Thursday - November 04, 2010

What a shame we can’t have a Tea Party in Britain, says Richard Littlejohn in daily mail

This is just a portion of the Littlejohn column today. I thought you’d enjoy it and there’s more HERE

What a shame we can’t have a Tea Party in Britain
By Richard Littlejohn
Last updated at 3:41 PM on 4th November 2010

Victorious Tea Party candidate Rand Paul put it succinctly. ‘People don’t understand why they should have to balance their family budget, but Congress doesn’t.

What has been refreshing in America this past week was to see ordinary citizens on the streets and on the airwaves demanding massive reductions in government spending and more control over their own lives. Americans don’t believe government has all the answers. It’s not what are they going to do about such-and-such. It’s what can we do about it.

All we seem to get in Britain, and on the BBC in particular, is a procession of entitlement junkies lining up to denounce the ‘cuts’ and demand ever more unaffordable State largesse.
America’s Tea Party movement is lazily, deliberately, misrepresented as a bunch of bigots, zealots and racists – the standard Washington insider, mainstream media slur.

Those Tea Party supporters I’ve met tend to be decent, concerned citizens, worried about their families’ futures, who believe their voice is ignored in Washington. They are small business owners, lawyers, housewives, none of whom fit the received-wisdom stereotype.
Of course, all manner of nutters attach themselves to any cause. We’ve got more than our own fair share of bigots and zealots. What could be more bigoted, for instance, than comparing modest reductions in housing benefits to the Holocaust?

As for the condescending allegations that Tea Party supporters are all ‘angry’ and motivated by hatred, how would you characterise the deranged reaction of the British Left to the Coalition’s plans to cut our own crippling budget deficit, bequeathed by Labour?

Angry doesn’t begin to describe it. Foaming-at-the-mouth would be more accurate.

Nor are we in any position to sneer at some Tea Party candidates as crazies, given that until recently Parliament contained the likes of barking mad Lembit Opik, famous Cheeky Girl enthusiast and flying saucer obsessive; and George Galloway, last seen wearing a leotard and pretending to be a cat in the Big Brother house.

Posted by peiper     on 11/04/2010 at 11:43 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • UK • USA •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - October 31, 2010

Nail ‘em on it!

The contrast could not be starker.

Imam Obama, since His Inauguration, has done nothing but attack Americans.

He’s attacked the auto industry.
He’s attacked the oil industry.
He’s attacked my doctors.
He’s attacked my insurance companies.
He’s attacked my bank.
He’s attacked ‘Wall Street’ where I invest my retirement funds.
He’s attacked mortgage companies for complying with Federal law. Forcing you and me to pay for deadbeats.
He’s attacked my restaurants.
He’s attacked the Chamber of Commerce.
He’s attacked you and me as ‘clinging to our guns and religion.’
He bows to foreign despots.
He apologizes for your and my alleged ‘sins’ from the past.

I could continue the list of attacks Imam Obama has perpetrated upon the American people. It is (so far) endless.

In fact, the only people he hasn’t attacked are the actual enemies of the United States.
Islam.
Illegal ‘immigrants’ (I call them hostile invaders).
China.

He does NOT represent America.

Remember when we had a President who did represent America? Maybe not in practice, but the goal which is worth striving for?

I know of no Democrats, and pitifully few Republicans, who stand for the Constitution and America.

We’re two days from an historical election. The choices are clear: you can vote Democrat. Or you can vote America.

You cannot vote for both.

Posted by Christopher     on 10/31/2010 at 10:50 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Editorials • Government • History •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - October 25, 2010

Obama’s Democrats are about to take a hiding in the mid-term elections…..

The exact dimensions of the Democrats’ rout are not yet clear. Nor is it clear whether Republicans will advance serious policies to roll back their expansion of government, and whether voters will support them if they do. Britain may give us some clues on that. But we do know that Americans who embraced “hope and change” two years ago are now rejecting the change they were given.

For the entire commentary of course, see the link.
America does get covered over here as you see.  I found this to be very interesting but also rather long.  So of course it’s cropped for space and breathing room.

Why the US has turned against Obama

Obama’s Democrats are about to take a hiding in the mid-term elections. Michael Barone explains why the US has turned its back on big government.

By Michael Barone

Why have American voters gone so sour on Barack Obama’s Democratic party? It’s a question that must puzzle many in Britain who – Conservative as well as Labour and Lib Dem – welcomed Obama’s election two years ago and saw him leading America and the world into broad, sunlit uplands. But now it appears that Obama’s party is about to take what George W Bush called a “thumping” in the mid-term elections on November 2.

It looks to be quite a fall. Obama won the popular vote in 2008 by a 53 to 46 per cent margin. That’s not quite a landslide, but he won a higher percentage of the vote than any Democratic candidate in history except for Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. More than John Kennedy, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, Grover Cleveland; more even than Bill Clinton.

And Democrats won the popular vote for the House of Representatives – a key index of public support – by a 54 to 43 per cent margin. That was their best showing since 1986.

Polls now suggest that those percentages could turn upside down. Republicans lead on the generic ballot question – which party’s candidates will you support for the House of Representatives – by an average of 49 to 42 per cent. In no previous election cycle since the Gallup organisation started asking the question in 1942 have Republicans led by more than 4 per cent. Now in Gallup’s “low turnout” likely voter model they lead by 17. Republicans seem very likely to win more – perhaps many more – than the 39 seats they need for a majority in the House and might, if they get lucky, win the 10 seats they need for a majority in the Senate.

After the 2008 elections, Democratic strategist James Carville predicted that Democrats would dominate US elections for 40 years; Republican strategist Karl Rove had predicted something similar for his party after George W Bush’s narrower win in 2004. And Tony Blair’s New Labour dominated British politics for nine or 10 years after its first landslide victory in 1997. But the Obama Democrats’ dominance turned out to last not 40 years but 40 weeks – until Republicans overtook Democrats in the polls in August 2009.

What gives?

read it all here

Posted by peiper     on 10/25/2010 at 05:48 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Politics • USA •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - September 01, 2010

It’s a puzzlement…

Why is it that the Leftists support Muslims?

I’ve seriously puzzled over this.

And then… as I stepped into the shower this afternoon, a possible answer came to me:

Sharia law is exactly what liberals want! Group law vs. individual law.

Follow me:

Liberals apply the law NOT to benefit the individual but to protect a group. If, as an individual, you are not a member of the ‘protected’/favorable group, the law does not apply. You’ve obviously cheated the ‘protected’ class. The SNOFU has done this constantly during his regime. Just remember how he treated the GM/Chrysler bond-holders.

(SNOFU: Situation Normal: Obama F@cked Up)

Sharia law does the same: it protects a special group, not an individual. If you are not a Muslim, by definition you’re a cheating, lying scoundrel.

Posted by Christopher     on 09/01/2010 at 06:33 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - August 19, 2010

Healthcare ‘monovision’ cr@p

It’s that time of year again; time to scramble and get all those little annoying health items attended to, paid for, and file the refund claims on your healthcare flexible spending account.

That’s the bad thing about FSA’s: You guess what your out-of-pocket medical expenses will be for the next year––that much is withheld from your paycheck––if you don’t use it, you lose it. The government just keeps your money. I wish I qualified for a plain medical savings account. Then what I don’t use just rolls over.

I’ve had an healthcare FSA for the last six years. I/we have used it all every year.

But this year I’m worried: I increased my ‘guess’ at our out-of-pocket health expenses this year. My goal was to goad my wife into getting a full physical, with the attendant co-pays and deductibles. My mistake...I know how she feels about doctors...she’s never had a full physical in our 20+ years of marriage. It’s not for lack of my encouragement either: whenever I suggest a physical it starts a figh...er...an argument. So, I still have a full FSA to spend…

Today I decided to take care of one of the little items I’ve neglected: new glasses/contacts.

I was shocked! The expense...was...far cheaper than I’d expected. So today I got an exam for both glasses and contacts. I ordered two pairs of bifocals, and walked out with a test set of contact.

That’s right. Contact. Only one. In my __ eye.

( __ eye = ‘dominant eye’. In the interest of identity protection, you do not need to know which of my three eyes is ‘dominant’. )

I’d never heard of this before. It’s called ‘monovision’. The doctor knew which of my eyes was ‘dominant’. I never knew eyes were ‘dominant’ or ‘submissive’. When I questioned him about how he knew which eye was dominant, he handed me a small box, told me to hold it like a camera. ‘Now, put it to your eye like you’re looking through the viewer’. Guess what? I do use my __ eye for that. I started remembering...it is indeed my __ eye I use when star-gazing through my telescope. Who knew?

(The Doctor Knows...mwhahahahaha!)

With the ‘monovision’ option, he’s just putting one contact in to correct my dominant eye to see far away (I’m near-sighted). The other eye is still free for reading and other close work. My other option was bifocal contacts, which are more expensive. The downside is (and this I got off a Wikipedia article when I got home) some disorientation due to loss of depth perception (particularly in the uncorrected eye).

BTW, this is all out of my own pocket. No health insurance coverage for this. (maybe the insurance would cover some small part of the eye exam itself, but it’s so small as to not be worth the time to file, or even the envelope and postage stamp.)

ObamaCare went entirely the wrong way.

Ideally, I’d have a medical savings account that I fund with my own money. This would be for out-of-pocket expenses. What I don’t spend this year would roll over. I’d also shop around for medical insurance to cover me/wife/us for something catastrophic. These would get the same tax-breaks that employers get for providing health insurance. This would mean freedom. This means I can shop around for the best and/or cheapest medical service. And…

!

It would save the government money by removing healthcare from the Federal budget. Period!

Posted by Christopher     on 08/19/2010 at 04:44 PM   
Filed Under: • Amazing Science and Discoveries • Editorials • Health-Medicine • Personal •  
• Comments (12) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - August 18, 2010

Time Out To Read

I’ve been chewing my way through Ken Follet’s World Without End for the past couple of days. At nearly 1100 pages it’s a pretty long read. Very interesting book. In theory it’s the sequel to his Pillars of the Earth from 18 years ago, but that’s only true peripherally. It’s set in the same town, the mythical Kingsbridge, which is somewhere in Peiper’s corner of England. 200 years have gone by since the story told in Pillars, but it’s still the middle Middle Ages in Britain so things haven’t changed a heck of a lot. Follet is a master of character development, and his stories are all very involving.

I’m at the halfway point, and what I’m noticing is not just how awful, unjust, one sided, and utterly stupid the 14th century was, but how strongly his picture of life back then seems to mirror life today. Ok, granted, things aren’t quite so bleak or violent now. We don’t have knights and barons running around raping and killing people because they feel like it. And we don’t have a poorly educated, highly selfish Church owning and running everything. But we do have an emerging class of elites who do seem to be above the law in many ways. And even though those at the top exist because of taxes and tithes on the serfs and tradespeople, they don’t seem to feel much responsibility to them. Oh, as Lord of this demesnes my little nose is out of joint because I was embarrassed because I was caught red-handed committing a horrible crime for which, as a member of the gentry, I was not punished for, but I’ll let the village starve to punish them for embarrassing me. Oh yeah? Well as prior of the cathedral my nose is even more out of joint because the peasants have found several ways to make money that don’t involve giving it all to the church or even letting me tax it to death, so I’ll do whatever I can to thwart them. Cutting off my nose to spite my face? Who cares, as long as I still have the power! Sounds awfully familiar to modern times in many ways. We don’t strictly have “privilege” these days - literally a private ledger, meaning one set of laws for the commoners, and one extra flexible set of laws for the rich - but it sure seems that way when I look at the endless scandals and corruption in government.

Pillars of the Earth eventually got me down. The first time or two that I read it, it was all about the amazement of building a massive stone cathedral using little more than hammers and ox carts, and the technology of that benighted time. After that I soured on the book, because by my third or fourth time through it I lost compassion for the lead characters, whose lives were a never ending series of death, starvation, disease, disappointments, and being screwed over by the folks in charge, mostly because they didn’t buck the system. Or couldn’t. Whatever, the story became Loserama to me, and I gave the book away. 18 years later for me and 200 years later for them, and I’m wishing the peasants had machine guns and artillery. This book’s newer more “modern” world has the beginnings of the rise of the merchant class, but society itself is still rather static. A static culture is a rotting culture, no matter how happy people may be by avoiding change and relying on “that’s how we’ve always done it”. And any progress from a static culture that does not move in a direction of more economic and personal freedom for the lower parts of society is a move towards slavery. Or serfdom. As Follet’s two books in this epoch show, there isn’t a helluva big difference. Unarmed, uneducated, landless, taxed to the edge of starvation, and kept in place by elitist “government” and knot-headed unionism (the ubiquitous and change resistant Guilds of that period), they exist to suffer for their better’s profit. If only they would rise up. If only WE would rise up.

Posted by Drew458     on 08/18/2010 at 10:47 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Literature •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - August 15, 2010

Education?

Remember when going to school meant you got an education?

I gave a speech at my local Toastmaster’s club about this. I remember being anxious about 4th grade. Seems that 4th grade had a hard subject called ‘Civics’. I’d never had ‘Civics’ before. It had the biggest, heaviest textbook. (good thing I lived right across the alley from the school. Back then me and my sisters went home for lunch. But that’s for another post.) You studied the Constitution, three branches of government, etc. Mom was the one who made me anxious: she didn’t like ‘Civics’ class when she was in school. She thought it was ‘hard’.

As it turned out, I found it an easy subject. We’d already covered similar subjects in Indiana history and government in 3rd grade. (I wonder what do they teach now in 3rd grade?) But… they were preaching the ‘living Constitution’ nonsense we’ve come to expect from liberals. At that time I thought it was neat. But I was thinking that the ‘living’ part meant the amendment process. I got a bit older and found out how wrong I was…

This also made it into my Toastmaster speech: my sister, two years younger than me, didn’t have ‘Civics’ in 4th grade. Ditto for my baby sister two years after her. Coincidence? A plan to dumb down the electorate? Or were the NEA ‘teachers’ just too stupid to teach the subject?

I report; You decide.

Posted by Christopher     on 08/15/2010 at 08:44 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Education •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - August 14, 2010

Move along. No bias here. Nothing to see.

From the Washington Post:

This is the how Steven Pearlstein starts off his ‘Business News’ article:

As a general rule, whenever you hear special-interest groups using near-hysterical language to warn that some proposal will destroy jobs, snuff out innovation and end free-market capitalism as we know it, you can generally assume that progress is being made.

Huh? This is ‘news’? This is nothing but hyperbole and Pearlstein’s opinion masquerading as a news article.

However, he is correct. We can indeed assume that ‘progress’ is being made: destroying jobs, snuffing out innovation, ending free-market capitalism (as an aside, I’ve never lived under ‘free-market’ capitalism. I’m 50+ yrs old. I’d like to try such capitalism before I die.) is indeed ‘progress’ according to the Social Leftist-Statist neo-journalists like Pearlstein.

You can go read the rest of the article which is basically about ‘net neutrality’. I’ve never had a problem with the net being neutral. It isn’t broke. Leave it alone. It doesn’t need an ‘ObaMessiah’ fix.

“Progress just means bad things happen faster.”
–Granny Weatherwax, Witches Abroad

Posted by Christopher     on 08/14/2010 at 08:54 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Nanny State •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - August 02, 2010

Illegal Immigration: yet another Government-created problem

I’ve been thinking alot about illegal immigration and the political causus belli that has resulted in a President suing a State.

What, exactly, is the problem with illegal immigration? When you get to to the root of the problem, it is money. Money to pay entitlement ‘benefits’ to illegals and their children.

I’ve been reading a lot of history, specifically 19th century history. Illegal immigration wasn’t a problem. Legal immigration was, because of the potential to change the voting public. But back then, ‘illegal immigration’ didn’t burden States or the Fed. Why?

This is where the Government created the problem.

Back then, nobody had claim on another’s property. Now, thanks to Government entitlements, they do.

Would I really care if somebody slipped over the border if I wasn’t REQUIRED to pay for him/her/their healthcare? NO!

But why am I required to pay for them? Government!

When our forefathers and mothers were crossing the Plains, they didn’t claim a ‘right’ to anything except protection for Indian depredations. We know how well the Gov’t discharged that task.

My point is that you don’t have a ‘right’ to the fruits of another’s labors. Healthcare? You don’t have a ‘right’ to the doctor’s services.

In fact, so many current social controversies could be laid to rest if we just agreed that you don’t have a right to another’s labor.

Homosexual rights? Since when did the Federal government give marriage special privileges and tax advantages. Wasn’t true before 1900.

This is a work-in-progress. I really believe most of our problems can be traced to trusting to Washington DC to solve our problems.

This is also my first attempt at posting an editorial on BMEWS. Short, sweet (maybe), and definitely needs work.

Posted by Christopher     on 08/02/2010 at 11:08 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - May 31, 2010

Memorial Day…some history

I’m embarrassed to say that I’ve learned much about Memorial Day this year. In my defense I’ll claim we have too many holidays for too few good reasons. Memorial Day is not one of those holidays. There is a good reason for it.

Memorial Day started out as Decoration Day.

Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11, and was first observed on 30 May 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery.

A caller to the Rush Limbaugh show last week got me interested in this. The caller was an old veteran who was promoting Memorial Day poppies. He said that 50 years ago everybody would have a poppy and now…? Rush seemed to know what the caller was talking about but didn’t explain it. Poppies? I had to look up Memorial Day and poppies.

In 1915, inspired by the poem “In Flanders Fields,” Moina Michael replied with her own poem:

We cherish too, the Poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led,
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies.

She then conceived of an idea to wear red poppies on Memorial day in honor of those who died serving the nation during war. She was the first to wear one, and sold poppies to her friends and co-workers with the money going to benefit servicemen in need. Later a Madam Guerin from France was visiting the United States and learned of this new custom started by Ms.Michael and when she returned to France, made artificial red poppies to raise money for war orphaned children and widowed women. This tradition spread to other countries. In 1921, the Franco-American Children’s League sold poppies nationally to benefit war orphans of France and Belgium. The League disbanded a year later and Madam Guerin approached the VFW for help. Shortly before Memorial Day in 1922 the VFW became the first veterans’ organization to nationally sell poppies. Two years later their “Buddy” Poppy program was selling artificial poppies made by disabled veterans. In 1948 the US Post Office honored Ms Michael for her role in founding the National Poppy movement by issuing a red 3 cent postage stamp with her likeness on it.

Artificial poppies to wear on Memorial Day are still being made by disabled veterans. That’s what the caller was promoting. I unfortunately don’t remember if it was the American Legion or the VFW. Regardless, get a red poppy to wear today.

Sorry, should read my own post, eh? It was the VFW. I was trying to remember what the caller said.

Saturday at work our supervisor got on the intercom to ‘thank all veterans this Memorial Day weekend…’

Faux pas? Ignorance? Who knows? I quietly went to him and reminded him that Memorial Day honors those who died in service to their country. It does NOT honor veterans. Veteran’s Day is observed for those like myself. And I don’t even count myself as a veteran: I never saw combat. To me a veteran has been in combat. I did serve six years in the Navy and was honorably discharged. I served, but I’m not a veteran.

My supervisor was man enough to get back on the intercom and correct himself. He added that we should all pray for those who’ve lost husbands, fathers, sons, daughters, during the current war.

And finally, I just have to include a link to Mark Steyn’s website today. The article is not written by Mr. Steyn but is an excerpt from one of his books. It’s an article about the creation of the Battle Hymn of the Republic. (Note: not the Battle Hymn of the Democracy)

Posted by Christopher     on 05/31/2010 at 12:14 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • History • Holidays • Patriotism •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - March 30, 2010

Do You Miss Me Yet?

In a word, yes.

I disagreed with GWB on several issues; Prescription drugs, Immigration ‘reform’, signing McCain-Feingold…

But he did serve, even if it was in the Reserves. Good enough!

One thing I will never do again: I will NEVER vote for a male Presidential candidate who has not done military service. Not that I voted for Obama, but in ‘92 I did vote for Clinton. Why? Because George H. W. Bush said ‘Read my lips...” and promptly raised taxes.

Also, never will I vote for a candidate who comes from a dysfunctional ‘family’. First Clinton, now Obama. The country has enough problems with government-run dysfunctional families. We can’t survive electing the resulting human debris to office.

Go GWB. Reservist perhaps. But being qualified to fly an Air Force fighter means you have brains.

Something Obama has yet to demonstrate.

Picture courtesy of The Jawa Report.

Posted by Christopher     on 03/30/2010 at 06:55 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - March 16, 2010

Today in History… and other fun stuff

Vilmar reminds us that today is the anniversary of Rachel Corrie’s claim to fame: death by bulldozer. (Google the moonbat yourself if you don’t know/remember)

However, as I reminded Vilmar in a comment on his post, today is also the birthday of James ‘Father of the Constitution’ Madison (also our fourth President)

This evening I was innocently opening the bills in preparation for paying them. The phone bill contained a surprise:

You are Included in a Class Action Settlement Involving Your DSL Service

I hate class-action lawsuits. How dare they include me without my permission! This is just a way for liberal lawyers to attack capitalism. If we ever get any tort reform, part of that should be the outlawing of class-action lawsuits. But I digress. What was the lawsuit about?

A proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging that AT&T failed to deliver DSL Service to its customers at the speeds promised.

It goes on to state that their records show that my DSL service was not affected. However, if I believe it was I can submit a claim for a one-time payment of…

Wait for it…

$2.00!

I get a whopping $2.00. How much did the lawyers get? And how much will my DSL service go UP PER MONTH as a result?

When I signed up for DSL, AT&T offered three different speed plans. I chose the middle one (don’t ask, I don’t remember the speeds) which I’ve had no complaints about. I WILL complain if my rates go up as a result of this ‘settlement’.

Posted by Christopher     on 03/16/2010 at 09:19 PM   
Filed Under: • Economics • Editorials • Humor • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - February 27, 2010

the us supreme court MUST order a retrial … says the Times of London. I say, FUCK YOU Times!

It’s late, I’m tired and I had shut down about two hours ago. I need to be off this damn thing, BUT ....

I made the mistake if reading a Times editorial while having a snack before going upstairs.  Nothin’ like something to piss one off to wake one up.

RCOB ....  Commit a crime in my country and pay the price.  Of course in this case the prisoner is not only Brit says the Times, she’s also a minority member.
Ah, must be why she got the death penalty.

Look, till tonight I knew nothing of this case.  It’s too much and too late for me tonight to go and research it. I’ll leave to others and do it as well tomorrow or Monday.

So here’s the editorial. All of it.

February 27, 2010
Undue process

The US Supreme Court must order a retrial for the Briton who stands on death row

Friends must sometimes agree to disagree. Britain forbids capital punishment; the United States supports it. But above all, good friends must honour their word. An Anglo-American agreement requires Britain to notify the US if it takes legal action against an American citizen, and for the US to do the same if a Briton is to stand trial in America.

So the case of Linda Carty — who was born in St Kitts, which qualifies her as a British citizen — is especially galling. Carty now waits on death row in Texas. In a last attempt to avoid her becoming the first black British woman to be executed in more than a century, the British Government has now presented an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court urging it to reconsider the case.

Carty’s story raises disturbing questions on several levels. First, the case represents a gross abuse of British trust. The British Government — quite rightly — seeks to defend any Briton who stands accused of a capital crime abroad. Other countries may kill their own citizens if they must; where possible we try to prevent them from killing ours. But the Texan authorities made no attempt to discover Carty’s nationality when they arrested her, and the same lack of curiosity and responsibility afflicted the lawyer they appointed to represent her. Hence Britain was effectively precluded from involvement in the case until the death penalty had already been issued.

And speaking of trust, wanna tell us about that muslim slug t binmanmoohamed you rescued from Gitmo and who is now suing YOU guys?  And the documents made public in spite of our intel agencies requesting otherwise. But oh no. Our guys were only trying to cover up torture. And binman isn’t even a Brit. Never ever was.

It is impossible to be certain of Carty’s innocence. But the original trial was clearly a farce. Carty faced the death penalty because her three co-defendents testified against her to avoid execution themselves. Meanwhile, Carty’s lawyer conducted a woefully inadequate defence. He talked to his client for just 15 minutes, blaming her for refusing to talk to him until he “bribed her with a bar of chocolate” — an extrememely unlikely version of events given that Carty is allergic to chocolate. It is also alleged that the lawyer neglected to visit St Kitts even though he had been granted funds by the court to do so. Had he bothered, he would have discovered that the island’s prime minister was willing to testify on Carty’s behalf.

Outrage at the nature of the legal defence provided for Carty extends far beyond critics of the death penalty. Baker Botts, a law firm that has often represented the Bush family, has taken up the case pro bono. Michael Goldberg, the defence attorney now representing Carty, is a supporter of the death penalty. He was simply appalled by the abuse of justice.

America’s execution policy is becoming a source of ridicule. Last autumn Romell Brown lay strapped to the gurney for an hour, sobbing while his executioners failed to find a suitable vein to adminster a lethal injection. In time, it is to be hoped that the United States reconsiders its outdated attitude towards justice and mercy.

More urgently, America should consider its responsibilities to its allies. When the US needs British support, it makes a great deal of the special relationship. British soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq die every month serving the Anglo-American alliance. But friendship cuts both ways. The Supreme Court must demand a retrial. And America should remember that it owes Britain the obligations of trust as well as Carty the right of justice.

America has a responsibility to its citizens BEFORE any responsibility to you or the UK where a crime is done in our country. You don’t like it? Screw you. Go start another war with the Krauts.

America’s execution policy is becoming a source of ridicule? To whom?  To anyone that counts?  And even if it does. F---Off. Ridicule over the DP is not exactly the number one worry of most of us I would guess and I think I guess correctly.
Or, maybe we should follow you ass wipes at the Time and the libtard left. Sure.  We can see how well the UK has done crime wise since you banished the DP
and disarmed your citizens. And turned your country over to the EU or damn near close enough.

OK, now I’m shutting this thing off.
Good night and Cheers to everyone.  Except the Times.  Jerks!

MONDAY MORNING

I just realized I skipped this bit when I did this post last week.

Romell Brown lay strapped to the gurney for an hour, sobbing

And we’re suppose to care about that?  Hey Times idiots, anyone wonder if his victims were sobbing too?
F$~#in Jerks!

Posted by peiper     on 02/27/2010 at 01:41 PM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Editorials • UK • USA •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - February 23, 2010

schools which make girls wear skirts may be breaking the law under new laws re. umin rights.

The Mad Hattie Littlejohn refers to here is Harriet Harman, also called Harperson.  She of total equality for all and even where there is no inequality, she will find it so that she can then make it equal.  She is a left wing loony tune and I can’t quite make up my mind who is worse. The former deputy PM, John Prescott or Ms Harperson.  She is a wack job people.  She ugly too but that isn’t important.  One of those white folks born to wealth who want to play Robbin Hood with other people’s money. Wants ta be one of the common folk to show how inclusive she is. Bah.  Lyndon does a much better job of describing the pin head. Seeing her name usually sets Lyndon off so I hope he’s out there right now.

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN
The Daily Mail
Feb. 23 ‘10

Now mad Hattie’s making skirts illegal

Conclusive evidence that the world has gone stark, staring mad comes from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission , which has announced that schools which make girls wear skirts may be breaking the law - by discriminating against transsexuals.

You couldn’t make it up. A 68-page report on the rights of transsexuals says ‘requiring pupils to wear gender-specific clothes is potentially unlawful’.

It states: ‘Pupils born female with gender dysphoria experienced great discomfort being forced to wear stereotypical girls’ clothes - for example, a skirt.’

This guidance arises out of Harriet Harman’s lunatic, flat earth Equalities Bill, which is due to become law in the autumn.

Local authorities will have to take into account the effects of their policies on minorities.

I’ve no idea how many transsexual pupils there are at your average school. But I wouldn’t have thought all that many.

There was a boy at my school who was rumoured to like dressing up in his mother’s frocks and high-heels, but the headmaster felt no inclination to adapt the uniform accordingly.

Surely any transsexual’s sensitivities could be accommodated by a pair of slacks, without making skirts a criminal offence.

Just imagine the time and money wasted drawing up a 68-page report - that’s right, sixty-eight pages - into the rights of transsexuals. The U.S. Constitution runs to only six pages, and that includes a bill of rights for everyone.

Millions upon millions of pounds are wasted on this kind of institutionalised insanity every year.

Of course, minorities’ rights should be respected but not at the expense of criminalising the normal behaviour of the majority.

If this Bill becomes law, it won’t be long before this ‘guidance’ is tested in court.

This is where a demented obsession with ‘diversity’ becomes a tyranny. We are now ruled by maniacs who think the wearing of skirts should be made illegal.

LITTLEJOHN

Posted by peiper     on 02/23/2010 at 09:35 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Editorials • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (8) • 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