Obama Gave Over 1,500 Terrorists Asylum in US, Documents Reveal



Law waived to allow foreigners who engaged in terrorism “while under duress” into country.

Documents obtained by Judicial Watch reveal that the Obama administration gave more than 1,500 terrorists asylum in the United States in 2014.

According to the government watchdog, “the administration let 1,519 ‘inadmissible’ foreigners embroiled in terrorism into the U.S. last year because the crimes were committed ‘while under duress.’”

“Before the Obama administration tweaked a federal law last year, these foreign nationals would have been banned from the country for supporting terrorist causes,” Judicial Watch writes. “But under the changes the Secretary of Homeland Security has ‘discretionary authority’ to waive certain grounds of inadmissibility relating to terrorism.”

Data obtained from the DHS and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service reveals that more than 50 percent of those rewarded residency, most of which whom were linked to the refugee crisis, provided material support to terrorist organizations.

“The others received military-type training from a terrorist organization, voluntarily provided medical care to members of a terrorist group and solicited funds or individuals for membership in a terrorist organization,” Judicial Watch continues. “After a case-by-case review, Obama’s DHS Secretary, Jeh Johnson, determined that the recently admitted terrorists only participated in these activities ‘while under duress.’”

The policy of admitting known terrorists began last year after the Obama administration altered legislation, the Immigration and Nationality Act, designed to keep anyone who provided material support to terrorists from stepping on US soil.

“In other words, the federal law rightfully had a zero tolerance for any kind of involvement with terrorist elements,” adds Judicial Watch. “But a joint effort by DHS and the State Department created an ‘Exercise of Authority’ that allows ‘an alien who provided limited material support’ to a terrorist organization to stay in the U.S. if the powers that be in our government believe they pose no threat.”

Judicial Watch also links the revelation to the Obama administration’s secret terrorist “hands off” list, uncovered in DHS emails last year by a U.S. senator, which shows suspected Muslim Brotherhood members were allowed to openly travel within the US.

Source




Related Posts


Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEuropeanUnionTimes/~3/q_3m_IeeHhs/

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.

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

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

Liberal professors urge Obama to target climate change skeptics with RICO act while ignoring mafia tactics of Monsanto, Big Pharma



(NaturalNews) You can always tell a liberal from a constitutionalist: the latter believes in the nation’s founding principles and the rule of law as is; the former wants to use laws, statutes, courts or presidential authority to force others to accept their point of view.

That is the only way to explain why left-leaning university professors are pressing President Obama to use his executive authority to punish anyone who does not accept at face value so-called “climate change science” that has been manipulated, changed, and intentionally skewed in the past, all to support a specific de-growth, anti-capitalist agenda.

Climate Change Dispatch, a website dedicated to spreading the word about climate hoaxes and faulty climate data, reports that although there has been no real rise in global temperatures for nearly two decades, about two dozen scientists from major universities are pressing Obama to punish climate skeptics using RICO laws – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act statutes passed in 1970 to combat organized crime (such as the old Mafia).

In a letter addressed to the president, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren, the group of scientists wrote that they “appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.”

Tobacco-like cover-up?

However, “one additional tool” – which has been proposed by liberal Democrat Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island – is to conduct a RICO investigation of corporations and other organizations they charge have knowingly deceived the American public about the so-called risks of climate change “as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change,” they wrote.

The scientists charged that critics’ actions have already been documented in other publications.

“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,” the scientists said.

“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,” they wrote.

No smoke

In a Washington Post commentary piece last year, Whitehouse charged that the fossil fuel industry was out to deceive the American public, and as such, he argued that such activity amounted to “a racketeering enterprise.”

He alleged the “parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking,” adding that the tobacco industry – which indeed hid the ill health effects of smoking – “joined together in a common enterprise and coordinated strategy.”

“The fossil fuel industry, its trade associations and the conservative policy institutes that often do the industry’s dirty work met at the Washington office of the American Petroleum Institute,” the senator wrote.

“A memo from that meeting that was leaked to the New York Times documented their plans for a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign to undermine climate science and to raise ‘questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.'”

Whitehouse was finally forced to admit that he was doing nothing but slinging allegations because he had no real evidence to offer.

“To be clear: I don’t know whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry. We don’t have enough information to make that conclusion. … But there’s an awful lot of smoke,” he wrote.

Using the law to punish political opponents

Meanwhile, despite the dearth of scientific evidence that global warming/climate change/climate disruption even exists as the Left claims it does, there is real evidence to suggest that climate scientists have indeed manipulated their climate data in order to “prove” that global warming was real and that human activities were causing it.

NASA scientists have also been caught manipulating data by climate skeptic Paul Homewood.

Then, there is the fact that no one on the Left – or in Congress in general – is recommending using RICO to punish bio-ag giant Monsanto and Big Pharma for using Mafioso tactics to strong-arm critics and whistleblowers, as Natural News has reported.

There are definitely cases where U.S. racketeering laws are appropriate, but not in cases where those who call for them are only trying to silence and/or punish political opponents.

Sources include:

ClimateChangeDispatch.com

ClimateDepot.com

IGES.org

WashingtonPost.com





























Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
comments powered by Disqus



Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/051347_RICO_climate_change_government_corruption.html

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

Nobel Secretary Regrets Giving Peace Prize to War Criminal Barrack Obama

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

Obama-Eyes-Syria

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!

human-behavior-experiments

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?

Cass-Sunstein-Conspiracy-Theories-and-Other-Dangerous-Ideas

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.:

The
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.

“I
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
below.

Social-Science-Research-Network

 

Source

 

Source

 

September 17, 2015 – KnowTheLies.com

 

Source

 

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

Donald Trump Responds To Question From A Birther By Demonstrating That He Is Still A Birther

Trump in 2011 notably called into question Obama’s citizenship and demanded that the president release his birth certificate to prove that he was born in the United States. Obama later did, yet Trump continued to dispute the facts, including the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.

Other GOP presidential candidates have handled such questions very differently. In 2008, then-GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) calmly corrected a woman who went on an anti-Muslim rant at a town hall. When the women alleged that she could not trust Obama because he “is an Arab,” McCain stopped her.

“No, ma’am, he’s a decent family man [and] citizen who I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. And that’s what this campaign is all about,” McCain said.

Later on Thursday, Trump’s campaign attempted to clarify his remarks, claiming that he was discussing “religious liberties” for Christians.

Source Article from http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/c/35496/f/677045/s/49f3d49a/sc/21/l/0L0Shuffingtonpost0N0C20A150C0A90C170Cdonald0Etrump0Ebirther0In0I8156130A0Bhtml/story01.htm