An Indirect Metric of Paul's Popularity

Notice how Kelly Clarkson, after praising candidate Ron Paul was rewarded in the market. From Amazon -

The Real Effect 
This is a very easy thing to understand. Ron Paul is a legitimate man that stands in stark contrast to most of the past and all of the current crop of presidential candidates. He is genuine, he is honest and most critically, he's consistent.

Kelly Clarkson expressed genuine support for a genuine candidate. This in turn caused people to support her of their own accord! Not in some crazed PR manipulated set piece where you promise the world to people if they just go buy her album. This is genuine market growth in action and the type of organic response that is sorely needed if this country is going to rebuild itself. Do not underestimate your power or the combined power of others.

Above all this proves that if you are true to truth, you will be rewarded by it in this life or the next.

U.S Poking Around Iranian Wargames, False Flag Imminent?

Beware Misleading Articles

An exercise in perception -

Iran's navy chief warned Wednesday that his country can easily close the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, the passageway through which a sixth of the world's oil flows.

It was the second such warning in two days. On Tuesday, Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi threatened to close the strait, cutting off oil exports, if the West imposes sanctions on Iran's oil shipments.

In response, the Bahrain-based U.S. 5th Fleet's spokeswoman warned that any disruption "will not be tolerated." The spokeswoman, Lt. Rebecca Rebarich, said the U.S. Navy is "always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation."

The Real Effect
Let's examine this shall we?

For starters, notice how the article and it's content is summarized for you? This is a convenient way of framing your comprehension of the facts being presented to you. (i.e. - Iran, the aggressor against the U.S.) This is designed to help you interpret the latter content in a different manner than what is actually being presented. (i.e. - U.S., the aggressor against Iran)

But before we examine the front half of the article, let's examine the U.S. position presented

Western nations are growing increasingly impatient with Iran over its nuclear program. The U.S. and its allies have accused Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons.

Note the word "accused". In the past, Iraq was accused of getting uranium yellowcake from Nigeria. This is the assessment that helped support the war which ultimately ended up being bogus. (Read as fraudulent) In this instance, if there was material proof that such a program was active, it would be waved from coast to coast at this point. It either doesn't exist or isn't strong enough to warrant a war.

Given the lack of evidence thus far, how has the U.S. responded?

The U.S. Congress has passed a bill banning dealings with the Iran Central Bank, and President Barack Obama has said he will sign it despite his misgivings.

and

The bill could impose penalties on foreign firms that do business with Iran's central bank. European and Asian nations import Iranian oil and use its central bank for the transactions

Now, here is the critical portion of the article that gives us the proper context.

Iran has adopted an aggressive military posture in recent months in response to increasing threats from the U.S. and Israel that they may take military action to stop Iran's nuclear program.

Iran is being existentially threatened, therefore they are naturally responding with threats of their own.

Iran's navy chief warned...

More then likely the use of the word "warned" is to create the perception that there is an outright naked threat on behalf the Iranian nation. The use of this word could be called inflammatory because the proceeding does not follow the inclusion of that word. (At least in the manner that it is being presented.)

...that his country can easily close the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf...

Saying something is possible is not tantamount to saying it is probable let alone a declaration of intent. In this instance, you have a sovereign country, Iran, that is already being targeted by destabilization efforts, sanctions, threats of war and a possible embargo on a necessary energy source (refined gas) and support for the nation. In this manner, Iran is acting consistently with a nation attempting to protect their "national interests".

In short, be careful what you read and how.

Ron Paul IS Winning

Polls
Nevada Primary Poll - 12/22/2011 (3rd Place)
Mitt Romney 33.1%, Newt Gingrich 29.2%, Ron Paul 12.7%

California Straw Poll - 9/18/2011 (1st Place)
Ron Paul 44.9%, Rick Perry 29.3%, Mitt Romney 8.8%,

MSNBC Reagan Debate Poll - 9/7/2011 (1st Place)
Ron Paul 52.7%, Mitt Romney 16.3%, Rick Perry 13.6%

Gallup Republican Poll - 8/25/2011 (3rd Place)
Rick Perry 29%, Mitt Romney 17% (fell 6%), Ron Paul 13%, Michelle Bachmann 10% (fell 3%)

Azimuth Research Group Texas Poll - 8/17/11 (1st place)
Ron Paul 22%, Rick Perry 17%

Ames Iowa Straw Poll - 8/13/11 (2nd place)
Michele Bachmann 4,823, Ron Paul 4,671, Tim Pawlenty 2,293


Rasmussen Pre-Poll - 8/9/11 (3rd place)
Ron Paul placed third with 16%, following Mitt Romney at second with 21%, and Michele Bachmann in the lead at 22%.

USA TODAY/Gallup Poll - 8/8/11 (3rd place)
Ron Paul at third place among GOP contenders on a national level, with 14%. Second place was Texas Governor, Rick Perry with 17% and leading the field nationally is Mitt Romney with 24%. Michele Bachmann places a close fourth with 13%.

CPAC Poll - 2/16/11 (1st Place)
Ron Paul 30%, Mitt Romney 23%, Gary Johnson 6%

CPAC Poll 2010 (1st Place)
Ron Paul 31%, Mitt Romney 22%, Gary Johnson 6% , Sarah Palin 7%

CPAC Poll 2009 (3rd Place)
20% Mitt Romney, 14% Bobby Jindal, 13% Ron Paul

Note: This is a resource and will be updated as necessary.

Merry Christmas Iran - It's On Like Donkey Kong

Feliz navidad, uh...happy Bombmas and stuff cuz nothing celebrates the birth of the Lord better then taking out a countries fuel supplies -

The Iranian news agency IRNA reported today that a U.S. missile hit an oil depot in the southwest village of Abadan on Wednesday. IRNA said British and American jets had entered Iranian airspace several times.

In addition to the oil depot attack, two rockets reportedly hit the village of Manyuhi near the border of Iraq’s al-Faw Peninsula near the Persian Gulf and the Iraqi city of Basra.

“In the border city of Arvand-Kenar, the invading American and British airplanes violated the airspace of the Islamic Republic of Iran three times,” a commander told the Islamic Republic News Agency.

The Real Effect
If this is in fact a legitimate story, look for the next set of chess pieces to start moving. I think it's going to be difficult to get Iran to react overtly at first because they know full well that the US will try and paint them as the aggressor. Therefore my assumption is that they may try and get the IAEA in the country sooner in an attempt to call NATO's hand.

Iran also announced on Thursday its envoy to the Vienna-based United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency will meet with the agency’s top nuclear inspector in the first week of January to arrange a visit to Iran as soon as possible. “As far as we are concerned his team can come as soon as they are ready,” said Ali Asghar Soltanieh.

If that's not possible or the hawks in Iran have their way, it's safe to assume that Iran will start directing their resources to take shots at US troops the world over in an attempt to start fires everywhere and destabilize the US military. Watch Syria, Lebanon, parts of Pakistan and specifically the Gulf as Iran stages new exercises.

Iran on Thursday announced it will hold a military exercise beyond the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. The exercise may place Iranian navy vessels within proximity of U.S. warships in the area.

According to the Associated Press, the announced Iranian exercise is Iran’s latest show of strength in the face of mounting international criticism over its controversial nuclear program.

Terrorism Charges Happening In the US

The hyper-spastic reactions continue -

An American citizen from Boston suburb was convicted on Tuesday on terrorism charges, but the charges were loosely defined and the verdict may represent a significant blow to free speech rights.

Federal prosecutors claimed that Tarek Mehanna, 29, traveled to Yemen in 2004 with the hope of training as a terrorist and going on to fight American soldiers in Iraq. He failed to find any training camps, but returned home and allegedly promoted al Qaeda by writing about violent jihad against U.S. foreign policy on the Internet.

Mehanna and his lawyers instead claimed that he traveled to Yemen to receive training to become an Islamic scholar and that his writings on the Internet amounted to free speech.

The Real Effect
Never mind the fact that we're ALL terrorists under Section 802 of the Patriot Act, this is further justification for case law that will be used in ever increasing definitions against the American populace during the coming Globalist Coup Civil War. Why would there be a war? Because they're going to take your goods of course.

Update: You better not investigate a farm, you terr'ist, else we turn yer house into a glass parking lot!

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists, according to a new document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act.

Something gives me this feel there's going to be a whole lot of these sorts of things coming out of the woodwork.

U.S. Citizen Assasinations - Coming to a Town Near You

Begining to understand where we are going yet or is it still tinfoil hat time -

Turley said yesterday on C-Span (starting at 15:50):
President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.
Two of his aides just … reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States.
You’ve now got a president who says that he can kill you on his own discretion. He can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion

The Real Effect
Lest you think this is isolated, I cite the following so you can follow the rationale -

Lawmakers in Louisiana are calling for National Guard troops to patrol the streets of New Orleans after a toddler was killed in a drive-by shooting. The last time troops were involved in domestic law enforcement in the state, they were used to confiscate legally owned firearms in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Think of the military as sharks. They are really good at eating and if you have an abundance of something that needs to be eaten, well, you're in luck. Do you really want to open a swimming pool with sharks?

"But wait!" you say "Think of it, there will be no fish in the pool because the sharks will eat them all."
True. But there will also be no swimmers because they will either leave or get eaten.

Such is the case with all military, if you have a need to bust heads and blow things up, they're your man and they will perform admirably. But the military, especially today's military, is not a peace keeping force. They are occupiers and that is what they will do, occupy, disarm and blow things up.

Is this a good response to a shooting??? It is if you want to kill people. History indicates that these actions will escalate the violence, not end it.

Republicans That Respect Neither the Republic Nor Democratic Reform

I present to you, Abject Lunacy of the Day!

Conservatives and Republican elites in the state are divided over who to support for the GOP nomination, but they almost uniformly express concern over the prospect that Ron Paul and his army of activist supporters may capture the state’s 2012 nominating contest — an outcome many fear would do irreparable harm to the future role of the first-in-the-nation caucuses.

“It would make the caucuses mostly irrelevant if not entirely irrelevant,” said Becky Beach, a longtime Iowa Republican who helped Presidents Bush 41 and Bush 43 here.“It would have a very damaging effect because I don’t think he could be elected president and both Iowa and national Republicans wouldn’t think he represents the will of voters.”

Who cares what you think.

“I don’t think any candidate perverting the process in that fashion helps [the caucuses] in any way,” said Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, adding that he didn’t know if that’s necessarily how Paul would win.

Somehow I get the feeling that if Romney won that would be a different quote

“They’ll all go back and vote for Obama,” predicted Beach.

You again? Go away....

“If we empower somebody who turns around and elects Obama, then that’s a major problem for the caucuses,” said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).

Nice try King, Paul doesn't elect Obama, the people do. And if the they relect Obama, it's because you failed to present a viable candidate. (Oh my, that has a nice ring to it.)

“People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third,” said Gov. Terry Branstad. “If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states.”

The Real Effect

Nice Governer Branstad. Did you just undermine the efficacy of your own primaries for political reasons?!? Iowa, why do you have this reject in here? As I stated in another venue yesterday, watch him win on January 3rd and then they promptly start talking about who came in second.  

 

This matter is simple, either the primary is legitimate or it is not. If it is illegitimate, then why are we holding it at a substantial cost to taxpayers and if it is legitimate, then why are we trying to pretend someone else won? This only undermines the electoral process and creates inherent instability. More importantly, this further reveals that the Republican party is not interested in "We the People..." but in truth is interested solely in "We the Party..."

This raises a serious question that needs to be examined further - Will the GOP overtly attempt to undermine the democratic process if Paul wins? Will they attempt to portray the situation as a "do over"? If so, America could be facing a far more grave Constitutional crisis at the hands of the Neocons who cry foul over Obama's usurpation.

To Those With Thin Skin - Either Examine Your Motives or Accept That You've Fallen

Rationalization seems to be the primary reason why people 'turn to the darkside' -

The Real Effect
I can hear the protests now, '...but...but...the priest was ruled out of order.' Folks, this is the scam that is being run against us consistently and it's working to a large degree. Some of our "representatives" are attempting to circumvent the rules by trying to legally remove their own shackles. It is for this precise reason that these fools were shackled in the first place lest our checkbook and hides know no end to their... cough...benevolence.

This is why rules and procedures and laws are put in place, so that one entity cannot abuse another or at the very least the situation can be redressed. But what redress is available when your own 'servants' have raided your storehouses and have set themselves up as your lords?

The citizens of this country must remain vigilant, this is a dark time in which the globalists are seeking to overthrow, via a legal coup if possible, the stated desires of its populace. These sort of instances must not be allowed to stand.

Ron Paul Gets Summarily Dismissed By "Republicans"

You would think, given their reaction to Dr. Paul, that the guy is Satan incarnate -

The Iowa primary is widely acknowledged as a hugely influential indication of who the eventual victor will be in the Republican race. Two of the last three winners have gone on to become the successful nominee. But according to Fox News pundit Chris Wallace, if Ron Paul wins on January 3rd – it doesn’t count.

“The Ron Paul people are not going to like my saying this,” said Wallace. “But to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee. So therefore, Iowa won’t count.”

 The Real Effect

Could you be any more obvious? The man is seen as one of the most conservative individuals not only of this current Congress, but of the century. He's a doctor, he's a statesman, he's intelligent, he's consistent and most importantly HE DOESN'T LIE TO YOU. The Neocons put up candidate after candidate that claims to be a George Washington, a Defender of the People's Rights and The Most Important Person in the Most Important Position in the Most Important Election...EVAH!!!! The Great Mass hope Scott Brown...anyone, anyone!?! (Does Brown remind anyone of Romney?) Dr. Paul will be that man. He's shown it again and again and our country desperately needs his character.

What this consistently demonstrates is not as much the electability of Dr. Paul, but the character of those who oppose him. The main point of opposition being relegated to a stance on a country that no one here governs! Yet, the tired old mantras march ever forward... 

He's unelectable...
His lack of support of Israel bothers me...
His foreign policy bothers me...


News flash! We're broke! A continuation of this tired interventionist policy is going to gain us a World War, several smaller wars, economic bankruptcy and most importantly millions dead. Where is the compassion in that position? Where is the Pro-Life culture?!?

That's right, you'd rather engage in the new Amerikan sacrament, bombing brown people!

US troops surrounding the Syrian border?

We're Not In Iran, We're Not In...Ok, We're In Iran

As if this shouldn't be completely obvious even to a casual observer by now -

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in an exclusive interview with Fox News, said that the stealth drone campaign along the Iran-Afghanistan border will "absolutely" continue despite the loss of a valuable and sophisticated drone to Iran.

The mysterious loss of the RQ-170 Sentinel drone has revealed not only that the U.S. was spying on Iran, but also that the program was being run from Shindad Air Base in western Afghanistan.

Panetta would not comment directly on what that drone was doing over Iran, but he said the U.S. military has no plans to halt the drone operation out of western Afghanistan.

I'm not a betting man, but if pushed, I'm guessing the drones have something to do with this -

As the US completes its final withdrawal from Iraq, American special forces troops have been diverted to positions in Jordan opposite a Syrian tank concentration building up across the kingdom's northern border, debkafile's military and intelligence sources report.

As of last Thursday, military convoys, air transports and helicopters have been lifting US troops across the border from Iraq. They have been deployed in position to ward off a possible Syrian invasion in the light of President Bashar Assad's warning that he would set the entire Middle East on fire if the pressure on his regime to step down persisted.

The Real Effect

Now what would US force possibly be doing in Jordan? Could they be thinking of invading Syria to provoke Iran? Naaaaah...

It looks like this is going to turn into one of those "Who shot first?" incidents.

Update: Does Israel know something?

“Basically, it’s inevitable,” Barak said in a telephone interview before flying Wednesday to Washington for meetings with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other administration officials. “The Assad family, through their own behavior, have lost their last drop of legitimacy and put themselves beyond the point of no return with their brutal slaughter of their own people. He has ceased to be something relevant.”

“It might take many weeks,” Barak added, “but it’s not a matter of months or years.”

In a separate interview, Moshe Ya’alon, the minister of Strategic Affairs, said: “It’s a matter of time and bloodshed before we will witness Assad’s departure. That is our assessment.”

Mitt Romney in Worcester 2002 "My views are progressive"

Mideast Notes - Things are Heating Up, Again

Troops are appearing near Syria -

Whistleblower activist Sibel Edmonds reported on Sunday that “foreign military groups, estimated at hundreds of individuals,” have taken up positions in the city of al-Mafraq in northern Jordan on the Syrian border.

An update on Edmonds’ blog, Boiling Frogs, states that a “journalist with a major mainstream media publication was told by his editors that there would be no coverage or follow up on these developments.”

The presence of foreign troops were also reported by a Jordanian military officer who asked to remain anonymous. He said hundreds of soldiers who speak languages ​other than Arabic were seen during the past two days (as of Sunday) moving back and forth in military vehicles between the King Hussein Air Base in al-Mafraq, ten kilometers from the Syrian border, and the vicinity of Jordanian villages near the Syrian border, including Albaej, the area around the dam of Sarhan, the villages of Zubaydiah and al-Nahdah adjacent to the Syrian border.

 Of course Iran won't take that without its own display of force -

A member of the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee said on Monday that the military was set to practise its ability to close the Gulf to shipping at the narrow Strait of Hormuz, the most important oil transit channel in the world, but there was no official confirmation.

The legislator, Parviz Sarvari, told the student news agency ISNA: "Soon we will hold a military manoeuvre on how to close the Strait of Hormuz. If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure."

 The Real Effect
This morning on political talk radio, I heard a staunch neocon correctly list the virtues of arming individuals with guns and how this act of arming would add to societal stability by deterring aggressive criminals. This same laughable neocon line of thought, would see the world disarmed in an attempt to promote "world peace". Please don't ask me when these individuals traded in their brains for a bag of hammers, but it certainly wasn't yesterday.

If one examines the situation in the gulf, you come to a few, supportable positions:

• Iran is the aggressor and the U.S. is the victim.
• The U.S. is the aggressor and Iran is the victim.
• Neither holds true.

If the first is true, please explain how Iran has transgressed the U.S. If the latter two are true, which I believe can be thoroughly demonstrated, note how Iran, by threatening to close the gulf, has kept the occupiers at bay? Further, does not the cold war teach us that MAD will actually promote real peace? If so, shouldn't these individuals be giving Iran nukes like they did to China?

Update: It appears that others get this concept as well.

The idea that America should cross the globe solving every nation's problems is a progressive one. And it makes sense when you think about it. The left generally accepts that the government ought to have a very active role in society, alleviating poverty, ensuring a level playing field or the little guy, and so on. So why wouldn't the same be true of foreign policy as well?

This isn't just a matter of consistency in an abstract sense. The contradiction here has serious practical implications. Every Republican contender has preached about the need to cut the size of government, yet only Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has discussed the need to cut back our military spending, which consumes one-fifth of the federal budget. The right-to-life argument comes into play here as well. The candidates all take a hard line stance against abortion, but the casualties of war, unfortunate as they war, are one of the necessary evils of achieving our international goals.

Budget Cuts Come to the DoD, Watch the Republicans Squirm

Listen to the partisans thunder and roar as the sacred cows come crashing down -

With deeper budget cuts looming, the Pentagon is starting to cut back by trimming the Defense Department’s civilian workforce.

The Army said Thursday it is moving forward with plans announced in July to cut about 8,700 positions, using a mix of early retirement offers, buyouts and attrition to trim the jobs by the end of the fiscal year in late September.

The Real Effect
Really, the DoD should be called the Department of War again. But it becomes hard to justify your little incursions into smaller countries when the press is writing about War and not Defense. Let this serve as a reminder to anyone who gets confused by such things -

Defense: The action of defending from or resisting attack.

As I have long held, the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats and in some cases, worse. Countless wars on myriads of continents at trillions of dollars in cost eventually come home to roost. We covered this earlier -

Exactly how does one project one's military power when one is bankrupt? Tactically speaking, why would you hold a position that you know you cannot defend?!?

Of course, the easy answer to this is, you can't. How can you borrow from China when China is the enemy? At best this places the country in an untenable position of either stealing to continue its binge or starting with painful cuts and seeing as how the states are already broke, things are only going to worse for the foreseeable future.

From 2005 - the Republican "Victory on the Budget"?

The following article blew my mind when I read it. It appears that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay feels that the government has declared "victory" and that there is 'simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.' I believe this betrays many who in good faith voted for representatives that they honestly believed that they would hold the conservative line. Sucks to be deceived, no?

As I sit here somewhat shell-shocked, I wonder how many conservatives really believe much of the tripe they have been ingesting from these posers formerly known as conservatives. Honestly, did we expect anything else?

Listen to these fools if you must. I mean, how wrong can they be?

North American Union - Phase One - December 07, 2011

OWS - About the Reported '30 Tons of Garbage'

Perception is often not reality, from the news media on the Occupy L.A. -

Sanitation officials said Wednesday that they expect to haul away 30 tons of debris from the Occupy L.A. encampment –- everything from clothing to heaps of garbage to oddball curiosities left behind by the protesters who lived at the City Hall tent city for two months.

Andrea Alarcon, president of the city Public Works board, said workers already have removed 25 tons of belongings from the City Hall park, all of it heading straight to a landfill.

Sanitation crews also have vacuumed up about 3,000 gallons of water that had washed into a catch basin in recent days and are testing it for hazardous materials, she said.

The Real Effect
This is another chance to use our critical thinking skills. Let's lok at a clue that is presented in the article iteself.

...workers already have removed 25 tons of belongings from the City Hall park, all of it heading straight to a landfill. 

This is far too amusing to even pass as news but it perfectly illustrates how the government operates. When you need to achieve a goal, change the definition. But let's get some more confirmation on this idea from someone that was actually there -

As we sat there, encircled, a separate team of LAPD officers used knives to slice open every personal tent in the park. They forcibly removed anyone sleeping inside, and then yanked out and destroyed any personal property inside those tents, scattering the contents across the park. They then did the same with the communal property of the Occupy LA movement.

Got it? The officers wrecked all the property then dispersed it so that they could perform their "sanitation" efforts. If you think that's bad, look at how the people were treated for 'resisting arrest'.

I unlinked my arms voluntarily and informed the LAPD officers that I would go peacefully and cooperatively. I stood as instructed, and then I had my arms wrenched behind my back, and an officer hyperextended my wrists into my inner arms. It was super violent, it hurt really really bad, and he was doing it on purpose. When I involuntarily recoiled from the pain, the LAPD officer threw me face-first to the pavement. He had my hands behind my back, so I landed right on my face. The officer dropped with his knee on my back and ground my face into the pavement. It really, really hurt and my face started bleeding and I was very scared. I begged for mercy and I promised that I was honestly not resisting and would not resist.

My hands were then zipcuffed very tightly behind my back, where they turned blue. I am now suffering nerve damage in my right thumb and palm.

I was put on a paddywagon with other nonviolent protestors and taken to a parking garage in Parker Center. They forced us to kneel on the hard pavement of that parking garage for seven straight hours with our hands still tightly zipcuffed behind our backs. Some began to pass out. One man rolled to the ground and vomited for a long, long time before falling unconscious. The LAPD officers watched and did nothing.

Finally, what is the criminal charge being levied???

The charge was sitting in the park after the police said not to. It’s a misdemeanor. Almost always, for a misdemeanor, the police just give you a ticket and let you go. It costs you a couple hundred dollars. Apparently, that’s what happened with most every other misdemeanor arrest in LA that day. With us Occupy LA protestors, however, they set bail at $5,000 and booked us into jail. Almost none of the protesters could afford to bail themselves out. I’m lucky and I could afford it, except the LAPD spent all day refusing to actually *accept* the bail they set.

Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

Europe Get's Put on CreditWatch - Downgrades Coming

Behold the coming desolation of Europe -

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services today placed its long-term sovereign ratings on 15 members of the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU or eurozone) on CreditWatch with negative implications.

We expect to conclude our review of eurozone sovereign ratings as soon as possible following the EU summit scheduled for Dec. 8 and 9, 2011. Depending on the score changes, if any, that our rating committees agree are appropriate for each sovereign, we believe that ratings could be lowered by up to one notch for Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, and Luxembourg, and by up to two notches for the other governments. [THIS MEANS FRANCE]

The Real Effect
Nice top we've gotten here in the markets the last few weeks. Got a seatbelt on? Time to take a plunge dooooooooown!

‘Occupy’ Protesters Listed As Domestic Terrorists

Well, that certainly didn't take long. From the U.K. -

Occupy London demonstrators have been listed as domestic terrorists by the City of London Police, who characterized them in the same context as Al-Qaeda, the Colombian FARC and Belarusian terrorists who bombed the Minsk underground.

“The City of London Police force was facing criticism last night after including the Occupy London demonstration in a letter warning businesses about potential terrorist threats,” reports the Independent.

The Real Effect
Last week we posited the following -

Now who wants to bet that Occupy Wall Street could be construed as "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" and"appear to be intended"  "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population"?

Just a few short days later and the UK is boldly going where the US will go on a later date. Don't believe me? Just six short years ago this blog was documenting the seemingly absurd concept of setting up video surveillance of all streets. Today, just go to a major highway and drive around for a bit, you'll find them real quick. For whatever reason, the UK seems to be a few years ahead of us on many of these concepts.

Anyways, I digress.

In the same article I cited earlier, I also made the following observation -

It's quite easy to understand the argument that is being made here. Because the executive branch is executing the war, they alone possess the needed intelligence and relevant policies to determine how they need to deal with an individual. The little problem with that argument though is that all U.S. citizens are protected by the Constitution. Remove that protection and you have removed the rule of law and subsequently rendered any executive decision supportable if given enough PR and time.

Enter Paul Craig Roberts -

The November 17 letter to the Senate from the Executive Office of the President says that the Obama regime does not want the authority it has under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Public Law 107-40, to be codified. Codification is risky, the regime says. “After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country.”

In other words, the regime is saying that under AUMF the executive branch has total discretion as to who it detains and how it treats detainees.

Exactly.

This leads into the main point of that article which is that you are now the target under these modifications of the law.

Put simply -> Open ended war via Authorization for Use of Military Force -> The executive is now empowered to prosecute the 'war' in any way it sees fit including the assassination of US citizens -> Any attempt to curtail this power is seen as a challenge on unconstitutional executive power as subsequently put down.

This is THE definition of a dictatorship. What is allowed is discussion on if these actions are necessary. What is not allowed is debate on if it exists in the first place.

This is not a left issue (since they hold the executive) nor is it a right issue (since they hold the House). This is a law issue. The Constitution was ratified in part to protect our rights and all branches of government receive their power from it. Failure to abide by it and attempts to circumvent it are unjust and illegal. Congress cannot override it any more then your local librarian can write her own warrant justifying her presence in your house.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Update:  Here comes Fox news with the same concept.

One of Fox's top radio shows is "Fox News & Commentary with Todd Starnes". Starnes has been a regular contributor on TV with FOX & Friends and Sean Hannity, but he makes his name on his radio show. Starnes fits the role of a Fox News employee, he's conservative, Christian and hates President Obama. Starnes has also decided to use the internet to voice his options through his twitter account. 

"Todd's #cnndebabte question "What should be done with the domestic terrorists who are occupying our cities and college campuses? #ows"

War With Iran - A Bipartisan Endeavor

Who said just the Republicans have lost their minds in overwhelmingly supporting yet another war that can't be paid for -

The U.S. Senate took aim at the Iranian central bank in an effort to choke off oil exports, while the European Union stopped short of targeting crude as it tightened sanctions intended to curb Iran’s nuclear program.

The Senate bill, passed unanimously yesterday, would give the president the power starting July 1 to bar foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran’s central bank from having correspondent bank accounts in the U.S. If enacted, it could be much harder for foreign companies to pay for oil imports from Iran, the world’s third-largest crude exporter. The Obama administration opposes the legislation.

The Real Effect

Policy can be a wonderful thing. It can help to shape, mold and direct an otherwise shapeless situation. Policy without the ability to project that policy is just useless prattle at best and dangerous at worst. The US is functionally bankrupt and has been for quite some time, buoyed in the short term by massive borrowing, the productivity and cooperation of it's citizens. The apex of this funding has come and gone, but like all regimes that fall,we want to deny reality. The Federal Reserve is purchasing assets at a staggering rate, propping up the economy but assassinating the dollar. The only saving grace so far has been that all other economies feel the need to die on the economic sword as well, especially Europe. (Funny, isn't it this disjointed economic balance that led to a post WWII US to out-compete a bombed out Europe?)

With both parties slapping tape over the economic warning lights of the economy, will it be any wonder when the economic engine not only seizes, but bursts into flames? Of course, no one saw it coming. Naturally if Iran gets bothered enough, they will cut off oil exports which will in turn destroy much of the remaining economy.

Of course, we might be able to deal with Iran. I'm sure a few bombed carriers would ensure the patriotic resolve needed to get it done. But China and Russia as well? Not too bright...

Government Waging War on It's Citizens

As if the aptly named "Patriot Act" shouldn't be enough, the slippery slope turns into more of a mudslide -

U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida, top national security lawyers in the Obama administration said Thursday.

The lawyers were asked at a national security conference about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure. He died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen.

The government lawyers, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, did not directly address the al-Awlaki case. But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.

Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

The Real Effect
It's quite easy to understand the argument that is being made here. Because the executive branch is executing the war, they alone possess the needed intelligence and relevant policies to determine how they need to deal with an individual. The little problem with that argument though is that all U.S. citizens are protected by the Constitution. Remove that protection and you have removed the rule of law and subsequently rendered any executive decision supportable if given enough PR and time.

Contrary to popular opinion, these situations are not all like the drama 24 with precious seconds ticking and a nuke waiting to go off in L.A. Even if such a situation were to exist, the worst case scenario would be several million dead. On the flip side, if the executive gets it's way we could still be looking at millions dead and tens of millions subjugated at the hands of a bloodthirsty dictatorship. Sheer numbers alone say that it is far better to take your chances and trust that empowering anyone with the means to destroy this country from within is not a terrible idea, but based on the government data from the last century alone it is highly evil.

Of course you could always take your chances that you don't fit this definition -

the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

Section 802 of the Patriot Act

Now who wants to bet that Occupy Wall Street could be construed as "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" and"appear to be inteded"  "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population"?

Instant nullification of the 1st Amendment anyone?