GNN Fundraiser

This is a fund Raiser to raise 1200 in 2 weeks. We are demonetized. I personally can not fund the network anymore. I am behind a month in rent, and have no more funds to pay to keep it running. It costs 1200 monthly to keep this network going. We want to grow and present better content, so we need 500 members of the GNN Nation to contribute $5 a month to help sustain us, and allow us room to grow. We must pay for our media and politicians, if we want the politicians and media who represent our interests. We will be watching the Movie Black Panther during our fund raiser. Please participate, and donate. Listen, Like, Share, Subscribe, View, Follow, and Donate. We need 1200 dollars in 2 weeks or we will not be able to broadcast. I have no more savings. I am a month behind in rent. I have no more money to fund this network. We need your help. We need 1200 in 2 weeks or we are done until I can work some extra hrs to get the funding, but if we don't get this funding in 2 weeks we are done until I can come up with some revenue.

https://www.facebook.com/events/603980183313032/?active_tab=discussion

The Necessity of Political Parties for Political Balance

The Necessity of Political Parties for Political Balance
Written By: Tony Smith

Throughout the history of the United States, there have been two main political parties. Starting with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the parties have developed over the years to the current system - Democrats and Republicans. Although the freedom to create new political parties exists, no other party has been able to gain the support they need to develop. These minor parties usually focus on specific issues and lack the following to win a national election. The majority of the voters believe their vote will count only when it is used to select a candidate from one of the two major parties.

Many of the Founding Fathers had a negative view of political parties. Despite their objections, many of these men found themselves affiliated with a political party during their careers in government. As parties came into being, one would gain and hold prominence for many years. In our history, five major party eras have emerged.

From 1796 to 1828 the first political parties were formed. During the time when our country was in its formative years, two opposing factions arose. Each was concerned with how the new government was to be organized. The Federalists believed in a strong central government and supported the ratification of the Constitution. Additionally, they supported industrialization, a national bank, and government aid to build roads and canals. The Anti-Federalists - who were eventually called the Democratic - Republican Party, held the opposite views. The Anti-Federalists strongly supported the rights of the states. They were opposed to a central government, and supported the Articles of Confederation. They were opposed to a national bank and favored farming over manufacturing. They were firmly against the government helping to further industrialization by building roads and canals. The Federalists won their cause for the Constitution. However, efforts by the Democratic-Republican Party to influence people to the Anti-Federalist cause eventually weakened the Federalists. By 1824, the party was virtually non-existent.

Following the splintering of the Democratic-Republican Party. Two major parties dominated the political landscape: the Whig Party, led by Henry Clay, that grew from the National Republican Party; and the Democratic Party, led by Andrew Jackson. The Democrats supported the primacy of the Presidency over the other branches of government, and opposed both the Bank of the United States as well as modernizing programs that they felt would build up industry at the expense of the taxpayer.

The Whigs, on the other hand, advocated the primacy of Congress over the executive branch as well as policies of modernization and economic protectionism. Central political battles of this era were the Bank War and the Spoils system of federal patronage. The 1850s saw the collapse of the Whig party, largely as a result of decline in its leadership and a major intra-party split over slavery as a result of the Compromise of 1850. In addition, the fading of old economic issues removed many of the unifying forces holding the party together.

This next era is the modern of political parties in the United States because there was no political party that could break through the emergence of this 2 party political system that has dominated the political landscape now since 1854. This is also the first time that a political party from its inception won the following Presidential election. This time period marks a time of deep division in the country similar to what you have today. Although today, the 2 party system has such a hold on the people that it is virtually impossible for a new party to emerge in the political landscape.

In 1856, because of the corruption of the Old Democratic-Republican Party, and the fall of the Whigs, there was the emergence of the anti-slavery Republican Party (nicknamed "GOP"), which adopted many of the economic policies of the Whigs, such as national banks, railroads, high tariffs, homesteads and aid to land grant colleges.

Civil war and Reconstruction issues polarized the parties until the Compromise of 1877, which ended the latter. Thus both parties became broad-based voting coalitions and the race issue pulled newly enfranchised African Americans (Freedmen) into the Republican Party while white southerners (Redeemers) joined the Democratic Party. The Democratic coalition also had conservative pro-business Bourbon Democrats, traditional Democrats in the North (many of them former Copperheads), and Catholic immigrants, among others. The Republican coalition also consisted of businessmen, shop owners, skilled craftsmen, clerks, and professionals who were attracted to the party's modernization policies.

This period also corresponded to the Progressive Era, and was dominated by the Republican Party. It began after the Republicans blamed the Democrats for the Panic of 1893, which later resulted in William McKinley's victory over William Jennings Bryan in the 1896 presidential election.

The central domestic issues changed to government regulation of railroads and large corporations ("trusts"), the protective tariff, the role of labor unions, child labor, the need for a new banking system, corruption in party politics, primary elections, direct election of senators, racial segregation, efficiency in government, women's suffrage, and control of immigration. Most voting blocs continued unchanged, but some realignment took place, giving Republicans dominance in the industrial Northeast and new strength in the border states. Historians have long debated why no Labor Party emerged in the United States, in contrast to Western Europe.

As the 20th century began to roll around the politics of the day began to change and you saw yet another shift in the political parties. A progressive wave took over the Democrat Party in 1932, and lasted until 1963 after the assassination of President Kennedy. This marked a Coup de ta in the Democrat Party, and from this point on both political parties served the interests on the Oligarchy that has developed right under the noses of the American people.

The New Deal Coalition beginning in 1933. The Republicans began losing support after the Great Depression, giving rise to Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the activist New Deal. They promoted American liberalism, anchored in a coalition of specific liberal groups, especially ethno-religious constituencies (Catholics, Jews, African Americans), white Southerners, well-organized labor unions, urban machines, progressive intellectuals, and populist farm groups.

Opposition Republicans were split between a conservative wing, led by Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft, and a more successful moderate wing exemplified by the politics of Northeastern leaders such as Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, and Henry Cabot Lodge. The latter steadily lost influence inside the GOP after 1964.

In the mid-1960s when the New Deal coalition died, and the Oligarchy took over both parties, there were pockets of resistance. Such as in the early 1980s when the Moral Majority and the Reagan coalition were formed. But was quickly eliminated with the attempted assassination of President Reagan. Vice President George H. W. Bush took over the White House and ran it until he was elected President, and ran it for a total of 10 years. During this time in 1984 the Green Party was created as an alternately to the duopoly that had been formed.

Bush, then handed the Presidency over to an upbeat, likable Bill Clinton to move the NWO Bush announced in 1991 forward. Bill Clinton introduced the Third Way doctrine which put in stone the Oligarchic control of both political parties, which we now refer to as the Oligarchic Duopoly.

In 1992 the reform party pushed backed against the duopoly by running Ross Perot, but did not break through enough. This began the 3rd party steals Republican/democrat votes narrative, but it started with the Republicans. In the mid-1990s during the Republican Revolution is again where the people pushed back against the Duopoly, but were quickly silenced. The People's Green Party also in this time pushed back against the duopoly by running their first Presidential candidate in the great Ralph Nader. The People's Green Party again ran Nader and he received 2.8 million votes. This again began the Democrat scapegoating of the People's Green Party for their failures to be the Party they claim to be.

Overall since the 1930s, the Democrats positioned themselves more towards liberalism through the Third Way Doctrine making the party Neo-Liberal in deed, and Progressive in rhetoric while the conservatives increasingly dominated the GOP in word, but in deep they are Neo-Cons. However, new voter coalitions emerged during the latter half of the 20th century, with conservatives and the Republicans becoming dominant in the South, rural areas, and suburbs; while liberals and the Democrats increasingly started to rely on a coalition of African-Americans, Hispanics and white urban progressives. As both parties actually in deed do the bidding of their corporate Oligarchic donors.

It is time for the American people to wake up, and stop voting against their own interests. The People's Green Party, and its platform is supported by 68% of Americans, but the People's Green Party is not making that up in votes. The People's Green Party had to overcome ballot access, and now voter/election fraud. The only way the People's Green Party can over come these obstacles is for the American people to stop voting against their own interests, and vote for the People's Green Party. Ask yourself this. Is propaganda holding me back? You will find out if you are honest with yourself. The answer is yes. Parties are not meant to last forever. Just long enough to get the job done until it is unable to get the job done. Then you create a new party, and start the process all over again. Humans over time are corrupt by nature. This is why a constitutional republic exists in the first place.

BREAKING!!! Congressmen send a Letter of Criminal Recommendations to the Justice Dept. for Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Andre McCabe, and Others
https://desantis.house.gov/_cache/files/8/0/8002ca75-52fc-4995-b87e-43584da268db/472EBC7D8F55C0F9E830D37CF96376A2.final-criminal-referral.pdf

Mueller’s investigation was an utter farce

If one needed proof that Mueller’s investigation was an utter farce, they were in for a treat this morning when the Deputy Attorney General announced the indictment of indicted 13 “Russian trolls,” for allegedly interfering in the 2016 Presidential election by posting on social media accounts.

Laying Mueller’s disregard of the First Amendment aside, the indictment is blatantly hypocritical in light of active social media intervention by pro-Clinton David Brock and his multi-million dollar efforts to ‘Correct The Record.’

Julian Assange @JulianAssange

Mueller "troll farm" indictment today
- explicitly states no collusion
- does not mention WikiLeaks
- states trolls intent to support Trump & Sanders, oppose Clinton, Cruz
- states trolls intent on anti-Trump AND pro-Trump rallies post electionhttps://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/964563703302623232 …

2:33 PM - Feb 16, 2018

• 5,705
• 4,058 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

The indictment alleges that: “Beginning in or around June 2014, the ORGANIZATION obscured its conduct by operating through a number of Russian entities, including Internet Research LLC, MediaSintez LLC, GlavSet LLC, MixInfo LLC, Azimut LLC, and NovInfo LLC.”

The indictment further alleges that: “The ORGANIZATION sought, in part, to conduct what it called information warfare against the United States of America through fictitious U.S. personas on social media platforms and other Internet-based media.”

According to the indictment, the co-conspirators “engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.”

The indictment represents the latest mutation of Russian interference allegations that have dragged on for over a year. As this author previously noted, the definition of Russian interference has mutated from unsubstantiated claims of Russian hacking, to Russian collusion, and finally to Russian social media trolling.

WikiLeaks

✔@wikileaks

NEW: "Mueller" grand jury indictment for 13 Russian nationals associated with the Internet Research Agency for on-line trolling during the 2016 US election https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download …

1:14 PM - Feb 16, 2018

• 1,790
• 1,534 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

The Washington Post reported in 2015 that David Brock’s Correct The Record would work directly with the Clinton Campaign, “testing the legal limits” of campaign finance in the process. How did Correct The Record skirt campaign finance law? The Washington Post tells us: “by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off-limits from regulation.” And post online, Brock’s PAC did: “disseminating information about Clinton on its Web site and through its Facebook and Twitter accounts, officials said.”

If you want to join this online protest of the Syrian Occupation sponsored by The Green News Network, make this your profile pic for one week. Look where it says temporary, and set it for 1 week. Also if you guys can get out today to your local city halls and public squares to protest the Syrian Occupation that would help also. Thank you for participating in this online Anti-war protest. Headed down town to protest. Making my sign now.

Youtube Green News Network Live

US, Russian Officials Dispute Reports of Russian Casualties

WASHINGTON -- It's a scenario many feared in the fog of Syria's multi-front war: a confrontation in which U.S. forces, responding to a provocation, kill Russian soldiers or mercenaries on a crowded battlefield.

Russian news reports Tuesday described just such a scenario, with an unknown number of Russian military contractors killed in a ferocious U.S. counterattack last week.


But Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and other U.S. officials said they had no such information on casualties, and the Kremlin did not confirm any Russian deaths. U.S. officials also said the Russian government had lodged no complaint about its citizens being killed.

What is not disputed is the fast-changing, often confusing nature of a battlefield in which forces of multiple countries are bumping up against one another, raising the prospect of violent collisions.

Whether by accident or intention, such clashes risk plunging Washington and Moscow into a situation they studiously avoided even during some of the darkest hours of their relationship: their forces directly warring with each other.

Russian forces are supporting the Syrian government in its war with opposition groups, some of which are backed by the United States. Elements of both sides are fighting the last remnants of the Islamic State group in Syria. And U.S. and Russian military officials maintain daily contact to avoid battlefield mishaps.

Beyond doubt is the ferocious scale of the U.S. attack on Feb. 7, in response to what the Pentagon called a barrage of artillery and tank fire from several hundred "pro-regime" fighters in Deir el-Zour province, an area in eastern Syria where the last ISIS fighters have converged among oil fields. Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, commander of U.S. air forces in the Middle East, told reporters a broad range of U.S. air power was unleashed.

For more than three hours, American F-15E attack planes, B-52 strategic bombers, AC-130 gunships, Apache attack helicopters and Reaper drones fired on the attacking ground force, which Harrigian said was advancing under covering fire from artillery, mortars, rockets and tank rounds.

The air power stopped the attackers' advance and destroyed an unspecified number of artillery guns and battle tanks, he said, but gave no estimate of casualties or full picture of the assailants.

"As the hostile forces turned west and retreated, we ceased fire," Harrigian, speaking from his headquarters in Qatar, said in a video teleconference with reporters at the Pentagon.

In a second episode, the U.S. struck a Russian-made T-72 battle tank on Saturday after it "took a shot at us" in the same general area of Deir el-Zour province, Harrigian said, adding that he did not know who was operating the tank.

Russian media said Russian private contractors were part of pro-Syrian government forces that advanced on oil fields in the Deir el-Zour province and were targeted by the United States. The reports cited activists who said that at least four Russian citizens were killed in Syria on Feb. 7.

The Russian Defense Ministry charged that the incident reflected a U.S. push to grab Syria's economic assets under the cover of fighting the Islamic State group.

Without mentioning the U.S. strike, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Tuesday that "Americans have taken dangerous unilateral steps."

"Those steps look increasingly like part of efforts to create a quasi-state on a large part of Syrian territory -- from the eastern bank of the Euphrates River all the way to the border with Iraq," he said.

The state news agency Tass on Tuesday cited Natalya Krylova, a municipal lawmaker in the town of Asbestos in the Urals, saying local residents Igor Kosoturov and Stanislav Matveyev were killed in Syria on Feb. 7. The Interfax news agency reported that a Cossack group in the westernmost Kalningrad region said a member named Vladimir Loginov was killed in combat in the Deir el-Zour province. It also quoted Alexander Averin, the leader of extreme leftist group Another Russia, saying that one of its activists, Kirill Ananyev, was killed by the U.S. strike near Khusham, where the U.S. said its counterattack occurred.

Russian media also cited unconfirmed claims that overall casualties could have been as high as 200 and Russians could have accounted for the bulk of them. Those claims couldn't be verified.

Asked at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about Russian deaths, CIA Director Mike Pompeo said, "From an intelligence perspective, we have seen in multiple instances foreign forces using mercenaries in battles that will begin to approach the United States." He deferred on the specifics on the incident to the Pentagon.

Mattis, speaking to reporters Tuesday while traveling in Europe, was adamant he knew of no Russian contractors killed in the fighting, which he attributed to a surprising assault in light of obvious U.S. advantages, including overwhelming air power.

"I don't have any reporting" about Russians being among the casualties, Mattis said. "I can't give you anything on that. We have not received that word" at key U.S. military headquarters, including the Pentagon.

President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, wouldn't comment on the reports either, saying they needed to be verified.

He also said Putin didn't speak about anything related to Syria in a phone conversation with President Donald Trump on Monday.

___

Isachenkov reported from Moscow. Associated Press writers Deb Riechmann and Josh Lederman in Washington and Lolita C. Baldor in Brussels contributed to this report.

This article was written by Robert Burns and Vladimir Isachenkov from The Associated Press and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network. Please direct all licensing questions to legal@newscred.com.