Monday - October 31, 2005

Get Defrock Outta Here

Question: How does one “defrock” a lesbian? Answer: You slap the “frock” out of her.

OK. OK. Enough. See if you can come up with a better one for this amusing story involving a lesbian “priest”. Carefully examine the picture below. The priest is on the left. Her “partner” is on the right. May God have mercy on me for saying it but that “partner” is ONE MORE BUTT-UGLY WOMAN! I know, I know. I’m probably going to go to hell for that but I just couldn’t hold it back ....

Methodists Defrock Lesbian Minister
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP)

The highest court within the United Methodist Church defrocked a lesbian minister Monday for violating the denomination’s ban on “self-avowed, practicing homosexual” clergy. The nine-member Judicial Council—seven of whom heard the case Thursday in Houston—issued the ruling through its Web site. The denomination’s communications office is based in Nashville.

A church panel decided in December that the Rev. Irene “Beth” Stroud, 35 (pictured at left with her “artner"), by being in a lesbian partnership, engaged in practices that the church has declared incompatible with Christian teachings. The panel’s decision was overturned by the Northeast Jurisdiction Committee on Appeals, but the Judicial Council backed the original ruling.

The Judicial Council ruled Monday that the appeals committee “erred in reversing and setting aside the verdict and penalty from Rev. Stroud’s trial.” Thomas Hall, counsel for the United Methodist Church said the decision provides some relief, but is “not the end of this whole conversation.”

“An issue like this takes so much energy on both sides, and takes the focus off a lot of the great things the church is doing,” Hall said. “This gives us some space so we can hopefully channel our energies into the great things we’re doing.” The UMC is the nation’s third-largest denomination. Stroud, who became an associate pastor at Philadelphia’s First United Methodist Church of Germantown in 1999, has said she never revealed her sexual orientation in documents related to her ordination, but didn’t keep it a secret.

She said she decided to come out in 2003 because she felt she was being held back in her faith by not sharing the complete truth about her life. A complaint was filed against her last year. “I thought I was prepared for anything, but still the news came as a blow,” Stroud said in a phone interview. “It’s a sad day for me and for my family and for my congregation and, I think, a sad day for the United Methodist Church.”

Stroud will continue as a lay staff member at her congregation, preaching, supervising children’s and youth work and conducting pastoral visits. She told the congregation Sunday that she and her partner are applying to be foster parents. “There’s really no question that the United Methodist Church practices discrimination. That’s been made abundantly clear,” she said.

UMC Judicial Council: http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid263

Posted by The Skipper     on 10/31/2005 at 02:22 PM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality • Religion •  
• Comments (50) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Saturday - October 29, 2005

Star Trek: The Undiscovered Closet

Sulu: “Chekov, you have such beautiful eyes ...”

Chekov: “Ceptain, help me out here.”

Kirk: “Sulu! Take your hand off Mr. Chekov’s shoulder and man the phaser banks!”

Scotty: “I’m gonna need more Romulan Ale if this keeps up!”

Kirk: “Bones?”

McCoy: “I’m a doctor, not a social engineer.”

Spock: “Fascinating!”

George Takei, ‘Mr. Sulu,’ Says He’s Gay
LOS ANGELES (MSNBC)

George Takei, who as helmsman Sulu steered the Starship Enterprise through three television seasons and six movies, has come out as a homosexual in the current issue of Frontiers, a biweekly Los Angeles magazine covering the gay and lesbian community.

Takei told The Associated Press on Thursday that his new onstage role as psychologist Martin Dysart in “Equus,” helped inspire him to publicly discuss his sexuality.

Takei described the character as a “very contained but turbulently frustrated man.” The play opened Wednesday at the David Henry Hwang Theater in Los Angeles, the same day that Frontiers magazine featured a story on Takei’s coming out.

The current social and political climate also motivated Takei’s disclosure, he said. “The world has changed from when I was a young teen feeling ashamed for being gay,” he said. “The issue of gay marriage is now a political issue. That would have been unthinkable when I was young.”

The 68-year-old actor said he and his partner, Brad Altman, have been together for 18 years. Takei, a Japanese-American who lived in a U.S. internment camp from age 4 to 8, said he grew up feeling ashamed of his ethnicity and sexuality. He likened prejudice against gays to racial segregation.

“It’s against basic decency and what American values stand for,” he said. Takei joined the “Star Trek” cast in 1966 as Hikaru Sulu, a character he played for three seasons on television and in six subsequent films. He received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 1986.

A community activist, Takei ran for the Los Angeles City Council in 1973. He serves on the advisory committee of the California Civil Liberties Public Education Program and is chairman of East West Players, the theater company producing “Equus.”

Posted by The Skipper     on 10/29/2005 at 09:22 AM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality •  
• Comments (26) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - October 12, 2005

Homosexual Lawsuit #4,276,331

Here we go again. In an ongoing effort to completely change society to fit their agenda instead of trying to just fit in with the majority of people, a lesbian woman is suing a doctor who refused to artificially inseminate her, based on the doctor’s personal moral beliefs. How is this discrimination? Does this mean I can sue the next Muslim I see because he refuses to join me for a drink at a local bar? Can I sue a PETA-activist who refuses to help distribute canned meat products to hurricane victims? If not, what’s the difference? Where does this insanity end?

And while we’re on the subject, when did artifical insemination become “treatment”. The lesbian in question was not suffering from any medical condition known to man except for an avowed aversion to men and a distaste for penises in general. Plain and simple, this is moral relativism versus moral clarity disguised as anti-discrimination. If our courts had any sense whatsoever, they’d throw this case out, send the lesbian packing and put the kid up for adoption.

I am sick and tired of the homosexual “tail” wagging the heterosexual “dog”, especially when the “tail” uses the courts to punish doctors who are just as entitled to their own moral code of ethics as you, me or anyone else ... including the rug-munchers ...

Calif. Court Hears Gay Fertility Case
SAN DIEGO (AP)

A California appeals court heard arguments Tuesday in the case of a woman who sued her doctors after they refused to artificially inseminate her, allegedly because she is gay. The physicians are appealing a ruling that prevented them from raising religious freedom as a defense in the test of whether doctors can deny treatment to gays and lesbians. Attorney Carlo Coppo told California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal that religion is relevant to deciding whether his clients wrongly denied fertility treatment to Guadalupe Benitez.

Drs. Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton should be allowed to explain “what went through their hearts and minds when they did what they did,” Coppo told the three-judge panel. One of the judges said the case is destined for the U.S. Supreme Court. Benitez, 33, sued the doctors and their small practice in Vista in 2001, claiming their actions violated California’s anti-discrimination laws. Benitez was eventually treated elsewhere and gave birth to a boy who is now 3 years old.

In her suit, Benitez claims that Brody told her in 1999 that her religious beliefs prevented her from helping a homosexual conceive a child by artificial insemination, but that other physicians at the practice would be able to help her. The next year, Benitez said, she was told that both Brody and Fenton were unable to help her because they did not feel comfortable with her sexual orientation. The doctors contend they denied treatment because Benitez and her registered domestic partner of 15 years were not married. But Benitez’s attorneys say she was denied because of her sexual orientation, not her marital status.

The case appears to be the first in the country in which a gay or lesbian patient was allowed to sue doctors over charges that treatment was denied based on sexual orientation, said Benitez’s attorney, Jennifer Pizer of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. Pizer argued that California civil rights law should have prevented the doctors from refusing treatment based on her client’s sexual orientation. “The state has a compelling interest to eradicate invidious discrimination,” she told the court.

A Superior Court judge dismissed the case in 2001 on grounds that federal rules covering employer health plans bar state civil rights actions. In 2003, the San Diego appeals court overturned the decision. When the case returned to Superior Court, Judge Ronald Prager ruled before trial that the doctors could not use religious freedom as a defense because there is no such exemption under the state’s anti-discrimination law, setting the stage for Tuesday’s arguments. Justice Gilbert Nares predicted a long road ahead. “As we all know, this is going to the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said. “It’s just a question of when.” The appeals court has 90 days to rule.

Posted by The Skipper     on 10/12/2005 at 06:39 AM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Sunday - July 31, 2005

Keep It To Yourself

Is anybody besides me getting sick and tired of homosexual lifestyles being thrown in our face every five minutes? I am beyond losing control over this crap. Listen up and listen good! I don’t give a shit what “you people” do in your bedrooms, OK? Just spare me the details. DAMN! And while you’re at it, take down these bullshit signs like the one described below. That is plain out disgusting ....

(WORLDNET DAILY)—A billboard advertising a provocative homosexual website has been posted on a Cambridge, Mass., street near the famed school MIT.

A Massachusetts advocacy group battling the homosexual agenda, Article 8 Alliance, says the ad’s placement is evidence that the legal sanctioning of same-sex “marriage” is the “green light to push [homosexuality] in your face – in the schools, government, businesses, and the public square.”

“This is also about desensitizing you and your family to homosexuality,” the group says. “When will you and your children drive by this in your neighborhood? This is just the beginning.” The billboard, posted by the Clear Channel Communications company, features two men wrapped in an American flag with the message “Come Together.” It advertises the website Gay.com.

The historic Goodridge v. Department of Public Health ruling, in which the state’s highest court fundamentally redefined marriage, has allowed same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004. As WorldNetDaily reported, Article 8 helped initiate a measure under consideration in the Massachusetts legislature to oust the four justices responsible for the decision. The group also is promoting an updated Parents Rights Law to stop accompanying homosexual programs in public schools.

Gay.com is the flagship website for the global media company PlanetOut Inc. The company announced in March “its latest provocative advertising campaign,” featuring “two gay men who find understanding, love and comfort under the protection of the American flag.”

More On This Topic In Our Forums

Posted by The Skipper     on 07/31/2005 at 05:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality •  
• Comments (33) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - May 25, 2005

Extinction Level Event

What with abortion on demand and high homosexual populations, what do you think will happen eventually? You guessed it, the population will disappear. In San Francisco, that is now the case.

San Francisco has the smallest share of small-fry of any major U.S. city. Just 14.5 percent of the city’s population is 18 and under.

It is no mystery why U.S. cities are losing children. The promise of safer streets, better schools and more space has drawn young families away from cities for as long as America has had suburbs.

But kids are even more scarce in San Francisco than in expensive New York (24 percent) or in retirement havens such as Palm Beach, Fla., (19 percent), according to Census estimates.

San Francisco’s large gay population — estimated at 20 percent by the city Public Health Department — is thought to be one factor, though gays and lesbians in the city are increasingly raising families.

One voter initiative approved up to $60 million annually to restore public school arts, physical education and other extras that state spending no longer covers. Another expanded the city’s Children’s Fund, guaranteeing about $30 million a year for after-school activities, child care subsidies and other programs.

“We are at a crossroads here,” said N’Tanya Lee, executive director of the nonprofit Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth. “We are moving toward a place where we could have an infrastructure of children’s services and no children.”

Posted by The Skipper     on 05/25/2005 at 07:34 AM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Saturday - May 21, 2005

Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day

Gay Israeli artists seek Arabs to fall in love with ....

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Two gay Israeli men have installed a huge double bed in a New York art gallery and are inviting Arab men to become their “lover” as part of an exhibition called “Sleeping with the Enemy.”

But the artists who like to be known simply as Gil and Moti talk about the project in romantic terms, saying it’s about “falling in love” rather than sex. Gil said visitors should not come to the show expecting to see pornography.

“The bed is there for us to live in. Artistically there are three pillows to symbolize unity of three people which goes along with the whole concept of make love not war,” he said.

“We try to actually open up a dialogue and debate which is about more important issues than just sexual matters and if there’s sex, OK, but it’s not something we’re interested in discussing,” Gil said.

The sales pitch for the show in which the two live and work in the gallery surrounded by their art reads: “Israeli artists Gil and Moti are gay, married and in love. For 5 weeks, they court an Arab lover.”

Since late 2002 they have made contact online with as many as 300 Arab men from across the Middle East. They typically send a message through a dating site asking if they can paint a picture from the man’s photo and explaining who they are.

They then scan and e-mail the painting as a means of “seduction” and hopefully start a dialogue and meet, Gil said.

The gallery called Jack the Pelican, in Brooklyn, is displaying over 100 of the watercolors, priced at $700-$900, along with some transcripts of e-mail exchanges, photos and oil paintings and the bed.

“We felt frustrated with the political situation in the Middle East,” said Gil. “As Israelis, we grew up with Arabs but we were encouraged by the education system to hate and abuse them so we thought we must do something about it.”

“So we decided to fall in love with one of them.”

Posted by The Skipper     on 05/21/2005 at 02:35 PM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Saturday - May 07, 2005

Viewpoint: Homosexual Activists

he headline in the Washington Post reads “Gay Groups Assail Sperm Bank Rule”. Without even reading the article, you can probably guess what is going on here.

So called “gay groups” are ranting and raving over a new regulation from the Food and Drug Administration, scheduled to go into effect this month, that calls on sperm banks to reject anonymous donations from men who have been sexually active with other men within five years. The homosexual men are up in arms because they think they are being “stigmatized” and discriminated against. The ACLU has probably already been contacted.

Are these people being forced to ride in the back of the bus? Are they being made to use separate drinking fountains? Are they being forced to live in a separate part of town? Are they being denied the right to vote?

The answer to all of the above is, of course, no. They are being denied nothing and are not being seperated from anything. So why are they so upset? They are upset because obviously the government (and the general population) don’t want their sperm. The regulation is merely an attempt to try to prevent sperm from a high risk group from infecting the population. Intravenous drug users and other “high risk” groups are also included in the new regulation.

The homosexual men respond by saying that AIDS is now a heterosexual problem too. I respond by saying that yes, it probably is thanks to the bisexuals and others who transmit it from the homosexual and drug using population. Face it, this disease first entered and spread through the population mainly from homosexuals and that group is still where the majority of AIDS cases appear.

No one is practicing “intolerance” or “discrimination” here. No more so than quarantines of the previous century did. The intent is to isolate an infectious disease and try to keep the general population healthy. Are homosexual men saying that their petty little feelings are more important than the life of another human being? I certainly hope not. If they are, then they have lost all semblance of sanity and civic responsibility.

It is past time to stop all of this intolerance being practiced by every moonbat liberal group with hurt feelings. Attempts to reason with them obviously do not work because they always have the ACLU and teams of lawyers ready to do their bidding and force their agenda on the rest of the population.

So what can we, the general public do? You can write your Congress-critter, which may or may not do any good. What are our choices then? Not much, it seems. Are we being forced to make dangerous decisions and put our lives at risk just to placate a small minority (less than 2%) of the population? You bet we are. The backlash may be coming sooner than these petty little tyrants expect .. in a form they will regret. I believe that if they keep up with this insanity, real prejudice and intolerance will be the only result. In fact, when these groups place their feelings above the risk of death to others, they may receive real hatred and violence before it is all over.

It would be a far, far better thing if these groups would just remain monogamous, practice safe sex and leave the rest of us alone. Don’t count on it, though. That would require common sense and civility on their part.

Posted by The Skipper     on 05/07/2005 at 05:43 AM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - April 25, 2005

Public Display Of Affection

Anyone who has served in the US military knows what PDA means and that it is against regulations. Our military does this to discourage young recruits (and sometimes old hands) from making complete asses of themselves in public. Fortunately, most people with common sense know better than to slobber all over each other in public as it does tend to embaress other people around them. Not that there is anything wrong with a little “face-time”, so to speak but there is a time and a place for it, right? Unfortunately, in Sweden there is a sexual discrimination policeman, appropriately named HomO (no, I’m not making this up) who recently fined a restaurant owner 50,000 crowns ($7,100) who had asked two lesbians to leave the premises because they were kissing. In a related story, the Swedish crown is equal to fourteen cents US .... that alone explains a lot ....

The Court of Appeals in Stockholm ordered restaurant owner Aziz Cakir to pay 50,000 crowns ($7,100) in damages and to cover the legal costs of Sweden’s ombudsman against sexual discrimination, HomO, which filed the appeal.

Cakir asked Anna Fernstrom and Susanne Gustafsson to leave his restaurant after they kissed and later told police he did not let anyone engage in such behavior on his premises regardless of their sexual orientation.

Posted by The Skipper     on 04/25/2005 at 08:38 AM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - April 06, 2005

Taking Bets

The will of the people was made known yesterdsay in Kansas.  71 percent voted on a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage or civil unions.

SEVENTY ONE PERCENT!

What do you want to bet some judge will say it is unconstitutional?

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 04/06/2005 at 06:08 AM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality • Judges-Courts •  
• Comments (17) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Sunday - March 27, 2005

What’s Next??

You really have to wonder about some people.

If we start putting up memorials for the least, little thing like this, (hey, according to “experts” they make up only 3% of the population!) how long before we have memorials to pedophilia or bestiality?  How about one praising all the women who have had abortions?  They’re liberated, too, right?  And make up a far greater percentage of the population.

Look, it’s bad enough putting up this memorial to homosexuals who protested 40 years ago but to put it in Independence Hall?

What an abomination!

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 03/27/2005 at 07:15 AM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - March 09, 2005

Homosexuals In The News

The homo brigades are out in full force on this one.

The Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and the National Center for Lesbian Rights contacted the Pinellas County Juvenile Welfare Board because of board member Cecilia Burke’s comments in written memo on Feb. 7, saying GLSEN and PFLAG “endorse unhealthy sexual practices among youth, including sex between underage youth and adults.”

I don’t know about you but it appears the Welfare Board member is right on the money and talking truth.  For that we must now apologize?  These GLSEN/PFLAG dipshits need to go in a corner, sodomize themselves and each other and get the fuck out of our lives.

Ben Shapiro discusses how the BGLTSA (Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance) is attempting to re-define deviancy into normalcy.  We mentioned the situation under which this first took place a week ago and I bring it up again because it’s my blog and I feel like it it covers an aspect of the homosexual agenda not covered before.

It makes for infuriating reading and when you’re done you will realize that when you say you are heterosexual (and think you are “normal") you will also be including homosexuals, lesbians, transgendered, bisexuals, goat fuckers, dog rapers, cattle violators and child abusers.  OK, maybe not the last 4 but give these BGLTSA assholes long enough and those categories will be there, too.  All you need do to see proof pf my point is read Ben’s account of how history has taken to where we are now.

WTF,O?!?!?!?!?  Homosexuals are now pro-life?  Wow!  Read this to find out why.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 03/09/2005 at 07:09 AM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality •  
• Comments (23) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

Top 10 Lists Of A Different Sort

From The Business Reform Magazine we have this wonderful little compendium of Top 10 lists for business.

The Top Ten Pro-Homosexual Companies in America are listed below.

10. Coors Brewing Co.
9. Nike Inc.
8. Replacements Ltd.
7. Lucent Technologies
6. Apple Computers
5. J.P. Morgan Chase and Co.
4. Eastman Kodak
3. Avaya
2. America Airlines
1. Xerox Corp

What makes them get into the top 10?  Strident mission statements devoted to diversity.  Intense “diversity/homo/lesbian/transgendered etc. sensitivity training, domestic “partner” benefits and donations to homosexual groups and causes.

Here are the Top 10 Anti-Homosexual Companies.  What makes them get into the top 10?  No mission statements devoted to diversity.  Little or no diversity/homo/lesbian/transgendered etc. sensitivity training, virtually non-existent domestic “partner” benefits and no donations to homosexual groups and causes.

10. New NGC, Inc. dba National Gypsum Company
9. Exxon Mobile
8. RadioShack
7. R.R. Donnelley & Sons
6. Shaw Industries Inc. (subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.)
5. Perot Systems Corp.
4. Meijer Inc
3. International Steel Group
2. BB&T Corp.

And coming in at number ONE as the top anti-homosexual company?

(drum roll please....................................)

1. Alltel

All I can say is, “You got that right!”

Now go invest accordingly.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 03/09/2005 at 06:37 AM   
Filed Under: • Economics • Homosexuality •  
• Comments (24) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - March 03, 2005

Here’s A New One

urely you have all heard the following terms:

heterosexual
bisexual
transexual
homosexual
transgendered
metrosexual
bestiality

But I’ll bet you’ve not heard of:

Fabulosexual

Nor:

Heteronormative

Lastly, one invented by me:

Trisexual: one who screws men, women and animals

Got any more?

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 03/03/2005 at 09:43 AM   
Filed Under: • Homosexuality •  
• Comments (18) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

Why Homosexuals Should Not Adopt

nce again, a deep rooted “feeling” that homosexual adoption is very wrong seems to be justified by research into foster children abuse.

Why is it we must insist on doing things we inherently know are so fundamentally wrong?  And then when studies come up supporting our “misgivings”, those things we can’t really quantify but know, internally are an abomination, we still continue to allow it?

When you have over 30% of foster kids abused by homosexual foster parents, something is terribly, horribly wrong. 

Why?  When you consider that only about 3% of the population is homosexual, then what you have is one group of people committing 10 to 11 times more crimes than any other group.

Oh, and incidentally, adoption groups do not ask sexual orientation when matching up adults to kids.  Wouldn’t want to piss off the homosexuals, would we?

One more thing:

The agency would not say whether the information would lead to a change in policy.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 03/03/2005 at 07:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Homosexuality •  
• Comments (2) • 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