60 Minutes: Charlie Rose interviews Vladimir Putin


The following is a script from “Putin” which aired on September 27, 2015. Charlie Rose is the correspondent. Andy Court, producer.

There aren’t many world leaders who have generated as much interest as Russia’s Vladimir Putin. All eyes will be on Putin when he speaks at the U.N. tomorrow and meets with President Obama, at a time when he has placed himself and his country in the middle of the most pressing issues of our times. He helped the U.S. and its Western allies broker the nuclear deal with Iran, and now, with a Russian buildup of aircraft, military equipment and personnel in Syria, he has put himself and his country at the center of that civil war and the fight against ISIS.

Russian President Vladimir Putin CBS News Now, when his relations with the United States seem to be at a post-Cold War low, suffering under Western economic sanctions imposed on Russia, Putin may be looking for a way to restore his international influence and gain the respect he seeks for his homeland.

Just before his trip to the U.S., Putin invited us to meet him at his state residence outside Moscow where we found him characteristically confident and combative as he made the case that the focus in Syria should be on fighting ISIS rather than removing Syrian President Assad.

Charlie Rose: So you would like to join the United States in the fight against ISIS? That’s part of why you’re there. Others think that while that may be part of your goal, you’re trying to save the Assad administration because they’ve been losing ground and the war has not been going well for them. And you’re there to rescue them.

President Putin: Well, you’re right. We support the legitimate government of Syria. And it’s my deep belief that any actions to the contrary in order to destroy the legitimate government will create a situation which you can witness now in the other countries of the region or in other regions, for instance in Libya where all the state institutions are disintegrated. We see a similar situation in Iraq. And there is no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the effective government structures and rendering them help in fighting terrorism. But, at the same time, urging them to engage in positive dialogue with the rational opposition and conduct reform.

Charlie Rose: As you know some of the coalition partners want to see President Assad go first before they will support.

President Putin: I’d like to recommend to them the following. They should send this message to the Syrian people. It’s only the Syrian people who are entitled to decide who should govern their country and how.

Charlie Rose: President Assad, you support him. Do you support what he is doing in Syria and what is happening to those Syrian people, those many millions of refugees and the hundreds of thousands of people that have been killed, many by his own force?

President Putin: Well, tell me, what do you think about those who support the opposition and mainly the terrorist organizations only in order to oust Assad without thinking about what will happen to the country after all the government institutions have been demolished? Today, you have repeatedly said that Assad is fighting against his own population. But look at those who are in control of 60 percent of the territory in Syria. It’s controlled by either ISIS or by others

Charlie Rose: Al-Nusra?

President Putin:such as al-Nusra and other terrorist organizations. They are recognized as terrorist organizations by the United States, by other states and by the United Nations.

Charlie Rose: Are you prepared to put Russian combat troops on the ground in Syria if it’s necessary to defeat ISIS?

President Putin: Russia will not participate in any troop operations in the territory of Syria or in any other states. Well, at least we don’t plan on it right now. But we are considering intensifying our work with both President Assad and with our partners in other countries.

Charlie Rose: I come back to the problem that many people look at. And they believe that Assad helps ISIS. That his reprehensible conduct against the Syrian people using barrel bombs and worse is a recruiting tool for ISIS and that if he was removed, transitioned, at some point, it would be better in the fight against ISIS, al-Nusra and others.

President Putin: Well, speaking in a professional language of intelligence services I can tell you that this kind of assessment is an “active measure” by enemies of Assad. It is anti-Syrian propaganda.

Charlie Rose: Much is being read into this including this, that this is a new effort for Russia to take a leadership role in the Middle East and that it represents a new strategy by you. Is it?

President Putin: Not really. No. More than 2,000 fighters from Russia and Ex-Soviet Republics are in the territory of Syria. There is a threat of their return to us. So instead of waiting for their return, we are better off helping Assad fight them on Syrian territory. So this is the most important thing which encourages us and pushes us to provide assistance to Assad. And, in general, we want the situation in the region to stabilize.

Charlie Rose: But your pride in Russia means that you would like to see Russia play a bigger role in the world and this is just one example.

President Putin: Well, it’s not the goal in itself. I’m proud of Russia, that’s true. And we have something to be proud of, but we do not have any obsession with being a superpower in the international arena.

Charlie Rose: But you are in part a major power because of the nuclear weapons you have. You are a force to be reckoned with.

President Putin: I hope so. I definitely hope so. Otherwise why do we have nuclear weapons at all?

Recent tension between the United States and Russia began after Ukraine’s president Yanukovych was overthrown and fled to Russia. Putin responded by annexing Crimea, leading the U.S. and Western allies to impose tough economic sanctions against Russia.

President Putin: Ukraine is a separate and major issue for us. It is our closest neighbor. We’ve always said that this is our sister country. It’s not only a Slavic people. We have common history, common culture, common religion, and many things in common. What I believe is absolutely unacceptable is the resolution of internal political issues in the former USSR Republics, through “color revolutions,” through coup d’états, through unconstitutional removal of power. That is totally unacceptable. Our partners in the United States have supported those who ousted Yanukovych.

Charlie Rose: You believe that the United States had something to do with the ousting of Yanukovych, and he had to flee to Russia.

President Putin: I know that for sure.

Charlie Rose: How do you know that for sure?

President Putin: I know those people who live in Ukraine. We have thousands of contacts with them. We know who and where, when, who exactly met with someone and worked with those who ousted Yanukovych, how they were supported, how much they were paid, how they were trained, where, in which countries, and who those instructors were. We know everything.

For the record, the U.S. government has denied any involvement in the removal of the Ukrainian leader.

Charlie Rose: You respect the sovereignty of Ukraine?

President Putin: Sure. But we want countries to respect the sovereignty of other countries and Ukraine in particular. Respect for sovereignty means to not allow unconstitutional action and coup d’états, the removal of legitimate power.

Charlie Rose: How will the renewal of legitimate power take place in your judgment? How will that come about? And what role will Russia play?

President Putin: Russia has not taken part and is not going to take part in any actions aimed at removing the legitimate government.

Charlie Rose: You have a military presence on the border of Ukraine. And some even argue that there have been Russian troops in Ukraine.

President Putin: Well, you do have a military presence in Europe?

Charlie Rose: Yes.

President Putin: American tactical nuclear weapons are in Europe. Let’s not forget that. What does this mean? Does it mean that you’ve occupied Germany or that you’ve transformed the occupation forces into NATO forces? And if we have our military forces on our territory, on the border with some state, you believe this is a crime?

What Vladimir Putin thinks about America and about President Obama might surprise you. That, and some insights into his personality, when we come back.

Vladimir Putin has wielded power in Russia for more than 15 years, longer than many czars. He has not only reshaped his own country, but has begun to play a larger role in international affairs, as an occasional ally, but more often foe of U.S. policy.

Presidential candidates have portrayed him as a bully, a gangster or pragmatic opponent who can be bargained with.

One thing we found: a strong personality who will engage in a conversation with blunt talk, charm and wit.

Charlie Rose: You’re much talked about in America. There’s much conversation. More so than any–

President Putin: Maybe they have nothing else to do in America but to talk about me.

Charlie Rose: No, no, or maybe they’re curious people. Or maybe you’re an interesting character. Maybe that’s what it is. They know of a former KGB agent who came back and got into politics in St. Petersburg and became deputy mayor and then came to Moscow. And the interesting thing is they see these images of you bare-chested on a horse. And they say, “There is a man who carefully cultivates his image of strength.”

President Putin: You know, I’m convinced that a person in my position must provide a positive example to people. And those areas where he can do this, he must do this.

Charlie Rose: You enjoy the work, you enjoy representing Russia and you know– you’ve been an intelligence officer. Intelligence officers know how to read other people. That’s part of the job, yes? Yes?

President Putin: It used to be. Used to be. Now I have a different job and that’s been for quite a long time.

Charlie Rose: Somebody in Russia told me there is no such thing as a former KGB man. Once a KGB man, always a KGB man.

President Putin: Well, you know, anything that we do, all this knowledge we acquire, all the experience, we’ll have it forever and we’ll keep that. And we’ll use it somehow. So, in this sense, yes. They’re right.

Charlie Rose: A CIA operative once said to me that one of the training you have is you learn the capacity to be liked as well because you have to charm people. You have to charm people, you have to, yes, seduce them. Let me–

President Putin: Well, if the CIA told you then that’s the way it is because they are an expert on that.

Charlie Rose: You have a popularity rating in Russia that would make every politician in the world envious. Why are you so popular?

President Putin: There is something that I have in common with every citizen of Russia, the love for our motherland.

Charlie Rose: Many of us were moved by an emotional moment at the time of the World War II memory because of the sacrifices Russia had made. And you were seen with a picture of your father with tears in your eyes.

President Putin: My family suffered very major losses during the Second World War, that’s true. In my father’s family, there were five brothers. I think four of them died. On my mother’s side the picture was pretty much the same. Russia has suffered great losses. And of course we can’t forget that. And we must not forget that. Not to put blame on somebody, but to prevent anything like this from happening in the future.

Charlie Rose: You also have said that the worst thing to happen in the last century was the collapse of the Soviet empire. There are those who look at Ukraine, especially Ukraine and Georgia, and they believe that you do not want to recreate the Soviet empire, but you do want to recreate a sphere of influence, which you think Russia deserves because of the relationship that has existed. Why are you smiling? Why?

President Putin: You’re making me happy, because we’re always suspected of some ambitions. And they always try to distort something. I indeed said that I believe that the collapse of the USSR was a huge tragedy of the 20th century. You know why?

Charlie Rose: Why?

President Putin: Because, first of all, in an instant 25 million Russian people found themselves beyond the borders of the Russian state, although they were living within the borders of the Soviet Union. Then, all of a sudden, the USSR collapsed — just overnight, in fact. And it’s turned out that in the former Soviet Republics — 25 million Russian people were living. They were living in a single country. And all of a sudden, they turned out to be outside the borders of the country. You see this is a huge problem. First of all, there were everyday problems, the separation of families, social problems, economic problems. You can’t list them all. Do you think it’s normal that 25 million Russian people were abroad all of a sudden? Russia was the biggest divided nation in the world. It’s not a problem? Well, maybe not for you. But it’s a problem for me.

Charlie Rose: There are many people who are critical of Russia, as you know. They say that it’s more autocratic and less democratic. They say that political opponents and journalists have been killed and imprisoned in Russia. They say your power is unchallenged. And they say that power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What do you say to those people who worry about the climate, the atmosphere in Russia?

President Putin: Well, there can be no democracy whatsoever without compliance with the law. Everyone must observe the laws. This is the most important thing which we must bear in mind. As for these tragic events, such as the death of people, including journalists, unfortunately they do occur in all countries of the world. But if they happen in our country, we do the utmost to find the criminals and to punish them. But the most important thing is that we will continue to improve our political system so that every citizen can feel that they do influence the life of the city, of the country and of the society and so that the authorities will feel responsible with regard to those people who trust them during election campaigns.

Charlie Rose: If you, as a leader of this country, insist that the rule of law be adhered to, if you insist that justice be done, if you because of your power, then it could go a long way to eliminating that perception.

President Putin: Well, a lot can be done. But not everyone succeeds with everything from the very start. How long did it take the democratic process to develop in the United States? Do you believe that everything is perfect now from the point of view of democracy in the United States? If everything was perfect there wouldn’t be the problem of Ferguson. There would be no abuse by the police. But our task is to see all these problems and to respond properly.

Charlie Rose: So the people who killed Nemtsov will be prosecuted to the fullest?

President Putin: Yes. I said it right away that this is a shame for our history and criminals must be prosecuted and punished.

Charlie Rose: Are you curious about America? More than simply another nation that you have to deal with?

President Putin: Of course we are curious about what’s going on. America exerts enormous influence on the situation in the world, as a whole.

Charlie Rose: What do you admire most about America?

President Putin: I like the creativity.

Charlie Rose: Creativity?

President Putin: Creativity when it comes to your tackling problems. Their openness, openness and open-mindedness. Because it allows them to unleash the inner potential of their people. And thanks to that, America has attained such amazing results in developing their country.


Source Article from http://www.sott.net/article/302788-60-Minutes-Charlie-Rose-interviews-Vladimir-Putin

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:





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

This Week Brought #ActionsforClimate — But Still Not Enough

The last few days have, for once, seen world leaders and the global media focused on the big issues of our time: poverty, inequality and the dangers of climate change. President Obama admitted he acted too late on climate change and agreed with China’s President Xi Jinping on very significant – if still insufficient – additional actions. The Pope called on governments to act, not just declare that they will, the UN agreed on a new to-do list for humanity, including giving energy access to all via more renewable energy and calling for an end to deforestation. Some 30 world leaders agreed at climate lunch that more needs to be done to shift to renewable energy and that they must agree in Paris on a long term clean energy vision. At the same time, thousands around the world joined the latest action day to put additional pressure on governments and businesses to act.

Not too bad for one weekend! There is clear momentum to take #ActionsonClimate on the road to the Paris climate summit later this year – and, crucially, beyond. The climate crisis will require us to act courageously going forward, independent of what exactly world leaders decide at #COP21.

But the last few days have also often left me feeling uncomfortable. There was a mood of self-congratulation in New York. Governments and business suggested in their speeches that all is under control, that we are already on track to solve the big issues and that all are united in doing the right thing.

I wish that was true, but I know it is not. There is still so much hypocrisy in the announcements of so many governments, as my friend, Salil Shetty, the head of Amnesty International, pointed out in his powerful speech the UN summit. We still face too many vested interests that stand in the way of a clean and safe future. Too many governments are turning a blind eye to corporate abuses that poison us – as the Volkswagen scandal has once again exposed in recent days. President Obama, in crass contradiction to his fine words, is still allowing Shell to drill for more oil in the Arctic – oil that must remain in the ground. And while we know that there are no technical and economic barriers to achieving 100% renewables for all by 2050 worldwide, even progressive governments this weekend only committed to decarbonization by the end of this century. By which time it will be too late.

We must redouble our efforts. We must expose these contradictions. We must tell the stories of real transformation that are already underway, stories like this one from Canada, where the community of Little Buffalo, in the heart of the oil rich tar sands, decided to forge a new future and become powered by the sun.

Tune in to the Social Goods Summit Livestream tomorrow to hear me speak about the acts of courage we must take now at the Social Goods summit.

Source Article from http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/c/35496/f/677045/s/4a3521ec/sc/31/l/0L0Shuffingtonpost0N0Ckumi0Enaidoo0Cthis0Eweek0Ebrought0Eactions0Ib0I820A41240Bhtml/story01.htm

Kim Davis is a Genuine American Heroine


September 27, 2015


Comments for ” Kim Davis is a Genuine American Heroine”

JG said (September 27, 2015):

Thank you for this article Henry. Also, thank you for speaking on behalf of Kim Davis and her strong Christian faith.

The de -Christianization of the Supreme Court was accelerated with the last 3 appointees starting with Ruth Ginsberg who Hillary Clinton helped sponsor. President Obama then finished the process with the appointments of Kagan and Sotomeyer. This tilted the Supreme Court away from the will of the moral majority and replaced it with the will of the perverted minority as the new “law of the land”.

Kim Davis has shown great courage and conviction in the face of this MSM onslaught against her.
They let her out of jail because they feared that by keeping her there she would be recognized as a martyr for Christianity and they didn’t want that movement gaining any support.

I’m still waiting to hear voices of support for Kim Davis from the Vatican, the Jewish synagogues, and the Protestant Church. Where are you Pope Francis, Rabbi Kahn, and John Hagee? Why aren’t you actively supporting this woman?

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at

Source Article from http://henrymakow.com/2015/09/KimDavis-is-a-genuine-American-heroine.html

Pope Francis’ historic visit to the US

In his most significant apostolic journey Pope Francis will be calling for action on climate change


Pope Francis greeting the crowds

Image Credit: Photographic Service L’Osservatore Romano

Yesterday, Pope Francis landed in Washington to begin a historic US visit. In a rare break with protocol President Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Biden greeted him from the plane at Andrews Air Force Base. Today he will meet with the President at the White House and tomorrow he will be the first Pope to ever address the US Senate and House of Representatives in a Joint Session of Congress. The address will be watched by more than 40,000 people on TVs erected on the West Lawn of the Capitol and by millions throughout the world. The day after his address to Congress, Friday the 25th September, Pope Francis will formally address the United Nations General Assembly in New York City. His visit takes place during Climate Week, with less than three months to go before world leaders meet in Paris for the COP21 climate summit.

At his election the Pope adopted the name of St. Francis of Assisi, who he described as “the man of poverty, the man of peace, the man who loves and protects creation;” the world, as he says, “with which we don’t have such a good relationship.” His visit to America is his most significant apostolic journey and could prove to be his greatest challenge.

On the 18th of June the Pope released his ground breaking Encyclical “Laudato Si (Praise Be), On the Care of Our Common Home“, which called for action on climate change. The Encyclical provides desperately needed leadership. The Pope appealed to our unique place as human beings in the world, our relationship to our surroundings, and the need to put the common good before profit. The Pope spoke of the “unprecedented destruction of the ecosystem” and warned that failure to act would have “grave consequences for all of us”. He urged world leaders to heed “the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” and to take “decisive action, here and now” to save the planet from environmental ruin.

In his Encyclical, the Pope also appealed, “for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet. We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all.”

Since the release of the Encyclical the Pope has been traveling the world delivering his environmental message. At a meeting of political, economic and civic leaders in Quito, Ecuador he said: “As stewards of these riches which we have received, we have an obligation toward society as a whole, and toward future generations.” He also called for the protection of the rainforest and its inhabitants.

As well as warning of the imminent threat of catastrophic climate change Pope Francis has criticised consumerism and humanity’s exploitation of natural resources. At a speech in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, during his visit to South America in July he said, “Our common home is being pillaged, laid waste and harmed with impunity. Cowardice in defending it is a grave sin.”


Pope Francis meets with children in Bolivia

Image Credit: Photographic Service L’Osservatore Romano

John Boehner, a representative from Ohio and Speaker of the House of Representatives, is a member of the Republican Party and the House’s most senior Catholic. He has been inviting Popes to speak before Congress for more than twenty years. He sent invitations to John Paul II and Benedict XVI. They were declined. Tomorrow, Boehner’s patience will finally pay off. It is ironic, however, that it is Pope Francis who accepted the invitation, a Pope “so clearly at odds with the priorities of the Republican Party and with the priorities of the current House of Representatives”, according to James Weiss, Professor in Catholic Church History at Boston College.
It is expected that the Pope will raise his environmental concerns before Congress tomorrow and address poverty and inequality. Time magazine report that in his address he will speak about “bilateral relations and multinational relations as a sign of progress and coexistence.” John Carr, Director of the Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life at Georgetown University predicts an “appeal to our hearts and souls” on the issue of immigrants. Pope Francis may also mention divisive topics such as abortion and climate change. I hope he will address the issue of the death penalty.

Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois is optimistic that the Pope’s address will make climate change a less partisan issue, commenting, “if he inspires us to consider policy, that will be a very successful effort.” President Obama’s advisor Charles Kupchan has said the Pope’s “essential messages will resonate very much with the President’s agenda“.

The Pope’s climate change mission has divided opinion, along both religious and party lines. Representative Steve King, a Catholic Republican from Iowa said, “There is no theology about global warming that exists in the Old or New Testament, so to be advocating along those lines I think dilutes the message from the spiritual perspective that we need to hear”. Republican Paul Gosar, who represents Arizona, is boycotting the address because the Pope will “act and talk like a leftist politician“. To add fuel to the fire, Pope Francis arrives into the US following his visit to Cuba, where he met with Fidel Castro to discuss the common problems of humanity, including environmental degradation. Detractors have not forgotten the role he played in restoring diplomatic relations between the two states.

Pope Francis’ environmental message may be more enthusiastically received in New York on Friday, when he addresses the United Nations General Assembly. Dozens of streets will be closed for his arrival and flyers have already been dropped in New York calling on people to “rally with Pope Francis in the call to moral action for climate justice”.

Ahead of the COP21 climate summit in Paris in December the need for a successful outcome is more urgent than ever. The Pope’s address to the UN may prove a galvanising force. With his guidance and moral leadership there is hope that we may get a comprehensive and legally binding global climate change agreement needed to prevent catastrophic climate change, with provisions for the poorest and most vulnerable which would protect the rights of local communities and indigenous people.

The Pope has criticised the lack of leadership on climate change and the “failure of global summits” to produce meaningful agreements. In his Encyclical he said, “There are too many special interests, and economic interests [that] easily end up trumping the common good and manipulating information so that their own plans will not be affected.” I fear Pope Francis is right.

What can we expect from COP21 in Paris? I have been attending the climate change conferences since COP13 in Bali in 2007. Each of them has failed to produce what is required to prevent catastrophic climate change. The International Energy Agency has already issued its bleak outlook for the climate summit in Paris, reporting, “It is well known that the [greenhouse gas reductions pledges] will fall well short of what is needed to be on a path to the 2°C goal.” There is, unfortunately, enough reason to be sceptical about this year’s outcome.

Miguel Cañete, the EU Commissioner for Climate Action, who will lead the EU’s 28 member states at the COP21 negotiations has warned, “There is no plan B if agreement is not reached in Paris. Nothing will follow. This is not just on-going UN discussions. Paris is final.”

Will world leaders realise that COP21 is the end of the line and seize this opportunity to address the threat of catastrophic climate change or will they continue to procrastinate?

For decades, scientists have been warning us about the effects of climate change and its impact on the world. How tropical and subtropical regions in Africa, South Asia and Latin America will heat up more and more, with temperatures becoming increasingly intolerable. How rising sea levels will endanger between 147 and 216 million people, particularly those in low-lying countries such as Bangladesh, the Marshall Islands and the Maldives as well as people in Tokyo, Shanghai, New York and London. How melting glaciers will flood river valleys and then, when they have disappeared, unprecedented droughts will occur, affecting large parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America.

The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report finds that land and ocean surface temperatures have increased globally by nearly 1 degree Celsius since 1901. It is important to note that in parts of Africa, Asia, North America and South America surface temperatures have already risen by up to 2.5 degrees Celsius.

Earlier this year, world-renowned climate scientist James Hansen, published a study outlining a scenario of rapid sea level rise combined with more intense storm systems. In the study Hansen and 16 other experts on ice sheets warn that the reality exceeds worse case scenarios and even limiting average global temperatures to a rise of 2 degrees Celsius is “highly dangerous.” They conclude: “that multi-meter sea-level rise would become practically unavoidable. Social disruption and economic consequences of such large sea-level rise could be devastating. It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization.”


The Antarctic’s Ross Ice Shelf

Image Credit: Michael Van Woert, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, NOAA.

To avoid catastrophic climate change world leaders need to reach an agreement that keeps carbon dioxide levels below 350 parts per million (ppm). According to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography of the University of California in San Diego the current CO2 levels of 398.82 ppm are the highest they have been in the last 800,000 years, with the average annual rate increasing by 2.11 ppm.

A few months ago I spoke at the Climate Summit of the Americas in Toronto. To the west of the city are the vast mountain glaciers of the Canadian Rockies and the Pacific Northwest. Seventy per cent of those glaciers will disappear by 2100, if climate change is not slowed. Some 140,000 species of animal live in Canada, only half of which has been identified and never will be if their habitats are destroyed.

On the opposite side of the world, the Antarctic ice cap is melting at its fastest rate since records began. A Princeton University study, published in May 2015 in the Earth and Planetary Science Letters journal found that more than 92 billion tons of Antarctic ice melted every year between 2003 and 2014 and that the rate of melting is accelerating. This is very alarming – if this ice were stacked on the island of Manhattan, that amount of ice would be a mile high, more than five times the height of the Empire State Building.

One of the report’s researchers, Christopher Harig said: “[Melting Antarctic ice has the] potential to be a runaway problem. It has come to the point that if we continue losing mass in those areas, the loss can generate a self-reinforcing feedback whereby we will be losing more and more ice, ultimately raising sea levels by tens of feet.”

Between the 6th and the 10th of July 2015, nearly 2,000 climate change experts gathered in Paris at the Our Common Future Under Climate Change conference. The aims of the conference were to:
• Provide state-of-the-art scientific knowledge on climate change, one year after the release of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report
• Explore ways to combine climate change mitigation and adaptation, and sustainable development
• Assess the potential for evidence-based solutions to climate change challenges

The delegates recognised the need to act with even greater urgency – because a two-year UN scientific review concluded that even limiting the rise of the earth’s temperature to 2 degree Celsius from pre-industrial levels is inadequate and that the goal must be to limit the increase below 1.5 °C.

According to this review, “in some regions and vulnerable ecosystems, high risks are projected even for warming above 1.5 °C.” The same study found that “not only are we not on track to meet the long-term global goal, but the current emission rate is accelerating… emissions need to be cut significantly and immediately.”

The Conference’s Outcome Statement found “a two in three probability of holding warming to 2 degrees Celsius or less will require a budget that limits future carbon dioxide emissions to about 900 billion tons, roughly 20 times annual emissions in 2014. To limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius, emissions must be zero or even negative by the end of the 21st century… The window for economically feasible solutions with a reasonable prospect of holding warming to 2 degrees Celsius or less is rapidly closing… Every nation has a role. Bold action in 2015 can be decisive in assuring a common future of sustainable, robust economies, equitable societies, and vibrant communities.”

In July 2015 a group of 24 British institutions (including the British Academy, the Royal Society, the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Institution of Civil Engineers) issued a joint letter calling for immediate action to be taken by governments to avert the worst impacts of climate change. They said that tackling climate change now would drive economic progress, benefit the health of millions by cutting air pollution and improve access to energy, water and food.

Under the current UN process, pledges by individual countries to cut emissions, called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDCs, will largely determine whether in the short term, and possibly in the longer term, we succeed, or fail in limiting global temperature rise beyond acceptable levels. As the World Resources Institute states, “The INDCs will largely determine whether the world achieves an ambitious 2015 agreement and is put on a path toward a low-carbon, climate-resilient future.”

COP21 is less than 3 months away and 64 countries have submitted their INDCs. Key states, including Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey are yet to submit their pledges. Without these pledges it is difficult to assess whether the INDCs will be enough.

After the climate negotiations in Bonn at the beginning of September (Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action ADP 2.10) Climate Action Tracker published a joint statement from its four European research groups (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Climate Analytics, NewClimate Institute and Ecofys) reporting that current INDC emission cuts ahead of COP21 are insufficient and will lead to average warming of around 3 degrees Celsius by 2100, compared to pre-industrial levels.

Economist Lord Stern agrees that commitments already made by world governments to cut carbon emissions are not enough to keep global warming below the crucial 2 degree Celsius target – but, he thinks a strong deal is still possible in Paris.

COP21 is our last chance. If negotiations fail the world will be a dramatically different place. We are at a critical crossroads and the world needs every country to be ambitious, bold, and uncompromising with its greenhouse gas emissions reduction pledges.

World leaders must do everything in their power to produce an agreement based on scientific facts, not on political expediency and vested interests. At COP21 they must deliver a comprehensive, just and legally binding climate agreement, with provision for the transfer of technology to developing countries, adequate adaptation, loss and damage, mitigation and implementation mechanisms, with safeguards throughout for communities and indigenous peoples’ rights.

The current draft text of the agreement that is working its way towards Paris in December contains much to be commended but it is not enough.

It is imperative that the Final Draft includes clauses on indigenous rights and land use. While these terms appear in the current draft, they must be given prominence near the top of the operative paragraphs in order that they can guide subsequent paragraphs relating to mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage. This would ensure the rights of indigenous people throughout the world receive adequate protection.

As the Pope said in his Encyclical it “is essential to show special care for indigenous communities and their cultural traditions. They are not merely one minority among others, but should be the principal dialogue partners, especially when large projects affecting their land are proposed. For them, land is not a commodity but rather a gift from God and from their ancestors who rest there, a sacred space with which they need to interact if they are to maintain their identity and values. When they remain on their land, they themselves care for it best. Nevertheless, in various parts of the world, pressure is being put on them to abandon their homelands to make room for agricultural or mining projects which are undertaken without regard for the degradation of nature and culture.”

I would like to add to the Pope’s eloquent comments, that mega dams are also putting pressure on indigenous people. In the Amazon basin 412 dams are being built, with 242 of these in Brazil alone.


President Obama at COP15 in Copenhagen, 2009
Image Credit: Official Whitehouse Photo

It has been over 23 years since the UNFCCC treaty was established to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. We have endured years of COP negotiations, promises, distant targets and shattered hope.

On the road to Paris I am reminded of the expectations of COP15 in Copenhagen, 2009. Our hopes were high, and they were dashed. World leaders failed to deliver a comprehensive, legally binding, global climate change treaty. We can’t let this happen again when world leaders meet in Paris in December. Paris is our last chance, the final opportunity to address the greatest threat of our time.

At this critical juncture in history world leaders should reflect on Winston Churchill’s address to Parliament on the eve of the Second World War: “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”

I hope that world leaders attending COP21 will listen to Pope Francis, act with courage and conviction and emerge from the conference with an agreement that, in the words of the Pope, “protects our common home” and “brings the whole human family together to seek a sustainable and integral development”, to preserve “resources for present and future generations”.

Follow Bianca Jagger on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BiancaJagger

Source Article from http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/c/35496/f/677045/s/4a19d5b8/sc/7/l/0L0Shuffingtonpost0N0Cbianca0Ejagger0Cpope0Efrancis0Ehistoric0Evis0Ib0I81827960Bhtml/story01.htm

‘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

Obama invites transgender, ‘gay’ bishop, pro-abortion nun to meet pope

Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Share on StumbleUpon0Pin on Pinterest0

thee pope

(Thomas Williams)  President Obama will apparently test just how far Pope Francis’ notorious tolerance will go by inviting a rogue’s gallery of people opposed to Catholic teaching to greet the pontiff at the White House during his visit next week.

In a stunning show of political indecorum, Obama has invited a series of individuals who publicly flout Catholic teaching, including a pro-abortion religious sister, a transgender woman and the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, along with at least two Catholic gay activists.

The White House was illuminated in gay pride colors on June 26, 2015, after the Supreme Court legalized gay same-sex marriage.

One of the invitees, retired Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson, made history by becoming the first openly gay episcopal bishop in 2003 and subsequently the first to divorce his gay partner in 2014, after having previously separated from his wife of 14 years. He has attended a number of religious events with the Obama administration, offering a prayer at President Obama’s inauguration in 2009 and taking part in the 2014 National Prayer Breakfast.

Mateo Williamson, a cross-dressing woman and former co-chairman of the Transgender Caucus for Dignity USA, has also received an invitation to the White House for Pope Francis’ visit. Williamson says that though she now thinks of herself as a man, she continues to be attracted to males. “Today I identify as a gay man and before that was difficult to understand because I thought that in order to be transgender, in order to be a transgender male that I had to be attracted to females but I never have throughout my entire life.”

Though Pope Francis has said that he doesn’t believe in judging persons and is ready to welcome anyone in Christ’s name, he has also said that Catholics do not accept the modern mentality of transgenderism and once said that gay marriage is the devil’s “attempt to destroy God’s plan.”

“The acceptance of our bodies as God’s gift,” Francis wrote in his encyclical letter on the environment, “is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home, whereas thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation.”

Earlier this month, the Vatican officially prohibited transgender persons from being baptismal godparents posing as the opposite sex from which they were born.

In its response, the Vatican Doctrinal Congregation said that “transsexual behavior publicly reveals an attitude contrary to the moral imperative of resolving the problem of one’s sexual identity according to the truth of one’s sexuality.”

Another White House invitee for the Pope’s visit, Sister Simone Campbell, is the pro-abortion executive director of the social justice lobby NETWORK. Campbell fought against the U.S. bishops when Obama’s Affordable Care Act was originally being debated, in an attempt to undermine their abortion and conscience concerns.

Sister Campbell will attend two events: the White House reception and Pope Francis’ address to Congress on Wednesday. Campbell famously helped organize the “Nuns on the Bus” a tour by Catholic religious women to protest the budget of then-Senator Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).

An intermediary for several of the invitations to greet the Pope was Vivian Taylor, a 30-year-old male transvestite who acted as Executive Director of Integrity USA, a homosexual and transgender activist wing of the Episcopal Church, until last March.

“A few months ago I received an invitation from the White House to attend the reception for Pope Francis,” Taylor told CNS News. “I was told I could bring several friends with me,” adding that he is “glad we can bring some LGBT representation to the event.”

Source Article from http://govtslaves.info/obama-invites-transgender-gay-bishop-pro-abortion-nun-to-meet-pope/

Obama spends $500 million to train 5 anti-ISIS fighters

Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on Facebook1Tweet about this on Twitter1Share on Reddit0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Share on StumbleUpon0Pin on Pinterest0


(Douglas Ernst)  President Obama just found out how many good anti-ISIS fighters $500 million buys: five, at most.

Gen. Lloyd Austin, who leads the U.S. military’s Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday there are only four or five Syrian fighters left out of 54 who were trained as part of a U.S. program.

Another 100-120 fighters will be trained in the program’s three remaining classes, NBC News reported Wednesday.

Obama said in September that assisting Syrian rebels was “the best counterweight” for combating the Sunni radical terror group’s control over large swathes of Iraq and Syria, NBC reported.

During Gen. Austin’s testimony, Arizona Republican John McCain expressed frustration over the U.S.-led coalition’s inability to degrade the terror group’s ranks.

“Published media reports suggest that the CIA’s estimate of ISIL’s manpower has remained constant, despite U.S. airstrikes, which suggests that either they were wrong to begin with, or that ISIL is replacing its losses in real time. Neither is good,” McCain said, NBC reported. “Indeed, this committee is disturbed by recent whistleblower allegations that officials at Central Command skewed intelligence assessments to paint an overly-positive picture of conditions on the ground.”

Experts believe ISIS has at least 30,000 soldiers at its disposal. Roughly 1,000 of those fighters are said to be from the United Kingdom.

FBI Director James Comey said “upwards of 200 Americans” are in Syria fighting with ISIS during a July hearing before the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee.

“These threats remain among the highest priorities for the FBI and the intelligence community as a whole,” Comey said, The Hill reported July 8.

Source Article from http://govtslaves.info/obama-spends-500-million-to-train-5-anti-isis-fighters/

Obama to admit 100,000 refuges into US.

Wednesday at the White House, the most senior national security officials will discuss raising the limit on the number of refugees from around the world allowed to enter the United States — from 70,000 this year to 85,000 next year and 100,000 in fiscal 2017, three administration officials told me. If members of the National Security Council Principals Committee agree on the plan, it will be sent to President Obama’s desk, and administration sources say he is likely to quickly approve it.

The plan has the strong support of White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, whose priorities often differ on the Syria issue. McDonough is focused on the fight against ISIS. Power wants to confront Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, and do more to protect the civilians being killed by both.

The throngs of desperate migrants fleeing Syria and the images of children washing up on European shores have spurred the Obama administration into action, officials said.

The problem with the plan, no matter how quickly adopted, is how long it will take to have any effect. Migrants applying for refugee asylum in the United States now will not have their applications considered until at least 2017 because of a long backlog. And once an application begins to be considered, the asylum seekers can face a further 18 to 24 months before they are granted or denied asylum.

President Obama spoke about the refugee crisis Tuesday at the White House alongside the king of Spain. He said it was important for the U.S. to “take our share” of Syrian refugees and reinforced his pledge to allow 10,000 more into the country than previously planned in 2016.

“This is going to require cooperation with all the European countries and the United States and the international community in order to ensure that people are safe; that they are treated with shared humanity; and that we ultimately have to deal with the source of the problem, which is the ongoing crisis in Syria,” he said.

Last Friday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that the policy process was underway to determine what exactly the asylum caps would be. He also acknowledged that whatever was decided, there was little chance that refugees fleeing Syria today would be able to enter the U.S. any time soon. The U.S. has accepted only 1,500 Syrian refugees since the war began.

“It’s not clear to me that anybody would be able to make their way through this process before the end of the next fiscal year if they’re just applying today,” he said.

Last week, Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman convened a high-level meeting at the State Department to illicit other ideas for dealing with the mounting refugee crisis.

Human rights experts said that the United Nations has already referred over 16,000 Syrian refugees to the U.S. for vetting, and the 10,000 increase would come almost exclusively from the backlog of Syrians who have already applied, not the people who are fleeing now.

“Becoming a U.S. refugee is not an immediate protection option,” said Sarah Margon, Washington director for Human Rights Watch. “These numbers are good, but they are woefully adequate, unbelievably late, and not a substitute for a policy that would ensure better protection for Syrians.”

Part of the problem, she said, is that the U.S. government has not addressed the growing refugee crisis for several years and is just now rushing to action. In its last budget request, the administration requested $2.45 billion for migration and refugee assistance — $600 million less than what Congress appropriated the year before. The $2.45 billion request is up from seeking $2.05 billion the year before. If Congress passes a continuing resolution, the funding would remain flat.

Officials say that there is resistance inside the government to taking in more refugees. The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration are overstretched already and fear not having enough money and people to keep up with an asylum expansion.

The politics of increasing refugee caps, even marginally, are also a problem for the White House. Democrats are asking the administration to take in significantly higher numbers of refugees. Top Republican lawmakers and a slew of presidential candidates have said recently that taking in more Syrian refugees presents a national security risk.

“I take ISIS at its word when it said … we’ll use the refugee crisis to infiltrate the West. That concerns me,” said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul on ABC’s “This Week.” “We don’t have the systems in place on the ground in Syria to properly vet these individuals. We don’t know who they are.”

Not all Republicans are sounding the terrorism alarm. Senator Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on state and foreign operations, told me he is working with Senator Patrick Leahy on an emergency appropriations package for addressing the Syrian refugee crisis.

“If this is not an emergency, I don’t know what would be. We should take our fair share,” Graham said. “We are the good guys and gals. We’re supposed to be open minded about this.”

The White House, Democrats and Republicans all seem to agree that the only real way to solve the refugee crisis is to solve the Syrian civil war, but there’s no political resolution in sight and the administration has no intention of pushing the military balance against the Assad regime. The Syrian refugee crisis is going to continue and get much worse before it gets better.

The concern is that the White House, after announcing this new plan, will not try to do more. By announcing a modest increase over the next two years, and pledging to vet applicants closely, the president may succeed at navigating the politics of asylum, but the Syrian refugee crisis will only grow.

Source Article from http://govtslaves.info/obama-to-admit-100000-refuges-into-us/