Putin, Obama meet on UNGA sidelines

The two presidents shook hands in front of the cameras, but refused to answer any questions, before going behind closed doors. Due to their tight schedules, the leaders will only have 55 minutes to complete their bilateral talks, Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov told the media.

Earlier in the day, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hosted a state luncheon for the heads of delegations to the 70th Session of the UN General Assembly, with Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama sitting either side of him.

READ MORE: Putin to UN: Export of so-called democratic revolutions continues globally

The informal lunch followed the high-profile addresses by the two leaders at the opening of the UNGA debate on Monday.

READ MORE: Obama to UN: US ready to work with Russia and Iran on Syria

The personal relationship between Putin and Obama has cooled off since Washington introduced sanctions against Moscow last year, accusing it of escalating the crisis in Ukraine.

One of the last times that the Russian and American leaders met was during the Belfast G8 Summit in June 2013. In September the same year, Obama and Putin also briefly met on the sidelines of the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Since then, most of their exchanges have taken place over the phone, during which both leaders focused on solving the Ukrainian and Syrian crises.


Source Article from http://www.rt.com/news/316832-putin-obama-unga-meeting/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS

Obama folds, agrees to meet with Putin in NY after speech on Monday


Russian President Vladimir Putin will hold talks with his US counterpart, Barack Obama, during his stay at the UN General Assembly, Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin press secretary, said.

“A meeting with Obama has been coordinated,” Peskov said, adding that the Russian leader will also be negotiating with Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe.

When asked about the agenda of the Putin-Obama talks, the press secretary’s reply was “I’ll give you three guesses.”

Later, Peskov specified by saying, “naturally, Syria is going to be topping the agenda.”

“If there is enough time,” the Ukrainian issue will also be discussed by the leaders of Russia and the US, he added.

According to the press-secretary, the meeting will last from 50 minutes to an hour and will take place after the Russian president’s address at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly on September 28.

Moscow and Washington have given their mutual consent for the talks to take place between the two presidents, Peskov stressed.

The meeting comes at the request of the Russian side, Reuters reported citing a senior official in Obama’s administration. The US president believes skipping the chance to overcome differences with Moscow over Ukraine and Syria would be irresponsible, the official added.

Comment: Actually, it was was irresponsible to create the Ukraine and Syria crises in the first place, Mr. Obama. Admitting the U.S.’s shameful blunders is the least you could do.

“President Obama will take advantage of this meeting to discuss Ukraine, and he will be focused on ensuring Moscow lives up to the Minsk commitments. This will be the core message of this bilateral engagement,” said the official.

Comment: Moscow isn’t responsible for the Minsk agreements: that would be Kiev and DPR/LPR. And between the two, it is Kiev that hasn’t been living up to any of the commitments. Again, the responsible thing to do would be for Obama to ensure Poroshenko lives up to his end of the bargain.

Earlier reports suggested that the two leaders would meet to discuss the crisis in Syria and fighting Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL).

Contact between Putin and Obama has been rare since the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis. They last met face to face a year ago during an APEC summit in China and only talked on the phone a few times since then.

Source Article from http://www.sott.net/article/302600-Obama-folds-agrees-to-meet-with-Putin-in-NY-after-speech-on-Monday

Bozell & Graham Column: Still Defending ‘Christian’ Obama

The Obama years may be winding down, but our Obama-loving media never stops being hypersensitive about the man. CNN’s latest poll asked respondents “Do you happen to know what religion Barack Obama is?”and “Where was Barack Obama born, as far as you know?”

A major American media outlet asking these basic biographical questions after Obama’s been president for six and a half years seems to be asking “How inadequate are we?” But what they’re actually fishing for is a “crazy conservative fringe” argument now that Donald Trump is on top of the GOP presidential race.

Seventy-five percent correctly identified Obama’s American birth, and 12 percent expressed “no opinion.” The religion question is much more divided: 39 percent picked “Protestant,” 29 percent picked “Muslim,” and 11 percent correctly surveyed his upbringing and his policies and said “No religion.”

The primary subject of CNN’s poll was the Iran deal, where they found that the American people were deeply skeptical, with 60 percent saying Iranian cheating was very likely. Obama drew a 59 percent disapproval rating on handling Iran. CNN buried that result.

But CNN’s John King ran out with the birther/Muslim results on the Sunday show “Inside Politics” on September 13, comparing the Republican breakdowns on those questions and then the Trump-supporter results. Seventy percent of Republicans accept Obama’s American birth, and 61 percent of Trump fans.

On religion, King said “43 percent of all Republicans — don’t ask me why — 43 percent of all Republicans say they think the President is a Muslim; 54 percent of Trump supporters say that. Again, so they are — to use polite language — let’s just say more anti-Obama than even most Republicans.”   

Fifteen percent of Democrats said Obama was Muslim, but King didn’t mention it.

This Obama-coddling tendency grew dramatically on September 17 when liberals objected to a town-hall questioner in New Hampshire insisting Obama was a Muslim, and Trump failed to correct him.

Ask yourself this question: Have the media ever objected to a questioner at a Democratic campaign event smearing a Republican candidate? Has there never been a 9-11 truther embarrassing a liberal politician? The media couldn’t and wouldn’t locate such a person. They’re a missing person on an ideological milk carton.

Journalists should be fact-checkers on any president’s biography. But with Obama, the ardent advocacy spills over everywhere. On Reliable Sources on September 20, CNN host Brian Stelter challenged Newsmax host Steve Malzberg, “Doesn’t every responsible journalist and every responsible opinion analyst type have a responsibility to say, loudly and clearly, every time they talk about this, ‘The president was born in the U.S., the president is a Christian’?”

Stelter lectured “I think it does damage to our country, damage to the viewers at home when Trump sows doubt in this way, doesn’t just explicitly answer the question.” When Malzberg shot back that Obama called his opponents “crazies” and compared them to Iranian Muslim “hardliners,” Stelter complained “I don’t think it’s the same as delegitimizing the president of the United States.”

These media liberals didn’t screech when Hillary Clinton said Republican views on women were like Muslim terrorist groups. They actually hailed it as “coming out swinging” with “tough talk.” These journalistic “professionals” didn’t blink in 2012 when Sen. Harry Reid maintained with no evidence Romney didn’t pay taxes.

Most importantly, none of these “fact checkers” could be bothered in 2012 when liberal Washington Post assistant editor David Maraniss blew up Obama’s fairy-tale memoir on his birth story, that his father stayed with him until he was two. In real life, his mother left Hawaii within a month. But who cares about that kind of inconvenient truth?

Source Article from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2015/09/22/bozell-graham-column-still-defending-christian-obama

20 scientists ask Obama to prosecute global warming skeptics


The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming. The scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.

“We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation,” the scientists wrote to Obama. “The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking.”

Comment: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was forced to admit at the end of his op-ed that he didn’t actually know “whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry.”

“If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done,” the scientists added.

This year has been a trying one for global warming skeptics. Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers began an investigation into scientists who disagreed with the White House’s stance on global warming. Many of these skeptical scientists were often cited by those critical of regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva went after universities employing these researchers, which resulted in one expert being forced to get out of the field of climate research altogether.

“I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject,” Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado wrote on his blog.

“Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none,” Pielke wrote. “He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).”

Comment: Grijalva’s accusation: “Prof. Roger Pielke, Jr., at CU’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research has testified numerous times before the U.S. Congress on climate change and its economic impacts. His 2013 Senate testimony featured the claim, often repeated, that it is “incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.” Dr. Pielke, Jr., stated: “I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have (as was testified before the US Congress). I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically-motivated “witch hunt”…” Grijalva later rescinded his accusations stating his investigation may have been an “overreach.”

Source Article from http://www.sott.net/article/302206-20-scientists-ask-Obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics

Weekend at Bernie’s 2


We’ve seen this movie before. In 2008, to be precise. But this time, the ending may not be the same. Bernie Sanders versus Hillary Clinton in 2015 looks a lot like Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton in 2008.

In fact, we’ve seen this movie many times. Since 1968, almost every contest for the Democratic nomination has ended up as a race between a progressive and a populist. It’s not so much an ideological split as a class split. The progressive wins educated, high-minded, upper middle class whites — “NPR Democrats.” The populist wins wage-earners, disadvantaged minorities and the financially squeezed.

In 1968, it was Eugene McCarthy, the progressive, versus Robert Kennedy, the populist. In 1972, it was George McGovern (prog.) versus Hubert Humphrey (pop.). 1984: Gary Hart (prog.) versus Walter Mondale (pop.). 1988: Michael Dukakis (prog.) versus Richard Gephardt (pop.). 1992: Paul Tsongas (prog.) versus Bill Clinton (pop.). 2000: Bill Bradley (prog.) versus Al Gore (pop.). And in 2008, Barack Obama took the progressive vote while Hillary Clinton was the populist. She ran as the fighter, Obama as the inspirer.

The populist Democrat usually has the advantage. But not always. McGovern’s nomination victory in 1972 was propelled by a wave of anti-Vietnam war protest. Dukakis ended up in a head-to-head contest with Jesse Jackson, which got him a lot of working class white votes.

Obama won in 2008 by creating an unusual coalition: white liberals — the traditional progressive Democratic vote — plus blacks. Earlier progressive Democrats like McCarthy, McGovern, Hart and Dukakis did not draw many black votes in the Democratic primaries. By putting white liberals and blacks together, Obama won an excruciatingly narrow victory over Hillary Clinton (48.1 percent of the Democratic primary vote for Obama, 48.0 percent for Clinton.).

Sanders has a populist message for 2016, but so far, his strongest appeal is to progressive Democrats. He’s getting a big chunk of the Obama coalition: young voters and white liberals. He’s doing better with college graduates than with non-college Democrats. The latest CBS News poll in New Hampshire and Iowa shows Sanders leading Clinton by huge margins among young Democrats. Sanders leads among whites in both states. Even in South Carolina, Sanders leads among white Democrats.

But not blacks. Only 4 percent of black Democrats in South Carolina are voting for Sanders. Sanders is still unknown to African-Americans. In the nationwide ABC News-Washington Post poll, Sanders and Clinton are virtually tied among white Democrats (Sanders 33 percent, Clinton 31). Among non-white Democrats, Clinton is way ahead (57 to 13 percent).

Obama could never have beaten Clinton without a solid black vote. Sanders probably can’t either.

Sanders will very likely win both Iowa and New Hampshire, two overwhelmingly white states. Iowa is a caucus state. Caucuses are dominated by ideological activists. Iowa Democratic activists tend to be fiercely liberal.

New Hampshire is a primary state with higher turnout. But Sanders has an advantage there as well, He’s a local. Sanders has represented Vermont in Congress for 25 years, first as the state’s lone congressman and, since 2007, as senator. Look at a map. Vermont and New Hampshire look like conjoined twins.


After Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders will have a problem. Winning Iowa and New Hampshire will give him what George H.W. Bush once called “the big Mo” (momentum). But then he’s going to face a lot of Democrats who don’t know him as well as they do Clinton. They may have reservations about supporting a 74-year-old self-described socialist who’s not even a registered Democrat.

Sanders’ best hope is for Joe Biden to enter the race. Biden occupies the same political space as Clinton. He, too, is a populist and, as vice president, a bona fide member of the Democratic Party establishment. Polls show that Biden would take more votes from Clinton than from Sanders. If Biden and Clinton were to split the populist Democratic vote, it’s possible that Sanders could beat both of them.

The Democratic race could also end up as a protracted two-candidate marathon just like 2008, only this time between Clinton and Biden. The African-American vote would probably split, with some holding strong for Clinton and others voting for Biden out of loyalty to Obama. That, too, would be a good outcome for Sanders. He could be the kingmaker, extracting liberal commitments from both contenders as the price of his support.

The Democratic Party is poised to lurch to the left. That’s even more likely if Democrats nominate Clinton or Biden and the Democrat loses next year. Then Sanders can say “I told you so.” Sanders is 74 and may be too old to run again in four years. Elizabeth Warren, however, is 66.

Source Article from http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/c/35496/f/677045/s/49fc1e36/sc/7/l/0L0Shuffingtonpost0N0Cbill0Eschneider0Cweekend0Eat0Ebernies0E20Ib0I81617320Bhtml/story01.htm

Nobel Secretary Regrets Giving Peace Prize to War Criminal Barrack Obama


In 2009, President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize before he was even able to prove that he was worthy of it. Once Obama got into office however, he continued the wars started by Bush and even instigated a few of his own, proving himself to be just as much of a warmongering president as Bush was, if not worse.

Just two years after receiving the prize for being the most peace-promoting person in the world, Obama murdered a US citizen and child with a drone. On October 14, 2011, American teen, Abdul Anwar al-Awlaki was killed as he ate dinner by a CIA drone strike, ordered by Obama.

While he wasn’t murdering American children, Obama was invading Libya and laying waste to their innocent civilians. A Human Rights Watch report would go on to detail eight incidents where at least 72 Libyan civilians died as a result of the aerial campaign.

report conducted by Stanford and New York Universities’ Law schools found that between 2,562 and 3,325 people were killed by drone strikes in Pakistan between June 2004 and mid-September 2012. Anywhere between 474 and 881 of those were civilians, and 176 were children.

Sounds totally peaceful, right?

The fact that he received the prize only to go on to expand wars and the drone program has made the former Nobel Secretary come forward to say that he regrets his decision to give Obama the peace prize.

Former Nobel Secretary Geir Lundestad told the AP this week that he felt the prize was a mistake.

“We thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn’t have this effect,” he said.

“No Nobel Peace Prize ever elicited more attention than the 2009 prize to Barack Obama,” Lundestad wrote in his memoirs.

“Even many of Obama’s supporters believed that the prize was a mistake, in that sense the committee didn’t achieve what it had hoped for,” he said.

Obama himself even admitted that he was not worthy of the prize when he was heckled by a reporter during a speech in Sweden.

In 2013, the reporter asked himI was wondering, could you describe the dilemma to being a Nobel Peace Prize winner and getting ready to attack Syria?”

Obama’s response was surprising. He actually told the reporter, “I think I started the speech by saying that compared to previous recipients I was certainly unworthy, but what I also described is the challenge all of us face, when we believe in peace but we confront, a world that is full of violence.”

Funny that it took until the end of Obama’s presidency to publicly regret the decision to give one of the largest war criminals in the history of the world, the Nobel prize for peace. It is certainly better late than never though.

Share this article with your friends and family who may still think that Obama deserved such a prestigious award.

John Vibes is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter-culture and the drug war. In addition to his writing and activist work, he organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference, which features top caliber speakers and whistle-blowers from all over the world. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can find his 65 chapter Book entitled “Alchemy of the Timeless Renaissance” at bookpatch.com.



Source Article from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/nobel-secretary-regrets-warmonger-obama-won-peace-prize/

Obama’s Fateful Syrian Choice


There is an obvious course that President Barack Obama could follow if he wants to lessen the crises stemming from the Syrian war and other U.S. “regime change” strategies of the past several decades, but it would require him to admit that recent interventions (including his own) have represented a strategic disaster.

Obama also would have to alter some longstanding alliances – including those with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel – and correct some of the false narratives that have been established during his administration, such as storylines accusing the Syrian government of using sarin gas on Aug. 21, 2013, and blaming the Russians for everything that’s gone wrong in Ukraine.

In retracting false allegations and releasing current U.S. intelligence assessments on those issues, the President would have to repudiate the trendy concept of “strategic communications,” an approach that mixes psychological operations, propaganda and P.R. into a “soft power” concoction to use against countries identified as U.S. foes.

“Stratcom” also serves to manage the perceptions of the American people, an assault on the fundamental democratic precept of an informed electorate. Instead of honestly informing the citizenry, the government systematically manipulates us. Obama would have to learn to trust the people with the truth.

Whether Obama recognizes how imperative it is that he make these course corrections, whether he has the political courage to take on entrenched foreign-policy lobbies (especially after the bruising battle over the Iran nuclear agreement), and whether he can overcome his own elitism toward the public are the big questions – and there are plenty of reasons to doubt that Obama will do what’s necessary. But his failure to act decisively could have devastating consequences for the United States and the world.

In a way, this late-in-his-presidency course correction should be obvious (or at least it would be if there weren’t so many layers of “strategic communications” to peel away). It would include embracing Russia’s willingness to help stabilize the political-military situation in Syria, rather than the Obama administration fuming about it and trying to obstruct it.

For instance, Obama could join with Russia in stabilizing Syria by making it clear to putative U.S. “allies” in the Mideast that they will face American wrath if they don’t do all that’s possible to cut off the terrorists of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda from money, weapons and recruits. That would mean facing down Turkey over its covert support for the Sunni extremists as well as confronting Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Persian Gulf sheikdoms over secret funding and arming of these jihadists.

If Obama made it clear that the United States would take stern action – such as inflicting severe financial punishments – against any country caught helping these terrorist groups, he could begin shutting down the jihadists’ support pipelines. He could also coordinate with the Russians and Iranians in cracking down on the Islamic State and Al Qaeda strongholds inside Syria.

On the political front, Obama could inform Syria’s Sunni “moderates” who have been living off American largesse that they must sit down with President Bashar al-Assad’s representatives and work out a power-sharing arrangement and make plans for democratic elections after a reasonable level of stability has been restored. Obama would have to ditch his mantra: “Assad must go!”

Given the severity of the crisis – as the refugee chaos now spreads into Europe – Obama doesn’t have the luxury anymore of pandering to the neocons and liberal interventionists. Instead of talking tough, he needs to act realistically.

Putin’s Clarity

In a sense, Russian President Vladimir Putin has clarified the situation for President Obama. With Russia stepping up its military support for Assad’s regime with the goal of defeating the Islamic State’s head-choppers and Al Qaeda’s terrorism plotters, Obama’s options have narrowed. He can either cooperate with the Russians in a joint campaign against the terrorists or he can risk World War III by taking direct action against Russian forces in pursuit of “regime change” in Damascus.

Though some of Official Washington’s neocons and liberal war hawks are eager for the latter – insisting that Putin must be taught a lesson about Russia’s subservience to American power – Obama’s sense of caution would be inclined toward the former.

The underlying problem, however, is that Official Washington’s foreign policy “elite” has lost any sense of reality. Almost across the board, these “important people” lined up behind President George W. Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq, arguably the worst blunder in the history of U.S. foreign policy.

But virtually no one was held accountable. Indeed, the neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks strengthened their grip on the major think tanks, the op-ed pages and the political parties. Instead of dialing back on the “regime change” model, they dialed up more “regime change” schemes.

Although historically the U.S. government – like many other imperial powers – has engaged in coups and other meddling to oust troublesome foreign leaders, the current chapter on “regime change” strategies can be dated back to the late 1970s and early 1980s with what most American pundits rate a success: the destruction of a secular regime in Afghanistan that was allied with the Soviet Union.

Starting modestly with President Jimmy Carter’s administration and expanding rapidly under President Ronald Reagan, the CIA mounted its most ambitious “covert” operation ever – funding, recruiting and arming Islamic extremists to wage a brutal, even barbaric, war in Afghanistan.

Ultimately, the operation “succeeded” by forcing a humiliating withdrawal of Soviet troops and driving the Moscow-backed leader Najibullah from power, but the cost turned out to be extraordinary, creating conditions that gave rise to both the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

In 1996, the Taliban took Kabul, captured Najibullah (whose tortured and castrated body was hung from a light pole), and imposed a fundamentalist form of Islam that denied basic rights to women. The Taliban also gave refuge to Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda band enabling them to plot terror attacks against the West, including the 9/11 assaults on New York and Washington.

In response, President George W. Bush ordered an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in late 2001 followed by another invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 (though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11). Those “regime changes” began a cascade of chaos that reached into the Obama administration and to the present.

As Iraq came under the control of its Shiite majority allied with Shiite-ruled Iran, disenfranchised Sunnis organized into increasingly vicious rebel movements, such as “Al Qaeda in Iraq.” To avert a U.S. military defeat, Bush undertook a scheme of buying off Sunni leaders with vast sums of cash to get them to stop killing U.S. soldiers – called the “Sunni Awakening” – while Bush negotiated a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The payoffs succeeded in buying Bush a “decent interval” for a U.S. pullout that would not look like an outright American defeat, but the huge payments also created a war chest for some of these Sunni leaders to reorganize militarily after the Shiite-led regime of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to make significant economic and political concessions.

Obama’s Misjudgment

Obama had opposed the Iraq War, but he made the fateful choice after winning the 2008 election to retain many of Bush’s national security advisers, such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and General David Petraeus, and to hire hawkish Democrats, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Council aide Samantha Power.

Obama’s pro-war advisers guided him into a pointless “surge” in Afghanistan in 2009 and a “regime change” war in Libya in 2011 as well as a propaganda campaign to justify another “regime change” in Syria, where U.S. Sunni-led regional “allies” – Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf sheikdoms – took the lead in a war to oust President Assad, an Alawite, an offshoot of Shiite Islam. Syria was allied with Iran and Russia.

At the same time, the Sunni rebel group, “Al Qaeda in Iraq,” expanded its operations into Syria and rebranded itself the Islamic State before splitting off from Al Qaeda’s central command. Al Qaeda turned to a mix of foreign and Syrian jihadists called Nusra Front, which along with the Islamic State became the most powerful terrorist organization fighting to oust Assad.

When Assad’s military struck back against the rebels, the West – especially its mainstream media and “humanitarian war” advocates – took the side of the rebels who were deemed “moderates” although Islamic extremists dominated almost from the start.

Though Obama joined in the chorus “Assad must go,” the President recognized that the notion of recruiting, training and arming a “moderate” rebel force was what he called a “fantasy,” but he played along with the demands from the hawks, including Secretary of State Clinton, to “do something.”

That clamor rose to a fever pitch in late August 2013 after a mysterious sarin gas attack killed hundreds of Syrian civilians in a Damascus suburb. The State Department, then led by Secretary of State John Kerry, rushed to a judgment blaming the atrocity on Assad’s forces and threatening U.S. military retaliation for crossing Obama’s “red line” against using chemical weapons.

But the U.S. intelligence community had doubts about the actual perpetrators with significant evidence pointing to a “false flag” provocation carried out by Islamic extremists. At the last minute, President Obama called off the planned airstrikes and worked out a deal with President Putin to get Assad to surrender Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal even as Assad continued to deny a role in the sarin attack.

Still, the U.S. conventional wisdom held fast that Assad had crossed Obama’s “red line” and – amid more bellicose talk in Washington – Obama authorized more schemes for training “moderate” rebels. These sporadic efforts by the CIA to create a “moderate” rebel force failed miserably, with some of the early trainees sharing their weapons and skills with Nusra and the Islamic State, which in 2014 carried its fight back into Iraq, seizing major cities, such as Mosul and Ramadi, and threatening Baghdad.

As the Islamic State racked up stunning victories in Iraq and Syria – along with releasing shocking videos showing the decapitation of civilian hostages – the neocons and liberal war hawks put on another push for a U.S. military intervention to achieve “regime change” in Syria. But Obama agreed to only attack Islamic State terrorists and to spend $500 million to train another force of “moderate” Syrian rebels.

Like previous efforts, the new training mission proved an embarrassing failure, producing only about 50 fighters who then were quickly killed or captured by Al Qaeda’s Nusra and other jihadist groups, leaving only “four or five” trainees from the program, according to Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, head of the U.S. Central Command which has responsibility for the Middle East.

The Current Crisis

The failure of the training program – combined with the destabilizing flow of Mideast refugees into Europe from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other countries affected by the regional chaos due to “regime changes” – has brought new calls across Official Washington for, you guessed it, a U.S.-imposed “regime change” in Syria. The argument goes that “Assad must go” before a solution can be found.

But the greater likelihood is that if the U.S. and its NATO allies join in destroying Assad’s military, the result would be Sunni jihadist forces filling the vacuum with the black flag of terrorism fluttering over the ancient city of Damascus.

That could mean the Islamic State chopping off the heads of Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other “heretics” while Al Qaeda has a new headquarters for plotting terror strikes on the West. Millions of Syrians, now protected by Assad’s government, would join the exodus to Europe.

Then, the option for Obama or his successor would be to mount a major invasion and occupation of Syria, a costly and bloody enterprise that would mean the final transformation of the American Republic into an imperial state of permanent war.

Instead, Obama now has the option to cooperate with Putin to stabilize the Syrian regime and pressure erstwhile U.S. “allies” to cut off Al Qaeda and the Islamic State from money, guns and recruits. Though that might seem like clearly the best of the bad remaining options, it faces extraordinary obstacles from Official Washington.

Already there are howls of protests from the neocons and liberal interventionists who won’t give up their agenda of more “regime change” and their belief that American military power can dictate the outcome of every foreign conflict.

So, whether Obama can muster the courage to face down these bellicose voices and start leveling with the American people about the nuanced realities of the world is the big question ahead.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

Source Article from http://www.globalresearch.ca/obamas-fateful-syrian-choice/5476887

‘Master The Human Domain’?… Obama’s New E.O. Orders Federal Agencies To Begin Behavioral Experiments!… Be Very Afraid!


Obama’s Executive Order is based on research done by Cass Sunstein author of ‘Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas’. ~ Stephan Stanford – Videos

Once again, Barack Obama has signed an executive order and as shared by World Net Daily, ‘welcome to President Obama’s brave new world’.

Telling us that this new executive order will mainly be used to
‘manipulate the American people to the government’s will’, this order is
broken down in the 1st video below from Gabor Zolna called ‘Obama’s Latest Executive Order Is Truly Frightening!’

We look at this new order in these new stories on Breitbart and the Daily Caller, which orders federal agencies to begin ‘behavioral experiments’ upon Americans.

While the White House fact sheet
on this order argues that these behavioral experiments will be used to
make lives better for Americans in many different ways, we only need to
dig deeper to see that it is truly Orwellian.

We also learn that
research done by former Obama ‘office of information and regulatory czar’ Cass Sunstein was highly involved in the creation of this executive order. As one ANP reader recently asked, why is an executive order like this REALLY needed at this time?


From Breitbart.:

The order instructs government agencies to use “behavioral science”- a tactic used by Obama’s political campaigns to harness data from their supporters to target them effectively.

The program has already
existed in an experimental form, but now Obama has formally established
the federal “Social and Behavioral Sciences Team,” ordering them to to use psychology and experimental behavior data to make government more user-friendly.

According to reports, behavioral
science was used to advise the campaign to focus on Obama’s
Christianity instead of trying to deny the notion that he was a Muslim.
Other tactics included encouraging supporters to act for the campaign
in small ways before asking them to commit to bigger goals.

A study released today by the president’s office of National Science and Technology reveals that behavioral science has already helped government agencies target individuals.

We find it quite interesting that this
EO was signed by Obama on September 15th, the same day as the alleged
‘end’ of Jade Helm 15 and its’ stated goal of ‘Mastering the Human Domain’.

This new order, called ‘Using Science Insights to Better Serve
the American People,’ at first sounds like it might be a benevolent
endeavor until we look more closely to find out what secrets it hides.

From the Daily Caller.:

initiative draws on research from University of Chicago economist
Richard Thaler and Harvard law school professor Cass Sunstein, who was
also dubbed Obama’s regulatory czar.

The two behavioral scientists argued
in their 2008 book “Nudge” that government policies can be designed in a
way that “nudges” citizens towards certain behaviors and choices.

The desired choices almost always advance the goals of the federal government, though they are often couched as ways to cut overall program spending.

am very skeptical of a team promoting nudge policies,” Michael Thomas,
an economist at Utah State University, told Fox News in 2013.

“Ultimately, nudging…assumes a small group of people in government know better about choices than the individuals making them.”

Further disturbing is history; back on February 17th, 2013, the New York Times told us
about the Obama administration’s ‘science project’ of launching a
10-year long scientific effort to map the human brain.

Back on June
28th, 2014, the Telegraph told us about a top-secret Facebook psychology experiment conducted upon its’ users to find out how they respond to positive and negative emotions – WITHOUT telling the participants.

Over 600,000 Facebook
users have taken part in a psychological experiment organized by the
social media company, without their knowledge.

Facebook altered the
tone of the users’ news feed to highlight either positive or negative
posts from their friends, which were seen on their news feed.

They then monitored the users’ response, to see whether their friends’ attitude had an impact on their own.

“The results show emotional contagion,” wrote a team of Facebook scientists, in a paper published by the PNAS journal – Proceedings of the National Academy of Scientists of the United States.

“When positive
expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive posts and more
negative posts; when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite
pattern occurred.

“These results indicate that emotions expressed by others on Facebook influence our own emotions, constituting experimental evidence for massive-scale contagion via social networks.”

YouTube videographer Bob A
breaks all of this down for us in the 2nd video below, including
telling us this new initiative draws upon research from Chicago
economist Richard Thaler and Harvard law school professor Cass Sunstein.

Sunstein is better known by alternative news afficionados as the man
who wrote the book ‘Conspiracy Theories And Other Dangerous Ideas’.

He argues that the best response to ‘conspiracy theories’ is the ‘cognitive infiltration of extremist groups’ as shared by the Social Science Research Network’ (SSRN)
(whose logo looks suspiciously like a devil tail!) as seen







September 17, 2015 – KnowTheLies.com




Source Article from http://www.knowthelies.com/node/10771

Joan Walsh: Fiorina Was Either Lying Or ‘Delusional’ About Planned Parenthood Videos

Carly Fiorina is “either a liar, or she’s delusional” regarding the Planned Parenthood sting videos, Salon editor-at-large Joan Walsh snarled on tonight’s edition of Hardball.

At issue was this statement Fiorina made during Wednesday’s debate:

As regards Planned Parenthood, anyone who has watched this videotape, I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes,” she said. “Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, it’s heart beating, it’s legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews brought up how the Wall Street Journal reviewed the videos in question and determined that no such footage was shown on any of them. Matthews and Walsh jumped on this as evidence that Fiorina had made a misleading statement, possibly deliberately so, during the debate. For his part, Matthews likened it to an incident where Ronald Reagan claimed to have walked around in concentration camps after they have been liberated, when in fact he had only seen filmed footage thereof.

Of course, for his citation of the Journal, Matthews left out this excerpt which puts a rather charitable explanation for Fiorina’s claim:

The video that most closely resembles what Ms. Fiorina described (starting around 3:42 until 6:25, with graphic medical images) features Holly O’Donnell, a former procurement technician at Placerville, Calif.-based StemExpress LLC, saying there was a fully intact fetus after an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas. She said the fetus was in a jar and taken to a lab, where it was prepared and rinsed and put in a strainer. She asserted that a technician called her over, tapped the heart with an instrument and it started beating because electrical currents were still firing.

The woman says she doesn’t know if it was technically dead or alive. The video cuts to an image of a different fetus that came from other antiabortion groups, the Grantham Collection and Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. The former employee said a technician then used scissors to cut the head open to procure the brain.

Asked about Mrs. Fiorina’s statement, a spokeswoman for the Fiorina campaign pointed to a Youtube video that uses some of the same audio from the StemExpress technician as well as the same fetus imagery from the undercover videos and fetus imagery from other sources.

In other words, the most charitable and rather likely explanation is that Fiorina conflated the imagery and the testimony of the procurement technician and essentially mis-remembered it as seeing actual footage of a live aborted baby. At any rate, it’s undeniable that abortion itself is a grisly and violent taking of a human life, and if coupled with the deliberate harvesting of organs for profit, well, it just heightens the heinous nature of the act.

That liberals like Matthews and Walsh hope to glom on to this as a cudgel to bash Ms. Fiorina as lacking “character” is quite telling. Here’s the relevant transcript:

September 17, 2015
7:46 p.m. Eastern

CHRIS MATTHEWS: She says she has seen images of what we’re talking about here.

JOAN WALSH: Something horrible, horrible.

MATTHEWS: And, in fact, there were no images on the screen in the video.

WALSH: Right.

MATTHEWS: The Wall Street Journal says that tonight, reporting that tonight. It reminded me of Ronald Reagan saying he had been over there in the death camps. It turns out he had seen some footage on screen. She didn’t even see some footage. So I don’t even know what she’s talking about.

WALSH: Right, because what Ronald Reagan talked about actually had happened in history. What she’s talking about, I mean, I want to talk about character here. She’s talking about character. This raises questions about her character. She’s either a liar or she’s delusional. She remembers something that didn’t happen, but everybody who’s looked at these, the long, long tapes. We try to say we hope we’re seeing what’s unedited, but we still don’t know…

And here’s where Walsh could use a fact checker. The Center for Medical Progress has, for every video they’ve put out, released both short, edited pieces which rather cut to the chase about the point they’re making AND raw video which run much longer.

Left-wing critics of CMP have sought refuge in the claim that the shorter videos are deceptively edited, yet they have the full videos for comparison and, if they were in fact deceptively edited, they could easily build their case for why by contrasting exculpatory footage that was edited out of the shorter pieces. That no one has done so, it seems to me, is a case of the dog that didn’t bark.

Update (8:45 p.m. Eastern): As my colleague Brent Baker noted on Twitter, shortly after this there was a bit of an awkward moment with the liberal Ron Reagan comparing Fiorina to noted fabulist and returning MSNBC anchor Brian Williams:

Source Article from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ken-shepherd/2015/09/17/joan-walsh-fiorina-was-either-lying-or-delusional-about-planned

Donald Trump: The Malevolent Narcissist

How long can Donald Trump’s electoral vanity parade last?

After former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney lost the presidential election to Barack Obama in 2012, there appeared to be an emerging consensus: Republicans needed to build a more inclusive party, and quickly. Currently, instead of that project being fully on display, there’s Trump taking center stage.

Trump’s worldview, inasmuch as he has one, revolves around his own narcissism, intolerance and arrogance. Trump speaks like a conceited, immature business school student who’s tipsy for the very first time.

Drowning in vanity, he tells us he’s so smart and so rich. He reminds us that he’s going to make America great again, that he’s going to get tough with China. He’s ready to build a wall; that’s how much of a man he is. That’s who Americans need running the country.


Given Trump’s consistently obnoxious behavior, it’s disappointing that more than a handful of U.S. citizens would even want to have a beer with the guy. The fact that he still leads in the Republican polls (by a large margin) is truly frightening.

Yes, many people in the U.S. are frustrated with a range of issues including immigration, inequality, national security policy and gridlock in Washington, D.C. Nonetheless, do people sincerely believe that Trump has the answers?

Walls? Racism? Hyperbole? Incoherence? Logorrhea?

I spent several weeks abroad in August and virtually everyone I met with (who is at all interested in politics) had a question or two about Trump’s rise.

“What do you think about Trump?”

“Do you like Trump?”

“Is Donald Trump going to be your next president?”

“Is his hair fake?”

I could provide more quotes, but it’s just too painful.

Trump’s early success in the polls has me embarrassed and terrified — as a U.S. citizen. He acted like a buffoon during the first debate, but has been gaining traction since then. Now, according to a new poll, he’s topping 30%. That’s the first time a Republican candidate has been able to do that this time around!

What will this mean for the Republican Party?

The race for the White House is already heating up and primary season starts in January. The time for GOP voters to dump Trump is now long overdue.

If Trump really wants to move beyond business and television, perhaps he could spend time dealing with another subject he knows quite well — something pertaining to Narcissistic Personality Disorder might work.

Advocacy. Awareness-raising. Research. Fundraising. Leadership.

Surely the Donald has this covered; after all, he’s an Ivy Leaguer.

Source Article from http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/c/35496/f/677045/s/49cbddb8/sc/7/l/0L0Shuffingtonpost0N0Ctaylor0Edibbert0Cdonald0Etrump0Ethe0Emalevole0Ib0I81275780Bhtml/story01.htm