Thursday - July 21, 2011

a worthy read

Rich K. sent me something reported to be funny.  I guess in some ways it might be but frankly, I find it scary.  Scary because so many Americans actually buy into this, scary because I know for certain that kids here in the UK are being fed left wing obnoxious doctrine as a way of life and belief.

This really is a coincidence since I have had an article by one of my favorite conservatives, Melanie Phillips.  I’ve been very much occupied lately and have not been posting much for which I apologize.  Unfortunately, there will be a few more days when I won’t be here full time.

Well then … Here’s what I got from Rich and he got it by reading – gasp –
The San Francisco Chronicle. And in particular, a fellow named Deepak Choprta, whose article is entitled;

A critical moment: Why we need President Obama

One of the virtues of being on the liberal side of politics is that total obedience isn’t required. There are no hidden agendas. Ideology doesn’t lead to unreason.

the prevailing sanity of President Obama

Liberal politics is based on a non-regimented, all-inclusive approach to democracy. Freedom of thought is paramount.

progressive tradition has been severely undermined, dating back to Nixon’s “Southern strategy” (coddle the racists) and Ronald Reagan’s smiling reactionary agenda (AIDS victims deserve what they get), through the first President Bush’s Willie Horton strategy (another boost for racism)

(oh never mind that the killer/rapist was coddled by that silly looking jerk governor in a tank re. Horton. Being critical of that move is automatically race related.) (I have forgotten that govs name. ?)

It was such a relief to return to humane, non-ideological governance when President Obama won in 2008 that we underestimated the debasing effect that two generations of right-wing indoctrination has had.

I have obviously chopped up his editorial merely to give you an example.
You can read it all unedited HERE and I think you should.

No doubt the hacking scandal here is making some news in America since now we read that the wind bags in the senate are soon to initiate an investigation into possible illegal behavior in America, by the Murdoch group.
Again, this article has been edited. I have posted her rant against the left but the thrust of her editorial while anti-left is an attack on the BBC & the left leaning media.

Monopoly of the BBC and the Left-wing intelligentsia.

Melanie Phillips

Murdoch’s real crime in the eyes of the Left-wing intelligentsia is simply that he has stood in the way of their total capture of the culture.
The dominance of Left-wing ideas has been such that even among so-called conservatives, many of them have become accepted as mainstream. And one of the most powerful architects of that shift has been the BBC.

Even its own executives have sometimes been forced to admit that, far from the objectivity required by its public service remit, the BBC generally subscribes to a Left-wing ‘group-think’ which dictates the agenda both in its journalism and entertainment programmes.

With some honourable exceptions, whether in its drama, comedy, news reporting or current affairs, the BBC’s output rests upon certain articles of faith.
For example, traditional Christians are all fundamentalist bigots; the science of man-made global warming is settled; opponents of mass immigration are racist; Eurosceptics are swivel-eyed fanatics; and all who oppose these opinions and more are Right-wing extremists.

And then to add insult to injury, the BBC forces people to pay for the privilege of being told day in, day out that their own views are stupid or prejudiced.
What’s more, such is the enormous power and influence of the BBC through its reputation for trustworthiness and fairness that it has arguably moved the very centre of political gravity in Britain to the Left.

By contrast, Murdoch’s popular papers have tended mainly to follow public opinion once voters’ minds are made up. So they respond to and then amplify what people already think.
But for the Left that is anathema, because nothing can be allowed to disrupt the great project to tell people what to think and shut down all opinion to the contrary.

Murdoch’s empire has acted as at least a partial antidote to that agenda by defending America, Israel and the interests of the West.
Which is why he provokes near-apoplexy on the Left.

And which is why they are all slavering at the prospect of bringing down a media organisation which provided an element of competition to the true monopoly of the BBC and the Left-wing intelligentsia.

The great irony, of course, is that for all those years while this scandal was taking place, the Labour Party fawned over Murdoch and his lieutenants. While he was riding high, none of them saw fit to challenge the power they now purport to find so unacceptable.
Only now Murdoch is lying bleeding on the ropes does Miliband flex his puny muscles. And they call that leadership.

MELANIE PHILLIPS

And then there was the Telegraph’s Janet Daley who is an American expat married to a Brit and living here since 1965.
Again, she makes comments with regard to the liberal biased BBC but the following says it all. And again, I would encourage you read all of her.  She has lots to say about American news and cable TV and compares how news is presented in both countries.
She is on the money and you will get an education reading her.

JANET DALEY Comment on Janet Daley’s view at » telegraph.co.uk/janetdaley
The Left really thinks the Right is evil incarnate

Those of us on the Right are inclined to believe that our antagonists on the Left are simply wrong-headed – sometimes well-intentioned, sometimes malevolent but basically just mistaken. Whereas the Left believes that we are evil incarnate. Their demonic view of people who express even mildly Right-of-centre opinions (that lower taxes or less state control might be desirable, for example) would be risible if it were not so pernicious.

The Left does not want a debate or an open market in ideas. It wants to extirpate its opponents – to remove them from the field. It actually seems to believe that it is justified in snuffing out any possibility of our arguments reaching the impressionable masses – and bizarrely, it defends this stance in the name of fairness.

The problem is that Fox’s audience share is enormous, by far the largest of any cable news channel, whereas MSNBC’s is tiny, the smallest of any cable news channel. People are voting with their remotes for the kind of opinions they want to hear and the result is infuriating for the Left-liberal axis – and particularly for the Obama White House, which has made no secret of its desire to shut Fox News down.

There is, incidentally – contrary to the conjectures of some excitable commentators – no possibility of the “Murdoch empire” spawning a British version of Fox News. By law, broadcast news in Britain must be impartial. That is why all television news organisations in this country subscribe to pretty much the same soft-Left rendition of neutral reporting (in which Euroscepticism was, until very recently, treated as a lunatic fringe irrelevance, etc). And just the sort of liberal received opinion that now dominates television news.

JANET DALEY

Posted by peiper     on 07/21/2011 at 01:42 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - May 09, 2011

the problem with heroes is …..

In the end, they manage to hurt. They either die which is painful beyond description, or else you find them wanting which leave you lost.

All I can say here is I’ve never been so disappointed in someone I took for a conservative hero, as I am by what Mr. Heffer believes.
Of all the editors and writers I’ve been following over the years, he comes closest to someone I tended to agree with most all of the time.  Littlejohn being the other.
But Simon Heffer stood apart from everyone else. I used to wish he were American born so he could run for president.

It’s bad enough he believes our people were “vulgar” and “mindless.” And that we need to “grow up.”
What bothers me most of all is the final realization that this otherwise friend of America ….. does not really know or even worse … does not understand us.
And if Simon Heffer isn’t able, then nobody else is either. Heffer is an extraordinarily brilliant man. Please don’t let his critique dissuade you otherwise.
He can certainly be brilliant and mistaken at the same time.  He can be brilliant, and mistaken with all the genuine good will in the world.  But the bottom line is …
He genuinely and honestly does not know or understand us as well as he thinks he does. And if he doesn’t, nobody else does either.

Let me be extra clear on the subject of friends and understanding.
The ONLY real friends America has in the political arena are …

AMERICANS. (and even then there’s some doubt)

Shock, horror: man dies in war

by Simon Heffer, Telegraph

I fail to see what the fuss is about concerning the death of Osama bin Laden. He ordered an act of war to be perpetrated on the United States and it retaliated by killing him. That is what happens in wars. I don’t want to sound unduly playground about it, but he started it. Two aspects of this do, however, alarm me. It was, I thought, exceptionally ill-advised of President Obama to conduct the news management of the whole episode as though he were starring in some tacky Hollywood mini-series. Those who believe this killing has won him next year’s election may yet have cause to revise that view.

Worse still were the vulgar scenes of mindless Americans rejoicing in the street when the news broke. It wasn’t the end of Superbowl, but it looked like it. I disliked it not because it might offend Islamic extremists – no further excuse to offend them is necessary – but because it made the world’s superpower look infantile. America should grow up.

Posted by peiper     on 05/09/2011 at 05:14 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Personal •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - April 10, 2011

Hypocrite! Thy Name is Democrat!

“Opposites attract. If two people just alike get married, one of you is unnecessary.”
— Larry Burkett

The hypocrisy of the Democrats constantly astounds me.

On one hand, they advocate ‘diversity’ as what made this country great.

On the other hand, they eschew diversity, especially within a family.

Democrats support, condone, and lobby for ‘homosexual’ marriage.

Think about that. Homosexual marriage. Tell me, where is the diversity in a so-called homosexual marriage?

‘Homo’ is from the Greek for ‘same’. Think ‘homogenous’.

In a homosexual ‘marriage’, one of you is unnecessary.

So, Democrats, do you want ‘diversity’? (aka, normal, historic marrige, one man, one woman.)

Or do you want perversity? (aka, homosexual marriage, two men, or two women.)

Diversity? Or Perversity? Democrats lose either way.

Posted by Christopher     on 04/10/2011 at 11:46 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - March 20, 2011

Convert to Christianity or Die!

I’m thinking I should just start posting the email correspondence with my old friend in Afghanistan. He works in Army intelligence…

(pause for obligatory Army intelligence jokes… Done? Good. Let’s continue...)

...and sends me stuff he finds. We sometimes get into interesting conversations over the most obscure things. One example is my previous post. He simply sent me something he thought was ‘cute’ and I ‘fisked’ it as Rich K mentioned. The surprise was when my friend agreed with my ‘fisking’…

AH
well put...I had not thought about that tag line in that way.  I guess perspective is everything.

I have been spoiled, you see. Though it broke the bank, so to speak, my children went to Catholic school until I got over to Germany.  There the military requires all uniformed members with children in their schools to work with the teachers, often visiting classes during the duty day.  This has led to teachers, heck, the whole system, being a WHOLE lot more accountable. My wife and I have even submitted formal complaints against one teacher a while back and she was fired (several parents banded together and the administration had to bow to our wishes) for incompetence.

So, he sent me another missive, which I proceeded to expound upon. The article he sent is here. My reply:

______,

Seriously, I’m having a hard time picking sides in the Mideast turmoil. Both sides are, as near as I can tell, Islamic. Sunni, or Shiite. Both are not friends of the USA.

Personally? I’d let them bleed each other, then move in and reclaim all of the oil fields and facilities that they ‘nationalized’ back in the 50s and 60s.

Oh, one other thing: if they seriously want our help, they are all required to convert to Christianity.

I’m serious about this. Islam is not a religion. It is a fascist political movement disguised as a religion. Fine. You want to mix religion and politics, I can do that too. No foreign aid unless you convert to Christianity. No humanitarian aid in event of a natural disaster unless you convert to Christianity.

Certainly no military aid unless you convert to Christianity.

Well, that would be a large part of my Mideast policy if I were President.

I’d also not recognize ‘Palestinians’. They don’t exist. There was a WW1-era ‘Palestinian Mandate’ that the British governed. It was broken up in 1948. Israel was one result. Jordan was another. The so-called ‘Palestinians’ are those who a) didn’t want to move to Jordan, b) had their lands occupied as a result of Israeli victories in 1948, 1967, and 1973. Such lands that were NOT ‘Palestinian’, but were either Egyptian, Jordanian, or Syrian. At no time has Israel occupied a Palestinian state. No ‘Palestinian’ state has ever declared war on Israel. Israel never defeated and occupied any ‘Palestinian’ land.

Why? Because no ‘Palestinian’ state has ever existed.

But, wasn’t it it Hermann Goering who said something like ‘a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.’?

_____ replied:

AH
well said

I TOTALLY AGREE: Red on Red is a good thing for us.  Who cares how many they massacre?  They will do it anyway.  I had not thought about the conversion angle, but you know, that has merit.  We could use that as leverage.  SO...Do you Arabs REALLY want our help?  OK, here is the price… We only help Christians.  We withdraw all aid to any country (note, I agree, Palastine is NOT a country) that remains muslim.  That would weed out our real friends from foes...oh and save us oodles of cash.

What weapons, sure, we will sell items to you, as long as they are not state of the art, and btw, go ahead and slaughter each other some more.

Opinions? What does the BMEWS community think?

Posted by Christopher     on 03/20/2011 at 09:12 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Middle-East • Religion •  
• Comments (13) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - March 19, 2011

dueling conservatives?  keyboards at the ready?  two takes on this newest war

I found the editorial page of today’s Telegraph particularly interesting.

Here are two two arch conservatives, (Simon Heffer – Charles Moore) both very honorable men, both above reproach as to their personal lives. I’ve been reading these two for a very long time.
They do generally fall on the same side of most issues.

Simon Heffer, who I think has referred to the PM as Conservative Lite, is like others, very upset at the cuts made to the military recently. The carrier Ark Royal for example, has been decommissioned and is being scrapped and there is another being mothballed. Forgot it’s name. Cuts across the board in the military.

His reference to the town of Wootton Bassett is telling. It’s where the coffins of Brit soldiers pass through the streets lined with the townspeople paying last respects. It’s very moving and very sad and made worse by muslim scum who tried to march there (I believe they were turned away) but had signs calling the dead, muslim killers and burn in hell etc.  Really considerate and merciful folks these members of the ROP.
Heffer is a current editor at the Telegraph.

(PC in this case is Police Constable)

PC Dave can’t police the world

Just five months ago, the Prime Minister chose to shut down much of our defence capacity
By Simon Heffer

Just five months ago, the Prime Minister chose to shut down much of our defence capacity. He has now decided he wants to act as a world policeman, and help the Libyan rebels before Benghazi is flattened. However, he has absolutely no means of carrying out this intention, except in the most marginal way, or with the help of others, such as the French, who have not made the idiotic decisions about defence that he has.

That, though, is not the end of it. Having persuaded the UN to sanction everything short of an invasion, Dave and his colleagues do not appear to have paused to consider the consequences.  If we are going to assist (with our nearly non-existent RAF, and without the aircraft carrier we are just scrapping) in the relief of Benghazi, what about the civilians that YouTube videos show being attacked by the security forces in Bahrain? What about measures that may be taken against civilians by our main ally in the region, Saudi Arabia? Or shall we choose to ignore those?

But, indeed, if we start to feel that outrages perpetrated in other countries compel us not to ignore them, how should we find the means to register a protest against them, since we do not even have the capacity to be of much use in Libya? In short, do we understand what we might be getting into, thanks to Dave’s cavalier determination to pretend he leads a country that still has influence? Do we understand that Wootton Bassett could find itself permanently on parade if we do not get a grip, and think of the realities of our predicament and our place in the world? What if the no-fly zone isn’t enough?

As I wrote last Wednesday, there is one exigency that should compel us to intervene in the Middle East: the threat to our economy and way of life that would be posed by a severe depletion of the supply of oil. Unless that happens we are on the sidelines, our withdrawal from the world signalled by running down our Armed Forces and by deciding, instead, to be a lavishly funded welfare state. However, even if we do have an oil crisis, the defence review has denuded us of the capacity to do anything.

There’s a bit more HERE

The other comment is from Charles Moore, A former editor of The Spectator (1984-90), the Sunday Telegraph (1992-5) and The Daily Telegraph (1995-2003); he resigned from the last post to spend more time writing Margaret Thatcher’s authorised biography, which will be published after her death.
Here’s his take on the subject.

Libya: A good intervention is hard to pull off – but we should still try

Where would the West stand if it let Gaddafi murder his way back to control of Libya?
By Charles Moore

We all want to “protect innocent civilians”, but when Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, said that this was the main purpose of the no-fly resolution on Libya, she was surely mistaken.

These civilians are certainly deserving of sympathy, but they are not passive victims of the elements, like the Japanese people in the tsunami. They have risen up and tried to overthrow their own government. They seem to feel that violence is necessary to do so. Such people normally attract the disapproval of what is ambitiously described as “the international community”.

So in supporting the rebels, the backers of the UN resolution are taking a bold political view. Unless they want a partition of Libya – and the resolution says they don’t – they are trying to bring about regime change. I am glad to say that David Cameron admitted this in the House of Commons yesterday, not quite in so many words, but without embarrassment. True, the resolution is not about regime change. True – and very important – it all has a legal basis. But still, the message is clear: let’s get Gaddafi out, using force if necessary.

For poor President Obama, it is all very difficult. The last American president to bomb Gaddafi was Ronald Reagan.
The last American president to fight for regime change in the Arab world was George W Bush.

These men have never been Mr Obama’s role models. He hates the idea of going down their path, so first he delays, and then he pretends he isn’t. As late as this Tuesday, America was resisting involvement. But now at last – thank goodness – he is on board. As the first black president, he may naturally not want to assume what Kipling called “the White Man’s burden” – “the blame of those ye better / The hate of those ye guard”. But if you are President of the United States, you must.

The reason it is right to declare the no-fly zone is that it will bring about the fall of Gaddafi, end the violence and allow the Libyan people to find their own government. This is in their interest, the interest of the wider world, and our national interest. If it weren’t, we shouldn’t do it. It is a moral question but, as Mr Cameron himself explains, a moral question firmly within the context of real politics.

The contradiction of the Obama world-view is that his “look at me” sort of morality has the effect of leaving the nastiest people unmolested. Because he wanted to show that he understood Muslims, he did (and does) nothing to encourage the genuine popular revolt against the oppressive Islamist government of Iran.

Because he is so nervous of being thought imperialist, he wanted to leave Gaddafi alone, even though he also wanted him to go. Mr Obama’s quietist Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, publicly rebuked Mr Cameron for “loose talk” of a no-fly zone less than three weeks ago. Now it is his talk which looks loose.

What changed, then? One element, perhaps, was the case pressed well by Mr Cameron, William Hague, and by the French. The normal role of dawdling Europeans and active Americans was reversed. But a bigger factor was the cover for action given by the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council. If Gaddafi’s neighbours were finally fed up with their region’s noisiest resident, Mr Obama could behave more like a community policeman answering a 999 call than a shoot-to-kill freebooter.

CHARLES MOORE

there’s a bit more at the link

Posted by peiper     on 03/19/2011 at 04:26 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - March 15, 2011

Reporters and radiation

I’m reading with semi-professional interest the accounts of the Japan nuclear problems. I’m really appalled at the lack of decent info on the amounts of radiation being released.

I should inform you that I spent six years as a Navy Nuclear Operator, or ‘nuke’ ET. I’ve some knowledge of the subject.

Most of these articles don’t tell you anything meaningful. When an article tells you that radiation levels are 10x, 100x, etc over background, that’s meaningless unless they tell you what background levels are.

Here’s an Reuters article which at least gives some info:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-japan-radiation-leaking-directly-into-idUSTRE72E7B220110315

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), citing information it had received from Japanese authorities at 0350 GMT, said on Tuesday dose rates of up to 400 millisievert per hour have been reported at the Fukushima power plant site.

Okay, dose rates that high are reported AT the Fukushima plant. Doesn’t tell me a thing about the surrounding countryside radiation levels. I’m also unfamiliar with the ‘sievert’ as a unit of radiation measurement. Rads, Rems, Roentgens, even Curies, I can deal with. What’s a ‘sievert’?

Next article is even worse:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/15/navy-detects-radiation-200-miles-japan-nuclear-plant/#ixzz1GitcrzFB

The U.S. Navy said Tuesday that very low levels of airborne radiation were detected at Yokosuka and Atsugi bases, about 200 miles to the north of the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

This is worse than useless. Trust me, I can detect ‘low levels of radiation’ from your spouse, your TV, cellphone, etc. Meaningless without actual measurements. Report the levels your instruments are reading! Is that so hard to do? I might agree with you, but sans actual readings, you’re hiding something.

Another Reuters article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/us-japan-quake-idUSTRE72A0SS20110316?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Officials in Tokyo said radiation in the capital was 10 times normal at one point but not a threat to human health in the sprawling high-tech city of 13 million people.

No info on ‘normal’ levels, much less the 10x levels recorded.

Depending on where I am, my ‘normal’ radiation level could be 10x just based on location. Denver, CO, has much higher background than my home in Ohio. Denver is surrounded by exposed rocks that exude radon, for instance. It is also the ‘Mile High City’, which means there is less atmosphere to attenuate the sun’s radiation

Posted by Christopher     on 03/15/2011 at 09:57 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • News-Briefs •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - March 13, 2011

brit journalist calls obama, the first npr president. some interesting thoughts from toby harnden

Fairly late for me and was about to close when I found this.
Don’t know why I missed it earlier today as I usually read this guy.

Anyway ... you might take issue with a bit of it but overall, I think he’s on our side.

He is a Brit reporter based in the USA, and writes this column with his take on the USA, politics and people.

American Way: Barack Obama, America’s first NPR president

By Toby Harnden
A VERY PUBLIC HUMILIATION

If proof were needed that some people at the top of National Public Radio despise the public then it was provided last week. In a delicious sting carried out by the young conservative troublemaker James O’Keefe, Americans were offered a glimpse of the different planet a certain class of liberal inhabits.

For the uninitiated, NPR (officially, they’ve actually dropped the radio bit as they pursue digital expansion) is viewed a little bit like the BBC is in Britain, only much more so: Left-leaning, worthy and a more than a little self-satisfied. Stereotypically, it’s preferred by those who much granola, sip lattes and seldom shave – especially the men.

Until recently, NPR seemed to be moving away from the stereotype. Then, it fired Juan Williams, a black commentator who professed to be a liberal but regularly expressed fairly conservative views on Fox News. When he said that he got “nervous” when he saw people wearing “Muslim garb” on an aeroplane, NPR pronounced that this “undermined his credibility as a news analyst” and canned him.

But Williams had the last laugh, immediately securing a multi-million dollar new contract with Fox, where he has happily denounced his former employer ever since.
Williams had been a popular broadcaster and the cack-handed way in which he was sent packing (Vivian Schiller, the CEO, suggested that the reasons for his remarks was a matter between him “and his psychiatrist”) infuriated its local member stations.  It also prompted calls for the end of federal funding, which amounts to an average of 10 percent of the revenue of the member stations.

Then, O’Keefe (who said he was motivated by the Williams affair) arranged for two members of a bogus Muslim charity to try to entice NPR executives with a donation of $5 million. And boy did he pull it off.

Ron Schiller (no relation to Vivian), NPR’s chief fundraiser, gave a display of such condescending smugness and disdain for ordinary Americans and everyone outside his little coastal cocoon that it would have been dismissed as caricature had the script been written for him.

Over a surreptitiously-videotaped meal at Georgetown’s Café Milano, known as a hang-out for wealthy Arabs, Schiller stated that the Tea Party was made up of “white, Middle-America, gun-toting… seriously racist people”.
He sniffed that “the thing that I guess I’m most disturbed by and disappointed by in this country which is that the educated, so-called elite in this country, is too small a percentage of the population – so you have this very large uneducated part of the population that carries these ideas”.

Sound familiar? Back in April 2008, Barack Obama was captured on tape at a San Francisco fundraiser stating that industrial decline meant that people “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them”.
Like Schiller (who resigned, along with his namesake), Obama was trying to get some money. And both of them did so by saying what they really thought with an unusual abandon.

Such haughty pronouncements is not only that they underestimate the power of the opposing arguments they face. For many Americans, they are a kind of declaration of war on what most of America is.
In the past, such views would not have been reported because the technology to do so barely existed. But the views still permeated the media class who ran the broadcast networks that told people what they should think.

Now, talk radio, blogs and Fox News means that there are ample outlets to build what amounts to a counter-culture – or perhaps, more accurately, a counter counter-culture.
The problem is that in hitting back against the liberal Establishment consensus, some figures – the weeping, ranting, apocalyptic Glenn Beck of Fox News is a case in point – do little more than mirror the worst excesses of the Left.

Over the past decade, I’ve found an increasingly tribal feeling among Americans, who readily identify themselves as conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats. A Republican I met at a dinner recently proudly told me that when something bad happened his young children would invariable blame “the Democrats”.

There’s considerable justification in the view that the current occupant of the White House is the first NPR president. But seeking to replace him with a Fox News president probably isn’t the answer.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 03/13/2011 at 04:35 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

I’ve got the updating blues…

Yes, I finally decided to update to MacOS 10.6 Snow Leopard. (who names these things? Why the cat fetish?) As expected, some of my favorite third-party apps either no longer work at all, or are crippled. Sapiens is crippled. The ‘search’ function no longer works. Sticky Windows is completely busted. I expect I’ll have to buy the new version when available.

Meanwhile, to make up for the lack of Sticky Windows, I’ve increased my use of Spaces, an included function of MacOS.

Yeah, I know, Macker is laughing at me. Or with me. He may have had the same problems.

Which brings me to BMEWS. I had problems posting for the last two days. I normally use FireFox as my browser. I normally preview my posts. Three times I tried to preview a post in FireFox, it took me back to the Expression Engine page. Drew and peiper will know what I’m talking about. The post that I’d lovingly spent so much time on was lost.

I suspect I need to upgrade FireFox. Until then, I’ve found that Safari does the job.

Posted by Christopher     on 03/13/2011 at 08:57 AM   
Filed Under: • Computers and Cyberspace • Editorials •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - February 25, 2011

How will America handle the fall of its Middle East empire?

Not at all sure how this one will be received. Darned good points made I believe. But see for yourself.

Says lots about foreign policy of which I wish we didn’t need any. Just a huge wall to keep out liberals and immigrants.

By Peter Oborne
Daily Telegraph’s chief political commentator

Empires can collapse in the course of a generation. At the end of the 16th century, the Spanish looked dominant. Twenty-five years later, they were on their knees, over-extended, bankrupt, and incapable of coping with the emergent maritime powers of Britain and Holland. The British empire reached its fullest extent in 1930. Twenty years later, it was all over.

Today, it is reasonable to ask whether the United States, seemingly invincible a decade ago, will follow the same trajectory. America has suffered two convulsive blows in the last three years. The first was the financial crisis of 2008, whose consequences are yet to be properly felt. Although the immediate cause was the debacle in the mortgage market, the underlying problem was chronic imbalance in the economy.

For a number of years, America has been incapable of funding its domestic programmes and overseas commitments without resorting to massive help from China, its global rival. China has a pressing motive to assist: it needs to sustain US demand in order to provide a market for its exports and thus avert an economic crisis of its own. This situation is the contemporary equivalent of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), the doctrine which prevented nuclear war breaking out between America and Russia.

Unlike MAD, this pact is unsustainable. But Barack Obama has not sought to address the problem. Instead, he responded to the crisis with the same failed policies that caused the trouble in the first place: easy credit and yet more debt. It is certain that America will, in due course, be forced into a massive adjustment both to its living standards at home and its commitments abroad.

This matters because, following the second convulsive blow, America’s global interests are under threat on a scale never before seen. Since 1956, when Secretary of State John Foster Dulles pulled the plug on Britain and France over Suez, the Arab world has been a US domain. At first, there were promises that it would tolerate independence and self-determination. But this did not last long; America chose to govern through brutal and corrupt dictators, supplied with arms, military training and advice from Washington.

The momentous importance of the last few weeks is that this profitable, though morally bankrupt, arrangement appears to be coming to an end. One of the choicest ironies of the bloody and macabre death throes of the regime in Libya is that Colonel Gaddafi would have been wiser to have stayed out of the US sphere of influence. When he joined forces with George Bush and Tony Blair five years ago, the ageing dictator was leaping on to a bandwagon that was about to grind to a halt.

In Washington, President Obama has not been stressing this aspect of affairs. Instead, after hesitation, he has presented the recent uprisings as democratic and even pro-American, indeed a triumph for the latest methods of Western communication such as Twitter and Facebook. Many sympathetic commentators have therefore claimed that the Arab revolutions bear comparison with the 1989 uprising of the peoples of Eastern Europe against Soviet tyranny.

I would guess that the analogy is apt. Just as 1989 saw the collapse of the Russian empire in Eastern Europe, so it now looks as if 2011 will mark the removal of many of America’s client regimes in the Arab world. It is highly unlikely, however, that events will thereafter take the tidy path the White House would prefer.

Far from being inspired by Twitter, a great many of Arab people who have driven the sensational events of recent weeks are illiterate. They have been impelled into action by mass poverty and unemployment, allied to a sense of disgust at vast divergences of wealth and grotesque corruption. It is too early to chart the future course of events with confidence, but it seems unlikely that these liberated peoples will look to Washington and New York as their political or economic model.

CONTINUE READING HERE

Posted by peiper     on 02/25/2011 at 09:31 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - February 17, 2011

A BMEWS podcast?

Over a year ago I subscribed via iTunes to the Ricochet podcast. You can still subscribe to it if you have iTunes.

The Ricochet guys (Peter Robinson, Rob Long) spent most of their ‘advertising time’ promoting the upcoming launch of the website Ricochet.com.

Well, Ricochet.com launched. I was still listening to the weekly podcasts, which featured Peter Robinson (former Reagan speech-writer), Rob Long (squishy RINO, but writes Hollywood scripts), and Mark Steyn (undocumented alien who subs for Rush Limbaugh from EIB Ice Station New Hampshire.) I should mention that James Lileks seems to be taking over as eemcee of Ricochet podcast.

Why do I mention this? Simple. I’m now a paid subscriber to Ricochet.com.

Why does this matter to BMEWS? Also simple. I want BMEWS to expand. I’d have to research the technical crap, but Drew, peiper, and myself might be able to do a podcast.

Might. Just asking opinions. (and waiting for Drew and/or peiper to say ‘nyet’.)

Posted by Christopher     on 02/17/2011 at 04:49 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (13) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - February 10, 2011

cities cut services to save money in hard times while top dogs keep their high salaries and perks.

The economy is a mess all agree. What isn’t agreed is how to cure it but the coalition govt. is in charge and so they set the agenda. 

There are serious and deep cuts being made in many social services, some which are actually not wasteful or bloated. Of course, as you’d imagine, many are.

Local councils are also cutting back on services and finding ways of saving BUT,
hands off our salaries.  The Prime Minister says “We’re all in this together.” What we all know is, that’s bullshit.  Only in his dreams and maybe not even then, are we all in this together.

For example, the head of the Manchester city council, the countries third largest city, is a Labour Party member, as are ALL members of that city council.  His basic salary is £233,000 per annum. That’s even more then the Prime Minister gets. None of the council salaries or perks have been cut. But they are proposing to close city libraries and the public swimming pools among other front line services.
They are politically targeting the front line services to make sure when the next election rolls around, that the Tory Party, that is the conservatives, get the blame.
But their fat cat life style continues.

Well, among the things the city apparently can afford is the following.
You could not make this up. And it’s only the tip of the dung heap. I wouldn’t bet against cons playing the very same game.

· Translating a guide to pigeon-feeding into Urdu – just one of the documents which contributed to a bill of thousands for translation services last year.

· Spending £2,000 giving 16 residents the chance to try stand-up comedy last year, in order to help them develop their confidence and make friends.

· Pumping £120,000 into B of the Bang, Britain’s tallest public sculpture, later nicknamed ‘Kerplunk’ after its giant metal spikes began falling off. The architect and contractors paid the council £1.7million in an out-of-court settlement over safety problems which led to it being scrapped in 2009.

· Spending £8,000 on a sex guide for the over-50s, featuring advice including watching a ‘sexy movie’. Around 5,000 free copies of what campaigners branded ‘an extraordinary and misguided pamphlet’ were sent to men and women across the city in 2009.

· Advertising three communications posts on salaries of up to £39,000 in October despite a recruitment freeze, including a social media manager described by critics as a ‘Twitter tsar’.

Just another example of politicians at work play.  No wonder so many have so little faith in govt. of any party these days.  How do you justify spending even one lonely penny on a translation service for feeding pigeons?  And get this. The city will close all but one of it’s public restrooms.  But the council chief gives up what?  Right.

Meanwhile, back at the treasury, millions are still being given away to foreign countries as aid. Millions and millions. While Brits are being told to tighten their belts.

It’s really discouraging.

Posted by peiper     on 02/10/2011 at 11:33 AM   
Filed Under: • Economics • Editorials • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - February 04, 2011

An English tribute to our great President Reagan … from Charles Moore of the Telegraph

He was the best Governor that Calif. had in my lifetime, and the best President too. Sure miss him.

I thought my countrymen and women passing through BMEWS, might be interested in a Brit’s view of Ronald Reagan.

In an age when conservatives find it embarrassing to talk frankly about their true beliefs, the example of Reagan is very important. He never compromised on his creed,

Ronald Reagan: warming to the cold war warrior

Ronald Reagan would have been 100 on Sunday. Charles Moore says our current leaders could learn a lot from the great man.

By Charles Moore
The Telegraph

To understand the genius of Ronald Reagan, one should focus on his handling of an event that occurred days before his 75th birthday. On January 28 1986, the space shuttle Challenger crashed on take-off, killing all seven astronauts on board. Millions watched it happen on television.

Reagan, a year into his second term as President of the United States, paid tribute: “The future doesn’t belong to the faint-hearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we’ll continue to follow them.” He ended by saying: “We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and ‘slipped the surly bonds of earth’ to ‘touch the face of God’.”

Reagan’s great friend and close ally, Margaret Thatcher, immediately sent him a public message of commiseration at the disaster. But what privately impressed her most was what she saw as Reagan’s uncanny ability to find the words that expressed the deep feelings of a nation in its best idiom. She considered this the mark of a great democratic leader.

Analyse the Challenger tribute, and you find most of the best Reagan tricks – the celebration of human courage, the very American belief in the future and in technology, the capacity to capture, through some gift of imagination, a moment that people can hold in their minds. To do this in mass-communication politics requires an element of hokum. If you think, after all, about his use of the words (from a poem written by an American, British-educated fighter pilot whose plane crashed fatally in the young Margaret Thatcher’s Lincolnshire in 1941), you could argue that they do not fit the facts: it was precisely because the shuttle failed to “slip the surly bonds of earth” that the astronauts were killed. But that is pedantically to miss the Reagan magic. He had a way with him that was utterly persuasive. The sentence which includes the phrase is long and difficult to say, yet Reagan paced it beautifully. I remember watching the tribute that day and feeling it working, even on my own hard, journalistic heart.

I use the word “tricks” to describe Reagan’s methods, and that is what they were. But this does not mean that he was dishonest. He understood that the President of the United States, being head of state as well as head of government, is inevitably an actor. The presidency is the greatest stage that modern politics offers. The man elected to occupy it must act as well as he possibly can, and he is no more “lying” by doing so than was Laurence Olivier when he played Henry V. As a former Hollywood professional in the first age of American world domination, Reagan knew what the dreams of the people were, how to appeal to them and how to make them global.

But he also shared them. However corny and repetitive he was, Reagan believed completely in the American version of liberty, opportunity and limited government. He spent his youth on the moderate Left, but came to think differently: “Americans are, in their time of discontent, encouraged by doom and gloom criers who would have us believe our only salvation lies in becoming docile sheep for the government shepherd. I happen to believe government is not the solution to our problems – government is the problem.”

PLEASE READ ALL THE REST OF MOORE’S TRIBUTE HERE

Posted by peiper     on 02/04/2011 at 02:30 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - December 23, 2010

Extreme violence of this nature is rare, says a cop who should know better, or is an idiot.

Detective Constable Darcia Babb said: ‘This was an outrageous and prolonged attack on a defenseless victim by a gang of thugs.

‘Extreme violence of this nature is rare but when it does happen we will make sure those responsible are brought to justice.

Scuze me while I take some time off to figure out just what planet the lady constable is on. Not this one. Is she dizzy er what?  Crimes of this nature are most certainly NOT rare. And as for brought to justice, gimme a break. Justice?  She isn’t dizzy. She’s crazy. Gotta be. Justice?  For what these sub-humans with unpronounceable names did?  What justice? Where’s it hiding?  I saw it somewhere a long time ago. Must have got lost in the immigration shuffle along with the mad hatters that voted Labour and allowed those traitorous lefties to totally screw up the country and the police and the courts.

Take a good look at this ... and take a gander at the time these pukes will serve. A guy gets beat up this badly and some of the thugs are charged with,
violent disorder?  wtf! What’s with that?  And what the hell were the ppl in the restaurant thinking when they closed the door on the victim, afraid to allow him sanctuary. Jeesh what a fucked up world.

The way the headline reads, you immediately think they’re gonna be in jail for a long time. Not so cos it’s 20 years split up among the whole gang of punks.

Grab the link for a couple of photos of the sub-human scum. This is what England and most of Europe will one day look like.  I’m glad I won’t be around to be witness to it. But sure as hell it’s on the way. Can it be halted? Sure. Maybe. Depends on how serious the electorate get about crime. How far they are willing to go to set examples to discourage others.  Somehow, someway the people have to make lawmakers sit up and take notice.  It might be they have to organize vigilantes along the line of San Francisco in 1849.  String up a few lawyers who defend scum like these. Take out a weak judge or two. And by all means do away with some of the violent thugs who’ve been let out early and committed crimes while on release. You think I’m over the top?

In the news this week is a story of unimaginable horror.  The guy is called the Crossbow Cannibal.  He even ate one of his victims raw. How’s that for bad?
AND ...  he’s just another case where he could have been stopped had authorities not been asleep.  Another case also of some mentally deranged wacko who was deemed ok and safe to release, you got it, he killed a total stranger.  Want more?  Some punk darkie released from prison for violent crime, killed someone 6 months after his release.  You’ve heard it all before and many times I’d bet. Same crap but different names.

Just how much is the public supposed to be subjected to? And to add insult to injury, be expected to support these miserable bastards either on benefits or while in jail.  Why?  For what purpose?  Of what use can they be, unless used for medical experiments.

Gang who battered pedestrian with crowbar in brutal road rage attack jailed for nearly 20 years

By Rebecca Camber

A gang of thugs who stabbed a pedestrian in a road rage attack, torturing him with a crowbar, hammer and broken bottle have been jailed for almost 20 years.

A 30-year-old man was subjected to a brutal attack after almost being run over by a car as he left a popular Indian restaurant in Whitechapel, east London.

When the pedestrian swore at the driver in anger, he was confronted by three thugs who got out of the convertible BMW and another car following behind.

Rashel Hussain, 20, and his friends, twin brothers Jubhare and Taharak Hussain, both aged 21, battered the victim with a crowbar, causing serious injury to his left hand.

Terrified, the man ran back to Tayyabs restaurant - regarded as one of the best Indian restaurants in London - only to find himself trapped in the doorway as the doors had been locked by frightened staff.

Taharak knifed the man a number of times before running off with the others to get more weapons.

As the victim attempted to get help, stumbling towards the Royal London Hospital nearby, his attackers returned with a larger group of men who leapt on him.

Rashel Hussain battered him with a hammer, while another man, Shah Alom, 22, slashed him with a glass bottle and two others, Jubhare Hussain and Shofiqul Islam, 21, rained down punches on the defenceless man leaving him with serious neck, arm and thigh injuries.

The extraordinary onslaught of violence was caught on CCTV, which showed the bloodied victim desperately attempting to escape.

Horrified members of the public who witnessed the attack around 9pm on Sunday, May 30 this year called 999 for help.

Two police officers rushed to the scene and wrestled with the attackers, pulling them off the victim and saving his life.

Rashel Hussain was arrested at the scene while the others fled. But detectives later rounded up the other members of the gang.

On Monday they were sentenced to a total of almost 20 years at Snaresbrook Crown Court.

Rashel Hussain, 20, was jailed for six years after pleading guilty to grievous bodily harm and violent disorder.

Taharak Hussain, 21, got seven years for grievous bodily harm.

His non-identical twin Jubhare, 21, received a two year sentence for violent disorder.
Two other gang members, Shofiqul Islam, 21, got a two year sentence and Shah Alom, 22, was sentenced to 27 months for violent disorder.

source and more

Let me tell you just how frightened some are of the law and the police.  If you are aware of the “student” riots last month, here’s something you probably didn’t
know.  One of the very left groups, not all students btw, give points for damage to property, maybe 50 points for assaulting an officer, 100 points for injury and drawing blood. I haven’t a clue what they do with the points but what I’m saying is, does that sound like a society in control of itself? Does that look to you like a culture in charge?  Does that look like a country that’s pointed in the right direction?  Not to me it doesn’t.  Vandals do their best to rile and entangle the cops doing their job, bullying cops if I can use that term and it sure looks like bullying. But cops aren’t supposed to smack em down. It ok to spit at a cop and then sue the city if the cop defends himself cos as we all know, cops are all guilty all the time.  I really am sick to tears of all the BS flung about and the useless thugs of all colors running the show.  The state may be holding them off somewhat. But what the state is not doing, is fighting back.  They won’t even use water canon on rioters, I have read.  What does that tell you?

And I haven’t even started on the unions. I’ll leave that for another time.

Posted by peiper     on 12/23/2010 at 06:40 PM   
Filed Under: • Commies • Crime • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • DIVERSITY BS • Editorials • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Justice - LACK OF • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - November 06, 2010

america for sale?  this guy says yes it is.  I suspect he may be a liberal of some kind. although ..

Mr Hari thinks America is now officially up for sale.
I guess he doesn’t like the election results? Just a wild guess.
To be fair and honest about it as well, I don’t know the facts or truth of what he says about Boehner.  He doesn’t have entirely kind words for the Democrats either I want you to know.

I think after last night’s radio panel show, I’ve become overly sensitive and perhaps thin skinned re. the T.P. It feels like we’re being ganged up on.  And to make matters even worse, some idiot commenter online in the Mail said my favorite president (Reagan) wasn’t a good president. How the hell would he know? The commenter wasn’t even one of us.  Just gets to me sometimes. Critiques by foreigners who think they know all about us. nuts!

Johann Hari: America is now officially for sale

It’s the Tea Party spirit distilled: pose as the champion of Joe America, while actually ripping him off

The laws and policies of the legislature of the United States of America are now effectively on e-Bay, for sale to the highest bidder. Are you a Wall Street boss who wants to party like it’s 2007? Are you a Big Coal baron who wants to burn, baby, burn? Are you an insurance company that wants to be able to kick sick people off your rolls? Meet John Boehner, the most powerful Republican and soon-to-be Speaker of the House. But – of course! – you already have.

Here’s an example of how you have worked together. In 1995, the House was going to finally repeal subsidies for growing tobacco, because an addictive cancer-causing drug didn’t seem like the most deserving recipient of tax-payers’ cash – until Boehner walked the floor of the House handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists to his fellow elected representatives. They changed their minds. The subsidy stayed. Explaining his check-dispensing, Boehner says: “It’s gone on here for a long time.” So get your bids in: the House is open for business.

Cancer or no cancer the product is legal.  And there are other ‘addictive’ products out there also. How about a total ban on everything Hari doesn’t approve of?

As for Ins. companies kicking ppl off their rolls, well, um ... that is probably true. I say that cos it happened to me long ago.
okay now ...  here come some more Tea Party slams. Get ready.

To understand what has happened in the mid-term elections, the best guide lies in an unexpected place – the dusty vaults of Hollywood. In 1957, Elia Kazan directed a film called ‘A Face In The Crowd’ that read the tea-leaves of the Tea Party back when Sarah Palin was merely a frosty zygote.
One morning a poor wandering Arkansas chancer named Larry ‘Lonesome’ Rhodes is lying passed out on a jail cell where the local sheriff has detained him overnight.

Lonesome Rhodes becomes one of the biggest stars on US television, he starts receiving offers. Advertisers say that if he endorses their lousy products, they’ll shower him with millions. He knows how to sell to ordinary people – and he is pushed to go further. They ask him to sell the political causes that will make them richer too. He starts railing against social security and the old age pension and anything that taxes the rich to help the rest. He uses the tunes and slanguage of working class Americans to get them to emotionally identify with the people who are screwing them over. He’s brilliant at it – a gurning hyperactive huckster, saying that support and security for ordinary Americans is a betrayal of America. He makes himself rich by lying to the people he came from.

Fast-forward to 2010. John Boehner came from a poor family of twelve children, and heroically worked three jobs (including as a janitor) to put himself through business school. But when he got to elected office, it turned out that there was alot more money to be reaped from serving the interests of rich people than serving the people he came from. He took money from the insurance companies, and voted to deny healthcare coverage to sick children and to the people who hurried to the World Trade Centre on 9/11 to try to dig people from the wreckage, exposing them to deadly toxins. He took money from defense contractors, and supported every war going. He tirelessly champions the overdog, while hoovering up their cash and flying on their private jets to some of the most luxury resorts in the world.

Beck and other on-air promoters “are either the worst financial advisors around or knowingly lying to their loyal viewers.” It’s the Tea Party spirit distilled: pose as the champion of Joe America, while ripping him off.

There is, however, one significant difference from ‘A Face In The Crowd’. At the end of the film – spoiler alert – Lonesome Rhodes is finishing a show and, as the end credits roll and the music swells, he rants against his viewers, believing they can’t hear him. But in the control box, a producer deliberately flips a switch. Suddenly millions hear him say: “Those morons out there. I’d give ‘em dog food and make ‘em think it’s steak. Good night you stupid idiots. Good night you miserable slobs. They’re like a bunch of trained seals – I toss ‘em a fish and they lap it up.” John Boehner and Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are ridiculing their followers just as crudely. Can’t somebody at Fox flip the switch?

Above all very much edited so you might want to go here for the whole editorial comment.

Posted by peiper     on 11/06/2010 at 09:11 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (3) • 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 © 2004-2008 Domain Owner