming toward the Persian Gulf. Or the stockpiling of heavy bombs at Diego Garcia. Or the unusual increase in military aircraft redeploying to bases in Iraq. There’s nothing for them to worry about. Not yet ...

US ‘Iran Attack Plans’ Revealed
_{(BBC) Monday, 19 February 2007, 23:26 GMT}

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country’s military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment. The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

That list includes Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called “bunker-busting” bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.

The BBC’s Tehran correspondent France Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians. Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/20/2007 at 01:23 AM   
Filed Under: •   
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Maggots Return

The only problem with being civilized is that we’re not allowed to beat the living crap out of maggots like Phelps or pop a cap in their ass and be done with it. Back in the “good ol’ days” if Phelps and his crew showed up at a soldier’s funeral, a bunch of good ol’ boys would be waiting with tar and feathers. Isn’t it a shame we have to endure these pests in the name of Freedom Of Speech?

If our politicians are so smart, why can’t they draw up a law to make asshats like the Phelps family STFU and go away? Nowadays people get so righteous and offended over the slightest little thing. Why must we all be subjected to this insanity from Phelps & Co.? Accidents happen every day. Why can’t one happen to them? I’m just sayin’ ....

Westboro Church Protesters Show Up at Soldier’s Funeral in Maryland
_{(FOX NEWS) - Monday, February 19, 2007}

Four strangers from the Topeka, Kan., Westboro Baptist Church joined the family, friends and fellow Marines who flocked to Oak Grove Baptist Church Friday to mourn Marine Cpl. Jennifer Marie Parcell, 20, killed the week before by a suicide bomber while serving at a military checkpoint in Anbar province, Iraq.

The strangers were from a nationally known protest group that deplores homosexuality — Fred Phelps, Jr., his wife, Betty Phelps, his sister, Abigail Phelps, and fellow church member Lauren Drain — and they carried signs bearing mottoes like “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “You will eat your children,” and “Soldiers Die, God Laughs.”

The protesters gave ample notice that they were coming and were “very organized. We never had any problems with them at all,” said Lt. John Krass of the Harford County Sheriff’s Office. The group has disrupted soldiers’ funerals before, and notice of their possible attendance brought out the Patriot Guard Riders, a group of veterans, soldiers and civilians who often ride flag-bearing motorcycles accompanying funeral processions of soldiers killed in combat to shield the family from unwanted attention. The Guard Riders created a human shield at Oak Grove Baptist Church’s entrances so that the Parcell family could come and go.

Friday Fred Phelps Jr. carried signs saying “America is Doomed,” “Fags Doom-nation,” and his wife carried one that read, “God Hates Fag Enablers.” “The U.S. military is a fag-nation,” Abigail Phelps said by phone following the funeral service. “When you go and sign up to serve in a military for a nation that says it’s OK to be gay, you are serving, by the nature of it, you are in blatant defiance of God. You have declared War on God . . . I don’t see how that’s a hard connection to make. . . .All it would take is a few people to say ‘We refuse.’”

America’s soldiers and children are dying, Phelps said, because of a U.S. tolerance of homosexuality and other behaviors she sees as immoral. “They say God bless America. They acknowledge that God has the power to bless a nation. He also has the power to curse a nation.” Asked why she had flown from Kansas to Maryland to protest at Parcell’s funeral, Phelps said: “You know, there was a lot of media about that girl. And you know, the parents touted the fact that she was a gift, not a sacrifice . . . Those parents sent that child out to die. They sacrificed that child for a country that has turned its back on God, kicked God in the shin.”

Abigail Phelps said that the protesters plan another event at 10 a.m. Saturday in Cambridge outside the funeral of Jerome Robinson, 8, and Aaron Robinson, 12, who drowned in a pond Sunday after falling through ice.

The Guard Riders were indifferent to the protesters, they said. “They’re insignificant,” said Russell Burks, a Harford County Patriot Guard Ride Captain and chaplain, about the protesters. “We don’t pay any attention to them. It’s mind over matter. We don’t mind. So they don’t matter. We don’t argue with them. We don’t talk to them. This young lady perished to give them the right to do what they’re doing.”

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/20/2007 at 01:01 AM   
Filed Under: • Outrageous •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Late Night Silliness

There are two things you need to keep in mind as you read this: (1) Vince McMahon is about the most full of shit person in the entertainment industry, and (2) the match takes place on April Fools Day. Now, if McMahon could schedule a real match between The Donald and Lezbo Rosie, I’d pay good cash to watch that.

Trump’s Hair on the Line at Wrestlemania
It’ll Be Trump vs. McMahon in Hairy Battle at Wrestlemania in Detroit, Reports Say
_{DETROIT Feb 19, 2007 (AP)}

Will Donald Trump put his hair where his mouth is?

Trump and World Wrestling Entertainment owner Vince McMahon will pick a wrestler to represent them in the ring April 1 at Wrestlemania 23 at Detroit’s Ford Field, The Detroit News reported last week.

If their pick is beaten in the “Battle of the Billionaires,” the loser will get his head shaved after the match, the Detroit Free Press reported Monday.

WWE spokesman Gary Davis said the date of the event had prompted speculation that it was a hoax. But it’s not an April Fool’s Day joke, he said.

“If Trump loses, he shaves his head,” he said.

The announcement of the match was made on a WWE television program that aired over the weekend.

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/20/2007 at 12:35 AM   
Filed Under: • Celebrities • Fun-Stuff •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - February 19, 2007

Snowed Under

I’m sorry posting has been light today but I’ve been snowed under at work and work comes first. In addition, I’ve been working on a technical project for the last few days at the other blog, The Argoknot. I’ve been working on some tutorials for a group of kids who are starting out as database administrators and I want to make sure they’re well-informed. Take a look if you are into computers as a professional. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea.

I’m gradually catching up on everything though. I spent the weekend organizing and cleaning up my office here at home. It is mucho better now. I can actually find a pen when I need one now. Cool! I think I’ll knock off early today since none of you goobers can seem to finger out where our fearless “Lost!” pilot is today. Besides, I just got in a bunch of new DVD’s from Amazon, including Clint Eastwood’s ”Flags Of Our Fathers” and Will Ferrell’s ”Talladega Nights”. What’ll it be tonight? Bombs over Iwo Jima or Redneck Racing ... ? I’ll let ya know tomorrow. Later, Gator.

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/19/2007 at 03:55 PM   
Filed Under: • Personal •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner