Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Sep 152014

Over time, federal agencies have flipped the Freedom of Information Act on its head. Congress clearly intended the FOIA to be a tool for the public to pry information out of federal agencies.

In recent years, however, agencies have blatantly abused opaque language in the law to keep records that might be embarrassing out of the publics hands forever.

One of the clearest examples of this problem has been playing itself out in court rooms over the last few years as the Central Intelligence Agency has successfully argued against the release of a 30-year-old draft volume of the official history of the 1961 Bay of Pigs disaster.

There are few records in the federal government that are seen to merit such secrecy. This draft CIA history is afforded stronger protections than the presidents records, or even classified national security information. Members of the public are able to access similar records generated by the White House as early as 12 years after the president leaves office. Even most classified national security information is automatically declassified after 25 years. Yet, the CIA continues to insist that releasing a draft volume of a history of events that occurred more than 50 years ago, and are already generally understood by the public, must be kept secret.

How is this possible? The record can continue to be withheld because it fits under the rubric of the FOIAs exemption for inter- and intra-agency records.

While this exemption was intended in part to allow agency officials to give candid advice before an agency has made an official decision, agencies have stretched its use to cover practically anything that is not a final version of a document.

As long as a record meets the technical definition of an inter- or intra-agency record, there is nothing the public or courts can do to make an agency release it.

Thankfully, Congress has recognized this black hole in the publics right to know, and has stepped in with a bill that promises to close the loophole and make other changes that would improve the FOIA process. Longtime FOIA champions Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont and John Cornyn, R-Texas have reached across the aisle to develop and introduce S. 2520, the FOIA Improvement Act.

The bill takes the common sense step of requiring agencies to weigh the public interest in the release of an inter- or intra- agency record when considering whether to withhold it, and also puts a time limit of 25 years on the use of the exemption.

Far from radically changing how requests are processed, this narrowly tailored change to the law would help ensure historical records are available on a timely basis and stem the worst abuses by allowing a court to weigh in where necessary to make sure records that would show waste, fraud, abuse, or illegality are released.

Read more:
Restoring freedom to FOIA



RACHEL MADDOW: Obama talks tough on Russia, asserts NATO unity
Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia, talks with Rachel Maddow about President Obama's reassurances to NATO's Baltic partners that they'll be protected from Russia, and assesses…

By: Premium Rush

Read the original post:
RACHEL MADDOW: Obama talks tough on Russia, asserts NATO unity – Video

Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves (left), with intelligence officer Eston Kohver in 2010. Kohver was arrested by Russian police on spying charges, but Estonian officials called it an illegal kidnapping. AP hide caption

Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves (left), with intelligence officer Eston Kohver in 2010. Kohver was arrested by Russian police on spying charges, but Estonian officials called it an illegal kidnapping.

Russia and its tiny neighbor, Estonia, are embroiled in a spy controversy worthy of a John le Carr novel.

Estonia says Russian agents kidnapped one of its intelligence officials in a cross-border raid. Russia says the man was caught spying on its territory.

The affair could have wider implications for the NATO alliance, because it began just days after President Obama gave a speech in Estonia promising to protect the NATO member against foreign aggression.

Russia’s state-run news media ran the story with video supplied by the FSB, Russia’s federal security service. It showed an Estonian citizen, Eston Kohver, being hustled into a police station in handcuffs, and said that he had been arrested in Russia’s western Pskov region as he tried to carry out an intelligence operation.

Then the video panned over a table showing items that Kohver was allegedly carrying when he was caught: a snub-nosed Taurus automatic, a stack of 50-euro notes worth about $6,500, and some miniature recording equipment. The video zoomed in on the gun to show the trademark and the fact that it was made in Miami.

The implication was that Kohver was packing classic spy gear, and that he was somehow linked to the United States.

Estonia acknowledges that Kohver is one of its intelligence officers, but the resemblance to Russia’s version of the story ends there.

In the first place, Estonia says, Kohver was on the Estonian side of the border when he was captured in a surprise raid.

See more here:
Estonia 'Spy' Dispute Could Be Russia Making Anti-NATO Mischief



ISIS Agenda 21 – Illuminati Is Using America President to Create WW3 New World Order – Sunday Law
SPREAD THIS VIDEO FAST DOWNLOAD or SEND LINK for FREE, SHARE

By: theMARKofTHEbeastYES

Go here to see the original:
ISIS Agenda 21 – Illuminati Is Using America President to Create WW3 New World Order – Sunday Law – Video

Ukraine needs to give its regions veto power over future membership in NATO and the European Union to finally end the uprising by pro-Russian separatists in the east, a former envoy of President Vladimir Putin said.

The easternmost Donetsk and Luhansk regions, where Russian is the main language, should also be granted greater control over their security forces, similar to the devolution of power in the Balkans after the breakup of Yugoslavia, as well as their finances, Vladimir Lukin said in an interview in Moscow.

Eastern Ukraine, or most of it, as far as Im aware, doesnt want to be part of NATO, said Lukin, who represented Russia at February talks in Kiev between then-President Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leaders who later ousted him. Russia is also against this, but the main thing is that eastern Ukraine is opposed and has made it abundantly clear, he said, stressing that he was speaking in a personal capacity.

In those talks, which were also attended by the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland, Yanukovych agreed to hold early presidential elections by December and form a national unity government. Within hours, though, the threat of a violent overthrow forced him to flee Kiev for Russia in what Putin later called a far-right coup.

Putin and Yanukovychs successor, Petro Poroshenko, last week reached an agreement that paved the way for a Sept. 5 cease-fire accord that included vague pledges to decentralize power. Putin has railed against the eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, formed in 1949 in part to counter the Soviet Union, and cited concern over neighboring Ukraines possible membership in the U.S.-led military bloc when he annexed Crimea in March.

Poroshenko, 48, has indicated hes ready to grant more autonomy in the east, though he hasnt provided details. He said hell send a draft law on temporary self-governance in certain districts of Luhansk and Donetsk to parliament next week, while ruling out independence for those regions.

Lukin, 77, Russias ambassador to the U.S. in 1992-1994, said one way to ensure that Donetsk and Luhansk have the ability to block Ukraines membership in NATO, as well as the EU, is to introduce constitutional changes requiring that such actions be supported by a majority of the populations of each region.

The guarantees for eastern Ukraine are very simple, Lukin said in the Russian capital. Each region must have the right to express its will. This is my personal view, of course. Its not up to me.

Lukin, a founder of the pro-democracy Yabloko political party in the 1990s, stepped down as Russias human rights commissioner in March after serving two Kremlin-appointed five-year terms. He helped free international observers held by the rebels in Ukraine in May and June, on the first occasion traveling to Slovyansk in person to negotiate their freedom. Hes currently the president of the Russian Paralympic Committee.

Introducing direct elections for governor and ending the current practice of appointment by the central government could also help ensure the peace, Lukin said. That could be accompanied by allowing the regions to retain most of the taxes they collect, he said, since Donetsk and Luhansk, which make up the industrial and coal-producing heartland known as Donbas, believe theyre giving more to Kiev than theyre getting.

Continue reading here:
Ukraine Rebels Need NATO Veto to End War: Ex-Putin Envoy

An unedited photo of U.S. President Barack Obama making a speech Wednesday has gone viral and sparked Illuminati rumors. Since his first inauguration in 2008, people have made links between the president and the secret society bent on a new world order. Obama addressed the nation Wednesday from the Cross Hall of the White Houseabout his plans for military action against the Islamic State, the militant group also known as ISIS. In a photo taken during his speech, a set of “horns” can be seen on top of Obama’s head, due to the design of a curtain behind him.

People on social media were quick to make a connection between Obama and Illuminati based on the picture. In addition to the photo of Obama with devil horns, conspiracy theorists also noted that Obama has three syllables in his name, a triangle has three sides and 9/11 is three numbers. Thursday marked the 13th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The numbers 3, 9 and 11 have very special meaning to the Illuminati, according to Milton William Cooper, author of Secret Societies/New World Order.” “The numbers3, 7, 9,11,13, 33, 39. Any multiple of these numbers have special meaning to the Illuminati. Notice that the Bilderberg Group has a core of39members who are broken into 3 groups of 13 members in each group, Cooper wrote.

The Bilderberg Group in 1954 had their first meeting and members reportedly include some of the most powerful people in the world who control its resources. Notice that the core of 39 answers to the 13 who make up the Policy Committee. Take special notice that the 13 members of the Policy Committee answer to the Round Table of Nine. You know that the original number of states in the United States of America was 13. The Constitution has 7 articles and was signed by 39 members of the Constitutional Convention, Cooper wrote.

See the original post:
President Obama Illuminati Rumors: Photo Of President With …

Since Barry Goldwater, in accepting the Republicans 1964 presidential nomination, said, Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, Democrats have been decrying Republican extremism. Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in U.S. politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitutions architecture of ordered liberty is rare. This week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done: Amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political classs convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment, as the First Congress passed it and the states ratified it more than 200 years ago, says: Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as people seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech. The Democrats amendment says: Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections, and may prohibit corporations including nonprofit issue-advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money to influence elections, which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits will be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed reasonable will surely serve incumbents interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this improvement of James Madisons First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendments most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals, and Nazi parades. That, by aiming to equalize the political influence of people and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision, joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. That one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a dangerous intrusion on free speech. And that no Fortune 100 corporation appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles.

There are not the 67 Democratic senators and 290 Democratic representatives necessary to send this amendment to the states for ratification. The mere proposing of it, however, has usefully revealed the senators who are eager to regulate speech about themselves:

Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (Md.), Thomas Carper (Del.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Christopher Coons (Del.), Richard Durbin (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Al Franken (Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Angus King (Maine), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Edward Markey (Mass.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Christopher Murphy (Conn.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Harry Reid (Nev.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), Bernard Sanders (Vt.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Udall (Colo.), John Walsh (Mont.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Ron Wyden (Ore.).

The italicized names are of senators on the ballot this November. But all 48 Senate co-sponsors are American rarities real extremists.

The rest is here:
Will: George Will: Senate Democrats extremism on display



Ukraine War | President Poroshenko: Ukraine NATO agree on intensive cooperation
Ukraine War | President Poroshenko: Ukraine NATO agree on intensive cooperation Ukraine War | President Poroshenko: Ukraine NATO agree on intensive cooperation Ukraine War | President Poroshenko:…

By: Press TV News

View post:
Ukraine War | President Poroshenko: Ukraine NATO agree on intensive cooperation – Video

Published: Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 3:15 a.m. Last Modified: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 3:22 p.m.

Since Barry Goldwater, accepting the Republicans’ 1964 presidential nomination, said “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,” Democrats have been decrying Republican “extremism.”

Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in American politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitution’s architecture of ordered liberty is rare. This week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political class’ convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment, as the First Congress passed it and the states ratified it 223 years ago, states: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as people seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as “relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.” But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech.

The Democrats’ amendment states: “Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections,” and may “prohibit” corporations including nonprofit issue advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money “to influence elections,” which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits would be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed “reasonable” would surely serve incumbents’ interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this “improvement” of James Madison’s First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It stated only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendment’s most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals and Nazi parades. That by aiming to equalize the political influence of persons and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. That one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a “dangerous intrusion on free speech.” And that no Fortune 100 corporation “appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles.”

Original post:
Will: Group of senators tries to 'improve' First Amendment

Just under three weeks ago, President Salovey delivered his freshmen address on free expression at Yale. He quoted extensively from the Woodward Report, a document whose language he called clear and unambiguous in its defense of free speech, and he made the case for why unfettered expression is so essential on a university campus.

Our community now faces an opportunity to put these ideals into practice. The Buckley Program, an undergraduate group on campus, recently invited Ayaan Hirsi Ali to give a lecture next week. An accomplished and courageous woman, Hirsi Ali has an amazing story. She suffered genital mutilation as a child and later fled to the Netherlands to escape an arranged marriage. These are beyond mere unfortunate circumstances, as some organizations have called it. Once in the Netherlands, she worked at a refugee center, became a politician, fought for human dignity and womens rights and ultimately abandoned her Muslim faith. In her works since then, she has voiced strong opinions against Islam, opinions which have provoked constant threats on her life ever since.

As the president of the William F. Buckley, Jr. Program, here is my understanding of the controversy that then unfolded: When news of the upcoming September 15 lecture became public, a student representative of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) contacted me and asked to meet. During our first conversation, she requested that the Buckley Program disinvite Hirsi Ali. I told her such an option which she now denies to me and university administrators having presented was a non-starter.

I distinctly remember that this student then asked if my group would consider either prohibiting Hirsi Ali from speaking on Islam or inviting another speaker to join someone who would supposedly be more representative and qualified to discuss the subject. She told me certain national organizations, which I expected to be opposed to Hirsi Alis invitation, were interested in her visit to Yale. I took this to mean these organizations might drum up a controversy about Hirsi Alis visit. And she expressed support for the Brandeis University administration, which revoked an honorary degree from Hirsi Ali this past spring. This, of course, was precisely one of the incidents of censorship that President Salovey alluded to in his address.

This student, the MSA, and a little over thirty other organizations signed an open letter with its fair share of cherry-picked quotes and mischaracterizations that was sent yesterday in a school-wide email. But these students fail to understand the purpose of the University and the meaning and necessity of free speech within it.

The idea that free speech extends to only those with whom one agrees is close-minded. The idea that inviting an additional speaker is necessary in order to supposedly advance free speech, but really just to correct our own lecturers views, is ridiculous. The idea that a fellow undergraduate organization can dictate to another how to run its own event is shameless. And the idea that only so-called experts merit invitations is absurd. (After all, I dont remember anyone fretting over Al Sharptons invitation to speak on the death penalty last week despite his lack of a criminal-law degree.)

These standards and requests are unjust not simply because some students were seeking to unevenly impose them, but more importantly because they are antithetical to the pursuit of knowledge that defines a university like Yale. Such a pursuit requires a robust protection of the right to freely express ones views, however controversial.

One need not agree with everything Ayaan Hirsi Ali says to agree that her voice makes a valuable contribution to advancing the open exchange of ideas on this campus. In his address, President Salovey declared, We should not offend merely to offend. We should not provoke without careful forethought. If one actually examines Hirsi Alis work, one sees that she does present well-reasoned arguments, even if disagreeable, and that she doesnt provoke merely to provoke, which should be evident by the many death threats she has received throughout the years.

Her work does not qualify as libel and slander, as was suggested by the open letter, and it cannot be reduced to purported hate speech, a slur used simply to silence speech with which one disagrees. A sincere observer will readily find that Hirsi Ali is far from the inflammatory demagogue the MSA portrays her as. Instead, that observer will find that she is a brave woman deeply committed to fighting for the respect and dignity of millions of oppressed women around the world.

The MSAs insistence throughout the past week that we cancel or change the format of our event strays far from the ideals of free expression so eloquently defended by President Salovey and so essential to our university. If the MSA or another student organization would like to invite another guest of their own, the Buckley Program will not stop them. But we hope that if anyone from the Yale community attempts to disrupt our event, the administration will stand behind its stated commitment that students be allowed, and indeed encouraged, to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable and challenge the unchallengeable.

Read the original here:
LIZARDO: Why Hirsi Ali should come

By John-Thor Dahlburg

The Associated Press

Published: September 10, 2014 (Issue # 1828)

Three NATO ships taking part in the multinational Sea Breeze 2014 military exercise, which started on Monday in the Black Sea. Photo: NATO

NEWPORT, Wales NATOs creation of a rapid-reaction spearhead force to protect Eastern Europe from Russian bullying reflects a cool-eyed calculation that Vladimir Putin and his generals wont risk head-to-head confrontation with the U.S. and its nuclear-capable Western European allies.

The new force will be small, with just a few thousand troops, but its a powerful message from major powers that theyre willing to follow through on NATOs eastward expansion with their own metal and blood.

Why would this be enough? said Gen. Sir Adrian Bradshaw, NATOs deputy supreme European commander. Well, precisely because in becoming embroiled in a conflict with capable combat forces from across the alliance, a potential aggressor recognizes that they are taking on the whole of NATO and all that implies.

I dont think that anyone believes that Russia wants a strategic conflict with NATO, the British army general said. Anybody would be insane to wish that.

The force was ordered into life on Sept. 5 by President Barack Obama and other NATO leaders at a summit meeting in Wales to deter Putin and make NATOs most vulnerable members, such as Poland, Romania and the Baltic republics, feel safer from Russias million-strong armed forces in light of Moscows military involvement in Ukraine.

Ukraine is not a NATO member and not directly under its defense umbrella, but three other former Soviet republics have joined the alliance since the end of the Cold War, as well as the former Soviet satellite states of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia (formerly one country), Romania and Bulgaria.

Link:
NATO Creates Spearhead Force to Deter Russia

A Japanese newspaper said Tuesday it was encouraged by calls from a press freedom group for South Korea not to prosecute its Seoul bureau chief over alleged libel of President Park Geun-Hye. Tatsuya Kato, 48, who heads the Seoul operation of the conservative Sankei Shimbun, has been questioned by authorities in South Korea after complaints over an online column about Park. He was banned from …

See the original post here:
Japan paper welcomes attention on South Korea libel probe



President Obama NATO News Conference(COMPLETE)
FULL Speech and Press Conference: U.S. President Barrack Obama Speaks at NATO Summit 9/5/2014. Obama Vows to 'Degrade and Ultimately Destroy' ISIS (MSNBC) President Barack Obama vowed Friday…

By: The News

Read more here:
President Obama NATO News Conference(COMPLETE) – Video



Nato summit: UKRAINE President Poroshenko to brief leaders | BREAKING NEWS:4/9/14
Nato summit: Ukraine President Poroshenko to brief leaders For more Latest and Breaking News Headlines SUBSCRIBE to faces up to crises on its borders For more Latest and Breaking News Headlines…

By: anton sitrigan

More:
Nato summit: UKRAINE President Poroshenko to brief leaders | BREAKING NEWS:4/9/14 – Video



Obama says NATO unified on ISIS threat, Ukraine crisis
Speaking at the close of a two-day NATO summit in Wales, President Barack Obama said the members agreed that ISIS is a “savage organization” that must ultimately be destroyed. The president…

By: CBSNews.com Web Extras

See the article here:
Obama says NATO unified on ISIS threat, Ukraine crisis – Video



President Obama [GREAT SPEECH] at NATO News Conference (FULL)
FULL Speech and Press Conference: U.S. President Barrack Obama Speaks at NATO Summit 9/5/2014. Obama Vows to 'Degrade and Ultimately Destroy' ISIS (MSNBC) President Barack Obama vowed Friday…

By: BREAKING NEWS

Continue reading here:
President Obama [GREAT SPEECH] at NATO News Conference (FULL) – Video



Obama: NATO united in defeating ISIS
As the NATO Summit closes, President Obama says the organization's member states are committed to defeating ISIS.

By: CNN

Read more:
Obama: NATO united in defeating ISIS – Video



Obama: NATO United Against Islamic State
Subscribe for more Breaking News: http://smarturl.it/AssociatedPress President Barack Obama says NATO members are unanimous on the need for immediate action against Islamic State militants….

By: Associated Press

See the original post:
Obama: NATO United Against Islamic State – Video



Nato Summit 9/5/2014: Pres Obama's speech at Newport, Wales
US President Barack Obama speaks on Ukraine, ISIS at Nato Summit 2014 in Newport, Wales, UK.

By: News 24

Originally posted here:
Nato Summit 9/5/2014: Pres Obama’s speech at Newport, Wales – Video



NATO Summit U.S. Strategy to Combat ISIL and Contain Ukraine-Russia Crisis
Our reporters' roundtable explores President Obama's strategy to unite NATO to combat and destroy the threat of ISIL in Iraq and find a solution to the Ukraine-Russia crisis. Also, will Congress…

By: PBS NewsHour

Read the original here:
NATO Summit & U.S. Strategy to Combat ISIL and Contain Ukraine-Russia Crisis – Video



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com