Right Truth

Pyrotechnics, alcohol, and closed doors do not mix

At least 245 die in Brazilian nightclub fire 'after indoor fireworks display during band performance'.  In the comment section at the Daily Mail UK it says ...

Local press reporting bouncers shut the doors to stop people leaving without paying.

• Death toll still unknown and may be higher as more bodies are pulled from wreckage while hundreds more are expected to be injured
• Official cause unknown, but reports claim it was caused by a firework during a band performance

While the official cause of the blaze has not been stated, local reports claim it was sparked by a firework set off during a band's performance.

Appaliling loss of life: Firefighters work to douse a fire at the Kiss Club in Santa Maria city, Rio Grande do Sul state, Brazil, where hundreds of people died

The cause of the fire is not yet known, however, Sandro Meinerz, spokesman for the police in the city of Santa Maria, told local media that the fire broke out at the Kiss club while a band was performing.

Local newspaper Diario de Santa Maria reported that the fire started at around 2am.

Club security guard, Rodrigo Moura, is quoted in the paper as saying the venue was at maximum capacity of between 1,000 and 2,000. He said partygoers were pushing and shoving to escape.  (read it all, see images at the Daily Mail UK)

Iranian Diplomat Accused Of Child Molestation In Brazilian Swimming Pool

But not to worry about the little girls that were being molested, it was just a a cultural misunderstanding:   The Iranian embassy in Brazil rebutted the accusations, saying: "The accusation leveled against the Iranian diplomat is only a misunderstanding arising from differences in cultural attitudes."

The Wall Street Journal article called it "fondling", but the UK papers called it "child molestation" and "child abuse".

An Iranian diplomat is facing child abuse allegations in Brasilia after angry parents at a local swimming pool accused him of fondling girls between the ages of 9 and 15.

The diplomat was arrested by Brazilian police at the weekend shortly after the incident but his diplomatic immunity secured his immediate release.

The diplomat who has remained unnamed by the police rejected the accusations. The swimming pool officials, however, named him Hekmatollah Ghorbani, according to a press report. It is unclear whether he has left Brazil.

The Brazilian foreign minister, Antonio Patriota, reacted to the news by describing the allegations as "unacceptable" and "very disturbing". (Guardian UK)

One comment at the WSJ is interesting:

• Sassan Darian Wrote:

How sad... after all, in Iran under the Islamic Republic, 9-year old girls can be forced off into marriage. 9 years of age without court permission and 12 without... and this is all for the hooligan and perverted Mullahs as the Iranian people don't engage in such perverted child molestation activities. It is NOT part of our culture but rather the culture of the pervert Mullahs. The same type of Mullahs who rape our young sisters before execution through "Sighes" or "temporary marriages" so that they don't "die as virgins" as "virgins go straight to heaven".

No not a cultural misunderstanding, an attack on little girls.

 

New highly addictive hallucinogenic twice as powerful as crack cocaine

A mix of cocaine paste, gasoline, kerosene and quicklime (calcium oxide) called Oxi or oxidado, "rust",  comes from South America.   It is reported to be twice as powerful as crack cocaine and just a fifth of the price, according to this report in the GuardianUK, with video.

"It is terrifying," said Alvaro Mendes, an outreach worker in Rio Branco from the state of Acre's Harm Reduction Association, the NGO that first detected the drug. "The majority of first-time users become addicted on their first contact with the drug. Most of them go seven to 10 days without sleeping, without eating. They start to go into a process of degeneration. After months of use … they go into a state where they look like zombies, wandering … in search of pleasure."

Described as a cheaper and deadlier successor to crack, oxi sells for about R$2 (75p) a rock and is smoked in pipes improvised from cans, pieces of piping and metal taps. According to Mendes, whose support group works with slum-dwellers, prostitutes, transvestites and homeless people who are hooked on the drug, oxi can kill within a year.  [snip]

Oxi surfaced in the Amazonian border region between Brazil, Bolivia and Peru in the 1980s, and is said to have been originally used by a small number of hippies who came to the region to experiment with ayahuasca, a hallucinogenic plant native to the Amazon rainforest. [snip]

Mendes says users often suffer from paranoia, vomiting and uncontrollable bouts of diarrhoea. Tooth loss can happen within months. "I've never seen such violent scenes of drug use," he said. "It is very depressing."  (continue reading at the GuardianUK, hat tip Marcus Wilder)

Read the entire article.  The drug Oxi, oxidado, "rust", is quickly working its way from country-to-country.  Heaven only know how quickly it will begin to show up in the United States.

At The Rio Times an editorial writer says "Someone has to be wicked poor, wicked uneducated, and wicked desperate to escape reality by smoking gasoline, acetone, and battery fluid – no matter how much cocaine it’s laced with."  Unfortunately, that is not necessarily true.  In reality addicts will use anything that gives them the high they desire, especially if it's cheap, and apparently Oxi, rust, is just that, more bang for the buck -- and a quicker path to the undertaker. 

The World Blows Up

The headlines from Drudge pretty much sum up the situation, 1,000 bodies discovered in massacre..., Forces for UN-backed candidate accused..., FRANCE SENDS IN SOLDIERS..., US 'deeply concerned'..., The single biggest atrocity in the long battle for control of Ivory Coast has emerged after aid workers discovered the bodies of up to 1,000 people in the town of Duekoue. ... appeared the killings had taken place in a single day, shortly after the town fell to troops loyal to Alassane Ouattara, the man internationally-recognised as having won last year’s presidential election....  despite the presence of United Nations troops,    people who were clearly local civilians,   mainly men who had been shot,   ...   some had been hacked with machetes. ... 430 previously found killed. (The Telegraph)  The UN evacuates.

I must assume Barack Obama will end up blaming the United States somehow, as he does for everything, as he goes about transforming America.  His hidden agenda for the Middle East is becoming clear to many. 

People in the Middle East and other terror countries do not care what we think, how we feel, what we say or do, they hate us with a Flaming passion. ... period.  They are not our friends.  From Jihad Watch:  Our man Karzai provoked Qur'an-burning riots.

As to Libya, What the H did we get into?.

President encourages turmoil undermining American influence, By Jeffrey T. Kuhner, The Washington Times

President Obama is presiding over the end of American dominance in the Middle East. Across the region, U.S. power is receding – and radical Islam is filling the void. Mr. Obama has betrayed our allies and emboldened our enemies. He is slowly helping make the Middle East safe for jihadists, thereby undermining America’s national security.

Pakistani jihadist group Lashkar-e-Taiba looks abroad; operatives have "plotted mayhem and murder from nondescript locations in the United States".  Also Twin suicide attacks 'kill 41' at Pakistan shrine (AFP). 

And little Israel is sitting there threatened from all sides while people lie in 'reports' about their atrocities, then recant later.  Goldstone Recants!...Judge Goldstone Disavows His Own Anti-Israel UN Report. Also see The Enemy Within. Don't forget  The Larger Game in the Middle East: Iran.

 Al-Qaeda is hiding, raising money and plotting in Brazil.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16 (see trends).

The world is in a mess.  It's been in messes before.  We can get through this but we need leaders who truly love this country and will do whatever it takes to keep America safe and strong.  We don't have that kind of leadership now.

A Picture is Worth ...

Enjoy, click images to enlarge:

Ever the fashion disaster, Michelle Obama never fails. (Image: New York Daily News)

As 3 women push him into war, President Obama goes to Brazil, with 5 women, to see Brazil's female President, who gives him the cold shoulder., from Althouse

Rio to Obama:  Yankee Go Home:

From Politico:

Brazilians protesting the imminent visit of President Barack Obama struck the U.S. consulate in Rio de Janeiro with a Molotov cocktail Friday, prompting police to respond with rubber bullets, according to local news accounts.

The U.S. Consulate in Rio said one security guard was treated at a local hospital for minor injuries after the brief demonstration. A radio reporter was hit by the rubber bullets, Brazilian newspaper O Globo reported.

 

Here in the US:

What way you?.

 

Disclaimer on Constitution

Via Michael: A&D Publishing of Radford, VA (aka Wilder Publishing) offers a copy of the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation which includes the following DISCLAIMER: (click to enlarge)   

Iran: Uranium Deal or Stalling Method?

Via Realite EU

Today, Iran apparently agreed to ship 1200 kg of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Turkey while receiving fuel rods of medium-enriched uranium to use in a medical research reactor in Tehran that produces isotopes for cancer treatment in return. The deal, which was reached in negotiations with Brazil and Turkey, aims at depriving Iran of enough stocks of enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. [1]

Experts say the agreement may allow Tehran to avert new rounds of UN sanctions. In January, 2010 Iran rejected key parts of a similar uranium exchange deal that had been agreed upon in Geneva in September, 2009.

After a meeting with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and signing the deal, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on the permanent members of the UN Security Council (United States, Russia, China, France and Britain) plus Germany to resume the dialogue over Iran’s nuclear weapons development program. [2]

Global Reactions: US and Europeans are skeptical

The White House issued the following statement today: "We acknowledge the efforts that have been made by Turkey and Brazil. The proposal announced in Tehran must now be conveyed clearly and authoritatively to the IAEA before it can be considered by the international community. Given Iran’s repeated failure to live up to its own commitments, and the need to address fundamental issues related to Iran’s nuclear program, the United States and international community continue to have serious concerns. While it would be a positive step for Iran to transfer low-enriched uranium off of its soil as it agreed to do last October, Iran said today that it would continue its 20% enrichment, which is a direct violation of UN Security Council resolutions and which the Iranian government originally justified by pointing to the need for fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. Furthermore, the Joint Declaration issued in Tehran is vague about Iran’s willingness to meet with the P5+1 countries to address international concerns about its nuclear program, as it also agreed to do last October." [3] 

European leaders were unconvinced that this deal was meaningful in allying concerns vis-à-vis Iran’s nuclear weapons program.  French Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said the deal would not resolve core concerns: “[…] Let us not deceive ourselves, a solution to the (fuel) question, if it happens, would do nothing to settle the problem posed by the Iranian nuclear program.” [4]

The office of EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton in Brussels said the deal “does not answer all of the concerns” raised by Tehran’s nuclear weapons development program. [5]

A senior EU diplomat said the deal could not be considered a breakthrough unless it was fundamentally based on the fuel-swap proposal made by the IAEA in 2009. “If they [Iran] are accepting what was originally proposed by the IAEA back in October, then fine, some progress might be possible. But if this is some new suggestion that goes in a different direction, then it would appear to be stalling.” [6]

“Agreement postpones problem…not solves it”

It is not clear whether the terms of the deal would fully satisfy the demands of the UN Security Council. [7] François Géré, Research Director at the University of Paris III and founding President of IFAS (French Institute for Strategic Analysis) said that the agreement would only postpone the problem but not solve it. He further added: “[The deal] involves sending 1200 kg of 3.5% enriched uranium to Turkey, which corresponds to the total amount assessed in October 2009. Since then, the Iranians continued to enrich uranium and have well more than 1200 kg, which they agreed to send abroad. The agreement does not guarantee that each time Iran restores its uranium Iran will send it to Turkey. The country does not undertake any effort to stop its uranium enrichment activities. In six months from now, we could face the same situation as today and realize that there are tons of enriched uranium on Iranian soil.” [8]

Fuel deal versus Iran’s nuclear weapons development program

Western diplomats are concerned that Iran wants to create the impression that it was the fuel deal that was at the center of problems with the West rather than its nuclear ambitions as a whole. “The deal is not the reason why Tehran is in trouble. It is the whole nature of the Iranian nuclear program and its refusal to answer questions,” a Western diplomat said. Furthermore, Western diplomats argue that removing 1200 kg was less valuable because during the months of not complying with the original IAEA deal, Iran’s low-enriched uranium stockpile has almost doubled. [9]

The main difference from the initial UN-drafted deal is that if Iran does not receive the fuel rods within a year, Turkey will be required to “quickly and unconditionally” return the uranium to Iran. Iran feared that under the original IAEA deal, if a swap fell through, its uranium stock could be seized permanently. [10]

High-enriched uranium: A core problem

On February 9, 2010, Iran began enriching high-grade uranium, ignoring the threat of further UN sanctions. [11] Iran’s atomic energy chief said Iran would stop producing 20 percent enriched-enriched uranium if it received fuel from abroad. But in recent talks between Iran and the IAEA this idea was rejected. “If they refuse to stop enriching to 20 percent and make this proposal for fuel, then why are they continuing the higher enrichment? There is no other peaceful justification,” a Western diplomat said. [12]

No (real) change of heart

Shortly after signing the nuclear swap deal, Iran announced to continue its uranium enrichment activities, including production of 20 percent enriched uranium. Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization said: “There is no relation between the swap deal and our enrichment activities […] We will continue our 20 percent uranium enrichment work.” [13]

See:  Brazilian President To Visit Iran: Nuclear Program Tops Agenda from May 11,2010 and

Strengthening Turkish-Iran Relations Risk UN Sanctions Against the Islamic Republic from March 22, 2010

Experts list and references below the fold: 

Obama Funds Offshore Drilling ... in Brazil

...  The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.   (WSJ, hat tip Naive & Abroad)

As the author says, ''too bad it's not in U.S. waters".  In reality Obama isn't funding anything.  The money will come out of the pockets of hard-working Americans, Americans who cannot hold up under much more financial stress. 

The truth is we could be drilling in U.S. waters in the Gulf,  -- but not the East coast, West coast, or waters off Alaska.   The Tupi oil fields in Brazil will make Brazil a leading oil exporter.  If America could drill off all her shores, it could be our equivalent of the Tupi oil fields. 

If the Obama administration and everyone else were really serious about getting off foreign  oil, they would do everything in their power to clear the path to American offshore drilling -- now.  

Obama's plan is to increase taxes on oil companies and give a $1,000 tax cut to 'help' Americans, more 'rebates', new investigations of the oil companies...  Obama said drilling off Florida's shores "would not do anything" to lower oil prices.

Even those against offshore drilling will admit that a lot of oil lies untapped under the rocky floors of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans off the U.S. coasts, in areas where Congress has banned drilling since 1982.   They they ask the ridiculous question, "But is it enough to free the U.S. from its dependence on foreign suppliers?"  (Scientific American) 

I don't know if there is enough oil to free us from dependence on foreign suppliers, but shouldn't we find out?  And even if it is not enough to completely make us independent, it will certainly make us less dependent.  Isn't being less dependent the goal?  Should we toss out the idea of becoming less dependent simply because drilling offshore won't make us completely independent?  What kind of thinking is that?

Americans are in favor of drilling for our own oil. While the percentages differ in polls taken in 2007, 2008, 2009 (I did not find a 2010 poll), the majority in all want offshore drilling.

It is very difficult to estimate how much oil is anywhere, some estimates have proven to be wrong, and we need new, current estimates - but that costs money.

...There is a chance that the (Minerals Management Services) MMS has miscalculated the amount of offshore oil, because its estimates are based on 30- to 40-year-old data. For example, MMS spokesperson Nicholas Pardi says a 1987 survey of the Gulf of Mexico indicated there was potentially nine billion barrels of oil there, but when the area was resurveyed nine years later (using newer technologies), the number jumped to potential 45 billion barrels. (Scientific American)   

Sure, some people don't want the oil rigs dotting their skyline, and they worry about a potential spill and environmental problems, but if we leave our dependence on foreign oil up to the environmentalists and the NIMBY groups, we will ALWAYS be dependent. 

Others argue that if we drilled our own oil, it would not be any cheaper than foreign oil.  Is the goal cheaper gas or dependence from oil originating in countries that don't really like us very much?

I would love to have congress hold hearings on why we are financing offshore drilling in Brazil and not here at home.  I would love to see this funding blocked.

President Lula, guilty by confession

Hat tip Ernesto, who says:

Debbie, please, post this SCANDAL:

Sao Paulo Forum - The Comunnist MOB uniting ALL the Leftists Parties in the Latin America

(includding criminals as FARC, MIR, etc) and its leader / founder is... Fidel Castro and Lula da Silva, our F@#$%&* Brazilian President!

(Sunday is Election Day in Brazil. And I always vote NULE.)

President Lula, guilty by confession

Olavo de Carvalho
Diario do Comercio, September 26th, 2005

 

Translated by David Carvalho and Donald Hank to Laigle's Forum.

I should be grateful to President Lula. When practically all the national media makes an effort to cover up the activities of the Sao Paulo Forum or even to deny its existence, labeling as a “madman” or “fanatic” anyone who denounces them, cometh the very founder of the entity and does the job, proving by his own words the most depressing suspicions and some even worse.

The presidential speech on July 2, 2005, stated in the fifteen year anniversary of the Forum and reproduced in the government's official site , is the explicit confession of a conspiracy against the national sovereignty, an infinitely more serious crime than all crimes of corruption perpetrated and covered up by the current government; a crime that, by itself, would justify not only impeachment but also the imprisonment of its perpetrator.

At the distance at which I find myself, I have only now become fully aware of this unique document, and yet the editors-in-chief of the major newspapers and of all the radio and TV news broadcasts in Brazil were there the whole time. Though aware of the speech since the date it was made, they remained silent, proving that their persistent hiding of the facts was not the result of distraction or pure incompetence: it was subservient, Machiavellian complicity with a crime, of which they expected to enjoy profits unknown.   (continue reading)