konane's Blog

Typical socialist strategy .... confiscate guns from law abiding so that they can not protect themselves from criminals who DO possess firearms and YES have a solid history of using them.

One of the strategies used by Mao in the genocidal communist conquest of China.  Read if you don't believe it.

http://ninecommentaries.com/ 

In her response to Chairman Kariyawasam’s ‘non-paper’, Peters wrote that IANSA welcomed “the reference to regulating the possession of small arms and light weapons” but urged that it be expanded.   She also raised the gun prohibition specter explicitly, recommending the outright prohibition of semi-automatic and automatic rifles and declaring that “(M)any States already prohibit the civilian possession of light weapons, and this should be recognised in the paragraph devoted to light weapons control.” 

Peters knows that the United States will block any legally binding treaty that contains a reference to regulation of possession of small arms.  However, she is doing all that she can to get a UN-sponsored international norm against individual gun possession on the record somehow – what IANSA in the past has referred to as “norms of non-possession.”  She claims that many member states are calling for the review conference's Outcome Document to recognize the critical importance of national gun laws and to suggest guidelines or standards for such laws.  Indeed, IANSA has the backing of an inter-governmental organization known as The Parliamentary Forum on Small Arms and Light Weapons which, according to its website, was created to serve as an international platform for parliamentarians interested in small arms related work, to contribute to the advancement of the small arms agenda, and “to provide space for parliamentarians and civil society to meet and join forces”.   The Parliamentary Forum is in complete synch with Rebecca Peters’ IANSA agenda.  It proposed a ‘Model Parliamentary Resolution on Small Arms and Light Weapons’ that resolved to “strongly recommend that governments prohibit the civilian possession and use of all light weapons and automatic and semi-automatic rifles and machine guns.”

Ironically, IANSA is headquartered in London.  One of its UK-based member organizations called International Alert showed no compunction at all in boldly declaring that “the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee individuals the right to possess or carry guns.”   Apparently some British folks have forgotten from whom we won our freedom -and why we sought it in the first place.  We should as a nation celebrate our Declaration of Independence by telling the gun prohibitionists who are assembling in New York from all over the world during our Independence Day holiday to either stay out of our business or stay out of our country.

"Routine Evil

Did anyone believe for one moment that they would be treated with respect according to the Geneva Convention?

Only the fact that these fanatics have been on the run prevented a more spectacular staging of their deaths.

This brutal murder brings revulsion but not surprise.

This is the routine evil of those worse than beasts.

This is the routine evil that beheaded Daniel Pearl, and Nick Berg; that left Van Gogh dead on a street in Holland.

This is the routine evil that still wraps itself in the garb of a religion while leaving young students bound and shot beside their bus and innocent women and children blown to bits in the market place.

The routine evil that draws comfort from the ignorant maunderings of a Murtha or a Sheehan; that somehow escapes the diligent moral radar of Human Rights Watch.

The routine evil that finds shelter in partisan "talking points" about the war and the shameless babble of armchair thumbsuckers about "reciprocity" with Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo.

The routine evil of men with a vision of a world of subjugated women and mindless children, ignorant of all but blood and suicide and revenge.

This is the routine evil that dreams of cyanide gas in subways and thirsts for a nuclear weapon.

This is the routine evil that some still think can be embraced into civility, "brought into government," tamed away from its loathsome imperatives.

This is the routine evil that will not be ignored and must be exterminated. "

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062106D

Ralph Kinney Bennett is a TCS contributing editor.  "

At heart of socialist agenda is asset re-distribution (yes forcibly taking what you have through taxation out the waz ... and giving it to someone else), plus NO private property rights via the same process, I find his a relief given recent Supreme Court rulings about eminent domain. 

"Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Attorney General shall:

(i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and

(ii) monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

(b) Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law:

(i) comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and

(ii) provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii).

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:

(a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;

(b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity;

c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;

(d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;

(e) acquiring abandoned property;

(f) quieting title to real property;

(g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;

(h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or

(i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency or the head thereof; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

June 23, 2006.

Earlier in this century there were more trees shading, cooling the earth because development had not encroached on forested areas, clear-cutting many. 

Ever felt a breeze flow out from a shaded area on a hot day???? 

Much cooler than one blowing across an exposed lawn or bare land. 

Obviously global warming Chicken-Littles want to leave their imprint on history through engineering fear ....... when simple logic works much better.  It's far easier to manipulate the media for a humanitarian-environmental gold star than it is to stay behind a national tree planting project applicable to area climates.  Looks like another way for the MSM to award itself and science to support itself on government grants which furnish crumbs of validity so small they wouldn't feed an ant.

Trees, maybe not the whole answer but IMHO a very big part of helping alleviate "heat-island effect" many areas are experiencing where it's simply not cool enough to condense rain from water rich clouds.  

"EARTH HOTTEST IT'S BEEN IN 2,000 YEARS

"The headlines are screaming today that thanks to global warming, the Earth is now hotter than it's been in 2,000 years!  Boy, we've really screwed up the planet, haven't we?  It's now supposedly warmer than it was when Jesus was hanging around.  According to something called "The National Academy of Sciences," using climate data for the last 200 years they have decided that humans are responsible for making the Earth hotter than it's been in the last 2,000 years.

That's right...the temperature data barely goes back 200 years...and now they know how hot the Earth was 2,000 years ago?  That's strike one. Supposedly they used data gathered from tree rings, lake sediments and so forth to determine how hot it was all that time ago.  But that is an educated guess and not fact.  And by the way, buried at the end of the news story is a fact the global warming fanatics don't want you to know.

The overall temperature of the Northern Hemisphere only rose 1 degree in the 20th century.  1 degree! That's some global warming. "

http://boortz.com/nuze/200606/06232006.html#hothothot

Hmmmmm, no wonder China is becoming so technically advanced so quickly. 

Clinton tied our intellingence into hard knots to prevent it from discovering he was filling his pockets with illegal campaign contributions from China in exchange for declassifying top secret dual use technonogy which was sold to China by Loral Corp and others. 

At least intelligence was keeping an eye on him during Bush 41 before it was totally decimated.   

"Ex-DIA analyst admits passing secrets to China

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 23, 2006

<excerpt>

A former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst has pleaded guilty to illegally holding classified documents and admitted in a plea agreement to passing "top secret" information to Chinese intelligence officials.
    Ronald N. Montaperto, the former analyst who held a security clearance as a China specialist at a U.S. Pacific Command research center until 2004, pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful retention of national defense information, according to court papers and law officials familiar with the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
    "Montaperto admitted to verbally providing [Chinese military] attaches a considerable amount of information that was useful to them, including classified information," according to a statement of facts submitted in the case.
    Montaperto told investigators he could not recall specific information he gave Chinese attaches Col. Yang Qiming, Col. Yu Zhenghe and other Chinese officers during his 22-year career in government. But the statement said it included both "secret" and "top secret" data. It also said he had close unauthorized relationships with the two officers.
    The guilty plea was part of an agreement reached Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. The conviction can carry fines of up to $250,000 and a prison term of up to 10 years. Sentencing is set for Sept. 8.
    A Pentagon official said Montaperto's value to China included both the secrets he shared and his role facilitating Chinese deception of U.S. intelligence by providing feedback on how those efforts were working.
    A senior U.S. intelligence official bluntly stated, "He was a spy for China." .....

......"Montaperto, 66, joined the DIA in 1981 and eight years later sought a post at the CIA that eventually led to suspicions he was a spy for China. An investigation of his links to Chinese intelligence in 1991 was dropped for lack of evidence."....

 http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060623-120347-7268r.htm

Picked this link up from another site.  Same site also provides information about the following chemical agents:

Last night Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-MI, released the declassified overview of a report produced by the National Ground Intelligence Center, the group that has searched Iraq for Saddam Hussein’s WMDs since 2004. Its stunning revelation: there were WMDs, after all.

Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions, which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf war chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf war chemical munitions are assessed to still exist. That means in addition to the 500, there are filled and unfilled munitions still believed to exist within the country.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-MI, noted this is significant, since “the impression that the Iraqi Survey Group left with the American people was they didn't find anything.”

The report further justified President Bush’s rationale for toppling Saddam: he had WMDs that he may have transferred to terrorists.

All of which makes the anti-Bush, antiwar Left’s rhetoric sound more shrill and opportunistic than it did at the time:

• President Bush “engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate the facts in service to a totalistic ideology.” – Vice President Al Gore in a 2003 speech before MoveOn.org.
  
• “As in Vietnam, truth was the first casualty of this war.” – Ted Kennedy in a speech at Johns Hopkins University early last year.
• “What we see today is very much like what was going in Watergate. It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war.” – Howard Dean, in the same interview in which he said “the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.”
  
• “We know now that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction over there. But Coretta [Scott King] knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here.” – Rev. Joseph Lowery, at Coretta Scott King’s funeral.
  
• “He misled every one of us.” – John Kerry in 2003.
  
• “He lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, and he lied about the war.” – Maxine Waters, D-CA.
• “We cannot lead if our leaders mislead.” – Former President Jimmy Carter at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

These rhetorical assaults made against a sitting president during a time of war would be somewhat less vicious, egregious, or gratuitous were they born of heartfelt conviction. However, yesterday’s disclosure was not exactly news. For one thing, many of the “Bush lied”/”Saddam never had WMDs” brigade had thundered that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons before, during, and after the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Only after the Soros-funded "base" of their party made a pro-war stance political suicide did most of today's critics turn against the president, the war, and the mission they had sent more than 100,000 American troops to die achieving.

Then the president’s harshest detractors turned a blind eye to proof of Saddam’s verboten cache.

• In early 2004, Dutch officials discovered five pounds of yellowcake uranium ore in scrap metal imported from Iraq.
• In subsequent months, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found parts of banned al-Samoud 2 (SA2) missiles shipped around the world as “scrap.”
• In April 2004, Jordanian officials seize 20 tons of WMDs from al-Qaeda containing 70 different chemical agents, including Sarin and VX gas. King Abdullah announced on April 17 the stockpiles originated in Iraq. If detonated as planned, they would have killed at least 80,000 people.
• The following month, Saddam loyalists fired a “chemical binary projectile” filled with Sarin gas at U.S. troops in Iraq.
• In early 2006, Gen. Georges Sada, the number two man in the Iraqi air force, told American media outlets that Saddam Hussein buried some WMDs in concrete underground bunkers in Iraq; others he shipped or airlifted to Syria with Russian assistance.

A few have responded. The Daily Kos featured the headline “PA-Sen: Santorum Makes Up.” To justify its profane assertion, it cites all the inspectors who didn’t find WMDs – which is rather like the defense calling witnesses who had not see the accused commit the murder.

Even as incontrovertible proof exonerated the president, Gucci Marxist and ignoramus Robert Scheer told MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson last night, “We’re talking about whether it’s right to lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction…so I want a candidate that will tell the truth about the lies of this administration.”

As the weeks unfold, the Democratic Party’s base will likely adopt Scheer’s m.o. as their own: after all, the Big Lie tactic has proven successful elsewhere. The Left’s hardcore activists, invested in American defeat in Iraq and Republican defeat in ’06 and ’08, will not refrain from calling President Bush a lying Nazi even if Saddam, in a fit of hunger-induced insanity, admitted every sin and dark machination lurking in his evil heart.

But their continuing to do so should underscore their idiocy and mendacity."

 http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=23059

Live embedded links.

 Another email treasure.  Have never seen a comparison like this.  Amazing, very humbling!!

Given the sun's size and scientific proof of it YES burning hotter, looks like that could have an effect on earth's temperature without fossil fuel being in the picture.

Came in email .... utterly amazing.

"Daily Kos: "How Quaint"

Two US soldiers kidnapped in Iraq have been found: Bodies of missing U.S. soldiers recovered.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The bodies of two U.S. soldiers reported captured last week have been recovered, and an Iraqi official said Tuesday the men were “killed in a barbaric way.” Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed responsibility for killing the soldiers, and said the successor to slain terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had “slaughtered” them, according to a Web statement that could not be authenticated.

The language in the statement suggested the men had been beheaded.

The sick freaks at Daily Kos are gloating: Daily Kos: So our boys were tortured - how quaint.

The bodies of the two captured U.S. soldiers were found in Iraq - bearing signs of “barbaric torture.”

How quaint.

I hope Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo will sleep well tonight, with visions of those boys’ bodies and the horrible barbarities inflicted upon them dancing in their heads. Perhaps Gonzales, and Yoo, and Rumsfeld and Bush will be able to envision the same inhumanities being visited upon their family members and loved ones as they drift off to peaceful slumber.

This cannot stand. We cannot allow this administration and its incomprehensible defense of and support for torture in violation of the “quaint” Geneva Conventions to remain.

The chickens have come home to roost. As ye sew, so shall ye reap.

I weep for my country, and for the families and loved ones of those in Iraq and Afghanistan, those yet living and those already dead.

Peace.  "

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21135_Daily_Kos-_How_Quaint&only

UPDATE: I wrote this diary early this morning, in haste. I was so upset when I heard the news about our soldiers having been tortured that I could barely contain my anger.

I posted it quickly, knowing that I had meetings to attend off and on throughout the day. It moved to the Recommended list, but I was unable to attend to it full-time; additionally, the !@#$%@#! server errors made it extremely difficult to move through the comments.

Based on many of the comments, I thought it would be best if I were to clarify some of my statements above.

My heart is broken by the brutal and senseless murder of these two young men. The fact that they were tortured makes the grief all the more grievous. I have not a shred of doubt that the barbarians who did this to them - who alone among all humans, are 100% responsible for their actions - will pay the price for their heinous acts, whether in this life or the next. In the meantime, I pray for the souls of those killed and for the comfort of those who loved them, and for all who care about their fate.

I wrote this diary because I was enraged that our government - my government - could have taken - and repeatedly defended - a position that the provisions of the Geneva Conventions - provisions written with the understanding that war is a brutal and savage activity at its core, and that humans engaged in war often are prone to brutal and savage behaviors - are merely "quaint" anachronisms, no longer applicable to our current world situation, and that torture is an acceptable practice for our society.

Such a position is a disgrace to the people, history and ideals of the United States of America, and especially to those who have risked or sacrificed their lives to defend those people and ideals. That is not what we stand for, nor is it what our men and women put their lives on the line - and sometimes die - for. We as a country are better than that. I am angry that my country no longer can claim the moral high ground when an atrocity such as the torture and murder of these young men occurs at the hands of barbarians.

I do not wish ill to Messrs. Gonzales, Yoo, Bush or Rumfeld, nor to any members of their families. I was writing out of anger, and what I wrote in that paragraph was wrong. I apologize for having written it. I cannot pretend that I did not write it, but I do not wish to perpetuate what I wrote. I have changed the offending sentences.

I am heartsick today. I am sorry for causing misunderstanding. - OH"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/20/101853/419

My opinion ..............         

"Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More Than Conservatives Do

By Dennis Prager

Source Real Clear Politics

" Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is this?

After all, if the science is as conclusive as Al Gore, Time, Newsweek, The New York Times and virtually every other spokesman of the Left says it is, conservatives are just as likely to be scorched and drowned and otherwise done in by global warming as liberals will. So why aren't non-leftists nearly as exercised as leftists are? Do conservatives handle heat better? Are libertarians better swimmers? Do religious people love their children less?

The usual liberal responses -- to label a conservative position racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic or the like -- obviously don't apply here. So, liberals would have to fall back on the one remaining all-purpose liberal explanation: "big business." They might therefore explain the conservative-liberal divide over global warming thus: Conservatives don't care about global warming because they prefer corporate profits to saving the planet.

But such an explanation could not explain the vast majority of conservatives who are not in any way tied into the corporate world (like this writer, who has no stocks and who, moreover, regards big business as amoral as leftists do).

No, the usual liberal dismissals of conservatives and their positions just don't explain this particularly illuminating difference between liberals and conservatives.

Here are six more likely explanations:

-- The Left is prone to hysteria. The belief that global warming will destroy the world is but one of many hysterical notions held on the Left. As noted in a previous column devoted to the Left and hysteria, many on the Left have been hysterical about the dangers of the PATRIOT Act and the NSA surveillance of phone numbers (incipient fascism); secondhand smoke (killing vast numbers of people); drilling in the remotest area of Alaska (major environmental despoliation); and opposition to same-sex marriage (imminent Christian theocracy).

-- The Left believes that if The New York Times and other liberal news sources report something, it is true. If the cover of Time magazine says, "Global Warming: Be Worried, Very Worried," liberals get worried, very worried, about global warming.

It is noteworthy that liberals, one of whose mottos is "question authority," so rarely question the authority of the mainstream media. Now, of course, conservatives, too, often believe mainstream media. But conservatives have other sources of news that enable them to achieve the liberal ideal of questioning authority. Whereas few liberals ever read non-liberal sources of information or listen to conservative talk radio, the great majority of conservatives are regularly exposed to liberal news, liberal editorials and liberal films, and they have also received many years of liberal education.

-- The Left believes in experts. Of course, every rational person, liberal or conservative, trusts the expertise of experts -- such as when experts in biology explain the workings of mitochondria, or when experts in astronomy describe the moons of Jupiter. But for liberals, "expert" has come to mean far more than greater knowledge in a given area. It now means two additional things: One is that non-experts should defer to experts not only on matters of knowledge, but on matters of policy, as well. The second is that experts possess greater wisdom about life, not merely greater knowledge in their area of expertise.

That is why liberals are far more likely to be impressed when a Nobel Prize winner in, let us say, physics signs an ad against war or against capital punishment. The liberal is bowled over by the title "Nobel laureate." The conservative is more likely to wonder why a Nobel laureate in physics has anything more meaningful to say about war than, let us say, a taxi driver.

-- People who don't confront the greatest evils will confront far lesser ones. Most humans know the world is morally disordered -- and socially conscious humans therefore try to fight what they deem to be most responsible for that disorder. The Right tends to fight human evil such as communism and Islamic totalitarianism. The Left avoids confronting such evils and concentrates its attention instead on socioeconomic inequality, environmental problems and capitalism. Global warming meets all three of these criteria of evil. By burning fossil fuels, rich countries pollute more, the environment is being despoiled and big business increases its profits.

-- The Left is far more likely to revere, even worship, nature. A threat to the environment is regarded by many on the Left as a threat to what is most sacred to them, and therefore deemed to be the greatest threat humanity faces. The cover of Vanity Fair's recent "Special Green Issue" declared: "A Graver Threat Than Terrorism: Global Warming." Conservatives, more concerned with human evil, hold the very opposite view: Islamic terror is a far graver threat than global warming.

-- Leftists tend to fear dying more. That is one reason they are more exercised about our waging war against evil than about the evils committed by those we fight. The number of Iraqis and others Saddam Hussein murdered troubles the Left considerably less than even the remote possibility than they may one day die of global warming (or secondhand smoke).

One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad."

Be warned that if you have a weak stomach or are not grounded enough to see what Saddam left behind, DON'T CLICK THE LINK.

Boortz has said repeatedly if the hospitality mat is withdrawn they will leave.  Statement only logical, like the source or not. 

Since the feds especially pantywaists in the Senate have shown they don't "want to hurt the invader's feelings" then responsibility to do something falls further down the food chain.

HAZLETON, Pa. - With tensions rising and its police department and municipal budget stretched thin, this small northeastern Pennsylvania city is about to begin what the mayor calls one of the toughest crackdowns on illegal immigrants in the United States.

"Illegal immigrants are destroying the city," said Mayor Lou Barletta, a Republican. "I don't want them here, period."
Last week Barletta introduced, and the City Council tentatively approved, a measure that would revoke the business licenses of companies that employ illegal immigrants; impose $1,000 fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants; and make English the city's official language.

As Congress debates changes to the nation's immigration policy, some cities are taking matters into their own hands, saying they have no choice but to crack down on illegal immigrants themselves. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060620/ap_on_re_us/illegal_immigrants_crackdown_4

One terrorist cell at a time globally and perhaps they'll begin to get the message it's not a good profession to be in. 

Amazing  ...MSM runs with the story when Russians kill an Islamic terrorist, but side with defeatists when we're obviously succeeding globally.