When Sarah Palin booked a flight to Europe, the French immediately surrendered.

calendar   Saturday - June 30, 2012

Three For A Sunday


Macro photography of dewdrops. Pretty neat. Here’s the Link.


Slightly Thai Tri-tip on the grill. Onna stick! Marinaded in ginger, garlic, Sriracha, soy sauce, pineapple and red onion. And a zingy dipping sauce on the side. Cooks up in minutes, served with champagne. What could be better? Here’s the Link.

Oh yeah, the Euro 2012 soccer finals are today. Spain vs. Italy, played in Kiev, Ukraine. Go figure.  By the time I found out about it, it was nearly over. Still, it’s a good excuse for pretty girls to paint themselves with national colors and wear saucy outfits.

Links for her? Phooey. The net is drowning in Euro 2012 soccer babes. Google a few million up yourself.


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 06/30/2012 at 09:38 PM   
Filed Under: • Miscellaneous •  
Comments (2) Trackbacks(1)  Permalink •  

former girlfriend of Hugh Hefner granted immigration status for ‘extraordinary ability

Whatcha think?

Heck, I don’t suppose our immigration Tzars make exceptions for someone who’d already lived and worked in the states and collects social security and who never even got so much as a parking ticket, and who has been married to an American for 44 years; I don’t suppose our immigration folks would be too impressed with that.  And they aren’t as our readers know.
For those who don’t, that’s the biggest reason this American is still here.  Well, one of the reasons.  Truthfully, after the last episode at LAX, I don’t think the wife is anxious to be interviewed by the KGB again.

Should Playboy Playmate have received ‘Genius’ Visa? Controversy after former girlfriend of Hugh Hefner granted status for ‘extraordinary ability’



Shera Bechard, the Canadian-born former girlfriend of Playboy Enterprises founder Hugh Hefner, would not be an obvious candidate for the special visas that the U.S. government reserves for ‘individuals with extraordinary ability’.

Playboy magazine crowned Bechard Miss November in 2010, and she also started an online photo-sharing craze called ‘Frisky Friday’.

Neither seems quite on the level of an ‘internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize’, which the government cites as a possible qualification.

But Los Angeles immigration lawyer Chris Wright argued that Bechard’s accomplishments earned her a slot. The government ultimately agreed.

That kind of success has put Wright on the map as the go-to visa fixer for both Hollywood and Silicon Valley.

It also highlights the use of so-called genius visas known as O-1s and EB-1s, which have largely escaped political controversy and are now the immigration solution of choice for many entrepreneurs.

As many immigration lawyers see it, the paucity of immigration options for the most entrepreneurial foreigners mean they must use any avenue they can.

This approach, along with seeming flexibility in Washington on what constitutes ‘extraordinary ability’, means the O-1 is gaining traction in technology circles. Wider use could ultimately land it in political trouble.

For example, the H-1B visa, which allows employers to hire foreigners temporarily in certain specialized fields like technology, has drawn accusations from union groups and others that companies use it to bring in lower-skilled labor.

The O-1 visa allows individuals of ‘extraordinary ability’ to come to the United States for up to three years, and can be extended.

British journalist Piers Morgan used one when he replaced Larry King on his late-night TV show, Wright said.

The EB-1 is similar, but leads to a green card and permanent residency rather than a temporary stay, with ‘extraordinary ability’ being one of the ways to qualify - along with being an outstanding professor or researcher, or a multinational executive.

Foreign entrepreneurs have another option - the Immigrant Investor Program, or EB-5 visa - but it requires a capital investment of at least $500,000 and the creation of at least 10 full-time jobs for U.S. workers.

By contrast, no proof of personal wealth or investment in the United States is required for the O-1 or the EB-1.

There is also no cap on the number of O-1s that the government can award each year; about 12,280 were approved in 2011, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said, up from 9,478 in 2006. It issued about 25,000 EB-1s last year, below their cap of 40,000.

While high-profile artists and entertainers have long used the O-1s, they are now becoming a fallback for businessmen and technologists who cannot get H1-Bs.

Josh Buckley, a 20-year-old British-born entrepreneur and a client of Wright’s, is among the new crop of Internet entrepreneurs to win an O-1 visa. He applied after starting a few small companies, including one he sold at age 15 for a sum reaching the low six figures, he says.

He got his O-1 last year after lining up letters of recommendation from luminaries including Netscape co-founder and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and Apple Inc co-founder Steve Wozniak.

Buckley, whose MinoMonsters gaming company is backed by Andreessen, saw little choice other than the O-1. The H-1B was off limits because it usually does not go to people who work for themselves. The O-1, unlike most H-1Bs, also does not require a college education--a key feature for the ever-younger entrepreneurs flocking to Silicon Valley.



Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 06/30/2012 at 12:13 PM   
Filed Under: • Illegal-Aliens and ImmigrationUSA •  
Comments (2) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Change of Subject



And don’t forget to sweep the land clean with a bayonet before resuming control.

IMO, the natural borders of Israel should be the Suez Canal in the south, the eastern foot of the mountains east of the Dead Sea from Aqaba to Amman and Damascus, and in the north to the suburbs of Beirut.


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 06/30/2012 at 09:00 AM   
Filed Under: • IsraelMiddle-East •  
Comments (1) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

The Stupid Party

Didn’t the Supreme Court just rule that Obamacare was constitutional ONLY as a tax? In that case, WTF is wrong with the White House? Have they lost their one remaining marble?

White House: ObamaCare is a PENALTY, not a TAX

The war of words over what to call the fine attached to the federal health care overhaul’s most controversial provision continued Friday, as the White House took issue with the Supreme Court’s argument—even though that argument alone spared President Obama’s law.

The five-justice majority argued that, while the fine imposed by the law for not buying health insurance would otherwise be unconstitutional, the fine is actually legal under Congress’ authority to tax.

Ergo, the fine is officially a “tax” in the eyes of the court. The law stands.

But in a case of biting the hand that feeds, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Friday the fine is still just a “penalty.”

Calling it a “tax” causes obvious political problems for the White House. Obama fought that label vigorously when selling the bill in 2009.

Smoke and mirrors, lies and deceit. Try to flip a coin with a Democrat and he’ll call both sides and the edge. It’s a tax to get it through the courts, but it’s a penalty because admitting that it’s a tax will really really hurt them in the election.

Not to worry, they still have the media in their pocket, and you are just too damn stupid and lazy to know the difference.

Carney was initially reluctant to assign a label to the fine when pressed repeatedly by reporters Friday. “Call it what you want,” he said.

But describing the fine as a “penalty” helps fight Republican claims that the court ruling confirms the Obama administration raised taxes with its health care law.

Republicans threatened to use that argument against the president and Democrats in the 2012 election.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told Fox News the ruling means the law becomes a “middle-class tax increase.” He said the IRS will “come after” people who don’t pay.

“Call it what you want”, as in “It’s constitutional, bitches!”, as in “We won, so shut up and go sit in the back of the bus.” Absolute contempt for the People.

And surely Rubio is wrong ... how would the IRS do such a thing, their workers being already over taxed (sorry) as it is?

Report: IRS hiring approximately 4,000 agents

Published March 31, 2012 | Forbes on Fox | David Asman


STEVE FORBES: Sure David it’s a power grab. So even if the ObamaCare gets thrown out those agents will be there to harass us. What we need as a nation is fewer tax collectors and more entrepreneurs. We need tax simplification and these IRS agents should be able to contribute to the economy instead of sucking the blood out of it. So this power grab… stop it.

[February 17, 2012] The Obama administration is asking Congress for a nearly $1 billion budget increase for the IRS, a move that would allow the agency to hire thousands more employees.

The administration is arguing that hiring additional IRS agents will more than pay for itself. The IRS wants to dedicate another $400 million to enforcement efforts, claiming that alone would raise $1.5 billion in additional revenue—once all the agents are trained up in a few years.

The request is an attempt to restore money to the IRS budget that was cut in 2011. The $12.8 billion budget request would mark an 8 percent increase over the 2012 budget, but a 5.3 percent increase over the prior year’s budget.

Republicans moved to pare down the IRS budget last year. The cuts were part of a broader effort to rein in federal government, but the IRS was targeted in part because of its role in carrying out the federal health care overhaul. The IRS, among other health care tasks, is supposed to make sure Americans follow the requirement—which is under court challenge—to buy health insurance.

But the IRS argues that more money means more agents, and that means more revenue.

The National Treasury Employees Union estimated the increase would allow for 4,000 more employees to be hired.

I’m sure the Democrat response to this news was “See? Another 4,000 jobs created or saved by Obama!”

Tinfoil Hat time: Was the fix in from the beginning at the Supreme Court? WTF, the government was hiring new enforcers even before the case went to hearing. Was this whole thing just a charade from the get go, as all 3 branches of the federal government worked cooperatively to enslave us?
The Supreme Court has abrogated their ultimate responsibility in saying that it is not their job to protect the people against bad legislation. Because it IS. That’s their ONLY responsibility really.


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 06/30/2012 at 08:25 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat LeftistsObama, The One •  
Comments (6) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Unexpected News!

Justice Department Will NOT prosecute Holder

Well, no shit. What were they going to do, report him to the Attorney General?

The Justice Department moved Friday to shield Attorney General Eric Holder from prosecution after the House voted to hold him in contempt of Congress.

The contempt vote technically opened the door for the House to call on the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to bring the case before a grand jury. But because U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen works for Holder and because President Obama has already asserted executive privilege over the documents in question, some expected Holder’s Justice Department to balk.

Deputy Attorney General James Cole confirmed in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner that the department in fact would not pursue prosecution. The attorney general’s withholding of documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious, he wrote, “does not constitute a crime.”

There you go folks. The Top Cop is ABOVE THE LAW.

So, now that the Legislative Branch has stripped all power from the States, and the Judicial Branch has stripped all rights from the People, we are seeing that the Executive Branch can act with absolute impunity against the Legislative Branch. How’s that for tyranny?

Instead of criminal prosecution, our spineless Republicans are going to take the civil court approach, which is nearly guaranteed to fail. Smoke and mirrors.

Republicans technically have a handful of other options if the Justice Department still refused to take the case to a grand jury.

Republicans could move to appoint a special prosecutor or even move to impeach. The last time that happened with a Cabinet member, though, was in 1876—with the impeachment trial of war secretary William Belknap.

Hill said lawmakers are not looking at that option for Holder. They remain focused on the civil court route.

To my surprise, it turns out that Congress does actually have to power to arrest people, although they have very rarely exercised that power. Not once in the last 75 years. This is under the rule of Inherent Contempt.

the process, known as inherent contempt, is well-established by precedent, has been confirmed by multiple Supreme Court rulings, and is available to any Congress willing to force such a confrontation.

“The House is scared to death to use the inherent contempt power,” said Mort Rosenberg, a fellow at the Constitution Project and author of “When Congress Comes Calling.” “They’re scared to death because the courts have said … the way the contempt power is used is unseemly. It’s not that it’s unconstitutional, because it’s been upheld by four Supreme Court decisions, but unseemly to have somebody go arrest the attorney general.”

That’s why it’s been more than 75 years since either chamber has used the option ...

So, do you think they will do it? Hella No!! The flacid phallus in charge, crybaby John Boner Boehner has already broken this one remaining arrow in the Legislature’s quiver.

Republicans say it’s not even under consideration, with House Speaker John A. Boehner’s spokesman flatly ruling it out.

So what is the bottom line? The bottom line is that a solid year’s worth of investigating one of the most onerous acts every perpetrated by the federal government was never more than just smoke and mirrors. A sideshow to keep the Conservative Masses happy. Nothing more. Because when push comes to shove, and it’s time to firmly thrust, the Boehner remains flaccid. It wouldn’t look classy if they did what needed to be done, so this highest of high crimes and misdemeanors will go unpunished.

Fuck, even Bob Dole has his Viagra.

Once again you have been sold out by the Republicans in DC. The spineless party, so afraid of looking bad that they won’t prosecute murder or an overt act of war.


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 06/30/2012 at 07:45 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat LeftistsGovernmentCorruption and GreedGuns and Gun Control •  
Comments (3) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

more aid for poor africans insists bone head bono and libtard friends

And of course, the Brits are by no means playing the Lone Ranger here.
The white feel good thing and the guilt trip extends to other countries as well.
I clearly remember all the calls for African aid as young as the age of 14 or maybe 15.  Help the poor starving Africans, we were all told.
Sure thing. How about teaching them about something called birth control first?  Africans? Birth control?  Bite your tongue. No such thing.
So they over breed as is their nature, and produce more hungry mouths to feed and less resource to do so.  Meanwhile, back at the farm in a place where a mug named Robert Mugabe rules, white farmers have been driven from their homes and farms which have been given to, “the people” who’ve managed to produce more offspring but little else.

Let Africa sink, as Kim once wrote on an old retired blog.

But no.  Self important jerks like that has been Bono, insist that Western countries must spend tax dollars (and pounds) on yet more aid.

Well readers ..... PLEASE see this entire article at the link. 

How your money is being squandered: The African village where EVERY family is getting £7,500 from the British taxpayer


As I drew up in the bustling village after a long journey, the last 21 miles bouncing along a red dirt track riven with potholes, a group of a dozen men sprawled in the shade on ramshackle wooden benches waved me over.

They were farmers, resting after a hard day’s labour. Children scampered around alongside goats munching weeds, while women stirred bubbling pots outside family compounds made up of circular mud huts.

Even in this remote part of northern Ghana, the influence of British football could be seen with the presence of the odd Chelsea shirt.

My translator, introducing me in the local Mampruli language, explained I came from the nation that was home to the famous team.

The farmers of this settlement, called Kpasenkpe, were not surprised to see me: ‘There have been a lot of white people coming here recently,’ said Atta Kojo, 32. ‘I think they were experts in health and education, but they never told us what they were doing. We did not understand why they were here.’

n fact, their visitors included the rock star Bono, who was there in January, together with Jeffrey Sachs, a ‘celebrity’ economist who hangs out with the likes of Angelina Jolie and Bill Clinton. Bono and Sachs are two of the world’s leading cheerleaders for international aid.

The reason they visited — with the editor of liberal newspaper the Observer in tow — was to announce that Kpasenkpe had been chosen as their next Millennium Village.

‘You are going to see an improvement in the lives of your people,’ proclaimed Sachs in his usual messianic style.

He promised cheering villagers that in five years they would see incomes increase, farming improve and better schools and health care.

This UN-backed Millennium Village project — to which Britain is now contributing millions of pounds for the first time — began in 2004 and encompasses half a million Africans.

It is designed to prove that targeted aid can lift such places out of poverty in just five years. But the scheme is facing mounting accusations that it is a waste of money, and is doing less to help rural Africans than it claims.

According to the project’s documents, the business plan reveals ‘total direct costs’ are expected to be £17.2 million and that the goal is ‘substantial poverty reduction’ for up to 2,250 households.

This means spending more than an astonishing £7,500 per household. To put this in perspective, this is 34 times the average annual income of households in the region.

The British Government — desperate to find ways to spend its soaring aid budgets — is handing over £11.5 million to this vainglorious venture.

Despite the austerity weighing on British families at home, spending on foreign aid — currently £8.8 billion a year — is rising by more than one-third under the Coalition.

Indeed, last Sunday International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell insisted they will enshrine in law the target of giving 0.7 per cent of our national income to global aid.

In this savannah region of Ghana, life is undoubtedly a struggle and many seemed delighted by such generosity from Britain.

‘We do not know why they have chosen us, but we are very lucky,’ said Babu Yakubu, a 30-year-old farmer with two wives and four children.

In Nabari, another village also set to be deluged with our aid, people were amazed to hear foreigners were spending so much on them.

‘We are poor people,’ said Sule Mantable, 38, a father of four. ‘These are huge amounts of money.’
But like others, he is sceptical it will change their lives. ‘It sounds a good idea but we don’t believe it will work,’ he said.

‘We have heard before all these promises of money for electricity, schools, hospitals and roads. Nothing ever happened.

‘Even if the money does flow from your country, it will end up in the pockets of corrupt people and politicians. We will not see any spent on our infrastructure or in our pockets.’


Meanwhile, in another part of our shrinking world, the white man’s burden takes on a different form.

Man, 24, stabbed to death and two others injured in large fight at Westfield Stratford shopping centre near Olympic site, (as black gangs clash)

The 24-year-old victim, who is yet to be named, was knifed yesterday

Scotland Yard said two other males suffered minor injuries during the attack, which happened in a busy area of the shopping centre called The Street

Five men, aged between 20 and 23, have been arrested in connection with the death and are being held in custody


Detectives were today questioning five suspects in connection with the murder of a man who was stabbed at a busy shopping centre just yards from the Olympic Park.

The 24-year-old victim, who is yet to be named, was knifed after a fight broke out between a large group of males at Westfield in Stratford, east London, yesterday afternoon.

A force spokesman said: ‘Police were called at 4.24pm on Friday June 29 to reports of a fight involving a large group of males in The Street on the ground floor of Westfield, Stratford.

Interesting that the Daily Mail provides no further written information while their hard copy reports a large number of gang members armed with knives, ran through stores in a running battle. One man was being chased, chairs and a glass case were thrown and employees of one store locked themselves and customers inside until the police arrived.
The violence continued at a nearby subway station.

The billion dollar shopping center with more then 300 stores from Primark to Prada, has been the battleground for rival black gangs.

And everyday, more of their kind reproduce or immigrate along with other undesirables.


Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 06/30/2012 at 06:05 AM   
Filed Under: • AfricaCrimeCorruption and Greed •  
Comments (0) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

health care and ins.  questions, questions

I didn’t intend to go into the health care ruling as Drew has already covered that subject better then I would have. In fact, I couldn’t due to huge gaps in my knowledge and understanding of the subject. And what a subject it is.

I know it will appear small minded of me.  I should be for or against things on merit.  But I can’t help human nature and the feeling that if someone, in this case Obama and Democrats are for something, then I have to be against it even if I don’t understand what it is exactly I am for or against. I am reminded of an old Groucho Marx routine on that score. 

So, I’m using this front page instead of comments because I have questions on the subject and am interested to learn the thoughts of those who may have gone into this subject in more detail. 

I’ll be honest. Living here as I do, while I was aware of the subject, I just didn’t read a lot on it. There is so damn much going on, some of it personal, that between things happening in our personal lives and the work needed on the property and then the time it takes to do blog stuff, some reading just gets ignored. And there is so much happening on our doorstep, it just consumes time. 

I am still not clear even after reading what I did, which obviously was far less then Drew and some of you, I don’t understand how those with very small incomes or none at all, will fair.  How about small businesses.  Most small business does not provide employee health care. Will they now be forced by this new scheme to do so?  If the answer is yes, I would assume correctly I’d wager, that fewer ppl would be hired do to simple economics.  What happens to those who quite honestly can’t afford the high prices of health ins. due to their circumstances?  Wow. What a can of worms this is.

And thanks for your patience.


Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 06/30/2012 at 05:29 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat LeftistsEconomicsPersonalUSA •  
Comments (6) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Friday - June 29, 2012

That Reminds Me

Nok, Nok?


biggy? clicky!

Thai glamor model and cover girl Nok Usanee.

See More Below The Fold


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 06/29/2012 at 02:16 PM   
Filed Under: • Eye-Candy •  
Comments (3) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Oh SNAP, It’s Party Time!

Be The Pride Of Your Neighborhood:

Host a Food Stamp Party Today!

Throw a Great Party. Host social events where people mix and mingle,” the pamphlet encourages in one of the guides. “Make it fun by having activities, games, food, and entertainment, and provide information about SNAP. Putting SNAP information in a game format like BINGO, crossword puzzles, or even a ‘true/false’ quiz is fun and helps get your message across in a memorable way.”

The program, which provides food-buying help for low-income people, is a federal program under which benefits are distributed by states. While beneficiaries once received actual stamps, the benefits are now doled out via check cards.

The program has also funded paid radio ads in California, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio and the New York metro area. The ads work: The USDA began promoting food stamps with paid radio ads in 2004, under President George W. Bush, and food stamp participation increased 63 percent.

Some of the other guides listed as part of SNAP’s community tip sheets include “Tips to get an Op-Ed Published” and “Event Planning for Senior Audiences.”

“Every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates $9.20 in an additional community spending,” the USDA states without elaborating. The department continues: “If the national participation rate rose five percentage points, 1.9 million more low-income people would have an additional $1.3 billion in benefits per year to use to purchase healthy food and $2.5 billion total in new economic activity would be generated nationwide.”

Spending on the food stamps program has increased 100 percent since President Obama took office, and now one in seven Americans uses food stamps. In the 1970s, one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps, notes the Daily Caller. After the recession, the ratio is expected to hover around one out of every nine, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Because it’s not bad enough that only 14% of the entire population is getting SNAP benefits. The USDA has to go out and push hard to raise the numbers. Everybody, sign up now! Get yours today! Everybody wins, nobody loses! Don’t worry, we’ll just Tax The Evil Rich™ a bit harder to pay for it. Or borrow a few more trillion from Red China.


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 06/29/2012 at 02:05 PM   
Filed Under: • Government •  
Comments (2) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

A Right Cock Up

No No No, I’m A Banger, get it; not a bang ‘er


Thank God the mayor of Louth isn’t named Richard Smalls

Mad-cap mayor’s sausage costume mistaken for giant penis as she welcomes Olympic torch

Mad-cap Mayoress Jill Makinson-Sanders was left feeling a right silly sausage when she welcomed the Olympic torch wearing this costume which was mistaken for a giant penis.

Unsuspecting Jill, 61, wore the naughty novelty costume to promote the famous Lincolnshire sausage when the Olympic flame came to her sleepy town.

Instead of donning her traditional mayoral chain and robes to greet the torch, the councillor dressed up in an 8ft-tall pink costume which was supposed to represent the great British banger.

But stunned residents of Louth gasped in horror on Wednesday as dozens claimed she looked more like a giant phallus.

Mum-of-two Sandra Ellington, 38, said: “She probably thought she was being quite fun and quirky - but it backfired a little bit.

“People couldn’t take their eyes off her because it looks so rude - her outfit certainly gained a few titters among the crowd.

“It’s something you’d expect to see on a stag-do - not being worn by a respectable mayor.

“She didn’t carry the torch but when you saw her running down the street by the torch relay team nearby it really looked like she was wearing something obscene.”

No word on whether her honor the mayor was hosting two fancy dress after-parties to mark the occasion. Certainly once you’ve seen a ... sausage ... like this, you know both the following balls will be tremendous.

I can’t find Louth on the map. I wonder if it’s right next door to Devizes*? 

See More Below The Fold


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 06/29/2012 at 01:44 PM   
Filed Under: • HumorUK •  
Comments (1) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Class Act

Really, I shouldn’t be surprised at this level of callous classlessness. We are talking about Democrats here after all. The ill-mannered “elite”.

“Take That Mother Fuckers!”

The historic Supreme Court ruling on health care Thursday morning triggered some explicit comments from a top Democratic operative.

Democratic National Committee Executive Director Patrick Gaspard sent out a tweet almost immediately after the ruling, spiking the football with some saucy language.

“It’s constitutional. B-----s.”

That second word there rhymes with witches.

A few minutes later Gaspard followed that up with another tweet, apologizing to his followers.

“I let my scotus excitement get the better of me. In all seriousness, this is an important moment in improving the lives of all Americans,” he said.

However, published reports say Gaspard also sent out a tweet earlier which read “TAKE THAT MOTHERF-----S!”

The same report says that original tweet has since been deleted.

Oh, and just to point out yet another lie - that this was just a bit of over exuberance (to say nothing of what the words imply about the DNC’s view towards women) - the DNC is actively selling the Joe Biden version as a T-shirt. Because unifying the nation and softening the rhetoric is only what they demand from the other folks.


Such dignity. Such class. Such grace. None.


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 06/29/2012 at 07:29 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists •  
Comments (2) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

the arab spring has sprung and resembles camel dung

A soon as I saw this today I knew it had to be shared with our readers.

It isn’t that it will be new to folks here. In fact, although my source is the Daily Mail, I should by rights give a tip of the hat to Drew who I recall wrote something sarcastic and questioning, and as I recall Vilmar wrote something scathing as well. In fact, I believe most if not all conservative bloggers were highly skeptical.  Our regulars here made similar comments as soon as the media started banging the drum for what was called, the Arab Spring.  None of you bought it.
Even after Libya, some of you were still making the odd comment here and there about the much vaunted springtime for arabs.
Well, congratulations.  Apparently, some in the mainstream media are catching up to you.

This is a fairly long piece so I am only giving a brief sample but am sure you’ll find it interesting.  Even if you already knew it, it’s nice to be vindicated.

Still championed by over-excited, ill-informed pundits in the West, and kept alive on the ground by a gaggle of equally naive, out-of-touch and mostly English-speaking local activists, the bitter truth is that the so-called Arab Spring has proved a dismal failure on every level.

As hated leaders are replaced by even more brutally oppressive regimes across the Middle East, the Arab Spring has become a sick joke

Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s deposed dictator, is reportedly still in a coma after being handed a life sentence earlier this month for complicity in the deaths of almost 1,000 protesters during last year’s mass uprising against his tyrannical rule.

He is a man utterly lacking in charisma, who has only ever been interested in enriching his family and the corrupt tycoons who surrounded him. Few will shed any tears when he dies.

However, while Mubarak was no better known for his political acumen than for his benevolent rule, he has been proven right about one thing at least.

A few days before he was forced to step down in February last year, he warned that sudden, dramatic change in the land of the pharaohs would lead only to anarchy, followed by a takeover by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood party and the imposition of strict Islamic law.

Gradual political reform, in other words, was preferable to revolutionary upheaval that had no agenda other than ousting the current leader.

That advice, at the time mocked as the self-serving twaddle it partly was, now seems strikingly prescient. Indeed, Mubarak could have been talking about the consequences of revolutionary chaos not just for Egypt, but the Arab region as a whole.

On Monday, Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, warned that the mayhem caused by the so-called Arab Spring has resulted in the creation of new Al Qaeda training camps throughout the Middle East, especially in Syria and Libya, where British jihadis are receiving training in terrorist tactics. They are intent, he added, on returning to Britain to launch attacks here.

The terrifying reality is indeed that Islamists of various factions are taking advantage of the febrile volatility in the regime to flex their muscles.

Egypt’s new president has just been announced. He is Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood. His victory ends a year of political transition in the country during which the Muslim Brotherhood have thrashed their liberal opponents in every election that’s been held.

On Sunday, Morsi called for national unity. That will be a tall order. Like other so-called ‘moderate’ Islamist leaders throughout the region, he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

( methinks Mr. Bradley read Drew on Morsi only last week)

The truth is that the Muslim Brotherhood will now set about implementing their real agenda: imposing Sharia law and encouraging the growth of extreme Islam.

Nothing good has come of it at all, if judged by the classic Western values of liberty, freedom of expression and democratic accountability.

From Egypt to Tunisia, Yemen to Libya, shockingly high crime rates, economies in free-fall and decimated tourism industries are the terrifying new realities Arabs must now confront.

And in each of those countries, radical Islamists have moved quickly to fill the social and political vacuum. They have used a simple strategy: relying on gaining a majority from the minority who vote, and blatantly disregarding rules that ban foreign campaign donations from neighbouring states, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, looking to extend their influence in the region.

Both these countries, although Western allies, also subscribe to Wahhabism — the strictest and most austere interpretation of Islam that even bans contact between unrelated men and women. They also consider it their God-given duty to promote this ‘pure’ version of Islam whenever the opportunity arises, thus their attempts to exploit the Middle East’s disarray.



Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 06/29/2012 at 05:09 AM   
Filed Under: • Middle-Eastmuslims •  
Comments (2) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Thursday - June 28, 2012

Scalia, the Patriot: Too Little, Too Late

The ObamaCare decision handed down today is enormous. Nearly 200 pages. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas dissented. Their joint dissent runs to more than 40 pages, but it’s pretty obvious who wrote it.

I wanted to sift through it to find a few gems that would reflect the whole, but that was nearly impossible. The Act is wrong on so many layers, and the actions of the court are also so multiply wrong, that a few snippets simply can not cover the issues. There are just too many issues.

So here are my cuts of his words, in the order he wrote them, with almost all the case references, ibids, footnotes, and other lawyerly crap removed for clarity’s sake.

Is there any bottom line? Yes. Scalia feels that today’s decision was the worst instance of judicial activism in our history. By turning itself inside out and declaring that this whole Thing is actually a Tax, even though the words of the Thing say dozens of times that it is not a Tax, the high court has created the most onerous piece of legislation from the bench ever.

Italics, brackets, and emphasis are mine.

Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.

That clear principle carries the day here. The striking case of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942), which held that the economic activity of growing wheat, even for one’s own consumption, affected commerce sufficiently that it could be regulated, always has been regarded as the ne plus ultra of expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

As for the constitutional power to tax and spend for the general welfare: The Court has long since expanded that beyond (what Madison thought it meant) taxing and spending for those aspects of the general welfare that were within the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, see United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65–66 (1936).  Thus, we now have sizable federal Departments devoted to subjects not mentioned among Congress’ enumerated powers, and only marginally related to commerce: the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The principal practical obstacle that prevents Congress from using the tax-and-spend power to assume all the general-welfare responsibilities traditionally exercised by the States is the sheer impossibility of managing a Federal Government large enough to administer such a system. That obstacle can be overcome by granting funds to the States, allowing them to administer the program. That is fair and constitutional enough when the States freely agree to have their powers employed and their employees enlisted in the federal scheme. But it is a blatant violation of the constitutional structure when the States have no choice.

The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting States all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have be enenacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative.

[speaking of Wickard v Filburn and Perez v United States:] To go beyond that, and to say that the failure to grow wheat or the refusal to make loans affects commerce, so that growing and lending can be federally compelled, is to extend federal power to virtually everything. All of us consume food, and when we do so the Federal Government can prescribe what its quality must be and even how much we must pay. But the mere fact that we all consume food and are thus, sooner or later, participants in the “market” for food, does not empower the Government to say when and what we will buy. That is essentially what this Act seeks to do with respect to the purchase of health care. It exceeds federal power.

If all inactivity affecting commerce is commerce, commerce is everything. ... The [partial] dissent [by Ginsburg] claims that we “fai[l] to explain why the individual mandate threatens our constitutional order.” Ante, at 35. But we have done so. It threatens that order because it gives such an expansive meaning to the Commerce Clause that all private conduct (including failure to act) becomes subject to federal control, effectively destroying the Constitution’s division of governmental powers.

[ Is it a tax, or a penalty? Yes! And a desert topping too! ]
It is important to bear this in mind in evaluating the tax argument of the Government and of those who support it: The issue is not whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum-coverage provision as a tax, but whether it did so.

In answering that question we must, if “fairly possible,” Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than un- constitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. ... In this case, there is simply no way, “without doing violence to the fair meaning of the words used,” to escape what Congress enacted: a mandate that individuals maintain minimum essential coverage, enforced by a penalty.

In a few cases, this Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here)the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty.  When an act “adopt[s] the criteria of wrongdoing” and then imposes a monetary penalty as the “principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,” it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax. So the question is, quite simply, whether the exaction here is imposed for violation of the law. It unquestionably is.

Against the mountain of evidence that the minimum coverage requirement is what the statute calls it—a requirement—and that the penalty for its violation is what the statute calls it—a penalty—the Government brings forward the flimsiest of indications to the contrary.
And the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, rather than where a tax would be found—in Title IX, containing the Act’s “Revenue Provisions.” In sum, “the terms of the act render it unavoidable,” that Congress imposed a regulatory penalty, not a tax.
For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. ... Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.

This Court must not impose risks unintended by Congress or produce legislation Congress may have lacked the support to enact. For those reasons, the unconstitutionality of both the Individual Mandate and the Medicaid Expansion requires the invalidation of the Affordable Care Act’s other provisions.

The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly non-coercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.
The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.

The Court’s disposition, invented and atextual as it is, does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them. The holding that the Individual Mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is a direct tax?) that the Court resolves with inadequate deliberation. And the judgment on the Medicaid Expansion issue ushers in new federalism concerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the Union.Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary.

The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.

The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.
For the reasons here stated, we would find the Act invalid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent.

Boil all of this down to just a few short words, and you get what Feed Your ADHD wrote:

This is no longer America. You no longer have the opportunity for the American Dream. You, we, me—we’re all slaves now. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has just made it official.

Congress has abandoned you. The executive branch has abandoned you.  SCOTUS has abandoned you. The lapdog media has abandoned you.

Game. Over.

Not even RINO-lite Mittens Romney will save us now.

Sipsey Street Irregulars, one of those Three Percenter blogs, puts it all into the most simple terms:



Posted by Drew458   United States  on 06/28/2012 at 03:40 PM   
Filed Under: • FREEDOMJudges-Courts-Lawyers •  
Comments (1) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

pedophile who rapes one 14 yr old and molests two 11 yr olds, has “rights” victims have nightmares.

I feel kind of odd trying to post anything that will interest our American readers after today’s ruling.  I don’t understand how that will work to the advantage of those who may be down and out.  Ya can’t make em any poorer if that’s their case.  I’ve read the arguments about auto ins. being mandatory and so why not health care. Seems like a whole different world between auto ins. and health ins.  I won’t even try and guess just where this is going to end. At the moment, I might be luckier to be here, as I’d most likely get arrested back home. 

Well, this is another one of those here we go agains.  Bit of a difference here tho. 

Apparently this turd who enjoys rape is an American who ran from the law in the USA.  His crimes are old ones and he was even on the Interpol list.
So he ran to europe and more specifically Ireland and then here.
But the problem is, the Brit judges think his human rights as defined by guess who?  The european court of human rights. But you may have known that.
Well the USA wants the vermin but the Brits are concerned that his rights will be violated back home.
Heck, you can read it for yourself.
Take a look.  And oh btw, did I not jump up and down and rant and rave some time ago that I thought the way things were, eventually the EU and their court in some way would get in our hair.  I think I mentioned something along those lines. 

And another thing just so ya know.  If you check the link here, you will find a poll asking if you think this creep should be sent back to the USA.  89% of the folks here voted yes. Send the bastard back.  But heck, even though the man on the street (who isn’t a libtard) knows how things ought to be, and even when they do vote an opinion, the folks with the real power ignore them and continue their lives in their ivory towers above it all.

Paedophile spared extradition to US on human rights grounds

One of America’s most wanted pedophiles has been spared extradition from Britain by the High Court on human rights grounds.

By Martin Beckford, Home Affairs Editor

Shawn Sullivan faced spending the rest of his life behind bars under a controversial sex offenders’ programme in the US, but two senior judges said this would amount to a “flagrant denial” of his rights.

As a result the 43 year-old – who married a Ministry of Justice official while in jail on remand – will not be put on trial for abusing three young girls almost 20 years ago, and can live freely in London.

Sullivan, who has a previous conviction for assaulting two girls in Ireland and was on an Interpol most-wanted list, is now the 10th person in recent years to see their extradition to the US blocked by either the courts or Home Secretary in this country.

Despite this, campaigners insist the treaty is “lop-sided” in favour of America, and attempts are still being made to block the extradition of alleged computer hacker Gary McKinnon and Richard O’Dwyer, accused of running a website that linked to pirated films.

A spokesman for the US Embassy said: “We strongly disagree with the decision of the court that he should not be extradited to face trial in the U.S.

“Civil commitment is not a penal or criminal sanction; it is rather a means by which the State can protect the community from dangerous behaviour that the committed individual is unable to control.”

Sullivan, originally from Fort Benning, Georgia, was accused of raping a 14 year-old girl and sexually molesting two 11 year-olds in Minnesota between 1993 and 1994.

He fled the US as charges were filed against him and moved to Ireland, where in 1997 he was given a suspended sentence for sexually assaulting two 12 year-old girls.

Sullivan came to London on an Irish passport, using the Gaelic spelling of his name, and was arrested in Barnes, south-west London, in June 2010, where he was living with MoJ policy manager Sarah Smith. The couple married in Wandsworth Prison when he was held on remand, before he was released on bail with an electronic tag.

Initially a judge agreed to his extradition and the Home Office dismissed his appeal.

But Sullivan took his case to the High Court earlier this year, with his lawyers claiming that if he were convicted in the US, he faced being put under a “civil commitment” order at the end of his jail term that effectively meant he would be deemed “sexually dangerous” and never released.

The court was told that no one had ever been released from the treatment programme in Minnesota since it was set up in 1988.

Initially the US authorities suggested Sullivan would not be put under civil commitment but later said it was too early to tell.

In a judgment published last week, the High Court judges said there was a real risk he would be put on the program, and that it would breach his right not to suffer loss of liberty without due process as protected by the European Court of Human Rights.

“It is clear to me that were an order of civil commitment to be made, it would be a flagrant denial of this appellant’s rights under Art. 5.1,” Lord Justice Moses said.

He and Mr Justice Eady gave the US government a final chance to offer assurances as to Sullivan’s treatment but it declined to do so.

In a note released on Thursday, Lord Justice Moses announced that “the United States will not provide an assurance” and so the appeal under the 2003 Extradition Act was allowed.

“The appellant will be discharged from the proceedings,” the judge said.



Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 06/28/2012 at 01:25 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-LawyersJustice - LACK OFUKUSA •  
Comments (2) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  
Page 1 of 10 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Five Most Recent Trackbacks:

Once Again, The One And Only Post
(4 total trackbacks)
Tracked at
The advantage to having a guide with you is thɑt an expert will haѵe very first hand experience dealing and navigating the river with гegional wildlife. Tһomas, there are great…
On: 07/28/23 10:37

The Brownshirts: Partie Deux; These aare the Muscle We've Been Waiting For
(3 total trackbacks)
Tracked at head to the Momarms site
The Brownshirts: Partie Deux; These aare the Muscle We’ve Been Waiting For
On: 03/14/23 11:20

Vietnam Homecoming
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at 广告专题配音 专业从事中文配音跟外文配音制造,北京名传天下配音公司
  专业从事中文配音和外文配音制作,北京名传天下配音公司   北京名传天下专业配音公司成破于2006年12月,是专业从事中 中文配音 文配音跟外文配音的音频制造公司,幻想飞腾配音网领 配音制作 有海内外优良专业配音职员已达500多位,可供给一流的外语配音,长年服务于国内中心级各大媒体、各省市电台电视台,能满意不同客户的各种需要。电话:010-83265555   北京名传天下专业配音公司…
On: 03/20/21 07:00

meaningless marching orders for a thousand travellers ... strife ahead ..
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Casual Blog
On: 07/17/17 04:28

a small explanation
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at yerba mate gourd
Find here top quality how to prepare yerba mate without a gourd that's available in addition at the best price. Get it now!
On: 07/09/17 03:07



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.


Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner

GNU Terry Pratchett

Oh, and here's some kind of visitor flag counter thingy. Hey, all the cool blogs have one, so I should too. The Visitors Online thingy up at the top doesn't count anything, but it looks neat. It had better, since I paid actual money for it.
free counters