President Obama referred to himself 75 times in his farewell address

Peter Hasson 10:43 PM 01/10/2017

President Obama referred to himself 75 times in his farewell address Tuesday night, according to a review of his prepared remarks by The Daily Caller.

Obama heavily promoted the speech, penning a blog post about it and appearing in a promotional video in the days leading up to the address. 

Obama said “I” 33 times during the speech, “my” 20 times, “me” 10 times, and “I’m” or “I’ve” 12 times.

The president made a habit of focusing large chunks of his speeches on himself during his eight years in office.           Daily Caller

Obama: Marijuana should be considered a public health issue much like cigarettes and alcohol.

By Joe Vitale  November 30, 2016 | 6:47pm

Marijuana should be considered a public health issue — much like cigarettes and alcohol.

That, at least, is what President Obama said in a recent interview with Rolling Stone.

“I am not somebody who believes that legalization is a panacea,” Obama said. “But I do believe that treating this as a public-health issue, the same way we do with cigarettes or alcohol, is the much smarter way to deal with it.”

Echoing his past support of legalization, the president noted that drug classifications are not changed by “presidential edict.”  Instead, he said, drug classifications are decided “legislatively or through the DEA.”

While the federal government currently considers marijuana a Schedule 1 substance, 26 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana in some form.

“It is untenable over the long term for the Justice Department or the DEA to be enforcing a patchwork of laws, where something that’s legal in one state could get you a 20-year prison sentence in another,” Obama added.

In 2012, Obama said the federal government would not go after recreational marijuana users in states where the drug was legalized by voters.                   More

What Does The Future Hold?

Systemic Corruption And A Troubling Future For Humanity!

"Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood. But the Lord is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge. And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the Lord our God shall cut them off."

Psalm 94:20-23

"For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us. Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."

II Corinthians 1:20-22

"Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."

II Corinthians 7:1

In this issue of the Last Trumpet Newsletter, we will thoughtfully consider the current condition of our world and the systemic corruption of the political realm. We will also take yet another glimpse at what the future of this modern world may hold.

As I write this newsletter in the latter days of August 2016, the United States of America is in the midst of an election year. In just a few short months, the American people will know who their next president will be, and unless there are unforeseen and improbable circumstances, it will either be the Republican, Donald Trump, or the Democrat, Hillary Clinton. Amid the fury of these presidential campaigns, we hear many promises given by these candidates. Yet, we know from history that political candidates are notorious for broken promises. In fact, one of the most memorable campaign promises in United States' history came from former President George H. W. Bush who famously said at the Republican National Convention in 1988, "The Congress will push me to raise taxes, and I'll say no, and they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say to them, 'Read my lips: no new taxes.'" It was just two short years later in 1990 that President Bush announced new tax increases. (1)

Our current President, Barack Obama, is another man who is known for his multitudinous promises, which included an assurance to the American people that his presidency would be far more open and transparent than his predecessors before him. In a memorandum published in January 2009, Obama wrote the following: "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government." (2) Obama then proceeded to do the exact opposite. On March 17, 2014, CBS News published a story with the headline, "Government Secrecy up Under Obama Administration." (3) In this article, Senator Patrick Leahy, who is a Democrat from Vermont, complained that the government will often deny requests for information they do not want to reveal by classifying such information as top secret. "I'm concerned the growing trend toward relying upon FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) exemptions to withhold large swaths of government information is hindering the public's right to know. It becomes too much of a temptation. If you screw up in government, just mark it 'top secret,'" Senator Leahy opined. (4) In reality, men who dare to expose the truth of government corruption are ostracized. This includes Edward Snowden who in previous days worked for the National Security Agency, or NSA, until the day he exposed the unscrupulous activities of his employer and fled the country in 2013.

The website known as Politifact currently features a list of promises broken by Barack Obama. This list exceeds one hundred and will likely grow even more after Obama's final presidential term ends in 2017. (5) His promise to the American people that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act would not force them to change their health insurance plans even won "Lie of the Year" in December 2013. (6) "If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance," Obama asserted in June 2012. Approximately four million people received cancellation notices from their insurance companies in 2013. (7)

Considering the politician's propensity to lie, can we believe anything they say? Our current candidates for the 2016 election make many promises just as other politicians do. In fact, Hillary Clinton has promised to eliminate tuition for students attending in-state public colleges if their families make less than 250,000 dollars per year. She has also promised to raise the federal minimum wage to at least 12 dollars an hour and pledged not to raise taxes on middle class Americans. (8) Interestingly enough, Obama also made similar promises, pledging to raise the minimum wage to 9.50 per hour and promising not to raise taxes for the middle class. (9) He lied. It certainly is a strange system wherein votes are bought with promises that do not even have to be kept. The American people, for the most part, know that campaign promises are lies. Yet, people still use such promises as a guideline to decide who they will vote for.

Although men will often disappoint, and politicians will often lie, God always keeps His promises. In II Corinthians 1:20-22 we read, "For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us. Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." God has promised to forgive us of our sins if we repent, and He has promised to send us His Spirit to guide us in our lives. We have also been promised that our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, will return. I urge every reader of this newsletter to lay hold on the promises of God. If you have not yet repented of your sins and dedicated your life to God, I urge you to do so now.

The Trouble With Obamacare!

If one were to sit down and ask Barack Obama of his achievements, he would likely reference the passage of his healthcare law, known as the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as his favorite accomplishment. This law, which forces every American to buy "affordable" health insurance or pay a fine to the Internal Revenue Service if they fail to comply, was signed into law on March 23, 2010. (10) In the days leading up to the passage of Obamacare, Nancy Pelosi, who was Speaker of the House of Representatives in the United States at the time, famously declared, "We have to pass the bill (Obamacare) so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." (11) The official website of the Affordable Care Act, healthcare.gov, opened in October 2013, (12) and since that time the American people have become well acquainted with this new healthcare system.

As it turns out, Obamacare is not quite as wonderful as the Democrats who passed it said it would be. In recent months, numerous health insurance companies have announced that they will scale back the insurance they offer through Obamacare or withdraw from the government health insurance program entirely. In August 2016, the health insurance company known as Aetna announced a plan to reduce its offerings on the Obamacare exchange by 80 percent in 2017. This decision was made after it came to light that Aetna is expected to lose 300 million dollars for participating in Obamacare. "The vast majority of payers have experienced continued financial stress within their individual public exchange business. Providing affordable, high-quality health care options to consumers is not possible without a balanced risk pool," stated Mark Bertolini, who is the Chief Executive Officer at Aetna. (13) In other words, Aetna is exiting the Obamacare marketplace because the majority of people who sign up for the insurance on the exchange have costly health problems, while healthy people who would balance the market are opting not to participate in the program. Additionally, two other major insurance companies, United HealthGroup and Humana, have also announced their intentions to quit Obamacare. (14) As a result, consumers will find fewer choices while shopping for insurance on the Obamacare exchange next year. Such is the case in Pinal County, Arizona, where the 300,000 residents who live there will not even be able to buy Obamacare insurance in 2017 because no insurance companies are offering it in their area. (15) In other areas, the cost of insurance premiums are likely to rise by significant amounts. According to a report by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, insurance companies have proposed increases in prices ranging from 5.44 to 37.88 percent in the state of Wisconsin. (16) The state of Illinois will also see sharp increases in insurance cost next year ranging from 44 to 55 percent according to the Chicago Tribune. "While these rate approvals result in a very difficult outcome for consumers, they were necessary to ensure that all Illinois consumers actually have an option for coverage when the 2017 Open Enrollment begins on November 1, 2016," said acting director of the state's insurance department Anne Melissa Dowling. (17) Additionally, the Los Angeles Times has reported that Californians' insurance premiums will increase by 13.2 percent in 2017. (18)

By now it should be clear that Obamacare is awful. We have lived with it long enough to see that it probably will not get better, but in all likelihood will actually get worse. While the official name for Obama's law is the "Affordable Care Act," many people, including myself, have come to realize that it is not affordable at all. Naturally, people are hoping that Obamacare will fall apart, and the mainstream news outlet known as CNBC seems to think that the program is doomed for failure. A headline they published on August 17, 2016, declares, "Aetna's Obamacare pullout means the 'insurance death spiral' has arrived." (19) However, we must consider the possibility that Obamacare as it exists today was never really what the liberals wanted. In an opinion piece written for the New York Times in 2013, the socialist filmmaker and documentarian, Michael Moore, admitted that Obamacare is "awful." Yet he praised the program because he believes it is a steppingstone to a universal government-controlled healthcare system. (20) Although many countries already have universal healthcare, the United States has been a notable exception. Clearly, this makes the United Nations unhappy since a global healthcare system is one of their goals that they hope to make a reality by the year 2030. In an official document from the United Nations, which was published in October 2015, we find the following words: "We envisage a world free of fear and violence. A world with universal literacy. A world with equitable and universal access to quality education at all levels, to health care and social protection, where physical, mental and social well-being are assured." (21) Yes, according to the United Nations, a truly universal and global healthcare system is a crucial component in their forthcoming one world government.

The Bizarre Campaign Of Hillary Clinton!

With the 2016 presidential election in the United States looming, the headlines are constantly dominated by stories of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Of course, we know from her past that Hillary Clinton is an exceedingly wicked woman who loves abortion, is involved in the occult, and is a pathological liar. To make matters worse, it seems that working with Hillary can be very dangerous business. In fact, many of Clinton's associates in the past have met with untimely and mysterious ends. The latest victim is a man by the name of Seth Rich. He was considered a rising star in the Democratic Party until he was shot and killed on the night of July 10, 2016, while walking home in a suburb of Washington, D.C. (22) Although the police have characterized this deadly assault as a robbery gone wrong, it is quite odd that none of Mr. Rich's belongings were stolen. "There had been a struggle. His hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything. They took his life for literally no reason," Rich's mother said. (23) A widely circulating theory suggests that Mr. Rich was the party responsible for leaking thousands of emails which exposed the Democratic Party's unethical behavior as they worked for Hillary Clinton. The scandal led to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who had served as chairperson of the Democratic National Committee. To further fan the flames of suspicion, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is now offering a 20,000 dollar reward to anyone with information regarding the death of Seth Rich. Since WikiLeaks is the organization who released the incriminating emails, it would make sense that Mr. Rich was the source for their information. Assange has not confirmed or denied that Seth Rich was his source. (24) It is an interesting theory, however.

Hillary Clinton wants to be the next President of the United States, and there is a very real possibility that she could be given that position. Nevertheless, her behavior as a presidential candidate is quite bizarre. It seems she has great reticence when it comes to communicating with the press. In fact, a report published on August 24, 2016, by The Washington Post indicates that Clinton has not held a press conference since December 5, 2015! (25) In response to the growing outcry, Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook, has defended his candidate by claiming that Clinton has granted over three hundred interviews since the beginning of 2016. (26) It is interesting to note, however, that Hillary Clinton will seldom allow reporters to interview her, choosing rather to appear on television in a controlled environment. When she does allow an interviewer to be graced by her presence, her interviews are very short. They typically run between three and eight minutes, which all but guarantees that the interviewer will not be able to ask any in-depth or difficult questions. (27) What is she hiding? Perhaps Clinton already knows that she will be the next president and is therefore not particularly concerned about how she is perceived by the public. Needless to say, the public's perception of her is not good. A recent poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News found that 62 percent of respondents said Clinton is neither honest nor trustworthy. (28) Indeed, Ms. Clinton has been involved in numerous scandals over the years, including the handling of her emails while she served as Secretary of State under the Obama Administration and inappropriate dealings with individuals who donated money to her Clinton Foundation. One can only imagine what a Hillary Clinton presidency would be like, but the possibility does call to mind the words we find in Proverbs 29:2, "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."

What Does The Future Hold?

There is something about the year 2030. Not only is the year of 2030 the target year wherein the United Nations hopes to establish its one world government, it is also a year that was written about in a recent article published by the Kiplinger Letter. In an article entitled "20 Amazing Ways Your Daily Life Will Be Different in 2030," the publication details some of its best guesses regarding what the future will be like. Some of their predictions include an Internet-enabled refrigerator which will keep an inventory of your groceries and automatically order replacement items when supplies are low. They also predict that groceries, household items, and small items weighing less than 10 pounds will be delivered by drones. They say appliances, locks, lights, heating and cooling systems, and other household equipment will all be linked by wireless microchips to the Internet. It is fully expected that driverless cars will be commonly used by 2030 as well. Other predictions include facial recognition security checkpoints at the airports, implanted microchips that will monitor the health of humans, smartphones that record everything we do, and a mostly cashless society. (29)

At first glance, these predictions from the Kiplinger Letter may seem far-fetched. However, these are educated guesses, and at this point in history, we are very close to seeing some of these predictions become reality. For example, the government of New Zealand recently gave the pizza chain known as Domino's permission to use drones for pizza delivery. The drones that Domino's will be using were developed by a company known as Flirtey. "With the increased number of deliveries we make each year, we were faced with the challenge of ensuring our delivery times continue to decrease and that we strive to offer our customers new and progressive ways of ordering from us," said Don Meij who is the chief executive and managing director for Domino's in New Zealand. He later went on to say, "Domino's is all about providing customers with choice and making customer's lives easier. Adding innovation such as drone deliveries means customers can experience cutting-edge technology and the convenience of having their Supreme Pizza delivered via air to their door. This is the future." (30) The company is also seeking to deliver pizzas using robots. (31)

In other news, a company known as nuTonomy is now offering a new autonomous vehicle taxi service in Singapore. This is notable because while companies such as Google have been testing driverless cars for years, nuTonomy is the first company in the world to allow the general public to use such vehicles. The service is limited for now to a small area consisting of 2.5 miles, but the company is hoping to have a full fleet in operation throughout Singapore by the year 2018. "We face constraints in land and manpower. We want to take advantage of self-driving technology to overcome such constraints, and in particular to introduce new mobility concepts which could bring about transformational improvements to public transport in Singapore," stated Singapore's Permanent Secretary for Transport, Pang Kin Keong. (32) The well-known ride service known as Uber is also set to test a similar service in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the coming weeks. Customers seeking rides will summon them as usual with Uber's program that works on smartphones. To entice customers to try it, Uber will be offering free rides in their autonomous vehicles. It is worthwhile to note, however, that these vehicles are not fully autonomous. They require a driver who can take control if something goes wrong, and these vehicles at this point are unable to cross bridges without human intervention. "Bridges are really hard. And there are like 500 bridges in Pittsburgh," said Uber's engineering director, Raffi Krikorian. (33)

Drones will be delivering pizzas in New Zealand, and driverless cars will be giving customers rides in Pittsburgh and Singapore, but how close are we to a cashless society? According to a report published in November 2015, chief executive officer Tim Cook of the computer maker known as Apple has predicted that a cashless society will be here soon. Speaking at a gathering at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, Cook told his audience, "Your kids will not know what money is." (34) We are already seeing the first stirrings of a cashless society in the United States. The chain of restaurants known as Sweetgreen recently stopped accepting cash at some locations. "One of the biggest complaints at Sweetgreen is the line, so by reducing cash we're able to serve customers a lot faster," said Jonathan Newman, who is co-founder of the Sweetgreen chain. (35) A company known as Major Food Group, which operates restaurants in New York, has also decided to forgo cash at some of its locations, including a restaurant known as Sadelle's. "I believe very strongly in the cash-free movement. There is an immense amount of work, process, and error that goes into taking, processing, monitoring and depositing cash. The amount of time and money that this costs is not worth the amount of business that is done in cash," declared Major Food Group co-owner Jeff Zalaznick. (36) I suspect that when the transformation to a cashless society is complete, it will not be because governments around the world have stopped issuing cash. Rather it will be because businesses no longer accept it, and thus having cash will be useless. This trend can even be observed at the Shopko store in my hometown of Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. The store gives customers the option of using a self-checkout to purchase items, but those machines do not accept cash.

The technology required for a fully cashless society already exists. This is clearly shown in an article published on May 21, 2016, entitled "Satan's Credit Card: What the Mark of the Beast Taught Me About the Future of Money." The article, which was written by a man named Charlie Warzel, chronicles the author's quest to go completely cashless for thirty days. Although this man's original plan was to use a mishmash of mobile payment services with his smartphone to pay for goods and services, it culminated in a trip to Stockholm, Sweden, where he eventually received a microchip implant in his hand. As he prepared to receive his microchip, Warzel was warned by his piercer who would be performing the operation, "So now I'm going to tell you something you probably didn't consider before. People - very conservative right-wing Christian types - might come after you for this. They see it as the Mark of the Beast. I just want you to be prepared." The warning did not dissuade Warzel, however. Not only did he receive his microchip, but he was determined to become the first man to pay for a meal at a restaurant with his hand. In April 2016, he did that very thing at a restaurant in New York City. (37)

The human population is marching toward a future where technology controls the people, and a global one world government is established. We are closer than ever to seeing this happen, and that means we are closer than ever to the return of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. As we get closer to that fateful day, we see a world where there is trouble on every side. In August 2016, the American state of Louisiana suffered from devastating flooding that has damaged more than 110,000 homes. (38) The state of California is quite literally on fire as 4,200 wildfires have swept through the region so far this year, leading to the destruction of a vast area of land. (39) In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, riots broke out on August 13, 2016, and continued on August 14, 2016, (40) after a black police officer shot a black man who was pointing a gun at the officer. (41) Numerous stores in the area were looted and burned beyond repair. The violence was so bad that Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke requested assistance from the Wisconsin National Guard. (42) These are dangerous days.

We live in a world that desperately needs a Saviour. Thankfully, we can draw near to our God for comfort and strength in this tumultuous world. We are assured of this in James 4:6-10 which tells us, "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up."

Thank you all for your kind support of this ministry. We pray that God will be with you all. If you have any prayer requests, we are ready and willing to bring your petitions before the throne of the Almighty. Grace and peace be unto you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Samuel David Meyer  Last Trumpet Newsletter


Acknowledgements
01. Reading Eagle, July 5, 1990, By John W. Smith, http://news.google.com.
02. Official Whitehouse Memo, January 21, 2009, By Barack Obama, http://whitehouse.gov.
03. CBS News, March 17, 2014, By Associated Press, http://cbsnews.com.
04. Ibid.
05. Politifact, The Obameter, http://politifact.com.
06. Politifact, December 12, 2013, By Angie Drobnic Holan, http://politifact.com.
07. Ibid.
08. Politifact, July 22, 2016, By Lauren Carroll, http://politifact.com.
09. Politifact, The Obameter, http://politifact.com.
10. eHealthInsurance, October 22, 2014, By eHealthInsurance, http://resources.ehealthinsurance.com.
11. The Daily Signal, March 10, 2010, By Marguerite Bowling, http://dailysignal.com.
12. eHealthInsurance, October 22, 2014, By eHealthInsurance, http://resources.ehealthinsurance.com.
13. Bloomberg News, August 15, 2016, By Zachary Tracer, http://bloomberg.com.
14. Ibid.
15. Business Insider, August 22, 2016, By Bob Bryan, http://businessinsider.com.
16. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, August 21, 2016, By Guy Boulton, http://jsonline.com.
17. The Chicago Tribune, August 25, 2016, By Lisa Schencker, http://chicagotribune.com.
18. Los Angeles Times, July 19, 2016, By Melody Petersen and Noam M. Levey, http://latimes.com.
19. CNBC, August 17, 2016, By Sally C. Pipes, http://cnbc.com.
20. The New York Times, December 21, 2013, By Michael Moore, http://nytimes.com.
21. The United Nations, October 21, 2015, By The United Nations, http://un.org.
22. The Telegraph, August 10, 2016, By Nick Allen, http://telegraph.co.uk.
23. The Daily Mail, August 10, 2016, By Martin Gould and Alana Goodman, http://dailymail.co.uk.
24. The Telegraph, August 10, 2016, By Nick Allen, http://telegraph.co.uk.
25. The Washington Post, August 24, 2016, By Chris Cillizza, http://washingtonpost.com.
26. Ibid.
27. National Public Radio, August 26, 2016, By David Folkenflick, http://npr.org.
28. The Washington Post, August 24, 2016, By Chris Cillizza, http://washingtonpost.com.
29. Kiplinger Letter, April 2016, By John Miley, http://kiplinger.com.
30. NZ Herald News, August 25, 2016, By Holly Ryan, http://nzherald.co.nz.
31. Ibid.
32. Associated Press, August 25, 2016, By Annabelle Liang and Dee-Ann Durbin, http://bigstory.ap.com.
33. Bloomberg News, August 18, 2016, By Max Chafkin, http://bloomberg.com.
34. The Telegraph, November 11, 2016, By Dan Hyde, http://telegraph.co.uk.
35. The New York Times, July 30, 2016, By Gloria Dawson, http://nytimes.com.
36. Ibid.
37. Buzzfeed News, May 21, 2016, By Charlie Warzel, http://buzzfeed.com.
38. News One, August 25, 2016, By NewsOneNow, http://newsone.com.
39. USA Today, August 25, 2016, By Doyle Rice, http://usatoday.com.
40. Fox 6 News, August 14, 2016, By Fox 6 News, http://fox6now.com.
41. AllenBWest.com, August 15, 2016, By Matt Palumbo, http://allenbwest.com.
42. Fox 6 News, August 14, 2016, By Fox 6 News, http://fox6now.com.

UN condemns this week's deadly gun violence in US

8 July 2016 – United Nations officials today spoke out against recent violence in the United States which has left several people dead, expressing both outrage and condemnation over the killings, and highlighting the need for more to be done to fight discrimination.

Earlier this week, two African-American men were shot dead by US police in the states of Minnesota and Louisiana. On Thursday, five police officers were killed in the Texan city of Dallas at a rally over the earlier killings.

“The Working Group [of Experts on People of African Descent] is outraged and strongly condemns the new police killings of two African-American men,” the Group’s Chairman, Ricardo A. Sunga III, said in a statement today, in which he also noted that the incidents demonstrate “a high level of structural and institutional racism.”

“These killings, which were captured on video, cannot be ignored. We call for prompt independent investigations to ensure the perpetrators are prosecuted and punished,” he added.

Also today, a spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Mr. Ban condemned the killing of the police officers in Dallas.

“There is no justification for such violence. Those responsible compounded the suffering that many in the United States feel following the killing of two African-American men over two days. Those killings must be the subject of a thorough and impartial investigation,” the spokesman said, adding that the killings once again put the focus on the need to address discrimination, including racial disparities in law enforcement, in a comprehensive manner.

The UN chief extended his condolences to the families and colleagues of the victims, as well as the Police Department of Dallas, according to the spokesperson.

For its part, the Working Group stated that excessive use of force by the police against African-Americans in the US is a “regular” occurrence, with African-Americans reportedly shot at more than twice the rate of white people.

The Working Group is monitoring the situation and has repeatedly expressed its concern to the US Government about police killings of African-Americans and called for justice, and is convinced that the root of the problem lies in the lack of accountability for perpetrators of such killings despite the evidence.

“The killings also demonstrate a high level of structural and institutional racism. The United States is far from recognizing the same rights for all its citizens. Existing measures to address racist crimes motivated by prejudice are insufficient and have failed to stop the killings,” the human rights expert said. “It is time, now, for the US Government to strongly assert that Black lives matter and prevent any further killings as a matter of national priority.”

He also condemned yesterday's sniper attacks on police officers in downtown Dallas during a protest over the killings of African-American men in other cities, calling for the perpetrators to be held accountable.

According to media reports, at least one sniper killed five officers and wounded seven others at the rally on Thursday night. The sniper was killed, and three other people are in custody.

Independent experts are appointed by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a country situation or a specific human rights theme. They serve in their personal capacity and are not UN staff, nor are they paid for their work.      UN

Attacks on Cops Hurt Push for Racial Justice: Obama

By Reuters On 7/10/16 at 12:12 PM 

U.S. President Barack Obama has warned that attacks on police over racial bias would hurt the anti-racism Black Lives Matter movement, days after a sniper killed five police officers in Dallas in apparent revenge for police shootings of black people.

Obama said although most activists from the Black Lives Matter movement wanted to see better relations between communities and law enforcement, violence and overly broad criticism against police undermined the protest movement.

"I want to say to everyone concerned about.. racial bias in the criminal justice system that maintaining a truthful, serious and respectful tone is going to help mobilize American society to bring about real change," Obama said.

Micah Johnson, a black U.S. military veteran of the Afghan war, opened fire on police officers on Thursday during a protest in Dallas against the fatal shootings of two black men by police in Louisiana and Minnesota the previous day.

Johnson wanted to "kill white people, especially white officers," Dallas Police Chief David Brown said after the attack on Thursday night.

The Black Lives Matter group said on Friday it advocated dignity, not murder, in response to the shooting that also left seven other police officers and two civilians wounded.

Obama said there was legitimate criticism to be made of the criminal justice system and that citizens should continue to protest against it.

"I would hope that police organizations are also respectful of the frustrations that people in these communities feel and not just dismiss these protests as political correctness or politics or attacks on police," he said.      Newsweek

USA, Mexico and Canada announced a new coordinated effort to fight climate change.

Stephanie Liebergen 6:05 PM, Jun 29, 2016

President Barack Obama, along with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, announced a new coordinated effort to fight climate change. 

The North American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership sets a series of goals for each country to achieve by 2025. All three nations will try to reduce methane emissions by 40-45 percent, use clean power to generate 50 percent of our electricity and improve standards for energy efficiency and vehicle emissions.

The White House says the U.S. is already getting about 35 percent of its electricity from clean power, and that this focus on clean energy production will support more than 1 million jobs. 

Renewable energy and energy efficient products, like LED light bulbs, have become more affordable. The lower prices allow more people to use them, reducing our overall energy demand. The more we can do that, the easier it is to reach that 50 percent clean energy goal. 

The three leaders also emphasized their commitment to trade among the U.S., Canada and Mexico — something Obama hopes will continue under our next president. 

But the meeting of world leaders wasn't without some laughs and an awkward moment. Apparently, handshakes between three people should be choreographed in advance.        The Denver Channel

Obama and Gun Control

HARI SREENIVASAN: Last night on the “NewsHour,” President Obama joined Gwen Ifill for a wide-ranging interview and town hall meeting in Elkhart, Indiana.

After the broadcast, the president continued to take questions from the audience.

Gun shop owner Doug Rhude challenged the president’s record on gun control.

DOUG RHUDE, Gun Shop Owner: Knowing that we apply common sense to other issues in our society, specifically like holding irresponsible people accountable for their actions when they drink and drive and kill somebody, and we do that without restricting control of cars and cells phones to the rest of us, the good guys, why then do you and Hillary want to control and restrict and limit gun manufacturers, gun owners and responsible use of guns and ammunition to the rest of us, the good guys, instead of holding the bad guys accountable for their actions?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: First of all, the notion that I or Hillary or Democrats or whoever you want to choose are hell-bent on taking away folks’ guns is just not true.

And I don’t care how many times the NRA says it. I’m about to leave office. There have been more guns sold since I have been president than just about any time in U.S. history. There are enough guns for every man, woman and child in this country.

And at no point have I ever, ever proposed confiscating guns from responsible gun owners. So it’s just not true.

What I have said is precisely what you suggested, which is, why don’t we treat this like every other thing that we use? I just came from a meeting today in the Situation Room in which I got people who we know have been on ISIL Web sites, living here in the United States, U.S. citizens, and we’re allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit those people from buying a gun.

This is somebody who is a known ISIL sympathizer. And if he wants to walk in to a gun store or a gun show right now and buy as much — as many weapons and ammo as he can, nothing’s prohibiting him from doing that, even though the FBI knows who that person is.

So, sir, I just have to say, respectfully, that there is a way for us to have commonsense gun laws. There is a way for us to make sure that lawful, responsible gun owners like yourself are able to use them for sporting, hunting, protecting yourself, but the only way we’re going to do that is if we don’t have a situation in which anything that is proposed is viewed as some tyrannical destruction of the Second Amendment. And that’s how the issue too often gets framed.      PBS

Obama defended his decision to open up bathrooms to students of both sexes based on preference, citing his religious faith as a reason he decided to do it.

by Charlie Spiering2 Jun 20169,813

President Barack Obama defended his decision to open up bathrooms to students of both sexes based on preference, citing his religious faith as a reason he decided to do it.

“My reading of scripture tells me that that [the] Golden Rule is pretty high up there in terms of my Christian belief,” he said during a town hall in Elkhart, Indiana.

Local resident Arvis Dawson questioned Obama during the event, wondering why the president decided to make it such an issue.

“What happened and what continues to happen is you have transgender kids in schools and they get bullied and they get ostracized and it’s tough for them,” Obama said, saying that in the past, students were forced to suffer silently.

Obama insisted repeatedly that he wasn’t trying to make it a big issue, but that schools around the country were struggling with the proper procedure on the issue.

“It’s not like I woke up one day and I said, man, you know what we really need to do is let’s start working on high school bathrooms,” he insisted, saying he was already more focused on ISIS.

He explained that transgender students “might not even feel comfortable going to the bathroom” which was a “tough situation” that he wanted to alleviate.

“I have profound respect for everybody’s religious beliefs on this, but if you’re at a public school, the question is, how do we just make sure that, children are treated with kindness,” he concluded.   Breitbart

California Senate sidelines bill to prosecute climate change skeptics

By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Thursday, June 2, 2016

A landmark bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent effectively died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.

Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”

The measure, which cleared two Senate committees, provided a four-year window in the statute of limitations on violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law, allowing legal action to be brought until Jan. 1 on charges of climate change “fraud” extending back indefinitely.

“This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,” said the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis of the bill.

Leading the fight against the measure was the Civil Justice Association of California, joined by pro-business groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Business Roundtable.     Washington Times

Obama's Immigration Legacy

The centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s immigration legacy heads to the Supreme Court on Monday, where a short-staffed court bench will decide the fate of his controversial programs to grant work permits to millions of immigrants in the United States illegally.

Whichever way the high court ultimately rules, its decision will again inject the volatile issue of immigration into an explosive presidential campaign. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have pledged to push the bounds of executive power and expand Obama’s immigration actions. Meanwhile, the top two GOP hopefuls — Donald Trump and Ted Cruz — have promised to rescind the programs immediately and have taken particularly hard-line stances against undocumented immigrants.

But Obama’s immigration legacy is also on the line in United States v. Texas. He was not successful in signing comprehensive immigration reform into law during his two terms, and Obama has come under fire from advocates for deporting more than 2 million immigrants during his tenure. Meanwhile, his sweeping executive actions have been blocked for more than a year, and even if the Supreme Court rules in his favor, the administration will have just seven months to jump-start the programs before Obama leaves the White House.

“I think the president’s legacy is intact” on immigration, said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a longtime proponent of immigration reform who will attend Monday’s oral arguments. “The Supreme Court, I hope, will sustain his good judgment on this issue.”

Other congressional Democrats closely involved in immigration will watch the arguments, including Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Reps. Joaquin Castro of Texas and Luis Gutiérrez of Illinois, who said Democrats believe the highly charged immigration case will be a political boon in 2016 regardless of how the court decides. A ruling is expected in June.

Gutiérrez reasons that if the court rules in favor of the administration, Latino voters and others motivated by immigration will come out in droves to protect the programs from a potential GOP president who would move to kill it. And if the administration loses, the same group will vote with similar intensity to punish Republicans, who spearheaded the legal case against Obama at the state level.

“Politically, it’s a win-win,” said Gutiérrez, adding that he is confident the court will allow the immigration programs, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, to proceed.

As with other high-profile Supreme Court cases, the scene outside 1 First St. NE on Monday morning is sure to be a circus. Immigration advocates from across the country will descend on the court’s front steps with lawmakers, civil rights activists and labor officials for a major rally. Organizers said they are expecting thousands.

Conservative activists will counter those efforts with a protest of their own that touches not just on immigration but on the ongoing contentious battle over the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Groups including the Tea Party Patriots, Judicial Crisis Network, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action will join conservative Reps. Steve King of Iowa, Louie Gohmert of Texas and Ted Yoho of Florida.

“We will be there to protest Barack Obama’s attempt to stack the high court with a liberal crony who will sign off on his unconstitutional power grabs,” said Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder and CEO of Tea Party Patriots.

The pro-reform side is making a particularly aggressive public-relations effort in the run-up to the high-stakes court case. On Friday, the immigration advocacy group America’s Voice released results of a poll from Latino Decisions that found 74 percent of Latino voters are less likely to support a Republican presidential candidate who opposes the deferred action program.

Latino Decisions does polling for Clinton, who is a vigorous backer of Obama’s executive actions and announced last week that she would establish a national Office of Immigrant Affairs if she is elected in November. Similarly, Sanders backs the executive actions and, like Clinton, has pledged to expand them to a larger pool of undocumented immigrants, despite the legal challenges Obama has faced doing so.

But Obama’s executive actions have united an otherwise splintered Republican presidential field in opposition to the programs. Trump has vowed to undo the programs on his first day of office if he’s elected president, as has Cruz, who has repeatedly derided the actions as “executive amnesty.”

Republicans have also long emphasized that Obama — who was under pressure from impatient immigration advocates to halt deportations — himself said multiple times that he didn’t have the executive powers to do what he ultimately did in November 2014.

“Let’s remember it was President Obama who said time and again that he did not have the authority to bypass Congress to impose new immigration laws,” said Ruth Guerra, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee. “His executive action was contrary to his words, poisoned the well for a legislative effort and blatantly ignored the Constitution.”

Inside the courtroom, lawyers for the House of Representatives will be making their own case against Obama’s executive actions to provide deportation protections and work permits to more than 4 million immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally but are parents of U.S. citizens or green-card holders. Obama’s actions also expanded a 2012 initiative granting those benefits to immigrants who came here illegally as children.

The GOP-controlled chamber was granted 15 minutes before the court to back up arguments made by Texas and the 25 other states that have sued the Obama administration to stop the programs. House lawmakers also voted along near-party lines last month to submit an amicus brief in the case. Senate Republicans also filed a brief defending the conservative coalition opposing the immigration actions.

Obama’s executive actions are “an unprecedented effort, as the President acknowledged, to ‘change’ the immigration laws by executive fiat,” the House brief says. “Whether couched as a statutory power, a constitutional power, or an implicit component of ‘enforcement discretion,’ that is not a power the Executive possesses.”

On the opposing side, lawyers representing three undocumented mothers from South Texas will have 10 minutes to make an emotional appeal on behalf of the immigrant women. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which, along with law firms O’Melveny & Myers and DLA Piper, is aiding the women, said the mothers would qualify for DAPA and plan to apply if the programs get the green light from the court to proceed.          Politico

Obama Says Google, Facebook, Microsoft, And Visa Will Provide Extra Layer Of Security To Americans

President Barak Obama recently said “With the help of companies like Google GOOGL +0.15%, Facebook FB +0.20%, Microsoft MSFT +1.23%, and Visa V -1.83%, we’re going to empower Americans to be able to help themselves and make sure that they are safe online with an extra layer of security, like a fingerprint or a code sent to your cellphone.”
Sounds intriguing, but Obama failed to explain exactly what these companies are going to provide – and when. Not to mention that he snubbed Apple – which has sold a cumulative lifetime total of 821.8 million iPhones, according to The Motley Fool.
The President remarked on his new cybersecurity initiatives in the Roosevelt Room at the White House last month. ”More and more, keeping America safe is not just a matter of more tanks, more aircraft carriers; not just a matter of bolstering our security on the ground” said Obama. “It also requires us to bolster our security online. As we’ve seen in the past few years and just in the past few days, cyber threats pose a danger not only to our national security but also our financial security and the privacy of millions of Americans.”
Three major points from Obama were:

1. His budget proposal for the next fiscal year devotes $19 billion to cybersecurity – which is up by more than one-third.
2. Plans to update antiquated federal IT systems – some of which date back to the 1960′s – which the President says are particularly vulnerable to cyber attacks.
3. Hiring a first-ever federal chief information security officer (CISO) position who will oversee security and upgrades across all agencies — and interact with the private sector.
Recommended by Forbes

The counter points are:

1. The U.S. government has spent $100 billion on information and cybersecurity over the past decade, and what do we have to show for it? A $14 billion budget was approved last year – when the OPM hack occurred.
2. Some legacy mainframe systems are actually more secure than modern cloud based IT infrastructures. Nonetheless – these types of systems take years to upgrade and they must be protected in the interim.
3. Obama is offering a woefully inadequate salary for the new Federal CISO job which is based in Washington, D.C., D.C. and offers a paltry annual salary range of $123,000+ to $185,000. The current average annual salary for a CISO in D.C. is $225,000, and tops out at $334,000, according to SilverBull, a full-service IT and cybersecurity recruiting and staffing company based in Manchester, Conn.

While Obama is still in office, perhaps he can take the first and best step forward by hiring a deeply experienced federal security chief from the commercial sector. To attract suitable candidates, he’ll have to up the pay to the top end of what more experienced CISOs earn — which means doubling the annual salary.
A new federal CISO should bring clarity to how and when Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Visa will help protect Americans when they are online. These tech firms employ very large and experienced cybersecurity teams who are on the cutting edge of Internet privacy. If fingerprint sensors and sending codes to our cellphones are part of the online privacy plans that Obama has in mind, then he really needs to invite Apple in — otherwise the new CISO had better.       Forbes

Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell is trying to fast track a “WAR POWERS” bill that will give President Obama some really SCARY powers.

22 Jan, 2016 by Tiffiny Ruegner

Print this article Font size -16+

Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell is trying to fast track a “WAR POWERS” bill that will give President Obama some really SCARY powers. WHY is Mitch doing this on a Friday during the worst storm in D.C. ever!

“The Authorization for Use of Military Force put for­ward by Mc­Con­nell would not re­strict the pres­id­ent’s use of ground troops, nor have any lim­its re­lated to time or geo­graphy,” Defense One reported.
In other words, the authorization allows the president to deploy the military anywhere at his discretion – both foreign and domestic – for as long as he wants.
Several senators, including Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Whip John Cornyn, were surprised by McDonnell’s decision to fast-track the bill after a year of deep in-fighting over similar measures in the Senate.
“He did?” he asked the Na­tion­al Journ­al on Thursday morn­ing when reporters informed him about the bill.
Even some Senate Democrats have an issue with a new authorization without geographical restrictions placed on the president.
“I’m for the Con­gress vot­ing on an AUMF; of course it de­pends what the AUMF looks like,” Sen. Robert Men­en­dez said Thursday. “I don’t want a blank check.”

NO President should have this power, McConnell and his cronies really scare me that they want to give the power to Obama. The fact that no one is watching scares me even more!    Rightwingnews

President Barack Obama Carries a Rosary Along with Other Items in His Pocket All The Time

Obama showed the items during an interview with YouTube personality Ingrid Nilsen, today at the White House, saying they were given to him by people he has met during his political career.

“I carry these around all the time,.” he said. “I’m not that superstitious so it’s not like I think necessarily I have to have them on me at all times,” he explained. ”But it does remind me of all the different people that I’ve met along the way and how much they’ve invested in me.”

He showed Nilsen a rosary he received from Pope Francis, saying that he “admired” the pontiff. He explained that he enjoyed carrying the rosary because it helped him “think about peace and promoting understanding and ethical behavior.”     Breitbart

The controversial 'surveillance' act Obama just signed

President Barack Obama signed into law a $1.1 trillion spending bill last Friday, staving off a potential government shutdown — and in the process, quietly inaugurated what some have called a second Patriot Act.

As part of the more-than-2,000-page document, the 14th rider to be exact, the appropriations omnibus includes the Cybersecurity Act of 2015. Buried within that section is the text of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), a bill that seeks to permit private companies to handover information to federal agencies.

In essence, the law allows companies to directly share information with the Department of Defense (including the National Security Agency) without fear of being sued. This info can be used for cybersecurity purposes, but critics have keyed into the law's allowance for using the data to address or investigate a "specific threat" of death, serious bodily harm, serious economic harm, terrorism, harm to a minor and more.

As Wired noted, an earlier bill only allowed information sharing in the case of "imminent threats," but the new "specific" verbiage disregards any timeliness.

The House Committee on Rules described the information sharing measure as "a voluntary cybersecurity information sharing process that will encourage public and private sector entities to share cyberthreat information, without legal barriers and the threat of unfounded litigation — while protecting private information."

As benign as that description may sound, several legislators released comments decrying the implications of the CISA measures.

"I was unable to vote for the omnibus spending bill today because it included an extraneous provision purported to facilitate cybersecurity information sharing that — in effect — will function as a surveillance tool," California Rep. Zoe Lofgren said in a statement.

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden was even more critical, saying the "unacceptable surveillance provisions" are a "black mark" on the rest of the appropriations bill. He even implied that the information sharing provisions are worse than in previous incarnations.

"Ultimately, I cannot vote for this badly flawed CISA bill. The latest version of CISA is the worst one yet — it contains substantially fewer oversight and reporting provisions than the Senate version did," he said in a statement. "That means that violations of Americans' privacy will be more likely to go unnoticed."

To Wyden's point, 55 civil society groups, security experts and academics, wrote earlier this year that CISA would "seriously threaten privacy and civil liberties, and could undermine cybersecurity, rather than enhance it."

These complaints may be blowing the scope of the bill out of proportion, according to Randy Sabett, vice chair of the privacy and data protection group at the law firm Cooley.

"I try to maintain a relatively open mind toward the arguments that people raise when they start talking about privacy and civil liberties, but I guess where I have difficulty is with some of these sweeping statements that it's a pure surveillance bill," he said.

 

Sabett pointed to CISA's voluntary nature — it doesn't compel any company to share data with the government, only prevents them from being sued for it. On the other hand, the law unequivocally requires both federal authorities and companies to scrub personal information from shared data.

Additionally, the law compels the government to issue regular privacy update reports to monitor any abuses, Sabett said.

And there are many who support the information sharing law, including Obama administration officials and industry groups.

"Cybersecurity is a top priority for DHS and the Obama administration, and this bipartisan effort is a significant step forward in strengthening our nation's cybersecurity," Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said in a statement after the omnibus spending bill was passed. "I look forward to working with Congress on further strengthening DHS' cybersecurity mission."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also put its support behind the new law. Recognizing that cybercrime targets both government and businesses, the Chamber's president and CEO, Thomas Donohue, said in a statement that CISA will allow businesses to voluntarily work with authorities "to better prevent, detect and mitigate threats."

"This legislation, long championed by the Chamber, is our best chance yet to help address this economic and national security priority in a meaningful way and help prevent further attacks," Donohue said.

Financial sector groups, such as the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the American Bankers Association, have applauded CISA. Members of the Cyber Threat Alliance — which is made up of four companies: Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet, Symantec and Intel Security Group — were largely positive on the CISA measures in October.

"I have seen companies benefit from information sharing: To be in a situation where that information is like pulling teeth, and then to see the benefits that come out of it is an eye-opening experience," Sabett told CNBC. "Getting something on the books is going to have a lot more positive effects than the negative effects that the critics are pointing to."   CNBC

 

Everett Rosenfeld Staff Writer

Ever Wonder Why the Most Mass Shootings Ever Have Happened Under Obama?

TRUTHstreammedia

 

Published on Dec 2, 2015

Full article: http://truthstreammedia.com/2015/12/0...

When compiling the data for mass shootings (where four or more people have died as per FBI definition of mass murder) under the last five presidents, clearly there's a startling outlier under the Obama administration. Largest push for gun control in American history just so happens to coincide at a time when there are more mass shootings than ever before in American history. What are the odds?

We're talking a 700+% increase in mass shootings where four or more people are killed just since George Jr. was president... More mass shootings than the four presidents before him combined BY FAR.

President Obama joined leaders from 150 nations on Monday in pledging action against climate change

By Steven Mufson and Joby Warrick November 30 at 8:25 PM

PARIS — President Obama joined leaders from 150 nations on Monday in pledging action against climate change, kicking off a historic two-week gathering that Obama called a “turning point” in the battle against one of humanity’s gravest threats.

Heads of state from industrial powers and tiny island nations assembled in a heavily guarded conference center north of Paris, where negotiators hope to forge a treaty to dramatically reduce emissions of greenhouse-gas pollution blamed for warming the planet.

Obama, speaking a few miles from the site of the Nov. 13 terrorist attack in the French capital, called for urgent action against a challenge that he suggested was greater even than the fight against terrorism.

“The growing threat of climate change could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other,” Obama said in a speech at the Le Bourget conference center in Paris’s industrial outskirts. “What should give us hope that this is a turning point, that this is the moment we finally determined we would save our planet.”

Obama, who has staked his legacy on the fight against climate change, struck an ominous tone in describing the ravages of a warming planet, declaring that “no nation large or small, wealthy or poor, is immune.” He urged the leaders to take action even if the benefits were not evident for generations.

Citing Martin Luther King Jr., he warned that “there is such a thing as being too late.”

The remarks came during a day of ceremonial fanfare as well as substantive progress in marshaling resources to speed the shift to cleaner energy. U.S. officials formally announced the formation of a 20-nation initiative to spur funding on energy research, in tandem with a similar undertaking led by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and 27 of the world’s wealthiest private investors.

But there were also signs of discord as negotiators prepared to haggle over details of a complex treaty that requires all nations — even the poorest ones — to make a contribution to cutting greeenhouse-gas pollution. Some developing countries have insisted on compensation for economic and environmental damage stemming from decades of industrial emissions that came mostly from Western industrial powers.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius opened the conference by calling on all governments to back an ambitious treaty.

“The stakes are too high and the menace of climate change is too great for us to be content with a minimalistic agreement,” he said.

Obama has already aligned most of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters behind substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, but over the next dozen days international climate negotiators must still nail down the details of an agreement that would strengthen existing commitments and introduce a way for countries to review and expand their commitments in the near future.

The negotiations have been slowed by delegates from developing countries who believe that, for all of Obama’s efforts, the United States should do even more to help them grapple with the effects of climate change and lower global emissions.

Obama said that “the United States not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.” But he stressed that all nations must act “right now.”

More than two weeks after terrorist attacks rocked this city and shocked the world, Obama described the gathering of world leaders here as “an act of defiance” and asked: “What greater rejection of those who would tear down our world than marshaling our best efforts to save it?”

With so many world leaders present, the summit also opened chances for top-level dialogue on other fronts.

Sideline talks included a meeting between Obama and Russian President Vladi­mir Putin to discuss Syria’s nearly five-year civil war and peace efforts in Ukraine between the Western-supported government and Moscow-backed rebels.

The two leaders agreed to continue talks among global stakeholders that began this fall in Vienna to forge a political solution to the fighting in Syria. But the two sides remain far apart on some key issues, and no clear progress appeared to have been made in Paris.

Russia says its military intervention in Syria seeks to cripple the Islamic State — a mutual enemy of Washington and its allies. But Moscow has heavily targeted rebel factions seeking to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a key Russian partner. In Paris, Obama repeated U.S. demands that Assad must eventually step down as part of any political transition.

Obama kicked off his day meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, hailing their mutual work on climate change but urging greater Chinese cooperation on cybercrime and “maritime” issues that include China’s military construction on disputed reefs in the South China Sea.

Putting China first on the schedule was an indication of China’s central role on global issues such as climate change.

It was just a year ago that Obama and Xi vowed to set definite limits on greenhouse gas emissions, laying the foundation for other countries to follow suit. On Monday, Obama said: “Our leadership on this issue has been absolutely vital.”

Other highlights included a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose government has been pressing for more financing and technology transfer. U.S. officials expressed frustration that Modi had not pledged to do more to avoid sharp increases in coal-fired electricity to help the 240 million Indians who lack electricity. They hoped to make progress in the coming days.

Obama also attended the formal unveiling of an initiative to boost research and development spending on new technologies, led by Gates. The Microsoft founder, in an interview with The Washington Post, warned that the climate threat is too serious to allow technology to evolve at the usual slow pace.

“Historically, it takes over 50 years before you have a substantial shift in energy generation, but we need to do it more quickly,” Gates said. “We need to move faster than the energy sector ever has.”

Obama expressed belief that a breakthrough was needed in addition to current technologies, something some critics say is too optimistic. “We don’t know exactly what’s going to work best but we know if we put our best minds behind it and put our dollars behind it we’ll discover what works,” Obama said.

Some countries believe solutions lie closer. A group of countries — France, Canada, Chile, Ethiopia, Germany and Mexico — proposed putting a worldwide price on carbon to discourage the use of carbon intensive fuels, such as coal.

The chances of getting such a proposal through the Republican-controlled Congress, however, are remote. It is also unclear whether Congress will provide the additional research dollars Obama pledged as part of the Gates “innovation” initiative.

The summit will also feature a goal, heavily promoted by India and including 121 countries, of a massive investment in solar power in countries with the greatest amounts of sunlight.

“We have broken the old arguments for inaction,” Obama said at the plenary session Monday. “We have proved that strong economic growth and stable investment no longer have to conflict with one another.”

Obama is one of about 150 world leaders at the Paris summit — formally known as the 21st Conference of Participants. Those leaders also delivered speeches.

“A political moment like this may not come again,” said U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. “We have never faced such a test. But neither have we encountered such great opportunity.”

In the wake of terrorist attacks that left 130 dead, the conference, taking place in a center located at an old airport in Le Bourget, has become a major security headache, and traffic has been blocked in Paris until Tuesday.

After arriving in Paris on Sunday, Obama’s motorcade glided along the Seine through largely deserted streets before stopping in front of Le Bataclan, the concert hall where scores of people were killed in the terrorist attacks.

Flanked by French President François Hollande and Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo, Obama placed a white rose on the street in front of the concert hall, making a small addition to the mound of flowers and candles there. After standing for a minute of silence with his hands folded before him, Obama walked away, briefly placing a hand on the shoulders of Hollande and Hidalgo.

The United States announced that it will contribute $51.2 million to a $248 million Least Developed Countries Fund to help the world’s poorest countries adapt to climate change. Germany is the largest of 11 donors to the fund.

“We know the truth — that many nations have contributed little to climate change but will be the first to feel its most destructive effects,” Obama said.

But U.S. officials said they would resist calls by many small island states and other countries vulnerable to climate-change effects that developed nations pay reparations or damages because of their historic emissions. Those nations also favor setting a goal of limiting climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius instead of 2 degrees. Obama will meet with leaders of island nations Tuesday.

Other countries used the conference to announce new details. Norway, Germany and Britain said they would provide $1 billion a year until 2020 in payments for verified emissions reductions from forests and land use in other countries.

Washington Post