Bilderberg.org

[marektysis]

ECB may do more if leaders agree to fiscal union, says president Mario Draghi
Bloomberg Dec 3, 2011, 03.24am ISTTags:
US Federal reserve|Societe Generale
BRUSSELS: European Central Bank President Mario Draghi signaled the ECB could do more to fight the debt crisis as long as governments push the euro area toward a fiscal union. "A new fiscal compact" is "definitely the most important element to start restoring credibility," Draghi said in an address to the European Parliament in Brussels on Friday.

"Other elements might follow, but the sequencing matters. It is first and foremost important to get a commonly shared fiscal compact right." Draghi didn't specify what more the ECB could do and said the central bank's bond purchases "can only be limited".


Ads by Google
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-12-03/news/30471916_1_mario-draghi-ecb-liquidity

[marektysis]

American Enterprise Institute Admits: Iran Threat Isn't That It Will Launch Nuclear Attack

Posted: 12/ 2/11 05:33 PM ET

Suddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the change will be ephemeral.

The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute's foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neoconservatives in Washington explained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear program is all about.

The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you that Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately..." And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.

Hold on. The "biggest problem" with Iran getting a nuclear weapon is not that Iranians will use it but that they won't use it and might behave like a "responsible power." But what about the hysteria about a second Holocaust? What about Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion that this is 1938 and Hitler is on the march? What about all of these pronouncements that Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear weapons because the apocalyptic mullahs would happily commit national suicide in order to destroy Israel. And what about AIPAC and its satellites which produce one sanctions bill after another (all dutifully passed by Congress) because of the "existential threat" that Iran poses to Israel? Did Pletka lose her talking points?

Apparently not.

Pletka's "never mind" about the imminent danger of an Iranian bomb seems to be the new line from the bastion of neoconservativism.

Earlier this week, one of Pletka's colleagues at AEI, said pretty much the same thing. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Thomas Donnelly explained that we've got the Iran problem all wrong and that we need to "understand the nature of the conflict."

We're fixated on the Iranian nuclear program while the Tehran regime has its eyes on the real prize: the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East.

This admission that the problem with a nuclear Iran is not that it would attack Israel but that it would alter the regional balance of power is incredibly significant. The American Enterprise Institute is not Commentary, the Republican Jewish Coalition or the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which are not exactly known for their intellectual heft.

It is, along with the Heritage Foundation, the most influential conservative think-tank. That is why it was able to play such an influential role in promoting the invasion of Iraq. Take a look at this page from the AEI website from January 2002 (featuring, no surprise, a head shot of Richard Perle). It is announcing one of an almost endless series of events designed to instigate the war with Iraq, a war that did not begin for another 14 months. Perle himself famously began promoting a war with Iraq within days of 9/11 according to former CIA director, George Tenet). AEI's drumbeat for war was incessant, finally meeting with success in March 2003.

And now they are doing it again.

On Monday, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) -- AIPAC's favorite Senator -- will keynote an event at AEI with Pletka and Donnelly offering responses. It will be moderated by Fred Kagan, another AEI fellow and Iraq (now Iran) war hawk. The event is built on the premise that "ongoing efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons have failed...."

We all know what that means. AEI will, no doubt, continue to host these "it's time for war" events right through 2012 and beyond or until President Obama or his successor announces either that the United States has attacked Iran, or that Israel has attacked and we are at her side.

If you didn't know any better, you might ask why -- given that Pletka and Donnelly are downgrading the Iranian nuclear threat -- AEI is still hell-bent on war. If its determination to stop Iran is not about defending Israel from an "existential threat," what is it truly about?

Fortunately, Pletka and Donnelly don't leave us guessing. It is about preserving the regional balance of power, which means ensuring that Israel remains the region's military powerhouse with Saudi Arabia playing a supporting role. That requires overthrowing the Iranian regime and replacing it with one that will do our bidding (like the Shah) and will not, in any way, prevent Israel from operating with a free reign throughout the region.

This goal can only be achieved through outside intervention (war) because virtually the entire Iranian population -- from the hardliners in the reactionary regime to reformists in the Green Movement working for a more open society -- are united in support of Iran's right to develop its nuclear potential and to be free of outside interference. What the neoconservatives want is a pliant government in Tehran, just like we used to have, and the only way to achieve this, they believe, is by war.

At this point, it appears that they may get their wish. The only alternative to war is diplomacy and diplomacy, unlike war, seems to be no longer on the table.

At a fascinating Israel Policy Forum symposium this week , Barbara Slavin, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a long-time journalist and author who specializes on Iran, noted that the Obama administration has spent a grand total of 45 minutes in direct engagement with the Iranians. 45 minutes! Just as bad, the administration no longer makes any effort to engage.

This is crazy. Of course, there is no way of knowing if the Iranian regime wants to talk but what is the harm of trying? If they say no, they say no. If we talk and the talks go nowhere, then at least we tried. But we won't try out of fear of antagonizing campaign donors who have been told that the alternative to war is the destruction of Israel. (Thanks to those same donors, Congress is utterly hopeless on this issue.)

So, instead of pursuing diplomacy, we are inching closer toward war.
At IPF, Slavin predicted what the collateral results of an attack on Iran would be.

What's the collateral damage? Oh my lord. Well, you destroy the reform movement in Iran for another generation because people will rally around the government; inevitably they do when country is attacked.

People always talk about the Iranians being so irrational and wanting martyrdom. That's bull. They're perfectly happy to fight to the last Arab suicide bomber. But they don't put their own lives on the line unless their country is attacked.

So, you know, they would rally around the government and that would destroy the reform movement. And of course the price of oil would spike. The Iranians will find ways to retaliate through their partners like Hezbollah and Hamas. I think the Israelis would have to attack Lebanon first, to take out Hezbollah's 40,000 rockets. It's not just a matter of a quick few hops over Saudi Arabia and you hit Natanz, you know, and a few other places.

That's why the Israelis want the United States to do it, because they can't do it, frankly. U.S. does it? Okay, the remaining U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are sitting ducks. Iran is already playing footsie with the Taliban in Afghanistan. That will become much more pronounced. They will perhaps attack the Saudi oil fields.

Slavin continues but the point is clear. An Iran war would make the Iraq war look like the "cake walk" neoconservatives promised it would be.

And for what? To preserve the regional balance of power? How many American lives is that worth? Or Israeli? Or Iranian? (It is worth noting that this week, Max Boot, the Council on Foreign Relations' main neocon wrote that an attack on Iran, which he advocates, would only delay development of an Iranian bomb.)

Nonetheless, at this point war looks likely. Under our political system, the side that can pay for election campaigns invariably gets what it wants. There is, simply put, no group of donors who are supporting candidates for president and Congress based on their opposition to war while millions of organized dollars are available to those who support the neocon agenda. Pundits used to say: as Maine goes, so foes the country. It's just as simple today: as the money, so does our policy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/american-enterprise-insti_b_1126018.html

[marektysis]

OR MORE THAN PROBABLY SEEN HIS HIGH LEVEL OF UE-USA TRADE
SECRECY AS I FORETOLD TO BE CONCLUDED IN 2015.
HERE YET AN ARTICLE UPON THE 'NEGOCIATIONS' (WITH RESULTS ALREADYY ACQUIRED).MAREK
---------------------------------------

U.S., EU Agree on Secure Goods Trade in Talks, De Gucht Says

By Eric Martin
novembre 29, 2011 5:46 PM EST

The U.S. and European Union agreed on security measures to ease trade in goods and made progress in promoting electric vehicles and energy-saving office equipment, leaders said after bilateral talks.

Negotiators in the [b]Transatlantic Economic Council [/b]achieved “remarkable results,” EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said today at a news conference in Washington, citing work on nanotechnology, cloud computing and smart-grid technologies. The council, founded in 2007, includes leaders from the U.S. and Europe and aims to deepen the political relationship and promote regulatory cooperation.
“We have an ambitious agenda to take us into next year,” Michael Froman, deputy U.S. national security adviser, said at the news conference. “We want to grow our economies, support jobs on both sides of the Atlantic, and strengthen our economic partnership, both bilaterally and around the world.” Companies may benefit from an agreement that lets security- certified businesses in each economy ship goods between the U.S. and EU with simpler customs procedures starting in June, a step aimed at cutting costs and delays.

President Barack Obama, European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President José Manuel Barroso yesterday directed the council to work on job and economic growth programs. A panel, led by U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and De Gucht, was ordered to “identify policies and measures” to boost U.S.-EU trade and investment to increase job creation, economic growth and international competitiveness, according to a statement distributed yesterday.

“Everything is on the table, from tariffs to non-tariff barriers, to enhanced regulatory cooperation,” Froman said. “We will be exploring options” including a free-trade agreement, “with an open mind to seeing what is feasible and what would have the greatest impact on our economic relationship.”

The panel is to provide an interim report in June with final recommendations by the end of 2012. To contact the reporter on this story: Eric Martin in Washington at emartin21@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Liebert at lliebert@bloomberg.net

[marektysis]

By James Mackenzie

ROME | Sun Nov 13, 2011 9:12am EST

ROME Nov 13 (Reuters) - Mario Monti, the economist who will head an emergency Italian government following the departure of Silvio Berlusconi, brings credentials earned in a decade of battles as a European Commissioner from the 1990s.

Monti made his name as the powerful Competition Commissioner who took on U.S. corporate titans General Electric and Microsoft, blocking GE's planned merger with rival Honeywell and imposing a record 497 million euro ($683 million) antitrust fine on the software giant.

His technical expertise, sharp intellect and diplomatic skills added to his refusal to bow to intense lobbying pressures made him one of the most highly regarded officials the Commission has seen.

"He didn't have a very Italian way of going about things," recalls one former ambassador, who worked with Monti in Brussels and remembers him as a hard but reliable negotiating partner. "His nickname in those days was 'The Italian Prussian'".

He was nominated by Berlusconi as internal markets commissioner in 1994, taking over the competition portfolio in 1999 where he served for five years.

Named last week as Senator for Life by President Giorgio Napolitano, Monti, 68, is expected to appoint a small cabinet made up largely of technical specialists to steer Italy through a crisis that has brought it to the brink of financial disaster.

A similar technocrat government under former Bank of Italy official Lamberto Dini passed important reforms in 1995 and the hope of many outside Italy is that Monti, or some other independent outsider, could do the same.

A convinced free marketeer with close connections to the European and global policy making elite, Monti has always backed a more closely integrated euro zone and has written a series of articles in recent months lambasting the Berlusconi government's policy failures.

He is chairman of the European branch of the Trilateral Commission, a body that brings together the power elites of the United States, Europe and Japan and is also a member of the secretive Bilderberg Group of business leaders and other "leading citizens".


REFORM DEMANDS

With bond markets pushing Rome ever closer to the point where it would need an international bailout to manage its towering public debt, investors' hopes have been pinned on a solution that would get past Italy's dysfunctional politics.

Italy's main business and banking associations have called for a "national emergency government" with broad parliamentary backing, warning that "this is not the moment for conflict and division".

Monti himself underlined the temptation of a non-political solution in an article in August entitled "Il podesta forestiero", a reference to the foreign governors or "podestas" appointed by the strife-torn Italian cities of the Middle Ages.

The article referred to reform demands imposed by the European Central Bank in return for its agreement to prop up Italian bonds in the markets, but it highlighted the widespread frustration at the failings of Italy's political class.

However as numerous politicians have pointed out over the past few days, the notion of a pure "technical government" above the daily fray is an illusion which is likely to be severely tested in the weeks and months ahead.

"He has a good feeling for how politics works but he isn't a man for horse trading," said one longtime associate.

New elections are not due until 2013, giving Monti and his cabinet a window of around 18 months to implement the kind of painful reforms to pensions, labour laws and the public sector that markets and Italy's European partners are demanding.

But he will need to secure the support of a parliament which has not won a reputation for its high minded sense of public responsibility over recent years. If he loses a confidence vote in parliament, elections early next year may be inevitable.

So far, Monti has the backing of the centre-left Democratic Party and the smaller centrist groups and has also had indications of conditional support from Berlusconi's centre-right People of Freedom party.

The regional pro-devolution Northern League has eased its previous firm opposition and says it will wait to see what Monti's programme looks like. But outgoing Interior Minister Roberto Maroni, a senior League leader issued a potentially ominous warning of the problems ahead.

"The decisions which Monti will take must pass in parliament and I think that with such a heterogeneous majority he will have many problems. I believe this solution will lead to many problems," he said.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/13/italy-monti-idUSL5E7MD0DO20111113

[marektysis]

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.

http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2011/12/eu-summit-the-leaked-van-rompuy-report/#ixzz1ft61jwyI


EU summit: The leaked Van Rompuy report

December 7, 2011 11:43 am by Peter Spiegel.

Fellow Brussels Blogger Josh Chaffin has a scoop in this morning’s paper on the five-page “interim report” on EU treaty changes for this week’s summit written by Herman Van Rompuy, the European Council president, which we were able to get our hands on yesterday.

Our story focuses on what is likely to be the central element debated about the report – the suddenly fashionable proposal to do a quick-and-dirty, limited treaty change through the hitherto obscure Protocol 12 of the EU treaties, which is described on page 3 of the Van Rompuy document, which Brussels Blog loyalists can read here.

But there’s much more to digest in the report, and as is our practice, we thought we’d give a more extended evaluation here on the Blog.

In a separate story in today’s paper, we reported that European negotiators are discussing running the EU’s two rescue funds – the current €440bn European Financial Stability Facility, and the soon-to-operate €500bn European Stability Mechanism – at the same time as a way to bolster the size of the eurozone’s firewall against contagion to Italian and Spanish bond markets.

As our friends and rivals over at Reuters noted in a follow-up to our story, Van Rompuy’s report clearly steers in that direction as well. European leaders had previously agreed that the EFSF and the ESM could, at no time, have more than €500bn in combined lending capacity. In order to have them run at the same time, that provision would have to be revised, and Van Rompuy appears to support that:


[T]he ESM treaty should be finalised and ratified rapidly, while adjusting it to make it more effective through… review[ing] the clause limiting the consolidating ESM and EFSF lending capacity to €500bn to give the ESM its full lending capacity according to the phasing in of its capital.

As we reported, the idea remains controversial and complicated, so it’s hardly a done deal, particularly in Berlin, where opposition is likely. But advocates see it as part of a three-pronged firewall, with the ESM, EFSF and new IMF resources all combining to give EU leaders the financial “bazooka” they have long been seeking.

Van Rompuy also seems to make clear this is his preferred route, explicitly endorsing bilateral loans to the IMF by eurozone countries – money that sources tell us could be the seed money for a trust fund run by the IMF to help struggling countries worldwide:


[T]here is a need to ensure that the IMF has sufficient resources to deal with the crisis through the provision of additional means, as was done in 2009, in particular through bilateral loans.

Sources have told us this most likely will take the form of loans from national central banks to the IMF – but again, it’s not yet a done deal.

Lastly, the Van Rompuy report makes clear that he would like the summit to keep the door open to jointly-backed bonds for all 17 euro countries, something Germany politicians have vociferously objected to. Whether Angela Merkel can return to Berlin with the door still open remains to be seen, but Van Rompuy appears likely to give it a try:


Opening up the possibility, in a longer term perspective, of moving towards common debt issuance in a staged and criteria-based process, for example starting with the pooling of some funding instruments. Any steps towards that end would have to be commensurate with a robust framework for budgetary discipline and economic competitiveness to avoid moral hazard and foster responsibility and compliance. This would also require more intrusive control of the national budgetary stance by the EU. Such a process would underline the irreversibility of the euro, give a long term prospect for the funding issue, and reinforce the role of the euro as a global reserve currency. At the same time, it would in fact also be a very powerful mechanism for budgetary discipline


SEE THE LINK...
http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2011/12/eu-summit-the-leaked-van-rompuy-report/#axzz1ft5lw0a0

[marektysis]

Turkey's president to attend conference in Austria

President Abdullah Gul will visit Vienna on December 8-9 upon an invitation from his Austrian counterpart Heinz Fischer.
Turkey's president will travel to Austria on Thursday to attend a conference, his office said on Wednesday.

President Abdullah Gul will visit Vienna on December 8-9 upon an invitation from his Austrian counterpart Heinz Fischer.

Gul will participate in the Fourth Edition of the World Policy Conference (WPC).

President Gul will attend a luncheon Fischer will host in honor of participating heads of state and government, and deliver a speech at the conference on December 9.

The conference will be welcoming more than 150 participants and 300 guests of the highest level to address both fundamental and topical governance-related subjects, among which are the governance challenges relating to the Arab Spring, the governance of major catastrophes, the role of Europe as a laboratory of global governance, the future of the G8 and G20 as governance institutions and the governance of African transitions.

The WPC was launched in 2008 by Thierry de Montbrial, President of the Ifri (French Institute of International Relations), and it is the only international conference entirely dedicated to fostering global governance at all levels.
http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=82694

[marektysis]

http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/15440/a/182016

[marektysis]

Martin Feldstein on Italy and the euro

Posted on December 1, 2011

Italy can save itself and the euro
Financial Times
November 30, 2011
Op-ed by: Martin Feldstein, a former member of the White House Economic Recovery Advisory Board and the Belfer Center Board of Directors
Topic: Italy and the euro

“The euro currency may soon collapse even though there is no fundamental reason for it to fail. Everything depends on Italy, because financial markets now fear that it may be insolvent. If the Italian government has to continue paying a seven or even eight per cent interest rate to finance its debt, the country’s total debt will grow faster than its annual output and therefore faster than its ability to service that debt. If investors expect that to persist, they will stop lending to Italy. At that point, it will be forced to leave the euro. And if it does, the value of the “new lira” will reduce the price of Italian goods in general and Italian exports in particular. The resulting competitive pressure could then force France to leave the euro as well, bringing the monetary union to an end.”

Read more >
http://belferinthenews.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/martin-feldstein-on-italy-and-the-euro/

[marektysis]

Dec 6 (Reuters) - Policies to tackle imbalances in the euro zone must focus on structural reform as exchange rates cannot be used in the currency bloc, European Central Bank Governing Council member Luc Coene said on Tuesday.

"Since the exchange rate lever can no longer be used here, policies that can be implemented in order to smooth out imbalances between partners in the union are primarily of a structural nature," he told a conference in Brussels hosted by the Bruegel think-tank.

"In this sense they take some time to have an effect so it is of utmost importance to put the necessary adjustment measures into place rapidly."

Bonds NewsBondsMarketsFinancials
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/ecb-coene-idUSB5E7K102120111206

[marektysis]

http://www.iewy.com/37554-eu-launches-trade-negotiations-with-georgia-and-moldova.html

[marektysis]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-x-li/china-america-21st-century_b_1130976.html?ref=yahoo&ir=Yahoo

[marektysis]

7 Nations on Neocon Hit List

December 09, 2011 admin


By James P. Tucker Jr.

Some 10 years before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., top neoconservatives in the Pentagon orchestrated a major “policy coup” to start wars with multiple Middle Eastern countries and secure total domination of the Middle East in order to take their oil. That’s according to a top former U.S. military officer.

In a speech in San Francisco, top Gen.Wesley Clark recounted a memo drafted by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s office in the wake of 9-11 that was brought to his attention by a top Pentagon official. The neocons’ plot, he was told, was “to attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years—we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.” Clark said the neocons “wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.”

While 9-11 provided an excuse for broadening the wars, neocons were plotting a decade earlier for regime changes across the Middle East.

Clark cites a 1991 conversation with Defense official Paul Wolfowitz, who said: “One thing we did learn [from the Iraq wars] is that we can use our military in the region, in the Middle East, and the Soviets won’t stop us. . . .And we’ve got about five or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes—Syria, Iran, Iraq—before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.”

Shocked, Clark responded to Wolfowitz at the time by asking: “The purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It’s not to deter conflicts?”

Most military officers in history, with the exception of Dwight Eisenhower, are conspicuously non-political, but the imperialism that shocked Clark emerged a century ago under Woodrow Wilson, who was able to convince Americans and Congress to enter what we made into WWI.

A generation later, FDR baited Japan into invading Pearl Harbor and got America into WWII. The war ended the Great Depression as 14 million American men got temporary jobs carrying guns while the manufacturing industry made fortunes. The price was high: More than 400,000 Americans were killed, and the debt is still killing us.
——
Since 1975 AFP editor emeritus James P. Tucker Jr. has won widespread recognition for his reports on the intrigues of global power blocs such as the Bilderberg Group. Tucker is the author of Bilderberg Diary. Containing 272 pages loaded with photos, the book recounts Tucker’s experiences over the last quarter century at Bilderberg meetings. $25 from AFP plus $3 S&H inside U.S.
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=1794

[marektysis]

Battered GOP Field Only Helps a Surging Ron Paul
Veteran Congressman rises in early primary states

Published Friday, December 9, 2011 2:19 am

by Dennis Maley


BRADENTON – While mains team Republican candidates have been busy slugging it out, and their enablers in the mainstream media have taken turns both building them up and knocking them down, the only consistent candidate in the field has arguably benefited the most. Ron Paul has been steadily climbing in Iowa and is currently running about even with Mitt Romney, both of whom trail the current flavor of the week, Newt Gingrich.

The fact that Gingrich only got phones in his Iowa headquarters on Tuesday of this week – a state that analysts have long warned you have to maintain an early and heavy presence in to be credible because of its retail-politics nature – shows how fickle the Republican primary voters have become in their quest to nominate anyone but Mitt Romney.

While the party insiders have struggled to find a GOP-approved candidate to rally behind, Paul's ever-loyal support base has seemingly managed not only to keep virtually every backer he brought from his 2008 bid, but steadily (if slowly) add a few more every month. Could it be that undecided voters are taking a final look at the one guy they've been told “can't win” from the start?


Think about it; once you've been told that a completely inexperienced and patently-unqualified pizza chain CEO, without the financial backing or staff of a credible candidate, who didn't even know China had nuclear weapons, could win the nomination – how could you honestly believe that a 24-year veteran of Congress who has an unrivaled record of consistency, and accurately predicted nearly all of or current woes, while offering alternative solutions for decades can't?


Of course what the MSM really means, when they say Ron Paul can't win the GOP nomination is that he hasn't been touched on the head by the establishment crowd that historically anoints such candidates as “credible.” It's no secret among insiders that no president or even major party nominee in recent history has ascended to the top of the ticket without privately meeting with the Bilderberg Group, something Paul has not done, nor would ever conceivably do. The Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and the Business Roundtable have also traditionally had to give candidates their blessing before they were allowed to “have a chance at winning” in the eyes of the mainstream media.

None of these groups have any interest at all in a Ron Paul presidency. Congressman Paul supports federal deregulation to an extreme – same for spending cuts and balanced budgets and low taxes – all so-called conservative pillars. What the Congressman from Texas does not support is the unsustainable fiat-banking system that has delivered us to the brink of global economic collapse, or the sort of crony capitalism that has allowed the biggest corporations in the world to profit from the practice of socialized failure and free-market success. Because of this, he can't get elected, but more in the metaphorical way that it just caaaaaaaaaan't rain on a bride's wedding day, than as a matter of fact.
If anything, the circus that has become the GOP primary has made it more clear than ever that Mr. Paul is probably the only Republican candidate that can beat an incumbent president in the 2012 election. The other two candidates polling with credible chances have records riddled with so-many contradictions and positions that have swung to and from every conceivable side of major issues, that it is honestly impossible to get a read on what they truly believe, while the campaign attack ads practically write themselves.

For his part, President Obama can continue to channel the Roosevelts and strike a chord with populist rhetoric aimed at frustrated protesters, but he's already accumulated more financial support from Wall Street in 2012 than all eight remaining Republican candidates combined, according to the Washington Post. He's even raised more than twice as much money from Mitt Romney's old company Bain Capital, than Romney himself, and Mitt worked there for 25 years and was their CEO! Meanwhile, the President has failed to enact meaningful financial reforms, and the top executives of his number one supporter Goldman Sachs have escaped a single arrest – while the protesters he's claiming to empathize with are continuing to be jailed and pepper sprayed by the hundreds while the Commander in Chief watches on in silence.

President Obama will be able to manage such a contradictory persona if he's on the stage with a guy who showed up on a hospital bed to divorce the sickly wife that he was cheating on, and later shilled for the the same GSA's he railed against to the tune of millions of “consulting” dollars – or the guy who has more flip-flops than a Ron Jon surf outlet – all cataloged on Youtube. But he'll only have to answer the sort of tough questions that someone not afraid of painting him as a corporatist (for fear of outing themselves) if he's on a stage with Ron Paul.

Finally, for the independent and disenfranchised voter, it is becoming increasingly obvious how little difference exists between any of the mainstream candidates, or the incumbent for that matter. For the countless Americans that genuinely believe that the nation is at a pivotal fork in the road and that only a truly radical re-approach to government holds the solution, once more, there is only Congressman Paul truly offering a departure from business as usual – otherwise it's Coke vs. Pepsi once more.

For sure, not everyone will agree with the politics of the staunch Libertarian Congressman, but an Obama-Paul race seems like the only one in which an honest debate will be framed and the outcome will produce more than marginal differences in tax rates and government regulation, while we continue to foster unsustainable economic, environmental and foreign policies. With a legislature paralyzed by gridlock, a fragile economy, a European debt crisis that can send critical shockwaves through the world financial system and deficits that will require unlikely changes in foreign and fiscal policy, the status quo has never appeared so unsustainable. That revelation might be the wind that lifts the sails of the Ron Paul Revolution in the next few months as the early primaries begin to unfold.

http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2011/12/09/opinion/battered_gop_field_only_helps_a_surging_ron_paul/

[marektysis]

http://news.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=127612

[marektysis]

http://eng.firstlady.kremlin.ru/2011/12/3183