Third-Party candidates debate Proposition 37

On Monday November 5, the final third-party candidate debate was held. In a final question, Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party were asked about their stance on Proposition 37 for the labeling of GMOs.

The final, third-party candidate debate of the US presidential elections was hosted by RT America at their Washington studio on November 5.

The final, one-minute response question for the candidates was, "The European Union imposed mandatory food labeling in 1997 for genetically modified foods. Do you support Proposition 37 in California and as president, would you push for federal legislation requiring the labeling of GMO foods?"

Dr Jill Stein of the Green Party said, "It is our right to know what we are eating, especially when that so-called food involves highly experimental and inadequately tested technology."

"So as a very preliminary step, we must have labeling of genetically engineered food products, and I would definitely advance that legislation at the national level, but I would actually go beyond that."

 "As a physician and a public advocate who has spent years studying and advocating for a safe environment that is consistent with human health, I would actually call for a moratorium on genetically engineered food until it has been established as safe, because once this technology is out of the bag, and this is already happening, you can't call it back." 

"There are some real warning signs right now in the scientific literature. We need to put it on hold until we understand what is going on." 

Governor Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party said, "I think that one of government's fundamental responsibilities can be to educate, and by educate, the notion that we should mandate labeling. We should mandate what ingredients there are in food." 

"I have celiac disease, I can't consume gluten. It makes me sick, it's poison. So I would not be able to function if it weren't for food labeling. It is very, very important to me."

"So consumers make their choices, but they make their choices based on having all the information that they want. Genetically modified foods should be labeled as such." 

The full debate and closing statements can be viewed here. More information about Proposition 37 and the Ca Right to Know campaign can be viewed here.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/336281#ixzz2BSJOeZdy

Final third-party candidate debate to be broadcast live

It's down to Libertarian Party candidate, Governor Gary Johnson and Green Party's Jill Stein to debate live in the second and final third-party debate on October 30. 

 

Digital Journal reported on the first lively debate between the four third-party candidates, including a full video of the event. The event was watched by tens of thousands worldwide, as Larry King moderated the debate in Chicago. 

 

As the mainstream media and political establishment shun them, and concentrate only on US President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the top third-party candidates got a chance to air their views and present their platform to the country, shortly prior to the election on November 6. 

 

They spoke their minds on the topics Americans really care about in 2012, some of which have been ignored completely by the top-two candidates, including the war on terror, immigration, legalizing marijuana, higher education funding, and gay rights. 

 

A poll was taken on the Free and Equal Elections Foundation website as to which candidates should continue to the final debate, and the winners are Governor Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party. 

 

Christina Tobin, founder and chair of Free and Equal Elections, told RT, “The voters have spoken, and we are pleased to announce that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will advance to the second debate." 

 

According to Gayle Falkenthal for Communities at the Washington Times, the final count was as follows:  

 

Gary Johnson: 26,187 first votes plus 1,962 runoff votes = 28,149 

Jill Stein: 15,013 first votes plus 292 runoff votes = 15,305

Rocky Anderson: 3,938 votes plus 444 runoff votes = 4,382 

Virgil Goode: 2,698 votes plus no runoff votes = 2,698 

 

Johnson and Stein will move on to the second debate from Washington, DC, this time answering questions dedicated solely to foreign policy. 

 

The debate will be hosted live from RT's Washington, DC studio on October 30 from 9:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Eastern Time, (October 31, 1:00 a.m. – 2:30 a.m. GMT) and will be aired on RT America as well as RT.com and on RT’s YouTube channel. 

 

It will be also be broadcast live at www.freeandequal.org/live and other media outlets to be announced including, hopefully, C-SPAN.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/335542

European Union wins Nobel Peace Prize with praise, shock & humor

The EU, a 27-nation organization, has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its historic role in "uniting the continent" and its contributions “to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.'' 

As Europe continues to struggle with the current economic crisis, bail outs and people going hungry and without employment, the EU wins the Nobel Peace Prize 2012.

This has caused a heated debate and even, apparently, some laughter, over the validity of this prize.

Possibly those suffering from the austerity measures being harshly imposed in some European countries, including Spain, Greece and Italy, would tend to disagree on the "democracy" and "human rights" aspects of the prize awarded to the EU.

The unanimous decision was made by a five-person panel chaired by Thorbjoern Jagland, Council of Europe Secretary-General, who is a strong advocate of the EU in Norway. According to Jagland, “The EU helped transform Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace.”

“It is a message to Europe to secure what they have achieved . . . and not let the continent go into disintegration again because it means the emergence of extremism and nationalism,” he added.

The predecessor of the EU was the European Coal and Steel Community, which helped to rebuild a continent, decimated by two World Wars. Possibly it would have been more suitable for the prize to be awarded at that stage, when the organization was actually doing some good for it's people?

Martin Callanan, leader of the Conservatives and Reformists Party in the European Parliament said, “The Nobel committee is a little late for an April fools joke. Twenty years ago this prize would have been sycophantic but maybe more justified. Today it is downright out of touch.”

Ironically, Norway, the Nobel Peace Prize’s host nation, refused to take up membership in the EU in 1972 and again in 1994. Speaking to local news service NRK, Heming Olaussen, leader of Norway’s anti-EU membership organization, described the awarding of the Nobel Peace prize to the EU as “absurd.” 

The Globe and Mail has a full list of reactions to the announcement ranging from shock to comedy.

Nigel Farage, the leader of Britain's UK Independence Party, allegedly said: "This goes to show the Norwegians really do have a sense of humor. The EU may be getting the booby prize for peace because it sure hasn’t created prosperity."

However, Norwegian public broadcaster NRK said, "The European Union is in the middle of one of its worst crises, but perhaps it is precisely now the peace and stabilization project deserves a hand from the 'no' country Norway?"

President of the EU Parliament, Martin Schulz, reportedly said he was “deeply touched and honored” by the prize.

European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, said he was honored by the decision.“It is a great honor for all 500m citizens of Europe, for all the member states, and for all the European institutions,” Barroso said at a news conference. 

“Through its transformative power, the EU was able, starting with six countries, to reunite almost all the European continent.”

Apparently the last time an organization was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize was 13 years ago, when French charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) garnered the award, which was probably amply deserved by them.

The last time the Nobel Committee caused a bit of controversy and raised eyebrows, was by granting the prize to a newly inaugurated US President Barack Obama, in 2009. He apparently received the award “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” It was certainly not for his later plans to remotely kill civilian women and children with drones, sign bills for the indefinite detention of US citizens without need of a warrant, keep good old Gitmo going, etc.

As part of the award, the European Union will receive the princely sum of $1.2 million from the Nobel Committee on December 10. Regrettably, this is not quite enough to bail out even one of its poor and struggling member nations.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/334717#ixzz295UPjJvD