Davin News Server

Whata child does: alt.fan.rush-limbaurgh,alt.socially.liberalism,alt.athieism,alt.fucknozzles,alt.poltics.democrats.d,talk.poltics.guns

Whata REAL man does: alt.politics.trump, alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-
limbaugh,can.politics

=====

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 13:27:49 -0700, Rudy Canoza, forever the mental and physical midget, who was *NEVER* a three sport letterman, like me, 
and who was *NEVER* a bouncer, like me, and who was *NEVER* an assistant golf pro, like me, and who was *NEVER* a lifeguard, like me, and 
who *NEVER* dunked a basketball, like me, and has *NEVER* laid as many women as me, says... 

> >> The sale of any actual URANIUM to Russia.
> > 
> > Bullshit.

> Nope. No uranium went to Russia. Instead, Russian uranium came to the U.S.

THAT does not matter.

https://i.imgur.com/FEK9fRC.png
https://i.imgur.com/vIFOdKN.png
https://i.imgur.com/1HQNo7r.png

https://i.imgur.com/VKtGtaX.png
https://i.imgur.com/J4Onwqj.png
https://i.imgur.com/bLtowla.png
https://i.imgur.com/fbMfjYN.png 

Hitlery was involved. That's all we need to know.

Snopes even questioned it by quoting the New York Times:

"According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision."

"May not" means "could have".

LOL... Ski Bunny used Politifact for this quote, but stopped short of what else they said.

The Clinton Foundation Donations

It IS accurate that nine individuals related to the company donated to the Clinton Foundation but the bulk of the money -$131 million - 
came from Giustra.

And Giustra said he sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and about 18 months before Clinton 
became secretary of state.

(and THIS is what Ski Bunny left out)

"WE COULDN'T INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY GIUSTRA'S CLAIM..."

Hillary Clinton is a traitor to the Untied States.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is, arguably, the biggest traitor of them all. According to the director of the FBI in testimony before Congress, 
while she was secretary of state, she sent and received classified government documents on her unsecured personal email server she had in 
her private residence, then lied about it repeatedly. She is therefore guilty of putting U.S. national security at risk.

The Rosenbergs were convicted of "conspiring" to sell secrets to the Soviets, but what Ms. Clinton did was put American secrets out there 
for anyone who wanted to hack her email server and obtain all that information.

This email server business is just one small example of Ms. Clinton's history of lies, corruption, scandals and ineptitude. That 
ineptitude, by the way, was directly responsible for the death of four Americans in Benghazi, after which we heard more lies. In my 
opinion, Ms. Clinton makes the Rosenbergs look like members of a church choir and makes Benedict Arnold look like a Boy Scout.

And she wants to be president and commander in chief? Dear God, please forbid it.

=====

The URANIUM is NOT the story.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin's latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its 
precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: "Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World."

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining 
stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world's largest uranium producers and brought 
Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a 
woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors 
of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company 
that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium 
production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal 
had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that 
eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of 
cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 
million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White 
House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a 
Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company's 
assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times' examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and 
securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were 
unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book "Clinton Cash." 
Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own 
reporting.

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical 
challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million 
in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to 
benefit the foundation's donors.

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign, said no one "has ever produced a shred of evidence 
supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton 
Foundation." He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, 
in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. "To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, 
exerted undue influence in the U.S. government's review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless," he added.

American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In 
the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding 
concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like 
Russia's, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of a more stringent agreement between Mrs. 
Clinton and the Obama administration that was in effect while she was secretary of state.

Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from 
foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One's, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the 
United States.

When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today's. The Obama administration was seeking to 
"reset" strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their 
blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom's chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. "Few could have imagined in the past that we 
would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves," Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.

Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

Uranium investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's office was involved in 
approving a Russian bid for mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States.

Now, after Russia's annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, 
a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around 
the world.

"Should we be concerned? Absolutely," said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he 
had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. "Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don't. We don't 
want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate."

A Seat at the Table

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank 
Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra's private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan 
A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev's bid to head an 
international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights record by, 
among others, his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra's fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium 
mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South 
African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the 
Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. 
Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill 
in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the 
Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming 
"a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities," the 
company declared.

Ian Telfer was chairman of Uranium One and made large donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Still, the company's story was hardly front-page news in the United States - until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton's failed 
presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip's link to Mr. Giustra's Kazakhstan mining deal. It also 
reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton's foundation.

(In a statement issued after this article appeared online, Mr. Giustra said he was "extremely proud" of his charitable work with Mr. 
Clinton, and he urged the media to focus on poverty, health care and "the real challenges of the world.")

Though the 2008 article quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval 
and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton's 
influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.

As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a 
project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 
million. The star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom 
Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s - Friends of Frank - in attendance, 
among them Mr. Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to an article in The Globe and Mail.

"None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn't have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy 
and iron determination," Mr. Clinton told those gathered, adding: "I love this guy, and you should, too."

But what had been a string of successes was about to hit a speed bump.

Arrest and Progress

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One's stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. 
Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, had just been arrested on charges that he illegally sold uranium deposits to foreign companies, 
including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra's UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.

Publicly, the company tried to reassure shareholders. Its chief executive, Jean Nortier, issued a confident statement calling the situation 
a "complete misunderstanding." He also contradicted Mr. Giustra's contention that the uranium deal had not required government blessing. 
"When you do a transaction in Kazakhstan, you need the government's approval," he said, adding that UrAsia had indeed received that 
approval.

Bill Clinton met with Vladimir V. Putin in Moscow in 2010.

But privately, Uranium One officials were worried they could lose their joint mining ventures. American diplomatic cables made public by 
WikiLeaks also reflect concerns that Mr. Dzhakishev's arrest was part of a Russian power play for control of Kazakh uranium assets.

At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show. Rosatom officials say they were seeking to 
acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic reserves to meet its own industry needs.

It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian 
diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.

"We want more than a statement to the press," Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the embassy's energy officer on 
June 10, the officer reported in a cable. "That is simply chitchat." What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written 
confirmation that the licenses were valid.

The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given 
wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable.

What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh officials to discuss the issue on 
June 10 and 11.

Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One. And within a year, the Russian 
government substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But 
first, Uranium One had to get the American government to sign off on the deal.

Among the Donors to the Clinton Foundation

Frank Giustra

$31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more

He built a company that later merged with Uranium One.

Ian Telfer

$2.35 million

Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.

Paul Reynolds

$1 million to $5 million

Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company.

Frank Holmes

$250,000 to $500,000

Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011.

Neil Woodyer

$50,000 to $100,000

Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra.

GMP Securities Ltd.

Donating portion of profits

Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One.

The Power to Say No

When a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a 
secretive review process in Washington, where officials raised concerns primarily about the mine's proximity to a military installation, 
but also about the potential for minerals at the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control. The officials killed the deal.

Such is the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of 
the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the 
secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or asset deemed 
important to national security.

The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and 
Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American 
nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.

Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from 
nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, 
according to Marin Katusa, author of "The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America's Grasp."

"The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody's talking about it," said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the 
Uranium One deal in his book. "It's not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too."

When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in 
securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee's review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 
percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began 
pushing legislation to kill the deal.

Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One's largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the 
deal "would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America's uranium production capacity."

President Putin during a meeting with Rosatomandrsquo's chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, in December 2007.

"Equally alarming," Mr. Barrasso added, "this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan."

Uranium One's shareholders were also alarmed, and were "afraid of Rosatom as a Russian state giant," Sergei Novikov, a company spokesman, 
recalled in an interview. He said Rosatom's chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would 
not break up the company and would keep the same management, including Mr. Telfer, the chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly 
that it did not intend to increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping Uranium One a public company

American nuclear officials, too, seemed eager to assuage fears. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote to Mr. Barrasso assuring him that 
American uranium would be preserved for domestic use, regardless of who owned it.

"In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license 
authorizing the export of uranium for use as reactor fuel," the letter said.

Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment 
committee, including Mrs. Clinton - whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.

Undisclosed Donations

Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding 
placing limits on the activities of her husband's foundation. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign 
government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.

To judge from those disclosures - which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts - the only Uranium One official to 
give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 
2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.

Uranium Oneandrsquo's Russian takeover was approved by the United States while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state.

Uranium One's Russian takeover was approved by the United States while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state.Credit... Doug 
Mills/The New York Times

But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions 
of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With 
the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.

His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy 
to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and 
$500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium 
One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra's charitable endeavors with Mr. 
Clinton. "Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years," he said.

The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a 
response.

Mr. Telfer's undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a 
constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One's most valuable asset: the 
Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: "It wasn't the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The 
goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good," Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview.

Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its 
deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.

The $500,000 fee - among Mr. Clinton's highest - was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that 
has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences.

Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One's stock, assigning it a "buy" rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it 
was "the best play" in the uranium markets. In addition, Renaissance Capital turned up that same year as a major donor, along with Mr. 
Giustra and several companies linked to Uranium One or UrAsia, to a small medical charity in Colorado run by a friend of Mr. Giustra's. In 
a newsletter to supporters, the friend credited Mr. Giustra with helping get donations from "businesses around the world."

John Christensen sold the mining rights on his ranch in Wyoming to Uranium One.

Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton's speech to an audience that included leading Russian officials, or on 
whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal. According to a Russian government news service, Mr. Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for 
speaking.

A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation's fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that 
for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: "Why do you think they are doing it - because they love them?" But 
whether it actually does is another question. And in this case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the 
United States considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal.

Diplomatic Considerations

If doing business with Rosatom was good for those in the Uranium One deal, engaging with Russia was also a priority of the incoming Obama 
administration, which was hoping for a new era of cooperation as Mr. Putin relinquished the presidency - if only for a term - to Dmitri A. 
Medvedev.

"The assumption was we could engage Russia to further core U.S. national security interests," said Mr. McFaul, the former ambassador.

It started out well. The two countries made progress on nuclear proliferation issues, and expanded use of Russian territory to resupply 
American forces in Afghanistan. Keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was among the United States' top priorities, and in June 2010 
Russia signed off on a United Nations resolution imposing tough new sanctions on that country.

Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 
United States for review. Because of the secrecy surrounding the process, it is hard to know whether the participants weighed the desire to 
improve bilateral relations against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the 
United States. The deal was ultimately approved in October, following what two people involved in securing the approval said had been a 
relatively smooth process.

Not all of the committee's decisions are personally debated by the agency heads themselves; in less controversial cases, deputy or 
assistant secretaries may sign off. But experts and former committee members say Russia's interest in Uranium One and its American uranium 
reserves seemed to warrant attention at the highest levels.

Moukhtar Dzhakishev was arrested in 2009 while the chief of Kazatomprom.

Moukhtar Dzhakishev was arrested in 2009 while the chief of Kazatomprom.

"This deal had generated press, it had captured the attention of Congress and it was strategically important," said Richard Russell, who 
served on the committee during the George W. Bush administration. "When I was there invariably any one of those conditions would cause this 
to get pushed way up the chain, and here you had all three."

And Mrs. Clinton brought a reputation for hawkishness to the process; as a senator, she was a vocal critic of the committee's approval of a 
deal that would have transferred the management of major American seaports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates, and as a 
presidential candidate she had advocated legislation to strengthen the process.

The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary's level. He would not comment 
on whether Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on the matter, but he gave The Times a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to 
the foreign investment committee at the time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez 
said, "Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter."

Mr. Fallon also noted that if any agency had raised national security concerns about the Uranium One deal, it could have taken them 
directly to the president.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department's director of policy planning at the time, said she was unaware of the transaction - or the 
extent to which it made Russia a dominant uranium supplier. But speaking generally, she urged caution in evaluating its wisdom in 
hindsight.

"Russia was not a country we took lightly at the time or thought was cuddly," she said. "But it wasn't the adversary it is today."

That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European dependency on Russian energy resources, including nuclear fuel. 
The unease reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John 
Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, 
Russian control over mining rights on his property.

"I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United States," he said. "I don't think that should happen."

Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without 
Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license - which they do not have - yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and 
trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.

Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an 
export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that 
"to the best of our knowledge" most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One 
spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, 
nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.

The "no export" assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite 
pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom's subsidiary, 
ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it.


============================================================================

7 Reasons Narcissists Rarely Grow Emotionally

Narcissists Are Notorious For Not Changing. Here's Why They Get Stuck

Key points

Narcissistic behavior often begins in childhood as a form of self-defense against feeling unloved.

The resulting self-protective patterns can block narcissists from personal growth.

Narcissistic personalities can change, but they have to be open to self-reflection and criticism and not get stuck in comforting delusions.

One of the most frustrating things about narcissistic personalities is their resistance to growth. Throughout life, we all-including 
narcissists-have the capacity to develop ourselves. So why do they rarely evolve?

Narcissistic behavior begins as self-protection from the shame and low self-esteem that result from insecure attachment with parents. 
Children who are developing a narcissistic personality will adopt defensive behavior patterns to shield themselves from negative feedback, 
both from others and from their own thoughts and feelings.

7 Reasons Narcissists Rarely Grow Emotionally

Keeping their negative self-concept out of consciousness (repressed) and compensating with self-aggrandizing superiority is meant as a 
failsafe from pain, but it's a deal with the devil that also blocks them from personal growth.


1. They avoid self-reflection.

A hallmark of emotional maturity is the habit of self-reflection. We check in with ourselves about how we're feeling, how others are 
responding to us, and what we're doing that is successful and not successful. Self-reflection is an act of self-agency that enables us to 
learn from our experiences and better adapt to our circumstances.

Narcissists' refusal to self-reflect allows them to repress their shame and avoid looking at how their grandiosity affects others, but it 
also prevents them from developing self-awareness and learning from their mistakes. This is why they tend to have a simplistic view of 
their childhoods, lack insight into their relationships, and become enraged when confronted with their own behavior. Narcissists are 
strangers to themselves, and they want to keep it that way.


2. They distort reality.

Along with avoiding introspection, narcissistic people hold facts at a distance and substitute lies and distortions that conform to their 
inflated self-beliefs. From denying inconvenient truths to having delusions of superiority and entitlement, to rationalizing neglect and 
abuse, to gaslighting those around them, narcissists continuously attempt to elude reality, making objectivity, fairness, and 
accountability impossible. Clinging to magical thinking, they fail to engage with the truths that enable us to know ourselves and others.


3. They project negatives.

Another self-protective mechanism of narcissistic people is projecting their own negative thoughts, feelings, and actions onto others. Like 
avoiding introspection and denying reality, externalizing what they wish to disown in themselves onto people around them allows them to 
dump uncomfortable emotions, such as aggression and jealousy, while giving them free rein to sidestep consequences, repudiate 
responsibility, and shift blame. Narcissists' compulsion to project makes them reckless, cruel, and impervious to the learning that only 
comes from honest self-assessment and accountability.


4. They see themselves as special or perfect.

Absurd as it sounds, narcissists have a grandiose special or perfect delusion meant to insulate them from any possibility of flaw or fault. 
By telling themselves they are never wrong, deserve special treatment, and should be exempt from rules and consequences, they rationalize 
never having to question themselves or answer to others. Even covert narcissists, who may not appear grandiose, harbor these underlying 
beliefs. As they see it, change is something others need to do, never themselves.


5. They have a victim narrative.

Like the special or perfect defense, feeling victimized is a common mindset of narcissistic people, particularly more passive-aggressive 
types. Adopting the stance that they are always the wronged party when they don't get what they want is a loophole that allows them to 
avoid accountability and blame others. Playing the victim violin is also a strategy to get attention, sympathy, and caretaking from others. 
The problem with framing experience as constantly unjust is the lack of agency inherent in seeing themselves as perpetual victims helpless 
to change their circumstances.


6. They don't empathize.

Narcissists' lack of empathy is perhaps their greatest deficit and obstacle to growth. Not connecting emotionally with the experience or 
feeling states of others stems from their inner alienation and lack of compassion for the vulnerable child self. Standing at a distance 
from their own humanity is meant to buffer them from vulnerability, but it keeps them fear-driven, rigid, and isolated.


7. Others shield them from consequences.

Narcissistic people are emotionally dysregulated, ruthlessly self-serving, and profoundly traumatizing to others, particularly their family 
members. Many have been shielded from consequences in childhood (while also being emotionally deprived). As adults, they seek out partners 
who similarly accept and enable their delusions and abusive behavior, and they often align with narcissistic professions and institutions 
that reinforce their entitlement.
The narcissistic trap

Like the rest of us, people who are narcissistic can change and evolve. But as long as they shun self-reflection, distort reality, project 
negatives, self-aggrandize, play the victim, and disconnect emotionally while never being held to account by the people around them, they 
will not get the traction they need to develop moral responsibility and healthier ways of coping. What begins as a childhood defense 
against feelings of unlovability becomes a self-fulfilling trap that makes it impossible to experience trust and loving connection with the 
self or others.