Posted by peiper     on 02/08/2010 at 11:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control • Miscellaneous • USA •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

SARA HAS SIGHT ON WHITE HOUSE BUT MINUS THE PARTY.  TEA THAT IS.  ??

SOME COMMENTS ON PALIN by people who don’t know the USA and wouldn’t learn if given the chance. 

A Molly wrote:

I do believe everyone in life gets what they deserve..so if Palin is what America wants, so be it. I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

All I can do from here is hope that Europe will never again be fooled by the lies that have come out of America in the past and will never lead our troops into another 8 years of war on their behalf.

Let the cowboys fight their own battles in the future.

If it’s in Palin you trust, well good luck to you!

Ellie Light wrote:

Sarah Palin is a proven quitter, with little experience and even lower inate intelligence (I can see Russia). Her only accomplishment is that she can reproduce, but even that she did not do properly. She is not even a good mother, raising a daughter that breeds an illegitimate grandchild. She is a joke. Her only supporters are gap toothed inbreds from Appalachia.

And that’s about as kind as it gets here among the comments from ppl foreign and domestic with regard to Americans (who they take to be war loving, ignorant, inbred hillbillys) who led them into an 8 year war ongoing.  The suggestion is also made that America should fight it’s own battles and not drag others into our quarrels.  Some see Palin as “Bush in a wig.”
Tell the truth, the comments section is more interesting then the article but also more aggravating because they also show how little they know us, and how mean spirited some folks can be with regard to the USA.

There was a column recently from America reporting on the trend Obama seems to be setting, that the writer feels is somewhat isolationist.  Which he doesn’t believe to be a good thing.  Being something of an isolationist myself, I wondered if that’s a bad thing.  Is Barry doing something right?  Nah. In my dreams.  But I’ll be honest no matter how bad it might make me look.  I wish we could be isolationist and circle the wagons and tell the world to go to hell.
Americans have enough home grown problems to deal with.  Serious problems that I don’t see being resolved no matter who’s in office.  We mostly aren’t getting along very well with each other, who needs the additional headache of arguments with people outside our own country?

Back to Mrs. Palin for a moment.

She was paid a hefty sum it’s been reported, to address the Tea Party folks in Nashville recently.  As I understand it and if I don’t I know BMEWS will correct me, she also accepted a second speaking date with the TP.  BUT ... she has also appeared FREE on behalf of Republicians who have different views then that of the Tea Party Congress.  She has also agreed to speak on behalf of Sen, McCain.  Why?  He surely isn’t running for anything. Is he?

Sometimes I get to feeling a bit overwhelmed.

Here’s part of the article and as always the rest is at the link below.

Sarah Palin has her sights on the White House not Tea Party movement

Giles Whittell in Washington
The Times

Sarah Palin has given the clearest indication yet that her ambition is to become President of the United States, rather than merely the leader of the radical grassroots Tea Party movement that adores her.

The day after her return to national politics with a barnstorming attack on President Obama in a speech in Nashville, Mrs Palin was shown a poll yesterday ranking her the top Republican candidate for 2012 and asked if she would run.

“I would,” she said without hesitation. “I would, if I believed that that was the right thing to do for my country and for my family.”

In an interview with Fox News, for which she is also a paid analyst, Mrs Palin said that it would be “absurd not to consider what it is that I can potentially do to help our country”. She said that she would not “close a door that could perhaps be open to me in the future” and acknowledged that she had started receiving daily political and economic briefings by e-mail from a panel of Washington experts.

In oblique reference to a disastrous pre-election interview with CBS in 2008, she added: “I sure as heck better be more astute on these national issues than I was two years ago.”

MORE HERE AT THE SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 02/08/2010 at 08:45 AM   
Filed Under: • Celebrities • News-Briefs • Politics • Republicans • Sarah Palin • USA •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - February 03, 2010

who’d have thought the name Nicholson and ‘eye candy’ might be a match?

Ok so it isn’t weekend women but it’s kinda hard to resist.  Even if she wasn’t the daughter of this guy. But since she is and since I can’t wait for the weekend, take a look.  I sure do hope she has the talent to go with the looks, because often times being the kin of a famous parent can work against one.

Jack Nicholson’s daughter gets big acting break as friend of teenage surfer who lost her arm in shark attack

By Daily Mail Reporter

Jack Nicholson’s daughter is following in his footsteps with a big screen appearance in a biopic about surfer Bethany Hamilton, who lost her arm in a shark attack.

Budding actress Lorraine, 19, was spotted filming scenes in a bikini in Hawaii yesterday as shooting began for the new film, titled Soul Surfer.

She plays best friend Alana Blanchard, who was with Hamilton on the day a 14ft tiger shark ripped her left arm off at her local beach in Kauai.

I didn’t think many if any would be interested in the whole article, and why would ya, but here’s the link to the source anyway.

Posted by peiper     on 02/03/2010 at 09:32 AM   
Filed Under: • Celebrities • Eye-Candy • USA •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - January 30, 2010

something to lighten the hearts of the Grumpys .. Grumpiness is a sign of advanced civilisation

Don’t know what BMEWS readers will make of this but be interesting to find out. At least I learned what a bonobo is. I think.  I had never run across that word before.  Have you?  As for the Ramsay fellow mentioned here, I never watched or read him but have heard enough not to want to. If he’s an example of advanced civilization I don’t think I wanna see where it ends.

Victor Meldrews was a grumpy old character in a sit-com called, “One Foot In The Grave.”

The Victor Meldrews of this world should take heart – their grumpiness could be down to being higher up the evolutionary ladder than people who are easy-going.

By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent

Researchers now believe that being aggressive, intolerant and short-tempered could be a sign of a more advanced nature.

A more childlike attitude to behaviour such as tolerance and sharing, could, in contrast, be an indication of not being as developed, the new study suggests.

The news will be welcomed by those who are known to operate on a short fuse, such as talented but foul-mouthed chef Gordon Ramsay and businessman Sir Alan Sugar.

It could also provide scientific weight to the writer George Bernhard Shaw’s famous saying that “all progress depends on the unreasonable man”.

Researchers looked at two different kinds of monkey – the familiar chimpanzee and the less evolved but much more easy going bonobo, two of the closest living relatives to human beings.

Chimpanzees are accepted as more evolved than bonobos in terms of physical appearance, behaviour and social structure.

But chimps are also much more aggressive, particularly as they get older, when they become less tolerant of each other, share less and show more signs of violence to others.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 01/30/2010 at 06:08 AM   
Filed Under: • Animals • Miscellaneous • USA •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - January 26, 2010

What is it about Yanks and their trucks?  Scuza but if you have to ask …..

What’s this fellow trying to tell me?  I get the part about not understanding us but “whyaduck?”

Gee, what’s the problem here?  I don’t own a truck. Never did. Have a friend who had one of those things 8 stories high, needed a helicopter to get into the darn thing, but it was pretty cool to be honest.  I wouldn’t want one but I’ve seen quite a number of them that looked pretty darn good.  Expensive I understand.
I’d rather have a Dusey or a Cord or , oh heck the list is too long.  Basically this fellow’s problem in not understanding is, he isn’t American.  So if his apparent confusion is real, then this is a funny read. But he is no consrv. so be aware of that.  Anyway, what’s with the bow ties he mentions?  I’ve been away too long.  Yeah. And by the looks of things it may be a while longer before I see home sweet home again. 

America leaves me completely baffled. It might just as well be Azerbaijan or Peru

Hugo Rifkind

I don’t understand the first thing about America. I often think I do, but then I read something or, worse, I go there, and I remember that I don’t, at all. Take the Republican victory in Massachusetts. I mean, fine. Whatever. Don’t have free healthcare, then. I still can’t quite grasp why they think it might kill people, or turn the country into Cuba, but never mind that. Instead, let’s talk about the new senator. Lets talk about his victory speech. “I’m Scott Brown. I’m from Wrentham. I drive a truck. And I’m nobody’s senator but yours.”

Here’s a quiz for all you American readers. Can you spot the bit which I find odd? Nope, wrong, we also have people called Scott. Yes, second time lucky. It’s the truck bit.

My general point, I suppose, is . . . wuh? We have trucks, too. We just don’t talk about them much. Is that weird? Are we weird? “When I spoke to the President,” Brown also said in his victory speech, “the first thing I said was ‘Would you like me to drive the truck down to Washington so you can see it?’. ”

Why does he think Obama wants to see his truck? Does Obama want to see his truck? Oh, look, I’m just not going to get it. Don’t even bother. I understand the point of Sarah Palin more than I understand Scott Brown’s truck.

We have a show over here called Newsnight. It’s a news programme, although you guys probably wouldn’t recognise it as one because it sometimes reports on stuff and doesn’t just involve loud men with fake tans competitively stating their hilariously polarised views. They had a feature the other night on the Tea Party movement, anyway, that huge reactive conservative groundswell you’ve got going on over there. The politics of that I could understand just fine. But the people? I didn’t even understand the way they parted their hair.

I didn’t understand their over-sized floral furniture, or their bow-ties. I certainly don’t understand their trucks. I’m not trying to be rude here. I’m just saying. It might as well be Peru to me, or Ghana, or Azerbaijan. Where do you guys get this stuff from? Over here, we base our look on your film stars, your TV stars and your pop stars. Probably our hopes and our dreams, too. On what do you base yours?

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 01/26/2010 at 10:25 AM   
Filed Under: • UK • USA •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - January 20, 2010

Here’s Fred on Everything. Topic today, Affirmative Action

I read this guy a lot. In fact, I get his newsletter. He is one heck of a good writer and even at the odd time I question something he says, he says it so damn well I keep reading. 

He has it right on this subject and I know that from some very personal experience. 

I just guess the problem is no less back in the states then it is here.  Wimps in position of authority seem to rule because other wimps just follow along out of fear or maybe not wanting to get themselves involved.  And they are everywhere.  I suppose in the world we inhabit these days, I understand it even as I dislike the idea.

Toward a Gilded Peasantry

Fred Reed

On the website of WLOX 13, “The Station for Southern Mississippi,” I find the story of Gabe Stabler, eight years old. Because he came home crying from the first grade every day, his parents put a tape recorder in his back pack to see what really went on in class. From the tape we learn much about his teacher, a Ms. Williams, and about affirmative action, and about the United States today:

Gabe: “I don’t know what to do on this.”

Ms. Williams: “Well, you’d better find out. It’s not hard. Nobody else didn’t have to ask no questions bout it. You know what to do, you just want somebody to just sit there and pet you about it, but I ain’t gonna do it. You know how to go in that lunch room and tear that food up every day. Ain’t nothing hard bout that sheet.”

Following this Miltonian eructation, we have:

Ms. Williams: “No, do your work. She ain’t goin to be sittin up in here wanting somebody to help her every time she, cause she don’t wanna apply herself to her work. You know how to go in that cafeteria and enjoy that lunch and breakfast every morning.”

Then, waxing ever more lyrical, even Ciceronian,

Ms. Williams: “Where this go?”

Child: “I colored that yesterday.”

Ms. Williams: “It shouldn’t of got changed at all, that ain’t nothing to be proud of.”

Ms. Williams clearly is barely literate, and should be in the first grade instead of teaching it. Gabe speaks better English than she does. In a country not sliding into degradation, a restraining order would keep her from coming within a hundred yards of a school.

Why do we permit this sort of thing? Ms. Williams is black. The story carefully doesn’t say so, but it doesn’t have to. Only the black uneducated speak as she does.

The proper response from parents would be fury. The discovery that this creature is attempting to turn their children into the equivalent of farm animals ought to result in the lynching of the school board of Mississippi. A civilized people with backbone will not allow their their offspring to be made into gurbling iPodded peasants. But we are not such a civilization.

Why is it happening? “Affirmative action.” Since Ms. Williams does not speak the language of the country, the only possible reason for hiring her is that she is black. She is not just slightly unqualified, allowing an expectation that she might catch up—this being the founding fantasy of “affirmative action”—but absolutely unqualified.

The pattern repeats endlessly. Today I have read that the Chicago police contemplate eliminating their entrance examination on the grounds that not enough blacks pass it. Firemen of my acquaintance tell of women too weak to handle a hose, of female paramedics who can’t carry a stretcher. While I was on the police beat at the Washington Times, I encountered a tiny policewoman who never had to drive the paddy wagon because her feet didn’t reach the pedals.

On intercity buses there once were signs, and probably still are, saying, “Seating is without regard to race, creed, color, sex, or national origin.” Today everything seems to be with regard to nothing else. Anything, everything, must be done to keep the affirmative-action classes happy.

This rush to degradation is not new. In 1981 in Harper’s I wrote, in a piece on race in education, “The bald, statistically verifiable truth is that the teachers’ colleges, probably on ideological grounds, have produced an incredible proportion of incompetent black teachers. Evidence of this appears periodically, as, for example, in the results of a competency test given to applicants for teaching positions in Pinellas County, Florida (which includes St. Petersburg and Clearwater), cited in Time, June 16, 1980. To pass this grueling examination, an applicant had to be able to read at the tenth-grade level and do arithmetic at the eighth-grade level. Though they all held B.A.’s, 25 percent of the whites and 79 percent of the blacks failed. Similar statistics exist for other places.”

If you think it desirable to have black teachers, as I do believe it desirable, then get those who are fit to do the job. Plenty of blacks speak English. If you can’t find enough, then do without. The same applies to women who can’t carry stretchers. Fat chance, though.

What price do we pay for this total abnegation of responsibility, civilizational self-respect, reason? One price is a quiet contempt for blacks, and hostility toward them. Competent blacks are no problem, but “If he doan be eatin dis sangwidge…” doesn’t cut it. Women make perfectly good paramedics, but what is anyone, fellow crewman or patient, supposed to think when she can’t lift the stretcher? (Answer: Scorn, anger.) What does a patient think on seeing a black doctor come his way? “Oh god….” The doctor may have gotten through medical school on ability but, given affirmative action, you figure he probably didn’t. Blacks know this of course, and resent it. Knowing that they are despised, they say the hell with it, and content themselves with just getting by. This is useful?

The suspicion of affirmative action pervades American life. After Katrina, a friend in federal employ visited FEMA. It was, he said, very heavily black, on which fact he blamed the disastrous performance of the agency in New Orleans. Was he right? I don’t know. In the absence of affirmative action, the question would not be asked.

Thus the defining principle of American politics arises: If you don’t think in racial terms, if you look only to ability, you are a racist. Count me in.

This leads to another question, seldom asked and never answered: how much does affirmative action really cost the country? If you hire someone to do a job who can’t do it very well, it doesn’t get done very well. This doesn’t strike me as a profound thought, but it seems to elude many people. In the case of Ms. Williams, the damage is great and clear. It isn’t always so stark. When you regularly pass over the first 135 people, all white, on a test for promotion to sergeant in a police department, so as to get to the blacks and Latinos, what kind of police department do you get? If you hire reasonably good female engineers because they are female, instead of very good males, the consequences are less obvious, but there.

And when it becomes a firing offense to notice, the result is a permanent, irremediable drop in the quality of the work force. I don’t suppose it really matters though. The only serious economic competitors the US faces are, oh, Japan, Korea, China, India, Taiwan, Brazil, and the European Union. Piece of cake.

FRED REED

Posted by peiper     on 01/20/2010 at 05:32 PM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Education • Republicans • USA •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - January 15, 2010

EU LAW CHIEF SAYS BRITS MUST PAY BENEFITS TO FAMILY AND WIVES OF TERRORISTS.

Betcha many Brits would just love to whack this bleeding heart.  Hell, I’m not a Brit and I’d like to.  I kinda doubt the Brit govt. bad though it is, will go along.  But who knows?  The govt. is one of the left and nothing they do would surprise anyone anymore.
Just another nail in coffin of the UKs sovereignty if they approve this opinion.

Yes I know I keep banging on and repeating myself on the subject but .... Keep ur eyes opened America, and clean ur ears.  There are folks at home who are very happy to give up some American sovereignty in exchange for what they think is world harmony and peace etc.  You won’t find em on the right so that should narrow the field a bit.

Meanwhile txpayers, chew on this excerpt from my embassy newsletter. 

New USAID Chief Dr. Rajiv Shah, Sees U.S. Forging Deeper Partnerships Overseas

Shah says the U.S. government now wants to give foreign countries more control over how American aid is spent. But, he also says measures will be in place to make sure that money is used wisely. “As we, and if we, give up control to some extent in order to support country leadership, we should have high standards and we should have strong ability to track outcomes to monitor resources and how they flow and to ensure that we’re generating real results in a sustainable way for American taxpayers,” he said.

USAID currently provides $20 billion in annual aid to development projects around the world. The Obama administration plans to expand that to $50 billion a year by 2012 for healthcare, education and agriculture.

By William Ide
VOA News

The U.S. Agency for International Development has sworn in a new administrator, Dr. Rajiv Shah, at a ceremony January 7 in Washington. In an exclusive interview with Voice of America, Shah talked about the Obama administration’s plans to deepen its partnerships overseas and listen more to the countries the agency serves.

A 36-year-old medical doctor by training, Shah comes to USAID with expertise in agriculture. He previously served as the director of agricultural development with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and later in a top post at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

But, he says, the mission of USAID is his passion.

As a son of Indian immigrants, Shah says that he started visiting India and other parts of the world at a young age and saw firsthand the kind of extreme conditions of poverty and human suffering that exist across the globe. “The opportunity to join an agency that has as its core mission working on that problem, working in a way that it’s respectful of the people who live in those environments and learns from them, is a great, great honor,” he said.

As head of USAID, Shah says he plans to hire several hundred new development experts and individuals with technical expertise to expand the agency’s work capacity.

Very busy next several hours so I’ll leave you with this article I just found in our paper.  Madness! Lunacy! MOONBATS everywhere.

WIVES OF TERRORISTS MUST GET THEIR BENEFITS BACK:  IT’S A HUMAN RIGHT, SAYS EURO LAW CHIEF.

By James Slack
Last updated at 7:02 AM on 15th January 2010

Wives of suspects who Britain says have links to Osama bin Laden have appealed against Treasury restrictions

Europe’s law chief wants Britain to reinstate the payment of tens of thousands of pounds in State handouts to the wives of suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban fanatics.

Ministers have halted benefit payouts made to the families of suspected terrorists to prevent the money falling into the hands of banned groups.

The Treasury says the power is a vital weapon in the war against terrorism. It stems from a crackdown on terrorist financing launched in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

However, the senior advocate of the European Court of Justice, Paolo Mengozzi, yesterday declared the decision to stop the payments was unfair on the grounds of human rights.

His opinion is likely to prove crucial when Europe’s highest court considers three test cases brought by the wives of British-based terror suspects later this year.

In eight out of every ten cases, the court has agreed with the Advocate General - making it highly likely the UK taxpayer will soon begin forking out hundreds of pounds a week to the families.

Whitehall officials have refused to name the families involved in the test cases - but all three of the husbands are foreign nationals on the United Nations list of international terror suspects.

They have been linked by security officials to Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban

The payouts to their wives include income support, child benefit and housing assistance worth ‘several hundred’ pounds a week.

Last night, campaign groups said it would be outrageous for the European courts to once again water down Britain’s anti-terror laws.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘It is absurd that this unaccountable European court is trying to dictate to the British Government how we spend our own money. British taxpayers are already sick of bankrolling the lifestyles of people who preach hate against our country, and there is no way that they should be able to fund their activities or their families through milking the welfare system.

‘Whether you agree with the judgment or not, it is a choice that should be made by our country, not these lawyers who are answerable to nobody.’

Under the Treasury’s rules, social security payments cannot be made available ‘directly or indirectly, to, or for the benefit of’ anyone who is on the UN terrorism sanctions list.

This has been applied to the wives of as many as ten terror suspects, who have been hit with licences restricting their access to state funds.

In the case due before the EU court, the three women claim this amounts to a violation of their human right to a family life.

Their first appeal was rejected. But in a second appeal to the House of Lords, Britain’s highest court, judges had concerns about how the law was being applied.

In April 2008, they asked the European Court of Justice to provide a ruling.

Any decision by the European court, which is expected to issue a final judgment in three to six months, will be binding on the House of Lords and on courts throughout the EU.

In advance of this decision, Mr Mengozzi issued a 26-page written opinion in which he argued the phrase ‘directly or indirectly, to, or for the benefit of’ suspected terrorists was very widely drawn.

He acknowledged that the payments made to the wives could benefit their husbands, but disputed whether those benefits could easily be converted into funds to finance terrorism.

Mr Mengozzi advised the European Court of Justice to rule that the extra restrictions were unjustified and violated the right to respect for family life.

Earlier this week, the European Court of Human Rights dealt a separate blow to UK anti-terror policy when it ruled the stopping and searching of suspects without grounds for suspicion was unlawful.

The searches had been a key plank of policing for over a decade.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 01/15/2010 at 06:48 AM   
Filed Under: • Economics • EUro-peons • Insanity • International • Obama, The One • UK • USA •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner