Thursday - June 05, 2008

Hillary Clinton the last to admit her own death

The View From Here on Hillary.

By Simon Heffer
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 05/06/2008

The joy of jet lag is that one is awake in time to channel-hop between all America’s breakfast news programmes. After an hour or so of this entertainment yesterday morning, it was clear that not just the media, but also the public interviewed over their bacon and maple syrup in diners the length of the East Coast, had decided on one thing: this was a historic morning for America.

Hillary Clinton the last to admit her own death, whilst Barack Obama garners sufficient delegates
Mrs Clinton has achieved her aim of becoming part of history: only not quite in the way she would have wanted

A black man was for the first time confirmed as a nominee for a major party for a presidential election. There seemed to be not just a sense of self-congratulation at this unquestionably inclusive step being made by a country that has not enjoyed the best international press of late, but also relief that a 17-month campaign to choose the top Democrat was over.

However, one person and her friends seemed not to share these sentiments: and that person was Hillary Clinton. When I was last here in New York, the state for which she is a senator, it was Super Tuesday, and even then the game appeared to be up. In the intervening four months, Senator Clinton has had her triumphs, but they have not managed to keep pace with her disasters.

Barack Obama has garnered delegates in sufficient numbers not merely to keep him well ahead of her, but also, at close of play on Tuesday night after the Montana and South Dakota votes ended the primary process, to declare himself the nominated candidate.

Yet Mrs Clinton was still slow to concede that her once-inevitable procession to the White House had been terminally diverted. She claimed she needed more time to think about something that had not merely been pretty obvious to most people for the past four months, but that was now an apparent arithmetical fact.

Her refusal to admit defeat can be, and is, justified in all sorts of ways. She says she is ahead in the popular vote, which ignores the fact that this is not how these things are decided. She says that the delegates might change their minds between now and the convention in Denver at the end of August. Indeed they might, but only if they wished to write their party’s suicide note because of the divisions that would ensue.

She has, of course, delivered a distasteful inference that someone might do to Senator Obama what Sirhan Sirhan did to Bobby Kennedy 40 years ago today, and the less said about that the better. As they say here, she starts to look like a pretty sore loser: or, as we say at home, she just doesn’t get it.

There has not been such a stubborn refusal to die in high politics since the end of Rasputin. Her determination to stay in the race was viewed as courageous by her supporters, who for reasons of taste cannot cite the reason why they think she is right: their belief that a black man, however gifted (and Mr Obama is certainly that) cannot become president of the United States, at least for the moment.

Others have seen it as pig-headed and destructive: and typical of a bullying, arrogant, slimy, dishonest and manipulative political culture that ruled in the White House from 1993 to 2001, when her husband was president.

That is Mrs Clinton’s main problem, and has been her undoing. Her style is that of 1990s machine politics. Her views are those of 1990s “third way” Leftism, with their emphasis on the power of the state and extended welfarism and their ignorance of real economics. Her rhetoric is tailored to appeal to the cohorts of organised blue-collar labour who are her power base, and she speaks stiltedly and rather patronisingly in their tongue.

For all these reasons she is completely out of date. She has an appeal only to those who wish to defend a position that a sane army would have abandoned long ago. She is an irrelevance to those who see that America has changed, the world has changed, and a new leader needs to make an accommodation with those realities. Does she remind you of anyone?

It has been difficult, watching Mrs Clinton’s final desperate moments as a would-be nominee, not to draw parallels with our own Prime Minister. She is being rumbled by her own party, and by the wider American public, as someone who can’t do the business. Mr Obama has been gentlemanly in the extreme in his lavish public tributes to her, but his followers regard her as self-serving and destructive.

Mrs Clinton’s period of reflection yesterday was the cover for her attempt to engineer Mr Obama into offering her a place as his running mate: her sense of entitlement will be the last part of her to die. It has been hard to find an Obama supporter, however wedded to party unity, who wants him even to countenance such a thing.

The Obama camp has snidely whispered throughout this process about “Bill’s unconstitutional third term”. Having beaten his wife to the nomination, do they really want to bring her, him and the baggage of Clintonism back into the White House for perhaps eight years of raining on his parade?

As is usual with the Clintons, subtle threats seep from “sources close” about what would happen if Mrs Clinton doesn’t get her consolation prize. They hint that her fundraisers, some of the most opulent of whom she met in New York on Tuesday night, might not bankroll Mr Obama. He, however, has had far more success at raising money than she has, and will not end the campaign, as she is ending it, $11 million in debt.

More worrying is the chorus from some of her supporters, notably white working-class women, that they will adamantly sit at home, or possibly even vote for John McCain, if she is not on the ticket. That is the judgment Mr Obama now has to make, and there is a united view outside Mrs Clinton’s camp that anyone but her will do.

To be fair to Mrs Clinton - and it requires a superhuman effort, given the dirty and charmless way she has run her campaign - she is more experienced than Mr Obama. It is true when she says he is untested in ways that she, as someone who has hacked around high politics for the past 15 years, is not. But to be fair to Mr Obama, he has not merely won a beauty contest by dint of being more beautiful.

He has won it by failing to promise anything in particular, notably the return to the 1990s that his opponent has. It may be in the battle now against Senator McCain that he will be found wanting, and the vacuity of his charismatic world view will be exposed: but he has earned the right to be in that battle, just as surely as Mrs Clinton has forfeited hers.

The only surprise now - short of Mr Obama asking her to be his running mate - will be a genuine act of loyalty by the Clintonistas towards him when they realise that Mrs Clinton will not be heading for the vice-presidency. As, again, we have seen in our own politics, it is always easier to fight one’s own side than one’s notional enemies, so this may not happen.

The unexpected can, of course, happen between now and November 4. Yet with the primaries over, Mrs Clinton has achieved her aim of becoming part of
history: only not quite in the way she would have wanted.

http://tinyurl.com/6564xf

Posted by Drew458     on 06/05/2008 at 10:46 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Hildabeast • Politics •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

JUST TOO DARN FUNNY NOT TO POST.  POOR HILLARY.

ONE OF THE POSTED COMMENTS AFTER A SIMON HEFFER COMMENTARY IN THE TELEGRAPH

This about sums up Mrs Clinton!

Judy Wallman, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered that Hillary Clinton’s great-great uncle, Remus Rodham, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889.

The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows. On the back of the picture is this inscription: “Remus Rodham; horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.”

Judy e-mailed Hillary Clinton for comments. Hillary’s staff sent back the following biographical sketch:

“Remus Rodham was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory.
His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad.

In 1887 he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency.

In 1889 Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor, when the platform on which he was standing collapsed.”

Posted by Sidney Harbour-Bridge on June 5, 2008 3:14 PM

http://tinyurl.com/6564xf

Posted by Drew458     on 06/05/2008 at 10:21 AM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast • Humor •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - June 04, 2008

How Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton

It’s a pretty long column people, but use the link below for the rest of it. You might find it interesting.
It’s interesting I think, to read how foreign reporters read our happenings.

Good grief it’s after midnight here. Gotta go. I’m outta here.

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 9:53PM BST 04/06/2008

Hillary Clinton began her presidential bid as the overwhelming favourite and party establishment pick, the inevitable candidate who was “in it to win it”.

During the agonising denouement of the past three months, she has been the inevitable runner-up. She’s still in it, she protests, even now. But she has lost.

Although she finished the Democratic race on Tuesday with nine wins in the last 16 contests and “found my own voice”, as she declared after an upset victory in New Hampshire, her stunning loss in Iowa exactly five months earlier began the slow bleed she could never staunch.

In hindsight, the seeds of that defeat lay in the very strategy she and her chief strategist Mark Penn had mapped out more than a year before.

As the new face of Team Clinton - then the most powerful brand in Democratic politics - she could build up the momentum and money needed to lock up the nomination before the voters were consulted.

Even before her first event in Iowa - dubbed ‘Let the Conversation Begin!” - her focus seemed to be on the general election. She had already seen off the centrists Senator Evan Bayh and Governor Mark Warner and believed her greatest threat was John Edwards, running as a populist friend of the downtrodden.

Having carefully positioned herself - and badly miscalculated - with her vote for the Iraq invasion in October, she recalibrated repeatedly until she became an opponent of the war.

But rather than apologise for her vote, as Mr Edwards had done, she refused to admit she’d been wrong for fear of seeming weak in a general election against Rudy Giuliani or John McCain.

She reckoned without a young freshman senator called Barack Obama. In December 2006, it was already clear he had become a political rock star, attracting adoring crowds at book signings and already drawing comparisons with John and Robert Kennedy.

“The single most important thing that happened was the Clinton campaign always underestimated Senator Obama,” said Simon Rosenberg, a veteran of Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign and president of the NDN think tank.

“Even when Obama started to rise, he didn’t become in their minds their central opponent. They also overestimated their own strength. Her staff kept saying she was leading in all national polls but she was never leading in Iowa and that was the most important poll of all.”

Mention of Mr Obama would often prompt an eye role from an inhabitant of Hillaryland - a hermetically-sealed bubble protected by the Secret Service and from which all naysayers were kept out. Like President George W Bush, Mrs Clinton put a premium on loyalty, which meant hard truths were seldom aired.

http://tinyurl.com/69yxum

Posted by Drew458     on 06/04/2008 at 05:56 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats • Hildabeast •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Saturday - April 19, 2008

Hillary Clinton is the US Gordon Brown

OBOY-OBOY. Ask Lyndon to write a few lines about Mr. Brown. He can explain beter then I. 

AMERICA, WAKE UP!  Tell em Lyndon .........

By Andrew Gimson
Last Updated: 2:30am BST 19/04/2008

American election sketch

Hillary Clinton has moved to consolidate her position as the Gordon Brown of American politics. There are some superficial differences between the two. Mrs Clinton is a woman, and better than Mr Brown at pretending to be delighted to see whichever audience she happens to be addressing.

AHHHHHHHHHH!  O-GOD HELP US!  BROWN’S HER ICON?  AHHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGAG

The possibility arose of a meeting of minds when Mrs Clinton announced, during an appearance at Haverford College in the suburbs of Philadelphia, that if elected president she will introduce new tax credits.

Mr Brown is the only other leader to speak with such enthusiasm on this subject. He and Mrs Clinton share an impressive grasp of the technical advantages of tax credits, coupled with a complete inability to understand that many of us will never get around to claiming them.

Mrs Clinton declared with a smile that she “wanted to have a conversation” with the students, but she proceeded instead to give them a series of lectures. Like Mr Brown, Mrs Clinton displays an unshakeable faith in the ability of the state to solve every problem, as long as a gifted and serious technocrat, namely herself, is in power.

When asked about the environment, Mrs Clinton disclosed with pride that she had discussed that very subject at a meeting with Mr Brown on Thursday: “Gordon Brown has done a lot more than we have. They’ve actually created jobs… They’ve even invested in eco-cities… We just need presidential leadership and I will offer that.”

yeah right. silly damn pratt. eco-cities huh?  she doesn’t really know what folks here who are threatened by it think, nor would she listen if given the chance.

It was the same with every subject, from immigration to the economy. The longer she went on, the more exasperated she sounded that the American people may, conceivably, decide not to elect her, even though she knows a hundred times better than her rival Barack Obama what needs to be done.

The same note of disbelief enters Mr Brown’s voice when he contemplates the possibility that the British people might entrust their destinies to a lightweight such as David Cameron.

When Mrs Clinton was asked to explain how she would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 60 days if her own generals warned her against it, she replied in an irate tone: “I have spent a lot of time thinking through how we are going to do this responsibly and carefully.”

It would be wrong, however, to imply that Mrs Clinton cannot tell a joke. When a supporter asked what to say when out canvassing for her, she replied: “Just knock on the door and say, ‘You know, she’s really nice’. Or you can say, ‘She’s not as bad as you think’.”

But Mrs Clinton then spoiled the joke by cluttering her reply with several more points. Like Mr Brown, and unlike Mr Obama and Mr Cameron, she lacks the human touch: the ability to imagine how she will appear to other people.

http://tinyurl.com/45jace

Posted by Drew458     on 04/19/2008 at 03:35 PM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast • Politics •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - March 13, 2008

Barf Alert! (child abuse)

I think this qualifies as child abuse by the Clinton campaign.

Posted by Christopher     on 03/13/2008 at 05:46 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats • Hildabeast •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - December 21, 2007

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed woman is queen

From PMS-NBC:

Former President Clinton says his wife is a “world-class genius” when it comes to improving the lives of others.

Clinton stuck mostly to familiar themes in two hour-long appearances Thursday, describing at length what he views as the nation’s biggest challenges. Nearly 15 minutes into his first speech, he added almost as an afterthought that “everything I’m saying here is my wife’s position, not just mine.”

”Woops, I keep forgetting that I’m talking about her and not me”

Calling the ability to help others the most important quality in a president, Clinton first compared the successes of his administration in creating jobs and other areas to the failures of the Bush administration before finally turning the focus to his wife, a New York senator.

“The reason she ought to be president, over and above her vision and her plans is that she has proven in every position she has ever had in life, whether it was in elected office or not, that she is a world-class genius in making positive changes in other people’s lives,” he said.

”She cleaned me up good.”

What a bunch of crap.  We don’t need a President that “makes positive changes in people’s lives”, we need a president who will lead this nation and the world on the course for representative democracy and personal freedom.

Posted by      on 12/21/2007 at 10:08 AM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - October 24, 2007

Typical

In typical Democrat fashion, Hillary Clinton has decided that she would be able to give something away that isn’t hers to begin with.

Clinton will consider giving up some powers

WASHINGTON - Senator Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that the Bush-Cheney administration had engaged in a “power grab” and that she would consider relinquishing some of that executive power if she followed it into the White House.

“There were a lot of actions which they took that were clearly beyond any power the Congress would have granted, or that in my view that was inherent in the Constitution,” Mrs. Clinton said, in an interview posted on the Web site of The Guardian newspaper of Britain.

So, which powers have the current administration “grabbed” from under the watchful eye of Congress?

She did not provide specifics about which claims to power she would relinquish, adding, “That has to be part of the review that I undertake when I get to the White House.”

Like I said: Typical.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 10/24/2007 at 07:49 AM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - May 04, 2007

Losing Wars For Dhimmis

Let’s do a little backtracking on recent history here for a minute. Let’s see if we can define how to lose a war, help bring America to its knees, create ugly partisan divide in the nation, throw an entire country in the Middle East to the wolves and do it all in just twenty steps ....

Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War
WASHINGTON (NY TIMES) - May 4, 2007

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the Congressional debate over financing the war.

Mrs. Clinton’s proposal brings her full circle on Iraq — she supported the war measure five years ago — and it sharpens her own political positioning at a time when Democrats are vying to confront the White House.

“It is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible,” Mrs. Clinton said as she joined Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in calling for a vote to end the authority as of Oct. 11, the fifth anniversary of the original vote.

Her stance emerged just as Congressional leaders and the White House opened delicate negotiations over a new war-financing measure to replace the one that Mr. Bush vetoed Tuesday.

Even if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd succeed in their effort, it is not clear whether President Bush would have to withdraw troops, or if he could resist by claiming that Congress cannot withdraw its earlier authorization but instead has to deny money for the war to achieve that result.

The question could prompt a constitutional debate over war powers that only the federal courts could resolve. Mostly, Mrs. Clinton appeared to be trying to claim a new leadership position among the Democratic presidential candidates against the war in Iraq.

She supported the war early on, but she has turned into a staunch critic of the administration’s performance on Iraq. She has been saying that she granted Mr. Bush the authority to go to war based on intelligence reports at the time, but that the reports have since proved wrong.

Now, her advisers say, a vote to withdraw authorization would make plain to antiwar and liberal Democrats that she was repudiating her 2002 vote. The hope among her aides was that demands by antiwar voters for her to apologize for her vote would be rendered moot.

Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the original authorization has been a persistent problem in her presidential bid when contrasted with the positions of other Democratic contenders.

Former Senator John Edwards has repudiated his vote for the war. After Mr. Byrd and Mrs. Clinton announced their plan, Mr. Edwards quickly put out a statement urging Congress to focus on withdrawing troops and not revoking the 2002 authorization.

“Congress should stand its ground and not back down to him,” Mr. Edwards said. “They should send him the same bill he just vetoed, one that supports our troops, ends the war and brings them home.”

Mrs. Clinton pointedly noted that she voted in 2002 to put a one-year limit on Mr. Bush’s war authority, an effort led by Mr. Byrd that failed. Mr. Edwards had opposed that limit.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who was not in Congress at the time of the vote, cites his consistent opposition to the war. Mr. Obama issued a statement on Thursday evening indicating that he would support the effort by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 05/04/2007 at 12:08 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats • Hildabeast •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Saturday - April 14, 2007

Blind Date

It’s Saturday night. Mid-April ... 1967. One of your college buddies has set you up on a blind date with a friend of his girlfriend. His girlfriend says her friend “has a great personality”. This is what greets you at the women’s dorm when you go to pick up your date.

Do you: (A) fake a heart attack and collapse on the floor, writhing in pain and calling for an ambulance, (B) suddenly remember that you have a dentist’s appointment and jump out the nearest window, even if you’re on the fourth floor, (C) scream uncontrollably at the top of your lungs, “WHY ME, LORD?”, (D) get drunk, marry the wench, have a kid, move to Arkansas and wonder why, forty years later, you have twenty-eight girlfriends on the side, been convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, been impeached from office and “your better half” hates all men and wants to rule the world.

Posted by The Skipper     on 04/14/2007 at 06:08 PM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast •  
• Comments (16) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - April 06, 2007

Suckers

According to a recent Zogby Poll, approximately half of the people in the US are incredibly stupid, completely gullible and will buy anything. Coincidentally, the same group thinks the Clintons are not corrupt, that Elvis is working in a car wash in Duluth and the Air Force is hiding space aliens in Nevada.

As for the other 50% (which includes you and me - and I’m not too sure about you), we’re betting even money Slick Willie won’t be able to keep his pants zipped and Hillary will have more people whacked if the the couple moves back into the White House. Which group are you in?

Posted by The Skipper     on 04/06/2007 at 03:20 AM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Saturday - March 31, 2007

Saturday Silliness

Posted by The Skipper     on 03/31/2007 at 02:45 AM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - March 14, 2007

Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy

Clinton: Right-Wing Conspiracy Is Back
_{WASHINGTON (AP) - Mar 13, 10:57 AM (ET)}

Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton told Democrats Tuesday the “vast, right-wing conspiracy” is back, using a phrase she once coined to describe partisan criticism. Speaking to Democratic municipal officials, the New York senator used the term to hammer Republicans on election irregularities.

Clinton was first lady when she famously charged allegations of an affair between her then-president husband Bill Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky were the result of a conservative conspiracy.

As evidence of the affair eventually came to light, the comment was ridiculed.But many Democrats have since insisted that Clinton was correct, pointing to the well-documented efforts by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife to fund a network of anti-Clinton investigations.

On Tuesday, she asserted the conspiracy is alive and well, and cited as proof the Election Day 2002 case of phone jamming in New Hampshire, a case in which two Republican operatives pleaded guilty to criminal charges, and a third was convicted.

“To the New Hampshire Democratic party’s credit, they sued and the trail led all the way to the Republican National Committee,” Clinton said. “So if anybody tells you there is no vast right-wing conspiracy, tell them that New Hampshire has proven it in court,” she said.

Former RNC operative James Tobin was convicted of telephone harassment and appealed his conviction. The investigation arose after Democratic organizers’ phones were overwhelmed by annoying hang-up calls hindering their get-out-the-vote efforts.

Bush’s Campaign Office In Spokane Burglarized, Vandalized
_{(SEATTLE TIMES) - Monday, October 11, 2004}

Offices that house President Bush’s re-election campaign in Spokane were broken into and vandalized last night, the latest in a string of crimes at Republican offices across the country.

Workers arriving this morning found a hole smashed through the wall from an adjacent, vacant office. Bush campaign officials say a small amount of petty cash is missing and a computer and television had been moved and left near the hole.

“They must have gotten spooked because they ultimately left the computer and TV,” said Bill Hyslop, the campaign’s chairman for the Fifth Congressional District. The computer and the TV had recently arrived in Spokane and the computer was loaded with information from the Republican get-out-the vote program.

Spokane police responded this morning and took the computer’s monitor and the TV, Hyslop said. “We obviously have no idea who did this and are not going to cast aspersions,” said Hyslop, who served as U.S. attorney in Spokane under President George H.W. Bush.

In Bellevue last week, computers that stored the Republican get-out-the-vote database were stolen in a burglary at the Republican headquarters there. Bush campaign officials believe the break-ins are part of a broader attack on the president’s re-election offices around the country, including a burglary in Canton, Ohio, last night, gun shots fired in West Virginia, Florida and Tennessee and union protestors storming offices in three Florida cities and Minneapolis.

Posted by The Skipper     on 03/14/2007 at 06:28 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Democrats • Hildabeast •  
• Comments (14) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - March 08, 2007

Encore!

This is just way too embarrassing for words to describe. Ordinary human beings like us should never have to be subjected to this horror. There ought to be a law against it. Doesn’t the Geneva Convention protect me from this? As a Southerner, I am deeply offended. Click on the image below and wait for the Flash popup window to open.

Posted by The Skipper     on 03/08/2007 at 10:44 AM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - March 07, 2007

The Jerk

_{Gary McCoy - The Illinois Suburban Journals}

Posted by The Skipper     on 03/07/2007 at 01:12 PM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast •  
• Comments (4) • 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