Wednesday, July 16, 2008

This just in...July 17, 2008

Russian Charged With Trying to Smuggle Potential WMD Material Into Iran
Note from Storm'n Norm'n:
This is what they're telling us. What are they not saying?
Thursday, July 17, 2008
MOSCOW — The founder of a Russian company involved in trade with Iran has been charged with trying to smuggle a metal that can be used for weapons of mass destruction or delivery systems to the Islamic republic, prosecutors said Thursday.
The metal in question is tantalum, the Russian Prosecutor General's Office said. It can be used in the production of chemical processing equipment, nuclear reactors and missile parts, and is subject to export restrictions under Russian law.
Tantalum powder, a super-grade chemical, can also be used in the manufacture of mobile phones, personal computers, motor vehicles and electronics goods.
Prosecutors in southern Russia's Astrakhan region, across the Caspian Sea from Iran, have sent their case against Anar Godzhayev to court, the Prosecutor General's Office said in a statement. That means Godzhayev, a citizen of Uzbekistan, could face trial soon.
He and his lawyers were not immediately available to comment. Godzhayev is being held in Astrakhan.
Prosecutors claim Godzhayev lied about the contents of an outgoing shipment in customs documents after a business partner, in July 2007, asked him to send more than a ton of materials containing tantalum to Iran. He was detained after customs officials checked the shipment in a container on a boat due to leave for Iran.
Russia supports Iran's right to nuclear energy and is building the nation's first nuclear power plant.
While Russian leaders have said there is no evidence proving claims by the U.S. and other Western countries that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, Moscow is involved in international efforts to persuade Iran to ease those fears by abandoning uranium enrichment.
Russia has also questioned U.S. assessments of the potential threat from Iranian missiles.
But amid tense ties, Russia and the United States say they are cooperating well in efforts to thwart the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Godzhayev could be sentenced to seven years in prison if convicted.

Next Item...

You may be reading this but the people who should are that means it's up to you to spread the word.

Nothing calumnious about this... just more evidence Obama follows the Saul Alinsky rule of law. Say what you got to say as long as the ends justifies thes means...FOR POWER AND CONTROL!
July 15, 2008

When he was a state senator in Illinois in June 2002, Barack Obama was explicitly asked by Chicago media personality Jeff Berkowitz whether he supports school vouchers. “I would support anything that is going to be better for the children of Illinois,” he said. He emphatically added that “I am not closed minded on the issue.”

In February 2008, Obama spoke to reporters from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about the issue. Still keeping an open mind, he said, “If there was any argument for vouchers, it was ‘Let’s see if the experiment works.’ And if it does, whatever my preconception, you do what’s best for kids.”

However, last Saturday Obama told the American Federation of Teachers that he was opposed to vouchers. When his campaign was asked about his new position, it released a statement saying, “Senator Obama has always been a critic of vouchers.”

Commenting today is Catholic League president Bill Donohue:
“Guess Obama couldn’t resist pandering to the teachers union. It’s so easy to tell the media that keeping an open mind on school vouchers is the best way to go. But when cash counts—and the American Federation of Teachers has plenty of it—who cares about principle? Fact is, no amount of empirical evidence was ever going to change his mind.

“Obama now joins a long list of African American elites who wouldn’t dare send their kids to an urban public school, but who works hard at every turn to deny poor black parents the same options he and his wife are so lucky to have. We hope that Catholics, as well as African Americans, get the message.”

In other news...

The Police State Nation of Massachusetts is now imposing laws against nature. Massachusetts is by far the most un-Constitutional government of the State, by the State, and for the State than any among the the fifty that hold a star on the banner of freedom. It is run by Socialists and hypocritical so-called Christians…the worst among them are the Catholics who go to Church on Sunday and forget what they Prayed for on Monday. - Norman E. Hooben - "A proud Catholic proud of my Faith. A proud Catholic NOT so proud of my Church!" - July 16th 2008

A 1913 Law Dies to Better Serve Gay Marriages
Published: July 16, 2008

BOSTON — Massachusetts may have been the first state to legalize same-sex marriage for its residents, but when California last month invited out-of-state gay and lesbian couples to get married, the potential economic benefits did not go unnoticed here. Now Massachusetts wants to extend the same invitation.

Lisa Poole/Associated Press

The Massachusetts Senate voted to repeal a 1913 law.
On Tuesday, the State Senate voted to repeal a 1913 law that prevents Massachusetts from marrying out-of-state couples if their marriages would not be legal in their home states. The repeal, which passed with no objections on a voice vote, is expected to pass the House later this week. Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat and a supporter of same-sex marriage whose 18-year-old daughter recently disclosed publicly that she is a lesbian, has said he will sign the repeal.
The repeal of the out-of-state marriage ban would come more than four years after Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay men and lesbians to marry, and same-sex marriage advocates said the timing was carefully calculated to catch the prevailing political — and economic — winds.

State officials said they expected a multimillion-dollar benefit in weddings and tourism, especially from people who live in New York. A just-released study commissioned by the State of Massachusetts concludes that in the next three years about 32,200 couples would travel here to get married, creating 330 permanent jobs and adding $111 million to the economy, not including spending by wedding guests and tourist activities the weddings might generate.

“We now have this added pressure, given what’s happened in California, that we really think that it is a good thing that we be prepared to receive the economic benefit,” State Senator Dianne Wilkerson, a Democrat who sponsored the repeal bill, said Tuesday after the vote.

Ms. Wilkerson added, “For me it wasn’t the most important basis of the argument, but it certainly is a perk.”

Legislators and same-sex marriage advocates said their primary motivation for the repeal was to allow all same-sex couples an opportunity to marry and to revoke a law that many saw as discriminatory. The law, believed to have been designed to uphold other states’ bans on interracial marriage, was invoked in 2004 by Gov. Mitt Romney, a same-sex marriage opponent who said he did not want to make Massachusetts “the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.”
Kofi Jones, spokeswoman for Secretary Dan O’Connell of Housing and Economic Development, said: “The administration believes repealing this discriminatory and antiquated law is simply the right thing to do. The study does show, though, that this action could also bring some added economic benefits to the commonwealth, which would be welcomed.”

Ted Jarrett, owner of the Old Mill on the Falls Bed and Breakfast in Hatfield, Mass., which plays host to many same-sex weddings, said: “Obviously it would help us from a business standpoint. I kind of feel like there will be people coming in.”

Politically, the California decision and a decision by Gov. David A. Paterson of New York to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, gave supporters of same-sex marriage here the fuel they needed to press for repeal without fear that it would become a lightning rod in the presidential election, advocates said.

“We were collectively thinking about planning to wait until after the November elections because we were concerned that the far right, the Karl Rove types of people, would once again try to use this issue as a wedge issue in the campaign,” said Marc Solomon, campaign director for MassEquality. “Once the California decision happened and out-of-state couples could go to California, there was no reason not to move forthwith.”

Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said that many lawmakers felt the California ruling made support for lifting the ban far less controversial, and that the economic argument did not hurt.

“Like other states, it’s tough fiscal times,” Ms. Isaacson said, “and everyone recognizes that this will be an economic boon for Massachusetts because every gay person who comes here to marry, most won’t come alone.”

She continued, “They will bring their families and their friends and all those people will stay at the hotels, eat at the restaurants, shop at the stores and hire caterers and florists and musicians.”

The study predicts that most of the couples — about 21,000 — will come from New York, nearly half of the 48,761 same-sex couples in that state.

Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay rights group in New York, said that he could not speculate on the numbers and that “there are a certain percentage of people like myself” who will “wait till New York issues marriage licenses.”

But, he predicted “a lot of Jet Blue cancellations from LaGuardia to Laguna and some Amtrak purchases from New York to Boston,” adding, “Tanglewood, the Red Lion Inn, how do you say no?”

Mr. Van Capelle and other advocates said they expected the Massachusetts decision to galvanize efforts to persuade other states, particularly those near Massachusetts, to legalize same-sex marriage.

Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, said that in a few states “there may be some impact.” But, he said, citing the 26 states with constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage: “I wouldn’t say the other side is gaining momentum. I would say that the other side has just come up for air with the California ruling after a long period of regression.”

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said the repeal “will open up a Pandora’s box of lawsuits to challenge the marriage requirements in other states.”

Mr. Mineau added, “And one thing for sure, it will affirm the need for a federal marriage amendment.”

And now for happier news... Watch this!

Continuing on...with the FACTS !

This IS NOT Jay Leno !

For all you who circulate an e-mail contributing the following story to Jay Leno, please get your facts together first. Jay Leno is not the best that America can be; he is an unappreciative brat, ungrateful to the country that allowed him to get where he's at...and that's a no-brainer.
Cross-posted from

Made in the USA: Spoiled brats

Posted: November 20, 2006
1:00 am Eastern
By Craig R. Smith © 2008

The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right? The same magazine that employs Michael (Qurans in the toilets at Gitmo) Isikoff. Here I promised myself this week I would be nice and I start off in this way. Oh what a mean man I am.
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.
So being the knuckle dragger I am, I starting thinking, ''What we are so unhappy about?''

Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home, you may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of having a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes; an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells. Just ask why they are going to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife but if he did … insane!
Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
I close with one of my favorite quotes from B.C. Forbes in 1953:
''What have Americans to be thankful for? More than any other people on the earth, we enjoy complete religious freedom, political freedom, social freedom. Our liberties are sacredly safeguarded by the Constitution of the United States, 'the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.' Yes, we Americans of today have been bequeathed a noble heritage. Let us pray that we may hand it down unsullied to our children and theirs.''
I suggest this Thanksgiving we sit back and count our blessings for all we have. If we don't, what we have will be taken away. Then we will have to explain to future generations why we squandered such blessing and abundance. If we are not careful this generation will be known as the ''greediest and most ungrateful generation.'' A far cry from the proud Americans of the ''greatest generation'' who left us an untarnished legacy.
And this just in...

Amid soaring gas prices, President Bush rightly announced on Monday that he would lift a long-standing executive order banning offshore oil drilling in an effort to increase domestic production.
And, he essentially dared Congress to do the same!
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid responded by telling President Bush, and the American people for that matter, to DROP DEAD!

Here's what President Bush said:

"When Congress lifts the legislative ban, I will lift the executive prohibition... The only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress. Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court... For years, my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal. And now Americans are paying at the pump." [Emphasis Mine]

But according to media reports, Reid came right out and said he would BLOCK any amendments to lift the ban on offshore drilling. Rather, Reid is vowing to ram through legislation that could ADD 30 PERCENT TO THE COST OF CRUDE OIL!

According to CQ Politics:
"House and Senate Democratic leaders plan to bring energy legislation to the floor this week, using procedural tactics designed to block Republicans from offering amendments that would lift the drilling ban." [Emphasis Mine]
"In the Senate, Democrats hope to take up as early as Wednesday a still-un-drafted bill that would tighten regulation of speculation in energy futures, which some lawmakers contend adds as much as 30 percent to the price of crude oil.
[Emphasis Mine]

"Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., said he would block any effort to propose amendments to the bill that did not deal directly with the speculation issue."

You read that right!

Harry Reid is essentially saying that he will BLOCK any legislation to drill for oil unless conservatives agree to pass legislation that would potentially DRIVE UP the price of gas at the pump.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Funny thing... W announces the end of the Moratorium and coincidentally the prices of abrrel of oil drop by about $ 10 in just two days as predicted by PEOPLE WHO understand Economics, Supply and Demand and the real practices of TRADING ... all BUT the Loons that are practicing stupidity in Congress...too preoccupied with increasing out National Debt and increasing food and fuel prices!!!