Saturday - November 15, 2008

The first colour photographs from the German front line during World War One.

A bit of interesting photographic history.

My posting will be light to non today.

There are 17 color photos at the link.

Hans Hildenbrand was one of 19 official German photographers documenting the war, but the only one to shoot in colour

Hildenbrand’s photos are mostly from Alsace and Champagne in 1915 and 1916
Picture: HANS HILDENBRAND

Here is the link to the other pictures.

   Friday - November 14, 2008

No Way. Really?

Obama Job Application: No Gun Owners Wanted

Gosh, I never thought it would be like this! [/snark]

President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is showing its hostility toward lawful firearm owners by “weeding out” job applicants who own firearms themselves, a Second Amendment group says.

The Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) notes that question 59 – part of a 63-item questionnaire given to Obama administration job applicants – asks for information about firearms owned by the applicant and his or her family.

Found in the questionnaire’s “Miscellaneous” section, question 59 reads, “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”

Although it’s not clear that gun ownership would disqualify a job applicant, ISRA says question 59 shows the Obama team’s “distaste” for firearm owners.

“Question 59 provides clear insight into how Obama and his people perceive firearm owners,” said ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. “The questionnaire poses a number of questions asking the applicant to reveal any unethical activities, or embarrassing Internet chats, then wraps up by asking if anyone in the applicant’s family owns a firearm.  Obviously, Obama feels that owning a firearm is akin to talking dirty in Internet chat rooms.”

Pearson says the attitude is not surprising, given that Obama – as an Illinois State senator—voted for SB1195, which included a provision calling for gun owners to be registered in the same manner as sex offenders.

“Once again, we have to ask ourselves just what candidate Obama was talking about when he said he has ‘respect’ for the 2nd Amendment,” said Pearson.

ISRA, which describes itself as an advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership, has posted a copy of the questionnaire on its Web site.

The National Rifle Association also noted the anti-Second Amendment implications of the Obama’s team’s employment questionnaire:

“[A]s this litmus test shows, they have every intention of putting together an administration that is hostile to firearms ownership and to Second Amendment rights,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

“One of their first official acts is to make a list of gun owners among their own employees. It proves where their hearts are. It shows what their philosophy is. This is more proof that this administration is coming after our freedom and NRA stands ready.”

As you’ve probably already seen on news pages and other blogs, or even seen on the TV news, guns are flying off the shelves at every gun store in America. And not just Evil Black Rifles and easily concealable little pistols. Anything that goes bang. Anything. NICS instant background checks are up almost 50%. In many places reloading supplies are also in short supply, and the warehouses that were full of ammunition a couple months ago are mostly empty. And all of this is before National Ammo Day, which of course is next week.

yes, I know some kinds of ammo have been in short supply for a couple of years now, because of the war effort. But if your local WalMart still has .22LR in stock, you might want to think about picking some up.

shopkeeper could face a murder charge.

This is another report on the previous story. This one from the Daily Mail.
Kinda doubtful they will prosecute the shop owner though.  Least I hope they don’t.

Instead of running the full story here, I’m going to post the criminal record of the late and unlamented scum who tried to rob this guy.  I sure do hope it hurt a lot.  Payback ya might say for all the pain and agony he caused over eight or nine years.  And I think the Criminal Justice System here sucks, like it does at home.

That ONE miserable rat could cause so much over so long does NOT say much for any system that allows it to continue.
There is always with no exceptions ever, a point in time when anyone can predict that a criminal will not reform and can’t be reformed because he doesn’t want to be.  He likes what he does.  He should have been snuffed years ago and this spot of bother would not have happened.

Shopkeeper faces murder charge after turning knife on career criminal during carjacking
By JARA NARAIN and JAMES TOZER
Last updated at 15:35 21 February 2008

A shopkeeper could face a murder charge following a fatal struggle with a knife-wielding raider.

Tony Singh fought back when Liam Kilroe, a career criminal, ambushed him in his car after closing time.

Kilroe, who was trying to steal Mr Singh’s takings, staggered away with a stab wound from his own knife and died in a pool of blood.

The 25-year-old was on the run after being charged with two robberies.

Police called to the scene found Mr Singh in a state of shock, still sitting in his car and nursing serious knife wounds to his back, face and neck.

However, the officers arrested the 34-year-old and are preparing to send a file to the Crown Prosecution Service.

A murder charge would carry a life sentence on conviction.

The case resembles that of Tony Martin who was charged with murder after shooting Fred Barras, 16, during a raid on his Norfolk farm in 1999.

He was convicted of manslaughter and served three years in prison.

http://tinyurl.com/6cgd22

shop keeper kills would be knife wielding robber.  scratch one gremlin. score one for the good guy.

Nothing to say.  The shopkeeper said it best. And good for him.  I hope he won’t be in any trouble.

Shopkeeper who fought for his takings killed knife-wielding robber in struggl
Russell Jenkins
The Times

A shopkeeper told an inquest that he fought off and killed an armed robber who came at him like a “mad dog” trying to steal the day’s taking. Tony Singh, 34, was ambushed by Liam Kilroe, 25, a wanted criminal, in February outside his Lifestyle Express store in Skelmersdale, Lancashire, as he tried to get into his car after work.

The robber threw a brick through the shopkeeper’s car window before shouting that he was armed with a knife and was going to stab him. Instead of handing over the £2,000 takings, Mr Singh fought back. Mr Singh was slashed across the face and stabbed in the back during the ensuing struggle. They fought for the blade, exchanging blows and head-butts on the ground.

By the time police arrived Mr Singh had subdued Kilroe, who was either dead or dying. Officers arrested Mr Singh on suspicion of murder and, although he was subsequently released on police bail, he feared that he could face a murder charge for some days before the Crown Prosecution Service declared that he had acted in self-defence.

Mr Singh, a popular figure in the community, was renowned for working long hours trying to build up his grocery and off-licence business. By contrast Kilroe had a long record for violent crime and was wanted by police at the time for evading trial for two similar armed raids on shops.

Mr Singh told the coroner at the hearing in Preston of the moment when his car window was smashed and Kilroe threw himself through the shattered window with a knife screaming: “Give me your f****** money.” He said: “When I saw the knife, I jumped out. I did not get a chance to run away. He was on me like a dog.”

At one point Kilroe headbutted the shopkeeper and yelled a threat that he would kill him. Mr Singh said: “I grabbed his hand in case he stabbed me somehow. I fell and he got on top of me and bit me. He had headbutted me and I fell back on the floor and he had the knife in his hand. He kept shouting ‘give me the money’.

“He gave me a mighty blow. I fell and took him down with me. He was on the floor and I was on the floor and I managed to get on top. He tried to get me off, I gave him a couple of blows and I was trying to keep him on the floor.”

Mr Singh said that Kilroe tried to stab him “like a mad dog”. However, by the time police arrived Mr Singh had control of the knife, which he was immediately ordered to drop. I was trying to restrain him but he was struggling and trying to throw me off,” he said. “I was panicking.” He added: “At the hospital they told me that if the cut to my head had been any deeper I would have been dead. I was also stabbed in the back. It was like he was on something.”

Earlier the inquest was told that when Mr Singh had Kilroe pinned to the ground, he punched him repeatedly in the face. It appeared to one witness, Deborah Barker, that the shopkeeper had “lost it”.

Mrs Barker said: “The children came upstairs and said, ‘there’s a fight outside and Tony’s involved’ and so I came straight downstairs and by the time I was out the door Tony was on top of the other man. I was telling Tony to get off him because he was going to hurt him and Tony was screaming ‘The f****** b****** has tried to rob me!’. He said he had stabbed him or something.

“They were covered in blood, and he was going hysterical.”

Dr Alison Armour, a consultant pathologist at Lancashire Teaching Hospital, concluded that Kilroe died as a result of a single stab wound inflicted with moderate force using a knife with an 8cm blade.

She said: “Based on the fact that there was no bone injury this was a stab wound of moderate force. You cannot infer how the knife was held, the position of the hilt or any other matter.”

Dr James Adeley, Lancashire coroner, is due to deliver a verdict today.

http://tinyurl.com/68nbw3

Photos at the link above.

THE LAND OF THE RISING SCUM?  HATE TO THINK IT BUT MANY BRITS SADLY AGREE WITH LITTLEJOHN.

Welcome to Britain, land of the rising scum.... We’ve cornered the market on welfare layabouts, drug addicts and feral gangs.

By Richard Littlejohn
The Daily Mail

The first time it properly dawned on me that the game was indeed up was about 20
years ago in Blackpool, where I was covering the Labour Party conference.

As I made my way from the Clifton Hotel, opposite the main pier, past Yates’s Wine Lodge towards the Winter Gardens, at approximately 9.30am, I had to step into the road to avoid a family walking four-abreast on the pavement in the direction of the sea front.

They were all breakfasting on fish and chips from polystyrene containers, washed down with what I seem to remember was Irn-Bru, in the case of the children, and Special Brew, for the parents.

The whole family — mum, dad, son, daughter — was dressed in matching turquoise shell-suits and imitation designer-label trainers. They all had earrings. Each wore a baseball cap.

The father’s cap was distinguished by a plastic dog turd stuck to the peak, beneath a logo which proclaimed: ‘S***head.’

I can remember thinking to myself, as I watched them window-shopping at the pork butcher’s: ‘What chance have these kids got?’

The other thought which occurred to me was, given that the children were aged, at a guess, eight and six, and this was late September: why weren’t they at school?

Now I know what some of you are thinking. Don’t rush to judgment, Rich. They could have been a blameless, sophisticated couple, who had taken their children out of their fee-paying convent school for the day to treat them to a field trip to study the varied marine life to be found in the Irish Sea off Blackpool, and had decided to dress down for the occasion.

Feeding them fish and chips for breakfast was simply a way of giving them an authentic working-class day-trip experience to broaden their horizons and drum home the message that not everyone starts the day with organic muesli from Waitrose.

(Waitrose, a very upscale market chain. The family also owns large tracts of property, generations old.)

The novelty baseball cap could have been an ironic, post-modern take on the nature of unbridled consumerism or a witty protest about societal stereotyping.

Then again, they could just have been scum.

You know what? I’ve just thought about it again. I’m going with scum. Sorry, but there’s no other word for it.

For all I know, those children could have grown up to become brain-surgeons.

My guess, though, is that they’re both living on benefits in some scruffy council garret, halfway up a burned-out tower block, surrounded by raggedy children who look pretty much like they used to on their jolly outing to Blackpool.

Only the fake designer labels have changed.

We’re now on to second- and third-generation scum, sustained by a patronising and non-judgmental welfare juggernaut. We’ve always had what sociologists prefer to call an underclass. But not on this scale and never so visible.

A quick glance at the news is all it takes to confirm the worst. In Haringey, North London, the child of a dysfunctional ‘family’ is tortured to death under the noses of social services. When the tragic Victoria Climbie died in similar circumstances on the same manor, we were assured it would never happen again. I wrote at the time that it could and it would. It has.

(note to Drew.  am not posting the story or pix on the torture killing of baby but did snail mail the article and photos. I’m not used to being shocked, but I still am after seeing and reading .)

The £100,000-a-year, hatchet-faced harridan in charge of the social services washes her hands of the death, refuses to resign and boasts of providing a ‘three star’ service,
backed by pie charts, graphs and a perfect paper trail of criminal incompetence and wilful neglect.

Somewhere out there, there’s a baseball cap with her name on it.

Frankly, I can’t bring myself to read the details of this horrific case, other than to note that the father was an SS freak and the mother spent all day in pornographic chat rooms on the internet, when she wasn’t smoking in the street. What did they do for money? What do you think?

In Yorkshire, a ghastly-looking woman and her gormless boyfriend’s uncle are on trial for abducting her daughter and attempting to extract a reward for her safe return. They look as if they have stepped straight out of Little Britain, in which Matt Lucas and David Walliams’s Burberried chavs captured perfectly the gruesome reality of so much of our modern landscape.

(this is in reference to a woman who with accomplice had her own daughter kidnapped and cost the state over £3 million pounds in the search while she went on TV begging for her daughter’s return. The plan was to have the accomplice free the kid and then discover her and save her thus collecting some $100,000 in reward money. The child was kept tied to a long strap in an apartment for 24 days. )

The women are the worst of the lot, giving birth to a procession of bay-bees by different, transient fathers and expecting — nay, being encouraged by — the state to pay for their upbringing.

The Government’s preferred solution is to keep on throwing money at the problem, hiring legions of social workers and ‘parenting skills advisers’ to keep the scum in check, while importing hundreds of thousands of immigrants to do the jobs our indigenous idle are paid not to do.

It doesn’t work and things aren’t going to get any better. It’s at least 20 years too late.

The game’s up. 

Note to readers.  I have edited the story a bit and the rest is at the link to the Mail.
The situation really is as bad as described by this reporter.  And heaven only knows what isn’t discovered.  It just seems that for an island with some 65 mil onboard, the scale of horrific doings by some very bad people continues almost unchecked.  My brain can’t cope with or understand how any human being can use a 17 month old baby as a punching bag.  I can’t comprehend why the people who do this should not be put to death in the very same manner.  http://tinyurl.com/5mm2ze

The reference to Little Britain is a supposed comedy show with a couple of gays homosexuals, one of who is in drag and very gross in size and looks.  The left wing Guardian newspaper claims the show had become a huge hit with Americans.  I sincerely hope not.
It’s my understanding and I could be wrong, that after previewing in the states, it bombed.  Now then, an expression here that goes, “ he or she or it went down a bomb” means they’ve done well.  Maybe when the Guardian heard that LB “bombed” in the states they mistook that for success.
The lead is degenerate, disgusting and his schtick is a twisted scowl.  Note guy in pink dress on left.  That look is all he does.  Well, not exactly.  He and former boyfriend who got married, recently became the first queer couple to divorce.  Well ........ so much for loving vows..

   Thursday - November 13, 2008

Red vs Blue

20 times the area, slightly less than the same population. If we had Electors based on square miles it would be no contest.

blundering store gives booklet on sex positions to eight-year-olds in error. with illistrations.

For you folks back home in USA.  Sainsbury is a major supermarket chain here.  Also market/ department store and I think (not 100% on this) they have some big holdings in states.
They are generally more expensive then say their rival, Tesco. A mega as in HUGE chain of stores.

This is almost funny when ya read it but I can see where mom and dad aren’t laughing.

Oh yeah, maybe I should explain although I doubt I need to.  To “chat up” someone here is to try and pick em up. I never hear that expression back home though.

‘Try something new today...’ blundering Sainsbury’s gives booklet on sex positions to eight-year-olds

By Andrew Levy
Last updated at 2:02 AM on 13th November 2008

They probably expected a goody bag of some sorts as a going home gift after the primary school trip to Sainsbury’s.

But what the 42 children - not to mention their parents and teachers - did not expect was to be given a book with explicit illustrations of sexual positions.

And the advice under the dozen drawings, which feature in a section about saving water by ‘bathing with a friend’, reads: ‘Save water. Have fun. Just get out before everything becomes wrinkled.’

Other inappropriate suggestions in the £5 book from Sainsbury’s - whose advertising slogan is Try Something New Today - include encouraging readers to shave in intimate places, streaking, talking to strangers and handing out your phone number to five people on the street.

Inappropriate: Two of 12 ways that children were shown how to ‘have fun in the bath’ in the Sainsbury’s leaflet.

The book, entitled How To Change The World For A Fiver, was mistakenly given to the Year 4 pupils, aged between eight and nine, from Burton End primary, Suffolk, during a visit to the supermarket in Haverhill.

The blunder came to light only when a father heard his daughter giggling with friends as they flicked through the pages.

Engineer Andrew Dodd, 37, whose daughter Laura is eight, said: ‘I was furious. It was extremely inappropriate and irresponsible to give to children.

‘On the “Having Fun in the Bath” pages there were little drawings of about 12 sexual positions.

‘But the worst bit was where it encouraged you to go and talk to strangers. It’s the opposite message to what you should be giving to kids. I don’t think the school realised what was in the book.

‘The teachers were as horrified as we were when they saw it.

‘Laura thought it was funny but thankfully she didn’t really understand it.’

A Sainsbury’s spokesman said: ‘This was a well-intentioned mistake. It is a very nice book about how to make the world a better place but it is not targeted at children.

‘The books were given to store staff by head office because they mentioned the company’s positive environmental activities.

Blunder: Sainsbury’s said they made a mistake giving children the book, which also encouraged readers to shave intimate places, streak and chat up strangers

A few spare copies were left over in the store which were given as presents to the visiting children.

‘The cover looks like a kid’s book. This was a mix-up and we would like to apologise for any distress caused. It certainly won’t happen again.’

But Nick Seaton, of the Campaign for Real Education, criticised Sainsbury’s for not making basic checks before handing out the books.

‘This would be offensive to some adults, let alone children,’ he said. ‘This wasn’t a mistake. It was an unacceptable failure on Sainsbury’s part.

‘Young minds are the most malleable and this incident has robbed a large number of children of their innocence. They should be ashamed.’

The book was produced by a company called We Are What We Do, which says its mission is to inspire people to change the world one small action at a time.

It also produces children’s version of How To Change The World For £5 which is called Teach Your Granny to Text and has been sent to primary schools across the country.

Sainsbury’s is sending Mr Dodd’s daughter a £30 voucher to spend in the store.

http://tinyurl.com/564dh6

MY IDEA OF REAL EYE CANDY ….. THERE IS JUST SOMETHING ABOUT HER.

ok friends and neighbors. if you really want to read the short story that goes with this, there’s the link below.
I confess, I don’t care about the story.  There’ll be plenty more in the future I am certain.
What I wanna do now is just leer at that gor-jus face and hair.

http://tinyurl.com/6qt4lt

Letting her hair down: Sarah Palin ditches the up-do and lets her locks hang loose as she looks to the future

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 9:35 PM on 13th November 2008

Sarah Palin showed off a new hairstyle today. The Alaskan govenor addressed a Republican conference with her groomed, brunette tresses left loose and blow-dryed, rather than her usual up-do or half-up style.

Now that the election is over, perhaps the former vice-presidential nominee decided she can relax a bit and let it all hang out.

How bizarre is this?  The taliban is asking human rights groups for help. Yes. That taliban.

The very least human of life forms, is seeking help from human rights groups AND the UN, AND the UN agrees ..  AND ... So does the EU.
Surprised?

Some world huh.

Apparently Afghanistan has now resumed the execution of prisoners.  The UN and the EU don’t like that and so keeping up their long standing tradition of sticking their noses into the legal affairs and customs of other people, they are protesting.  Silly dirt bags.

Afghanistan executed nine rapists, kidnappers, murders and militants in the last week and has support from the people weary of rising crime.

Taliban calls on human rights groups to stop executions
Afghanistan’s Taliban have called on human rights groups to stop the Afghan government executing prisoners.

By Ben Farmer
Last Updated: 7:51PM GMT 13 Nov 2008

A website statement said to come from the organisation’s leadership council called the recent execution of nine death row prisoners, including convicted insurgents, “barbaric” and raised concerns about fair trials.

Mr Karzai’s decision to sign the execution orders after a 13-month moratorium has been criticised by the United Nations and European Union who have also questioned the standards of the Afghan judicial system.

The Taliban, who became internationally notorious for public executions during their regime, accused Karzai’s government of corruption and said: “We strongly request the UN, the EU, the Red Cross and human rights groups to earnestly prevent this barbaric act.”

It also warned the government against more executions, saying the officials responsible would be punished.

Afghans fearful of rising crime have welcomed the recent execution of men convicted of child molesting, kidnap, murder and insurgent attacks.

The Taliban regime brutally punished criminals after they swept to power in the mid 1990s pledging to bring justice and peace to a country blighted by lawlessness and feuding warlords.

Thieves had hands or feet amputated, while murderers were regularly shot dead in front of packed football stadiums.

The Taliban, now fighting to overthrow Mr Karzai’s government, have executed dozens of captured soldiers and civilians since they were ousted in 2001.

http://tinyurl.com/6zrzfv

A side note on crime over there.  Three Afghan schoolgirls suffered serious burns when attackers sprayed acid in their faces as they walked to school. The brave and manly attackers ripped off the girls’ headscarves before the attack.  Those wearing the full length burkas were left alone.
And the UN and EU are worried about what? 

You can’t fly on one wing

Yeah, but can you land?

Or you can download it if you want right here. (right click, Save As)

I don’t want to give away the ending, so all my questions are under the fold:

SCOTUS to hear another gun issue

Thank God, the Supremes are finally going to maybe make a decision on the Lautenberg Amendment. It only took 12 years for this most blatantly unconstitutional proviso to get to the top bench. If you don’t have a clue what I’m talking about, here it is:

People who are convicted of major felonies like kidnapping, murder, and armed robbery, are usually no longer allowed to own guns. People who get in fights or who smack others around in public get charged with Assault. Or Battery. If convicted, they pay a small fine and perhaps serve a weekend or two in the county lock up, because assault is a misdemeanor offense. Petty crime. But if you get convicted of beating up your domestic partner, a crime called Domestic Assault (or Domestic Battery) that is also a misdemeanor, you lose your rights to own a gun. Forever. That’s the little amendment Frank Lautenberg (Dipshit - NJ) put into the Gun Control Act of 1996, which was an extension of GCA 1968. . Only the way old Frankie worded it, it applies to any DA conviction ever. Even ones that happened before this law was passed. That means Lautenberg’s bit is a “retroactive law”. Or, as lawyers would put it, “ex post facto”.

Look up ex post facto in the Constitution. It’s right there under the heading that says NO EFFING WAY BRO.

The other problem is that, at least as of 1996, only 17 states had a crime on their books specifically dealing with domestic violence. All the other states lumped domestic violence under the plain old violence category. Thus, this illegal federal law doesn’t actually apply in most of the country. Which is another one of those irritating bits that the Constitution says is a bad thing; all the federal laws apply to all the states and all the people.

So a test case has bubbled up through the system, and now the 9 Robes of Reason will have to decide, again, whether a part of the Constitution that couldn’t be clearer is actually clear enough.

A Marion County, West Virginia man named Randy Hayes was, to his stunned amazement, charged with felony gun possession in early 2005. To tell the full story we must go back to 1994 and an unfortunate incident in which he pled guilty to misdemeanor battery charge stemming from an argument with his wife. The marriage failed and ended in divorce shortly thereafter. (Drew: Hayes was given 1 year’s probation)

Leap forward a decade and our story resumes with Mr. Hayes and his ex-wife angry with him over a disagreement about their son. In her anger, she called the police informing them he had a firearm. The police arrived and found a family heirloom Winchester rifle under Mr. Hayes bed. Hayes was arrested on the spot and was stunned as they cuffed him. Hayes was completely unaware that he was under any legal disability to own firearms. You see, when he pled guilty in 1994 , there was no Lautenberg Amendment, and what he pled to was a misdemeanor. However, Lautenberg is a retroactive law.

Troy Giatras was retained as legal counsel to Mr. Hayes. Giatras commented, “Because he only pleaded guilty in 1994 to battery, not domestic battery. But the federal court interpreted it as domestic battery because it was against a family member.” He continued, “In 1994 and in 1995, he was legally able to have a gun, the 1996 law was applied to him retroactively, but he didn’t even know it.”

The case went before the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia in October of 2006. The court over turned the original decision convicting Hayes, but the U.S. Justice Department decided to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court agreed in April to hear the case later this year.

Giatras made the point that this case will be very important as it will help settle the constitutionality concerning laws which retroactively affect the American people and, of course, infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

I’m not holding my breath. I fully expect the Robes to play Solomon and try and slice the baby neatly when they have no need to do so. They’ll toss out Haye’s disarming, because he wasn’t convicted of Domestic Battery specifically, just regular Battery. Then they’ll toss out the ex post facto proviso on Lautenberg. They won’t approach the permanent loss of rights over a misdemeanor conviction at all, even though that’s the core issue here. And that’s the pussy kind of justice we’ll have to deal with. Hell, in 3 years we’ll be blessing them for what will be seen by then as a radical, anti-government decision.

A little bit more on this case here, and here, and you can always search up more.

From what I understand, another aspect of this Lautenberg Amendment thing is that you lose your guns if a family member gets a restraining order placed on you. No trial, no actual criminal charges, no chance for you to speak up in court; restraining orders are issued without your need to be there. And your guns get taken away. Welcome to America, land of Due Process and No Excessive Punishment.

This is the 4th challenge for the Lautenberg Amendment. The first case, US v. Emerson, addressed only the restraining order aspect. Emerson overturned Lautenberg in 1999, but that was reversed in 2001. 3 other cases challenged it’s ex post facto nature, but they were rejected by the court.

The full text of Lautenberg can be read here. It is short, but has so damn much legalese and subparagraphing that it’s very hard to read.

( In case you can’t tell, I’m against this law 100%. I’m also against Lautenberg, 200%. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve voted against him, but he keeps coming back like a herpes sore. )

GUANTANAMO.  A STAIN ON THE USA?  ONLY AMONG THE TRULY IGNORANT. AND SCREW THEM!

BMEWSers, I am so damn sick and tired and PO’d at the attacks on us over Gitmo, I seriously wish our folks in DC just one damn time had the guts to tell the rest of the world to ef off!  Not your god damn business and it’s an internal American affair so buzz the hell off.
Or words to that effect.  Just one damn time.  Is that asking too much?  Yeah, right. I guess it is.

So being as how I’m in a pissy mood over this and reading how Obama is gonna make nice and close the place (idiot), I thought I’d post yesterday’s Daily Mail editorial.  Trouble is, I no longer find it online.  So I’m going to copy most of it here longhand.  I can’t scan it properly or I would.  Must get that fixed one day soon.

A STAIN ON THE U.S.
Daily Mail editorial

As the Mail has argued for many years, the very existence of Guantanamo Bay interrogation camp is a black stain on the reputation of the United States.

(Did any of you guys ask the idiot editor of the mail for his opinion on the subject? Did any American ask any uro-pee-on for an opinion on our internal affairs?  Didn’t think so.)

Nothing has done more to undermine the West’s moral authority then this no-go zone for justice, where prisoners are tortured and held for years without trial.

Now at last an end is in sight for this affront to the cause of freedom, which has done so much to reinforce islamist prejudices against America and her allies.

(Screw this freedom crap. Nobody told me it was all about freedom.  It’s about the very survival of my country and frankly the rest of the world can go fuck itself along with the schmuck swine editor and all who think like him.  Oh sure, islamic prejudice didn’t exist before Gitmo. We evil Americans brought it all on ourselves. Oh but WAIT BMEWS cause you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Here’s the interesting rest of this crap.RCOB )

Many detainees are likely to be released.  Others will be shipped to the U.S. for trial in ordinary criminal courts. A third group whose cases involve highly classified information, may be tried under special rules to protect national security.

True, the plans are far from perfect. They carry the risk that some dangerous terrorists may escape justice, while other detainees will be denied full rights offered by the U.S. legal system.

WHAT MATTERS MOST IS THAT THE CAMP IS TO BE CLOSED - AND WITH IT A SHAMEFUL CHAPTER IN AMERICA’S HISTORY.

-30-

Sorry dickhead editor.  I feel NO shame with regard to Guantanamo.  If anything, I object to the fact that all they weren’t shot long ago.
I object to the fact that you’re alive and breathing and hope that ends soon.

So then and just about the time I’m climbing down from my frustration over the Daily Mail thing, I made the mistake of looking at our very local almost amateur rag that passes for a newspaper.  It really is a joke but I like the property pages.  The wife wisely tried to hide todays edition but somehow I managed to find it and I wasn’t looking.  Wish I hadn’t now because of course all the blood comes boiling to the top again.
Yet another know it all only this time the writer is he says, half American, so he can tell everyone how awful Gitmo is. 

He says that “what happened on Nov. 4th ranks with any of the other remarkable, memorable, life changing decisions the American people have have ever taken— on our behalf as well as their own.”

What the hell is he talking about with that last bit.  We took nothin’ on anyone’s behalf but our own and there will be time to regret that.

He goes on to mention great men who changed the lives of millions. Men who were elected in the US at a crucial time and mentions
Lincoln,Kennedy and Roosevelt in 1932.  “Now Americans have elected Obama and changed the world’s perception of his country.” He says.

I’m not interested in any of the above to be honest.  What got to me was that damn Guantanamo thing. Again. He seems to pretty much be following the party line.

He goes on to say that Bush leaves us involved in two “unwinable wars.” And a reputation “scarred by Guantanamo Bay.”

He sees in Obama, “a serious man for serious times,” and feels “some sympathy for Bush” who “showed dignity and true leadership after 9/11.” Well gee.  I’m feeling all warm and fuzzy cause he had a few nice things to say there.

He also thinks that McCain looked like a beaten man long before the ballot itself and Palin a disastrous choice as a running mate.
To be fair here, I think many of us thought McCain looked bad for a long time before Nov.4th.

So there.  I got that all out, but not necessarily off my chest.  Well heck, that’s part of the blog world too I guess.
I’m not thick skinned enough most likely and resent all the bad mouthing and second guessing with regard to MY COUNTRY!  I resent foreigners sticking their noses into what I believe to be our own business. 

And maybe too I need to quit reading any newspapers or listening to news radio for a year or so.  Yeah, like that’s gonna happen.

Stay Tuned

MSNBC changes its name to CYA

"We was fooled!! We’re the victims here!” More BS from the Majorly Stupid News Broadcasting Company ...

MSNBC Retracts False Palin Story

MSNBC was the victim of a hoax when it reported that an adviser to John McCain had identified himself as the source of an embarrassing story about former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the network said Wednesday.

David Shuster, an anchor for the cable news network, said on air Monday that Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, had come forth and identified himself as the source of a FOX News Channel story saying Palin had mistakenly believed Africa was a country instead of a continent.

Eisenstadt identifies himself on a blog as a senior fellow at the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. Yet neither he nor the institute exist; each is part of a hoax dreamed up by a filmmaker named Eitan Gorlin and his partner, Dan Mirvish, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

The Eisenstadt claim had mistakenly been delivered to Shuster by a producer and was used in a political discussion Monday afternoon, MSNBC said.

“The story was not properly vetted and should not have made air,” said Jeremy Gaines, network spokesman. “We recognized the error almost immediately and ran a correction on air within minutes.”

The hoax was limited to the identity of the source in the story about Palin—not the FOX News story itself. While Palin has denied that she mistook Africa for a country, the veracity of that report was not put in question by the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony.

And the source, this Eisenstadt, has fooled members of the media several times before too, at least 3 times. Whoever it is thinks the whole thing is a big joke, and did it all to show us that you can’t believe anything you find on the internet. Well, that’s true, because of jerks like him. But the real point is that the PMSM runs with anything they think sounds “truthy”, and that they do a piss poor job of verifying sources. And that’s what supposedly differentiates a professional journalist from us unwashed legions in our jammies. I’d give them a great big FAIL.

The Times has an in depth background piece on this story. It figures.

Brits 3, Pirates 0

Royal Navy Rescues Danish Ship, Blasts Pirates

Well it’s about time. Looks like the good ship HMS Cumberland is starting to get the job done. With a bit of help from the Russians.

A Royal Navy warship helped rescue a Danish vessel after it was attacked by Somali pirates, the Ministry of Defence has said. Plymouth-based HMS Cumberland and the Russian frigate Neustrashimy repelled the attempted raid in the Gulf of Aden. The Russian Navy said the pirates fired weapons at the Danish ship and twice tried to board it before the two warships intervened.

Two suspected pirates were killed in the exchange of gunfire on Tuesday.

A Royal Navy spokesman said: “We can confirm that a UK warship carried out a boarding of a foreign-flagged dhow suspected of being engaged in piracy.

“The situation is ongoing.”

An MoD spokesman said: “Prior to boarding, boats launched by Cumberland to intercept the dhow were involved in an exchange of fire.

The spokesman said that, because the incident involved firearms, an investigation has been launched.

WTF? This “incident” involved firearms, therefore it needs an investigation?? Hello, dimwit, it’s the bloomy NAVY. Guns is what they’re all about. It’s what they frickin DO. It’s their JOB!!! On the other hand, over here you have PIRATES. Hello, is there anybody in there? Any of those little brain cells actually working???

Ok, here’s a bit more:

The Yemeni-flagged vessel was identified as having been involved in an earlier attack on the Danish ship. An MoD spokesman said the pirates were shot in self-defence. After initial attempts to stop the dhow failed, the Royal Navy launched sea boats to encircle the vessel.

The British seamen were fired on and shot back before the dhow was boarded and its crew surrendered.

So, yes, there is a need for investigation. Because Admiral Drew wants answers:

Right. Captain, this is your ship:


And these are the pirates in their little wooden boat:

... so tell me, Captain, what on earth were you doing putting your crew at risk by neutralizing the pirates via little rubber boaties?

And what’s this kak about prisoners? Did we forget to equip your ship with enough rope or something? Do we need to hire a contractor to install a couple of yardarms for you?
What, you say they were surrendering? Really? Don’t you know that pirates don’t ever surrender IF YOU DON’T TAKE THEIR PICTURES??

Very well, let this be a lesson to you. If there are pirates, they are assumed to be actively hostile. If they are actively hostile, you get to shoot first. A lot. When you are all done shooting, then you get out the cameras.

---

---

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