Al Jazeera: United Syrian Opposition Group Formed

Source:Al Jazeera reporter Hashem Ahelbarra.

"Syria's main opposition group, the Syrian National Council, has agreed to join forces with other opposition groups at a meeting in Qatar.

Made up of various anti-government factions, in a step toward forming a broad-based interim government, the new umbrella organisation will be called the Syrian National Coalition.

Al Jazeera's Hashem Ahelbarra reports from Doha." 

From Al Jazeera

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة Al-Jazīrah [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], lit. 'The Peninsula') is a Qatari state-owned[a] Arabic-language international news television network. It is based in Doha and operated by the Al Jazeera Media Network.

The patent holding is a "private foundation for public benefit" under Qatari law.[3] Under this organizational structure, the parent receives funding from the Qatari government while maintaining nominal editorial independence.[4][5] At the onset of the Qatar diplomatic crisis in 2017, several national governments of the Arab League called for the closure of the entire Al Jazeera conglomerate as part of a list of thirteen demands that were presented to the Qatari government in exchange for re-normalized relations.[6] Al Jazeera has been accused of pushing "Qatari propaganda" by many countries and organizations, including those in the Arab world.

From Wikipedia 

Great news for anyone who wants the Assad Regime to be defeated in Syria. This will bring in more support for the Syrian Rebels, because now Europe and America will know who they are dealing with and what they want." 

The Daily Beast: Howard Kurtz & Bill Hemmer- 'The Next Four Years at Fox News'

Source:The Daily Beast- left to right: Bill Hammer & Howard Kurtz talking about the future of Fox News.

Source:The Daily Journal

“President Obama’s re-election might seem as nothing has changed, but that doesn’t mean it will be boring, says Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer. He talks with Spin Cycle’s Howard Kurtz about Megyn Kelly’s ‘awkward’ election night moment with Karl Rove, and why the astute viewer will watch all the news channels.” 

From The Daily Beast

The next four years at Fox News will hopefully start with a revaluation of how the report the news. Because how they’re doing it now, is not helping and informing the people who they speak for. Which are right-wing Tea Party Republicans and the Far-Right in America. Even if because Republicans actually believe a lot of the, lets call it spin that comes from FNC and take it seriously and many times it’s just half-truths if that, which leaves a lot of Republicans, especially the professionals who either are politicians themselves or work for politicians, with at best half of the news. As we saw with the polling of the Romney-Obama election.

Where in the last few days only FNC thought that Mitt Romney was going to win, or even had a good shot at winning. Where the rest of the mainstream media saw a clear bounce or bump in the favor of President Obama. Especially in states like Florida and Virginia, over the weekend with Ohio never moving towards Governor Romney either. It’s fine and I’m even for a news organization having their commentary that clearly leans in one direction or the other, I’m not getting on FNC for that, but what they need to do if they want to get taken seriously and be considered a credible source for news outside of the Republican Party, is separate news from commentary. Like The Wall Street Journal.

It’s fine a way to separate the news from the commentary. Take Sheppard Smith’s lead on this who actually has a real newscast, the FOX Report. Just report the news no matter who it hurts, or helps and then have your commentators explain what they think it means. As well as bringing in more inform commentators. Not relying so much on the Dick Morris’s and Karl Rove’s of the world. Who are really just there to speak for their side of the aisle, but bring in people who actually know what they are talking about. When you bring them in to talk about the issues. Which CNN does with Republicans consultant Alex Castollanos.

Russia Today: The Big Picture With Tom Hartmann: 'Will EU Nations Turn Over Tax-and-Spending Sovereignty to Germany?'

Source:Russia Today- The Big Picture With Thom Hartnann, courtesy of Vladimir Putin.

"Thom Hartmann will be leaving The Big Picture TV show (on RT TV and Free Speech TV) at the end of September. We’ve had a great run with The Big Picture and earlier this summer we decided to discontinue that evening show so we could focus more directly on our daily 3-hour midday show, The Thom Hartmann Program. 

Having complete editorial control over a TV show syndicated internationally into more than 700 million homes was a great (and rare) opportunity.  We worked hard not to do "sports" or "soap opera" when covering politics, and instead focus on issues; we believe we accomplished a lot in that regard.  We're grateful to RT for the opportunity, and for fully honoring our contractual independence at all times.

You’ll still be hearing and seeing me on The Thom Hartmann Program, which is growing weekly in the noon-3 PM ET daypart." 

From Thom Hartmann 

"Hartmann hosted a one-hour daily TV show at 7 pm. ET Monday to Friday, The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann, which was editorially directed by his wife and was broadcast from the Washington, D.C., studios of the RT America news network. The show featured many conservative guests who routinely sparred with Hartmann. Hartmann co-produced the program with RT, who provided studio and carriage, while Hartmann retained full editorial control of his programming. The RT network aired the program via Dish Network, DirecTV, and on selected local-origination and public-access television cable TV channels globally.[31] After hosting the program for seven years, Hartmann announced his departure as host on September 29, 2017." 

From Wikipedia

Europe is currently learning the weakness's of socialism whether it's democratic or anything else. When you rely on big government to do so much for its people for them and you run into an economic downturn, whether its continental or global and you aren't producing the economic growth and tax revenue to finance your welfare state, you start to run out of money. Especially the people you tax so heavily. And then you run into a situation where you either have to reform or cut or both. Germany seams to be the only Euro State thats figured this out and has already adapted. 

This post was updated 10/12/2023.

Al Jazeera: France Relaxes Stance On Immigration

Source:Al Jazeera reporter Charlie Angela.

"In 2010, about 116,000 foreigners were granted French citizenship, but in 2011 that figure fell by almost 30 per cent to 87,000. A more relaxed system under the country's new socialist government should reverse the decline and encourage many more to apply for a passport, but this is something the opposition is fighting hard to stop. Whatever their reason for wanting French nationality, immigrants will still have to navigate a maze of bureaucracy. Al Jazeera's Charlie Angela reports from Paris." 

From Al Jazeera 

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة Al-Jazīrah [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], lit. 'The Peninsula') is a Qatari state-owned[a] Arabic- and English-language international news television network. It is based in Doha and operated by the Al Jazeera Media Network.

The patent holding is a "private foundation for public benefit" under Qatari law.[3] Under this organizational structure, the parent receives funding from the Qatari government while maintaining nominal editorial independence.[4][5] At the onset of the Qatar diplomatic crisis in 2017, several national governments of the Arab League called for the closure of the entire Al Jazeera conglomerate as part of a list of thirteen demands that were presented to the Qatari government in exchange for re-normalized relations.[6] Al Jazeera has been accused of pushing "Qatari propaganda" by many countries and organizations, including those in the Arab world." 

From Wikipedia

You mean America has more liberal immigration laws than Socialist France? I'm shocked and awed. You know I was wondering why America was more ethnically and racially diverse.

Salon Magazine: Alex Seitz-Wald: 'GOP Civil War: Herman Cain Calls For Third Party'

Source:Salon Magazine- 2012 Republican Party presidential candidate Herman Cain.

"It’s been less than 24 hours since the polls closed and already the first shots in an emerging civil war within the conservative movement are being fired. Right-leaning pundits have been taking turns beating up on Mitt Romney and blaming him for the loss last night. Donald Trump just tweeted, “Congrats to @KarlRove on blowing $400 million this cycle. Every race @CrossroadsGPS ran ads in, the Republicans lost. What a waste of money.” And GOP leaders are already taking to the barricades on either side of the divide, which basically comes down to this question: Were Romney and the GOP too conservative or not conservative enough?

Steve Schmidt, a top Republican strategist who ran John McCain’s 2008 campaign, invoked the term on MSNBC this morning. “When I talk about a civil war in the Republican Party, what I mean is, it's time for Republican elected leaders to stand up and to repudiate this nonsense [of the extreme right wing], and to repudiate it directly,” he said.

But on the other side of the fight, Herman Cain, the former presidential candidate who still has a robust following via his popular talk radio program and speaking tours, today suggested the most clear step to open civil war: secession. Appearing on Bryan Fischer’s radio program this afternoon, Cain called for a large faction of Republican Party leaders to desert the party and form a third, more conservative party.

“I never thought that I would say this, and this is the first time publicly that I’ve said it: We need a third party to save this country. Not Ron Paul and the Ron Paulites. No. We need a legitimate third party to challenge the current system that we have, because I don’t believe that the Republican Party ... has the ability to rebrand itself,” Cain said.

Fischer, a social conservative leader, noted that he predicted this summer that if Mitt Romney loses, evangelical conservatives would start a third party. “If Barack Obama wins this election the Republican Party as we know it is finished, it is dead, it is toast,” Fischer said in September at the Values Voter Summit in Washington.

Rush Limabugh, two months ago, echoed the sentiment. "If Obama wins, let me tell you what it's the end of: the Republican Party. There's gonna be a third party that's gonna be oriented toward conservatism," he said.

“It is more viable today than it has ever been,” Cain told Fischer today of a third party.

After the GOP’s crushing 2008 loss, there was lots of talk about a new third party. When the Tea Party emerged, this talk almost became a reality. Instead, the conservative activists opted for a hostile takeover of the GOP. It’s still very unlikely that Cain or anyone else could start a viable third party, but his comments underscore the cleavage within the conservative movement in the wake of the defeat last night." 

From Salon Magazine

Salon: Jamelle Bouie: 'Four More Years to Enact a New Great Society'

Source:Salon- Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois 44th President of the United States.

"If you want a sense of how remarkable Barack Obama’s re-election victory is, think back to last summer. At the time, the president was struggling to reach a deal with House Republicans, who were threatening not to raise the debt ceiling and plunge the economy into a second recession. Unemployment was high—9.2 percent—Obama’s approval had dipped to the low 40s, and to anyone paying attention, the first African American president looked like a one-term failure.

But beginning in the fall, Obama began to reassert himself. With the American Jobs Act, he outlined a viable plan for generating economic growth and kick-starting the recovery. With his widely praised speech in Kansas, he outlined a populist agenda of greater investment and higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Over the course of 2012, he built good will with important communities, from LGBT Americans with an endorsement of same-sex marriage to Latino immigrants and their families with a measure meant to emulate the DREAM Act. What’s more, the economy began to pick up: Job growth increased, unemployment dropped, and the overall economic picture began to brighten.

Together with one of the most hard-nosed campaigns in recent memory, Obama managed to bounce back from the nadir of 2011 to one of the broadest re-election victories in recent memory. At this point, news networks have called New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, and Ohio for President Obama. Only Florida has yet to be called, where the remaining votes are in traditionally Democratic areas of the state. Compared with 2008, Obama lost only two states: North Carolina and Indiana. When all is said and done, Barack Obama will have won re-election with 332 electoral votes—a much larger margin than the last president to win re-election, George W. Bush

Over the next week, I’ll write about the details of Obama’s victory, in particular his huge advantage with nonwhite voters—without historic margins (and turnout) among African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans, it’s likely Obama would have failed in his quest for a second term. Indeed, it should be said that Republicans have themselves to blame for a good deal of this. If not for their categorical opposition to health-care reform, the Affordable Care Act would have never been passed in its current form. If not for their harsh approach to immigration, they might have won greater Latino support over the last four years. If not for their embrace of misogyny, they might have closed the gender gap. If not for their willingness to indulge the worst conspiracies about Obama, they might have made inroads with young people and college-educated voters. 

Together with one of the most hard-nosed campaigns in recent memory, Obama managed to bounce back from the nadir of 2011 to one of the broadest re-election victories in recent memory. At this point, news networks have called New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, and Ohio for President Obama. Only Florida has yet to be called, where the remaining votes are in traditionally Democratic areas of the state. Compared with 2008, Obama lost only two states: North Carolina and Indiana. When all is said and done, Barack Obama will have won re-election with 332 electoral votes—a much larger margin than the last president to win re-election, George W. Bush

Over the next week, I’ll write about the details of Obama’s victory, in particular his huge advantage with nonwhite voters—without historic margins (and turnout) among African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans, it’s likely Obama would have failed in his quest for a second term. Indeed, it should be said that Republicans have themselves to blame for a good deal of this. If not for their categorical opposition to health-care reform, the Affordable Care Act would have never been passed in its current form. If not for their harsh approach to immigration, they might have won greater Latino support over the last four years. If not for their embrace of misogyny, they might have closed the gender gap. If not for their willingness to indulge the worst conspiracies about Obama, they might have made inroads with young people and college-educated voters.

It’s still far too early to make a judgment about Barack Obama’s overall historical standing. But by virtue of winning re-election, he has become the most successful Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson, and one of the most successful of the 21st century.

Not bad for the skinny Hawaiian kid with a funny name."

Source:Salon

I hate to break it to so-called Progressive Democrats, (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) but I have a friend on Facebook who is an admitted Democratic Socialist, more liberal-libertarian on social issues, but a proud Socialist on economic policy. A true proud Socialist who I like and respect personally because of his honesty and ability to backup what he believes in. Even though we rarely agree when it comes to the economy and what government's role should be in it.

My friend who voted Socialist yesterday at least for President, voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party technically, but she's a Democratic Socialist ideologically. With her Green Deal and all of that wanting to let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone to finance new public infrastructure across the country. Somewhere in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars. My friend knows that Barack Obama is not a Democratic Socialist, thats why he voted for the Green Party. I'm guessing expecting that the President would win anyway.

If trapped in the political closet Socialists believe that Barack Obama is going to try to build some new Great Society, an idea that goes back to the 1960s with Lyndon Johnson and we are going to create some new and expanded welfare state to accomplish this, or what Dr. Stein calls the New Green Deal, they are living in Dreamland and perhaps sharing an apartment there with Ann Coulter. Thats not the type of Democrat that Barack Obama is and he's never been that type of Democrat. 

What President Obama wants to do is build an economy that works for everyone, but doesn't expect the Federal Government to be able to do this itself. And wants to empower more Americans to be able to live their own lives and live what's been called the American Dream. When you think of Barack Obama you think of Bill Clinton politically. Progressive Democrat who I wish was more liberal on social issues who understands the limits of government.

If trapped in the political closet Socialists want a Socialist President, then they should back a Socialist who can win the Presidency. Instead of expecting Progressives or Liberal Democrats to do that for them. And then they also need to find a way for someone like that to get elected President of the United States.

Russia Today: 3rd Party Debate: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein

Source:Reason Magazine- Libertarian Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein.

"2012 Last US PRESIDENTIAL 3rd-party DEBATE: Gary Johnson LIBERTARIAN PARTY & Jill Stein GREEN PART

The final debate with alternative US presidential candidates -- Jill Stein from the Green Party and Gary Johnson from the Libertarian Party.

From climate change to WikiLeaks and corporate greed -- these were issues addressed by the politicians not belonging to America's main parties, Democratic and Republican.

While discussing foreign politics, Gary Johnson said the US is a "bully" in relations with other countries.

"We should do unto others as we would have others do unto us. We should be the US influence. Influence the US should have should be the beacon on the hill. The notion that we've been the country that stood up to the bully as opposed to being the bully", he said.

Jill Stein called for foreign policy based on key values.

"We deserve a foreign policy based on international law, human rights and diplomacy. Unfortunately, we currently have an international policy based on the wars for oil and the use of brute military force as a tool of foreign policy. And we see that this is basically blowing up in our faces right now."

While discussing the WikiLeaks issue, both candidates agreed there is need for more transparency.

"Fundamentally, no, I do not see WikiLeaks as a threat. I believe in transparency. But let it be us out there, frontline, telling the truth on these issues first and foremost", said Johnson.

"That is our right to know what our government is doing -- that is part of our right as citizens. And I think there is no greater threat to our security than that kind of secrecy", said Stein.

The US is to elect its new president on Tuesday, November 6." 

From West End News

"Final USA Presidential Debate: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein Nov. 5, 2012" 

Source:T. Eli Ahrens- Green Party presidential nominee Dr, Jill Stein.

From T. Eli Ahrens

"RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya) (Russian: Россия Сегодня)[9] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international news television network funded by the Russian government.[16][17] It operates pay television and free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in Russian, English, Spanish, French, German and Arabic.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an autonomous non-profit organization founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[8][18] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[19][20][21] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (2010–2022),[22][23] RT UK (2014–2022) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[6][7]

RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[58] and conspiracy theories.[65] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[72]

In 2012, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[73] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[17][74] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a foreign agent with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[75]

RT was banned in Ukraine in 2014 after Russia's annexation of Crimea;[76] Latvia and Lithuania implemented similar bans in 2020.[77][78] Germany banned RT DE in February 2022.[79] After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Poland and then the entire European Union as well as Canada announced they were formally banning RT as well, while independent service providers in over 10 countries suspended broadcasts of RT.[80][81][82] Social media websites followed by blocking external links to RT's website and restricting access to RT's content.[83][84] Microsoft removed RT from their app store and de-ranked their search results on Bing,[85][86] while Apple removed the RT app from all countries except for Russia." 

From Wikipedia

1st of all as a democrat, (meaning someone who believes in democracy) I believe the 3rd party candidates, whether it's presidential, or Congress, should all be on the ballots, as well as in the debates. I wouldn't put them in the same debates with the top 2 candidates, but they should have their own presidential debates, as well as be in the polls and should have network TV coverage (broadcast & cable) because they're running for federal office as well, they all have bases of support. And the Democratic Party and Republican Party are so unpopular right now, that Americans tend to vote for who they think is the best of the worst, (Democrat or Republican) instead of who they believe should be representing them in Congress (House & Senate) and who should be their President. 

Now as far as this debate (speaking of the best of the worst) forget about Gary Johnson for a 2nd, who really is a Classical Liberal, ideologically, running for President for a party, that's basically antigovernment all together in the Libertarian Party. Versus Dr. Jill Stein from the Green Party, which is the American version of the social democratic party, the left-wing of the U.K Labour Party, mixed in with peace and love, give peace a chance as their foreign policy, 21st Century, hippie Green Party. 

But let's say for the fun of it, the 2012 presidential debates were between the Libertarians and Greens, (and let's also imagine that it never snows in Wisconsin in the winter and Florida has seen their last hurricane) American voters would have a choice between a party that was basically eliminate the entire Federal Government, if they also controlled the entire Congress, versus a party that basically wants government to do practically everything for everybody, except defend the country and police the streets. I don't think most Americans want that type of democracy either: a do nothing government, versus a do almost everything government.