So the early deal, the one they didn't go for, the one that was far better for US than the current proposal, offered them FUEL [U 238](what they claimed they wanted for economic reasons) in exchange for UN safety inspections at ANY time and lifting of sanctions. They DIDN'T TAKE that deal. They didn't trust Argentina so we tried France. They didn't want France so we tried THEIR ally and military supplier Russia and they still DIDN'T TAKE THE DEAL. They didn't want U 238 because they already had 238. 238 isn't fissible. So now they have, you guessed it, U 238. They're burning up 238 to get less 238 and less 235 than natural ore. They're not using FUEL as FUEL they're WASTING FUEL to get LESS fuel and LESS 235 than they had to start with. Funny thing about chemical reactions, you can't STOP them in the middle. You may be able to slow them down by cryogenic means but as soon as they leave the LABORATORY that ability is gone.

Techniques are not capable of use for nuclear weapons.
Here's how this works.
Uranium 238 [FUEL grade]is not fissible (will not CREATE a fission nuclear chain reaction)
Uranium 235 [WEAPONS grade] is fissible. It does create a fission nuclear chain reaction.

Uranium-235 is an isotope of uranium making up about 0.72% of NATURAL uranium. Unlike the predominant isotope uranium-238, it is fissile, i.e., it can sustain a fission chain reaction.

U 238 can be /downblended/ to convert some* (very little) U 235 BUT the process also creates U 232, 233, 234, 236, 237
AND less 238 than they started with.

Depleted uranium (used as fuel already) has less 235 than natural ore.
Reprocessed uranium has less 235 than depleted uranium.
Downblended uranium has almost the full spectrum of isotopes and less 235 than reprocessed uranium.
They all need 235 in critical mass to weaponize.
Open source info.

The LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MASS. You CANNOT end up with more of a reactant after a chemical reaction. The conversion of mass into energy leaves LESS MASS than before the reaction.

Technically no, this still falls under Bush's fault since he was head of the CIA but fault isn't the point neither is bashing republicans. The point is that the President, regardless of party affiliations, has a duty to the citizens and those of other countries likely affected to PREVENT nuclear warfare whenever possible which is what both attempted to do through diplomatic negotiations. If Regan had set up artillery and aircraft carriers and started salvos against Russian military installations we'd all be dead. He wasn't stupid though, he talked it out which turned out in that case to be the better option saving billions of lives and quite possibly ALL life on earth. This isn't about what Regan did wrong, it's about what he did right even though it wasn't easy. Yes, you heard me correctly, republican Ronald Regan played an extremely significant role in avoiding nuclear war with Russia which may have saved all life on earth.
Now, if talking to the man who can push a button and wipe out the east coast in a few hours, exchanging spies as portrayed in Tom Hanks biopic 'Bridge of Spies'... AVERTS NUCLEAR WARFARE is not treason, and it WASN'T, then how could diplomatically offering Iran nuclear FUEL as an alternative to them enriching their own nuclear PAYLOADS be treason?
Known quantities and quality from known sources Vs. UNKNOWN quality and quantities from UNKNOWN sources for 'Death to America' payloads.... Some of which would undoubtedly be directed at Israel.

Regan - uses diplomacy to avert nuclear warfare
Obama - attempts to use diplomacy to avert nuclear warfare advertised as jihad

Regan- President -- threat to U.S.>nuclear weapons -- intent> remove threat --means> diplomacy via CIA direct phone line from oval office to Kremlin ALONG WITH U.S. Army Navy Air Force with nuclear stockpiles
Obama- President -- threat to U.S.>nuclear weapons -- intent> remove threat --means> diplomacy via White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction, deals for allies of ours and theirs which shows the WORLD we have no problem with NOBLE USE of nuclear FUEL for their POWER PLANTS saving them BILLIONS in acquisition r&d enrichment and cheaper ELECTRICITY.


Similarities???


The difference is that Russia had no need for nuclear FUEL or no religiously charged hatred of the U.S. It was political economical and military ideology.

Buchanan's argument is sound, the mentions of striking other officers as well as the suspect with 'deadly force' shows a wanton disregard for safety of all involved. It's quite a bit like the NYPD case that trigger happy undercover shooter. If your rage is so uncontrolled that you disregard the safety of your fellow officers then your judgment of when and how to apply that force is severely flawed. Mocking someone in cuffs before striking them with your elbow, one of the hardest bones in the body, also arguably deadly force, gets him $360,000? That judge should be dropped off in general population. He should have to pay every dime of that back to the agency and the victims. It's obvious that the Lt. has no respect for the agency or the citizens.

No it does not. The UN won't be doing anything in the U.S. because ALL crimes in AMERICA are American crimes. International crimes aren't allowed in the U.S. Because no international criminal would ever cross our borders or land at our airports. It's like honor amongst thieves, internationals think criminal thoughts in their criminal minds and stop dead at our borders like the ravens in a Windex commercial. They never see it coming you have to go down to the border and see it for yourself.

No, hold on now... Something important has changed.
1. The executive order (EO) was signed by the current incumbent President. He's a Democrat, using the AUTHORITY, given to him BY THE PEOPLE by way of RE-ELECTION, precisely as laid out by our founding fathers in a little known document called THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
2. The original EO was signed by a REPUBLICAN when Obama was a child, thus completely absolving him of CREATION or IMPLEMENTATION of this 'phantom� polis forze' that could potentially track their French bulldogs oily poo footprints on the constitution.
3. This EO and the original both make reference to a RATIFIED ACT (a Bill that was MAJORITY VOTED INTO FEDERAL LAW by CONGRESS) [hence the U.S.C. {UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION} between the 22 and the 288] that was RATIFIED long before Obama got ELECTED.

What does all this mean?
1.Your 'phantom� polis forze' doesn't exist. and
2. Interpol's legal right to operate on U.S. Soil was part of the CONSTITUTION before, not after, Obama became President.

Of course by 'your' I mean 'their' but Executive Orders are kinda important.

How so? Nuclear Iran presents an immense threat to the U.S. as well as our allies and the rest of the world. Just like Russia following WWII, they have the ability to deliver the payloads to targets militaril but congress has not declared war on Iran, nor did they on USSR up to Star Wars and the tipping point of the Berlin wall. Our Presidents most famously Ronald Regan, who made a worldwide media ultimatum demanding to take the wall down. As rich and affluent as Regan was, he didn't just put Gorbachev on the hot seat on a whim. There were lots and lots of talks directly between the two. How is exploration in diplomatic alternatives to Iran enriching unknown quantities or qualities of nuclear ore worse than having a dedicated land line from the oval office to the Kremlin in the most tense and technologically advanced part of the cold war?

Had Regan not made the calculated moves he made we might have been vaporized along with the rest of the world.

Also, the officer didn't identify himself, not before the victim was deceased. He was in uniform, but the guy in the wheel chair wasn't vocally or physically responsive so you can't exactly say that he knew what was going on. He was pretty much just sitting there for about 5-6 seconds and the cop shot him. 'GIVE ME YOUR HANDS! SHOW ME YOUR HANDS! Was all he said before he shot him, and roughly 35 seconds later when the guy lifted himself up in the wheel chair was the first real movement (no pun intended) of any kind.
Ok, he could have been in shock, but the officer could have walked right up to him and put cuffs on him, before or after shooting him. You can call a dead witness to the stand but they don't say much.

I have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and had a shotgun drawn on me by an officer. I didn't yell because he snuck up beside the car and put the barrel to my temple, but I said wtf IMMEDIATELY. Not the first time that's happened to me. The first word out of his mouth wasn't 'POLICE!' or 'FREEZE' but eventually when they figured out the girl I was with in the two seater weren't the getaway car for the golden corral robbery across the street and that we were both active duty military with no criminal records they identiftied themselves and were kind enough to move us to a gas station a few hundred feet away where they held us hostage for 6 hours.

Question: Was it treason when Regan negotiated with Gorbachev? Exchanged spies with Russia (USSR then)? They were technically our enemy at the time.

Americans have been attempting negotiations with Iran since the 70s, you'd think the fact that Desert Storm/Sheild and OIF were against their worst real life enemy and actually captured Saddam and handed him over to the Shiites would give us a great deal of leverage with Iran but it didn't. Trying to convince them to let the U.N. Inspection teams in didn't go over well. That's happened before under other Presidents. Negotiations fail, we sanctioned them. They trust us less. Negotiations fail again, we sanction them again they trust us even less. We (under Dubyah) declared war on a country, more on a person and an extremely low possibility of getting their key resource, and what has that accomplished? Are we piping any Iraqi oil into our reserves and economy? How many WMD's did we find there? And where exactly did Dubyah's administration find OBL?
Avoiding a costly (lives and money) war with a country known to have nuclear capabilities is treason? When the Iran deal came from CONGRESS. You know that group that's on cspan from time to time. How is this not the Senate committee on foreign affairs fault? That's another one of those things they do from time to time when they're not on vacation, filibustering, or shutting down the government. The President can sit down and talk to another country's leader and the minutes of their discussion may outline major points of any deals negotiations etc but he can't send any military apart from a few thousand Marines. That is all determined by CONGRESS.
Iran is a nuclear rook for Russia, plain and simple. That's why Dubyah' did squat when we were right next door, or flap. We had significant numbers heavily armed and engaged. We couldn't set foot in Syria Jordan Turkey Pakistan or Iran at the time. None of them cared about the borders apart from knowing where they had to go to get their chance to kill us. I don't agree with the deal at all, and I believe the whole reason it
is what it is is so that the world takes note of how bad it is that they are exploring WEAPONIZATION. Between Iran and North Korea exists too much of a risk of a nuclear threat to everyone, not just the U.S. The UN and the world powers have been passing the buck thinking they won't find any ore, they won't know what to do with it, if they did they couldn't deploy them globally or far enough to reach 'us' (them), or America will stop them so we don't have to do anything. Now people are paying attention, I hope. These threats are real.

Hmm, trying to arrange a deal for others (Argentina, France, Russia) all of which the UNITED STATES deals with diplomatically, to prevent Iran from enriching weapons grade nuclear PAYLOADS under the guise of
nuclear FUEL for a power plant, negating Iran's need to alter nuclear stockpiles on their own in unknown ways or quantities. Keep in mind that had Iran gone for this deal, at least SOME of their own uranium would have gone to facilities outside Iran making it IMPOSSIBLE for Iran to do ANYTHING with THAT uranium, until it was returned to their custody.
This is far from treason, since we know for a fact that the Iranians trust Russia more than they trust the US it was a deal they MAY HAVE BEEN MORE LIKELY to go for. They didn't go for it. This is what diplomacy is. When a country has the facilities and military means to deliver nuclear weapons and they hate US, the only way that we can deal with them is to find an ally of theirs and or neutral countries to intervene. Iran CLAIMS to want more efficient nuclear POWER (FUEL for a power plant), WE ATTEMPT to OFFER them the FINISHED PRODUCT cutting the MILLIONS OR BILLIONS in unsanctioned unknown (WEAPONIZATION) research and development.

You mean cover that the officer DID take AFTER he shot him, which was BEFORE the officer said 'drop the gun'.

The President needs the approval or republican congress to declare war. He made the case when they invaded the North and threatened that minority sect that started the 'Muslim Exodus'. The only thing congress was willing to do was air strikes mostly in Iraq until they were pushed back over the border.
That brings me to the point experience on the ground proves. You, nor anybody else has any idea who is who until isil started making their black flags. Unless you speak Farsi, even living embedded gives no indication that the people around you are from Baghdad or Mosul or Iran or Jordan or Egypt. All you know with absolute certainty is people are shooting bombing etc. It's not like Risk or Axis and Allies where each National force is easily distinguishable. Plus with the way isil recruits they don't move like a traditional Army would. Some kid joins online they give him a gun and he's anywhere in the middle east or Europe or south, pretty much anywhere but Siberia the North pole and Antarctica. You can't launch a formed 18th century offensive on 6 or 6 continents simultaneously everywhere civilization is against a force that hasn't been recruited or indoctrinated yet. For the ones that are, they're spread out pretty much everywhere.
On top of all that, with al-Qaidae, Hezbollah, Assads forces, al-eshebab, all fighting each other.... None of them like us. You can't take out a terrorist organization when 6-10 are operating in the same area. That what Bush never understood before Iraq, during or after the U.S. turned Saddam over to the Iraqis that executed him.
Iraq WAS like the middle box in tic tac toe, with Saddam in, everyone else had to find another way around. With him gone that box is an easy connection from any direction. As bad as Saddam was he kept that region in check.

A non lethal round isn't out of the realm of possibility, but for anyone ever hit by one that's not freshly injected with heroin there would be some kind of vocalizations especially if it was a rubber slug or rock salt. Nobody takes a 12 gauge from that close without a grunt whimper or ***** pitched scream.
Between 6-7 seconds in the shotgun wielding cop fires the first shot. He did say 'give me your hands! Show me your hands! Bang. ' He hadn't been on the scene for more than 3-4 secondsat that time. THEN AFTER he shot him he starts talking about a gun. That's what bothers me the most.
What makes me think non lethal was fired first was after the cop shot him (around the time he should have realized nobody knew if he had a gun or not) he does drop back behind a car after yelling several times drop the gun he reloads, or at least replaced the shell he'd just discharged. But it could have been lead shot because the witness said he was bleeding around the time he lifts himself up in the chair. For the other cops who arrived seconds later I'm sure they smelled gunpowder and heard the first cop yelling drop the gun.
I don't see a gun in the vid or any body language suggesting he had one which he had about 30 seconds to brandish (draw) if he did, why would he wait that long?
Something I noticed after watching it a second time is that once he's slumping over dead there is a brownish circle in his boxers. Either he sat on a birthday cake or he shat himself which would explain him lifting himself up in his chair.

Not anymore. The FDA changed it, big chickens little eggs, growth hormones in livestock.... Girls develope at much younger ages than when we were kids. The IBTC numbers are shrinking rapidly.

Then the FDA and the USDA should jail ALL hog farmers, shut down EVERY establishment that processed butchered stocked sold cooked or served pork? The pig is a filthy animal. The bible does say that we shouldn't eat it. So no one anywhere in America should be subject to bacon or pork chops or ham.

Here here!

I didn't assume the constitutions 1st and 14th amendments, the oath she swore to, the supreme court legal review, or. who the supreme court justices were. It doesn't matter if her or her constituents get dumber or more disillusioned between now and the next election. If she doesn't meet her obligation and continues to openly defy the Courts orders she'll be in jail or prison where she belongs for subversion treason and malfeasance of office.

Many of her constituent's and or hillbilly cousins are just as dumb or disillusioned as she is. They think they have the right to make everyone think (or not think) the same way they do. You might hate your neighbor, you might even have a harassment lawsuit against them but that doesn't give you the right to kill their dog threaten them or their family burn their house down etc. If they live near you, you have to live with it. If people could stay out of eachothers business or personal LEGAL matters you'd hardly notice them. I don't recall hearing any LBGT protests at Davis' home like the dentist that hunted Cecil (since they don't have time to look who the guide was or his credentials and practices). If people were harassing her, she could call a few cops I'm sure she knows a few and have the person arrested or removed from her property. The couples haven't stooped that low, they just want what their taxes and the constitution say they can have. The supreme court reinforced the constitution with their legal review. Separation of church and State, original unchanged 1st and 14th amendments, original unchanged oath of office for Kentucky County clerks, I understand the other side but I can't see blatant disregard for the Law the constitution, the oath of office, being compelled by the Supreme Court, and COMBINING church and State halting the LEGAL service she was elected to perform as behavior becoming of an elected official.

Instead breaking the LAW and illustrating a lack of trust in her own God. Brilliantly worded Kindlightheart.

She should take a trip to Baghdad or Mecca or Tehran where she can witness the execution of Sharia Law in all its 'religious' gore. Witness the power of theocracy in the rape and murder of girls who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and EXECUTED FOR BEING RAPED BY THE POLICE because she was pretty (a 14 y/o Iranian girl whose name escapes me). When you see how truly vile people can be to one another it changes how you see things. It takes only one torture or forced amputation to scar you for life, not watching it on a movie or tv or even on YouTube of an actual event but being there seeing it firsthand and hearing it for yourself unfiltered.