Has US Federal Reserve Policies Been Engineered for President Obama’s Re-election?

I have been arguing that Fed policies have been designed for the re-election of Barack Obama.

More clues from LVMI President Douglas French at the Laissez Faire Books,

In their paper “Social Mood, Stock Market Performance and U.S. Presidential Elections: A Socionomic Perspective on Voting Results,” researchers at the Socionomic Institute studied the results of every presidential election, since 1792. According to the paper, stock market performance is the best predictor of election results: better than unemployment, GDP or inflation.

It turns out, the higher the DJIA, the better the chance of re-election. Voters give incumbents a pass for their first year in office, figuring it was, in this case, George W. Bush’s fault. So the Dow 30 stood at 9,712.73 on Oct. 30, 2009, when Obama started his second year. That’s the point of no return. It will take a 25% market meltdown, from over 13,000 on the Dow to below 9,712, for Ann Romney to start thinking about rearranging the furniture at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.: That is if the social mood folks have it right.

So while the Fed’s money policy hasn’t produced more jobs (and won’t), the ground-hugging interest rates have levitated the securities markets and may just get Obama elected to four more years.

Job One in Washington is to be re-elected. How Lord Keynes’ methods get it done doesn’t matter.

This only goes to show how inflationary policies benefits the political class and their allies.

Chart of the Day: Applying Demonstrated Preference in US Elections

The following chart presents the US voter turnout during Presidential elections since 1964

chart from Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research/Timothy Taylor’s Blog

Writes economist Timothy Taylor,

The youngest group of voters from age 18-24 have seen a rise in turnout recently, especially from 2000 to 2004, and there is a more modest rise in turnout for some other age groups. But all elections since 1988 have had lower turnout than that year; in turn, 1988 had lower turnout that the presidential elections from 1964-1972.

I see the chart as a reminder of a basic truth: Elections aren't decided by what people say to pollsters. They are determined by who actually casts a vote.

Lesson: Watch what people do as they represent choices from their values and preferences rather than what they say. This applies to everything, not limited to politics.

Video: How America Chooses the President (Electoral College System)

The Economist has a video explaining how Americans elect their President.

Here is the intro

THE electoral college is a relic of the 18th century that gives disproportionate weight to voters in smaller states and focuses attention on a dozen "swing" ones. Our videographic, below, explains more.

Video: The Ideas Behind the Ron Paul Revolution

(hat tip Lew Rockwell Blog)

Nassim Taleb Endorses Ron Paul

My favorite iconoclast Nassim Taleb goes for Ron Paul.

From Benzinga.com (hat tip Bob Wenzel)

Nassim Taleb, the best-selling author of The Black Swan, endorsed the presidential aspirations of Ron Paul. "From the risk vantage point, Paul is the only candidate that represents my values," he told CNBC earlier today.

"There are four key issues that no one else is addressing," said NYU Politechnic Institute and Oxford University professor, the first three of which he identified as the deficit, the Fed, and US militarism. "Then there is the notion that America is about resilience. You do not achieve that through bailouts," he told CNBC.

"I want a system that gets better after every shock. A system that relies on bailouts is not such a system," he said, noting that Ron Paul is the only candidate willing to take the risk to talk about the hot button issues.

"He is doing the equivalent of chemotherapy on the fundamental issues," said Taleb. "It may hurt, but that is the only choice you have. You cannot advocate for novocaine when in fact you need a root canal."

It is interesting to see an intersection of views with people of different backgrounds.

Here is Nassim Taleb in Davos 2009,

It was effortless to talk about complexity and its effect on risk: how redundancy, diversity, and such properties were central in avoiding collapse.

In short both believe in forces of decentralization in dealing with a complex world. That’s fundamentally the opposite of all standing US presidential candidates out there.

My preference for Ron Paul is not only because he represents the Classical Liberal-Austrian School of Economics and libertarian perspective, but he is for me, the ideal freedom fighter.

A Ron Paul victory will resonate for the cause of (individual) freedom around the world. But even if he loses, the Ron Paul revolution has been emblematic of the political trends of the information age era.

I may be wrong, but I think the establishment will do everything it can to block a Ron Paul presidency. And even if Ron Paul does win the presidency, I fear that he may target for assassination as a Ron Paul regime (that’s if he keeps up with his ideals and promises) will be devastating to entrenched vested interest groups (both from the interests of the left-the welfare class, and the right-the warfare class).

Oops, Ron Paul Supporter Meets Michelle Obama at the White House

Strange fate.

From DailyMail.co.uk, (hat tip: Bob Wenzel)

Most people who go on a White House tour expect to see some famous portraits of presidents and first ladies past, and perhaps a busy politico or two.

But today, that all changed as one lucky group of visitors were surprised by a meet-and-greet with Michelle Obama and the family dog Bo.

All of the visitors seemed happy about the addition to their tour, even one teenage boy wearing a Ron Paul t-shirt.

Is Ron Paul Being Cheated out of the GOP Caucuses?

Electoral vote shaving isn’t just a common phenomenon in Philippine elections, indications are that such fraud may be happening in the US despite only the GOP caucuses (not general elections yet).

From the Business Insider,

By now, it is clear that the Maine caucuses were a complete mess.

Evidence is mounting that Mitt Romney's 194-vote victory over Ron Paul was prematurely announced, if not totally wrong. Washington County canceled their caucus on Saturday on account of three inches of snow (hardly a blizzard by Maine standards), and other towns that scheduled their caucuses for this week have been left out of the vote count. Now, it looks like caucuses that did take place before Feb. 11 have also been left out of final tally.

As the full extent of the chaos unfolds, sources close to the Paul campaign tell Business Insider that it is looking increasingly like Romney's team might have a hand in denying Paul votes, noting that Romney has some admirably ruthless operatives on his side and a powerful incentive to avoid a fifth caucus loss this month.

According to the Paul campaign, the Maine Republican Party is severely under-reporting Paul's results — and Romney isn't getting the same treatment. For example, nearly all the towns in Waldo County — a Ron Paul stronghold – held their caucuses on Feb. 4, but the state GOP reported no results for those towns. In Waterville, a college town in Central Maine, results were reported but not included in the party vote count. Paul beat Romney 21-5 there, according to the Kennebec County GOP.

Here is a video of the alleged fraud, (hat tip Professor Robert Murphy)

The Ron Paul revolution seems emblematic of the zeitgeist signifying the structural challenge posed by the forces of decentralization against the established forces of the industrial age top-down welfare-warfare based political institutions.

As one would observe, the substantial growth in Ron Paul’s following has been defying the establishment’s implicit campaign to repress his presence (such as media blackout), the exclusion from Jewish forum debate and etc...

I would even posit that some of the GOP candidates have been fielded (by vested interest groups) to erode on Ron Paul’s growing influence over the voting population.

The Ron Paul phenomenon has clearly been bolstered by the internet where the latter as a medium of communication and connectivity has apparently been taking over the lead from mainstream media.

The US may not be the world’s biggest user but has been the largest in terms of penetration level (chart from internetworldstats.com)

And the supposed fraud seems likely as more evidence of fear by the entrenched establishment of an anti-establishment candidate commanding clout from the voters. So the continued task to suppress candidate Paul’s rise.

Ron Paul may not win (which the insiders will make sure of) but his ascendance clearly marks the sign of the times.

Has Ben Bernanke Been Working to Ensure President Obama Re-election?

Following the closure of the QE 2.0, the US Federal Reserve’s monetary aggregate M2 has ironically been reaccelerating

Part of this may be due to actions undertaken by team Bernanke to erect a firewall to protect the US banking system that has been vulnerable to a contagion from the Euro crisis.

And perhaps another very important interpretation could be to insidiously promote the probability of President Obama’s re-election.

Chart from Bespoke (green superimposed arrows mine)

An ascendant S&P 500 has so far coincided with President Obama’s improving re-election odds. That’s because a rising S&P 500 has been projecting an ‘economic recovery’, albeit a manipulated one, viz., flooding the system with enormous liquidity to engineer an artificial boom that eventually leads to a bust.

Whatever the underlying reason/s, we are seeing the business (boom-bust) cycle in progress.

War on Outsourcing: The Specter of US Economic Nationalism (Protectionism)

The Malaya reports

President Aquino appears unfazed by US President Barack Obama’s endorsement of House Bill No. 3596 or "Call Center and Consumers Protection Bill" pending in the US Congress saying it may be an election-related statement.

"We have to take into account that this is an election year but at the end of the day, like any other country, the US would want to make their companies more effective, more competitive, etc. and outsourcing is one of the keys towards that," Aquino said in an ambush interview at the EXL Service Philippines Site at the Mall of Asia in Pasay City.

"At this present time, I was made to understand, that this was an issue that was brought up during the last elections in America and from that time which was four years ago and now, the situation has not changed. Perhaps there isn’t that much of a danger," Aquino said.

"I will assume that it (BPO) will continue, hopefully it will not change because that is one of our sunrise industries," he said.

Aquino said there are no plans at the moment to lobby against the passage of the bill and that he prefers to "cross the bridge" only when the bill is passed.

It’s good to know that Philippine President Noynoy Aquino recognizes what looks like an election ploy. It really takes one to know one.

But it’s unfortunate that President Aquino, beneficiary of the outsourcing boom, would remain passive on this issue. Never mind if America’s turn to protectionism might indeed harm the industry. It would seem better to be bullied into submission. Yet fawn over with plans by the US to expand military presence here.

President Aquino doesn’t seem to realize that the divide-and-conquer and class warfare strategies have been the hallmark of the Obama administration.

As Mike Brownfield of the conservative Heritage Foundation writes,

Obama enacted a purely progressive agenda with his expansion of the state under Obamacare, his trillion-dollar stimulus bill, the government takeover of the auto industry, the proliferation of regulations under the Dodd-Frank regulatory reform bill, the crony capitalism of the Solyndra scandal, and the illegal appointments to the unrestrained Consumer Financial Protection Agency and the National Labor Relations Board. The result: Some 13.1 million Americans remain unemployed, job creation has been abysmal for much of the past three years, and the President’s promise to turn around the U.S. economy has gone unfulfilled.

The difference is that Mr. Obama’s progressive agenda, during this election season, seems to have transitioned from a moderate to hard line stance.

Maybe’s this also part of the desperation to get re-elected considering the Mr. Obama’s near record low approval rating. (chart from Gallup)

Yet here is more proof of President Obama's protectionist urge.

From the Wall Street Journal,

China was dragged into the 2010 U.S. midterm elections, and President Obama is busy ensuring that it will be an even bigger political target during the 2012 campaign. In Tuesday night's State of the Union address, the President joined Republican candidate Mitt Romney in singling out China as a special trade violator.

In announcing that he will set up a new Trade Enforcement Unit to investigate "unfair trade practices in countries like China," Mr. Obama is promising to increase investigations against Chinese exporters. His Administration has so far brought five cases against China in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Late last year it began targeting China's solar industry, while last week it said it would investigate Chinese makers of wind energy towers.

By the way one looks at it, protectionism has been rearing its ugly head as politicians like President Obama and the mainstream Republican candidates appeal to the emotions of the uninformed via nationalism/patriotism to solicit for their votes.

Many are unaware that economic nationalism (or protectionism) fundamentally underpins the philosophy of war or of military conflicts. World War II, for instance has mainly been caused by rabid nationalism.

Again current events have been affirming the admonitions of the great Ludwig von Mises,

Economic nationalism is incompatible with durable peace. Yet economic nationalism is unavoidable where there is government interference with business. Protectionism is indispensable where there is no domestic free trade. Where there is government interference with business, free trade even in the short run would frustrate the aims sought by the various interventionist measures…

What generates war is the economic philosophy almost universally espoused today by governments and political parties. As this philosophy sees it, there prevail within the unhampered market economy irreconcilable conflicts between the interests of various nations. Free trade harms a nation; it brings about impoverishment. It is the duty of government to prevent the evils of free trade by trade barriers. We may, for the sake of argument, disregard the fact that protectionism also hurts the interests of the nations which resort to it. But there can be no doubt that protectionism aims at damaging the interests of foreign peoples and really does damage them. It is an illusion to assume that those injured will tolerate other nations' protectionism if they believe that they are strong enough to brush it away by the use of arms. The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war.

In short the President Obama’s war on outsourcing constitutes part of what seems to be an overall protectionist agenda, which translates to a war on trade against every nationality (including the Philippines).

President Aquino should negotiate to retain and expand free markets and abide by such principles. Otherwise, perhaps Marc Faber’s prediction may come true.

Video: Ron Paul: A Victory for the Cause of Liberty

Mr. Ron Paul has had a remarkable showing at the New Hampshire Republican primaries. In contrast to other opponents whose surge and fall has been abrupt, Mr. Paul's rise has, so far, been surprisingly consistent.

Here is Mr. Paul's fantastic speech after a strong second place finish (hat tip Bob Wenzel)


Despite mainstream media's blatant blackout in the coverage of Mr. Paul in the recent past, the apparent snowballing of the Ron Paul revolution have been symptomatic of the marginal changes in the way forces of decentralization have been upending traditional media and the way conventional top down politics has functioned. As mainstream personality the former chief economist of the IMF Simon Johnson said, despite his flawed criticism, Ron Paul must be taken seriously.

Yet unknown to most, such phenomenon has partly been facilitated or amplified by the advances of technology.

Importantly, Mr. Paul in the above video underscores on what has been a growing or deepening trend: the emerging receptiveness of the public to the cause of liberty as previously discussed.

Ron Paul's campaign, even if he loses the nomination, will serve as showcase to inspire, not only in the US but around the world, the importance of civil liberties and economic freedom.

Interesting signs of times.

Could the US be using the Euro crisis to extract support for a possible war against Iran?

The US appears to be dead set on bringing war to Iran.

Reports suggests that bailouts of the Eurozone via the IMF in exchange for embargoes against Iran could be part of the rescue package dangled or concessions arranged by US authorities.

Writes the Wall Street Journal Blog,

Europe may have just traded a U.S.-pushed Iranian oil embargo in exchange for Washington’s support of International Monetary Fund bailout loans to Italy and Spain, if one economist’s speculation is right.

Jacob Kirkegaard, a fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, speculates the timing Europe’s newly-proposed ban on Iranian oil imports is too fortuitous to be purely coincidental.

Greece, Spain and Italy–in that order–heavily depend on Iranian crude and have been the most resistant to an embargo. They are now no longer fighting a ban–Italy has stated it would support it in principle while the others have signaled they wouldn’t stand in the way. [The agreement in principle is subject to substantial negotiations on timing or exemptions for long-term deals.]

Each of those countries are also the current epicenters of Europe’s sovereign debt crisis. Athens is in the middle of negotiating an agreement with bondholders on a debt deal that will pave the way for a near doubling of emergency loans, including from the IMF. Italy has to roll over nearly $340 billion in debt this year, but the cost of borrowing has soared beyond levels economists say is sustainable. Rome late last year turned down an offer for an IMF loan, but many economists say Italy will need IMF credit to pull itself out of its financial mire. And Spain’s banks are facing a housing bubble that could very well mean Madrid must soon ask for IMF assistance.

Earlier the US has already began to apply political pressure by imposing sanctions against Iran’s central bank.

From Yahoo,

Iran's currency hit a new record low to the U.S. dollar on Monday, two days after President Barack Obama signed into law a bill targeting Iran's central bank as part of the West's efforts to pressure Tehran over its nuclear program.

The semiofficial Mehr news agency said the Iranian currency's exchange rate hovered late Monday around 17,800 riyals to the dollar, marking a roughly 12 percent slide compared to Sunday's rate of 15,900 riyals to the dollar. The riyal was trading at around 10,500 riyals to the U.S. dollar in late December 2010.

The report said Iran's central bank called on Iranian experts to meet Wednesday to discuss the turbulence in the currency market.

The bill Obama signed on Saturday includes an amendment barring foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. The Obama administration, however, is looking to soften the impact of the measure, fearing they could lead to a spike in global crude oil prices or pressure key allies that import Iranian oil.

Economic sanctions are meant to isolate nations which may invite or have been designed to provoke reprisals.

I am reminded by World War II, where economic sanctions has served as major compelling factor that has prompted Japan to strike at the US.

Writes historian Eric Margolis,

When in late 1941, US President Franklin Roosevelt sought (my view) to push Japan into the war by imposing an embargo of oil and scrap metal on Japan, Tokyo had a two-year stockpile of oil.

Tokyo’s military-dominated government faced a stark choice: go immediately to war in hopes of a quick victory while there was still oil, or watch its oil stores dwindle way and thus face military impotence. War was the choice.

Japan’s leading military officer, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, warned Japan was going to war for oil, and would be defeated because of lack of oil.

Stirring up patriotic passion through war has been a facile way to generate votes, especially with the US presidential elections fast approaching.

With President Obama’s improving but still near record low approval ratings, chances of re-election remains murky.

And it is of no wonder why most of the GOP Republican candidates, except for Ron Paul, have also adapted a war stance.

Presidential aspirants from both camps have palpably been appealing to the public's emotions or to patriotism to solicit votes, as well as, tacitly appease the military industrial and banking interests groups.

In the words of former United States Senator from Indiana Albert J. Beveridge (1862-1927) also an American historian

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

People get what they deserve.

Video: The Daily Show's Jon Stewart Hearts Ron Paul

Jon Stewart to Congressman Ron Paul :

"You really are one of our last consistent politician ever seen in this world"

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Poll: Occupy Wall Street versus Tea Party, Cut Between Partisan Party Lines

Each day that passes, my theory about Occupy Wall Street as a re-election campaign strategy for President Obama has been generating more confirmations.

From Pew Research (bold emphasis mine)

About four-in-ten Americans say they support the Occupy Wall Street movement (39%), while nearly as many (35%) say they oppose the movement launched last month in New York’s financial district.

By contrast, more say they oppose the Tea Party movement than support it (44% vs. 32%), according to the latest survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and The Washington Post, conducted Oct. 20-23 among 1,009 adults. One-in-ten (10%) say they support both, while 14% say they oppose both.

Partisanship plays a strong role in attitudes about the two movements. About six-in-ten Republicans (63%) say they support the Tea Party. That jumps to 77% among Republicans who describe themselves as conservative. Just 13% of Democrats support the Tea Party movement, while 64% are opposed.

About half of Democrats (52%) – and 62% of liberal Democrats – say they support the Occupy Wall Street movement. Among Republicans, 19% say they support the anti-Wall Street protests, while more than half (55%) oppose them.

Independents have mixed opinions of the Occupy Wall Street movement: 43% support the movement and 35% are opposed. By contrast, the balance of opinion among independents toward the Tea Party is much more negative: Just 30% support the Tea Party movement while 49% are opposed.

Pew Research essentially confirms the Gallup survey who also showed earlier that only a segment of the American population has been in favor of Occupy Wall Street.

We must remember that the Tea Party has served as a critical influence in turning the tide to favor Republicans during the 2010 Congressional elections.

In the realization that election season nears and that the approval ratings for both Congress and the President are at record lows, which in essence diminishes the odds of the re-election of the Democrat incumbents, thus the seeming urgency for the beleaguered Democrats (through their allies) to organize, mobilize, finance and expand a populist movement that could neutralize the Tea Party forces.

So the Occupy Wall Street movement basically rests on the political gimmickry of class warfare which advocates the expansion of government control in the delusional belief that the ends will justify the means.

Importantly, the Pew survey above has been exhibiting how Occupy Wall Street and the Tea party movement appear to be galvanizing across partisan party lines, which essentially has been confirming my theory.

So far on this account, the survey suggests that Occupy Wall Street as rather a new movement that rides on fancy noble but unattainable abstract goals has been achieving their objective as a prominent counterbalance to the Tea Party movement.

But this has yet to spillover to President Obama’s approval ratings or to his re-election odds.

The Intrade prediction market says that as of this writing Obama’s re-election odds is at 48.7%.

It is interesting and fascinating to witness how people have been so gullible as to be unwittingly used and manipulated to support political causes whose benefits only accrues to politicians seeking office. This also clearly shows how politics can strip or rob people of their common sense.

Occupy Wall Street: More Signs of President Obama’s Re-election Campaign Strategy

From Washington Post (bold emphasis mine)

Labor groups are mobilizing to provide office space, meeting rooms, photocopying services, legal help, food and other necessities to the protesters. The support is lending some institutional heft to a movement that has prided itself on its freewheeling, non-
institutional character.

And in return, Occupy activists are pitching in to help unions ratchet up action against several New York firms involved in labor disputes with workers…

The coordination represents a new chapter for the anti-Wall Street activists, who have expressed anger at establishment forces in both major political parties and eschewed the traditional grass-roots organizing tactics long deployed by labor unions.

It also suggests an evolution for organized labor, which retains close ties to President Obama and the Democratic Party but sees the Occupy protests as a galvanizing moment. Some union officials concede that their efforts to highlight income inequality and other economic concerns have fallen short, scoring few victories with a White House that many on the left see as too close with Wall Street.

President Obama’s job approval rating hits NEW record lows

From Gallup

This seems to validate polls which shows that the theme espoused by the ‘noisy minority’ have not been supported by the general public.

Such gimmickry seem as telltale signs that for the Obama administration, desperate times calls for desperate measures

Steve Jobs to President Obama: Only a One Term Presidency

Steve Jobs reportedly told President Obama that the latter would only hold on the US presidency for only one term

The Huffington Post writes,

In one of the most hotly-anticipated biographies of the year, "Steve Jobs," author Walter Isaacson reveals that the Apple CEO offered to design political ads for President Obama's 2012 campaign despite being highly critical of the administration's policies and that Jobs refused potentially life-saving surgery on his pancreatic cancer because he felt it was too invasive. Nine months later, he got the operation but it was too late.

Those are just some of the tidbits about Jobs' life revealed in the upcoming biography, a copy of which was obtained by The Huffington Post…

Jobs, who was known for his prickly, stubborn personality, almost missed meeting President Obama in the fall of 2010 because he insisted that the president personally ask him for a meeting. Though his wife told him that Obama "was really psyched to meet with you," Jobs insisted on the personal invitation, and the standoff lasted for five days. When he finally relented and they met at the Westin San Francisco Airport, Jobs was characteristically blunt. He seemed to have transformed from a liberal into a conservative.

"You're headed for a one-term presidency," he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them.

Gallup: Occupy Wall Street Not Supported by Most Americans

From Gallup,

Americans are more than twice as likely to blame the federal government in Washington (64%) for the economic problems facing the United States as they are the financial institutions on Wall Street (30%).

Both of these large entities have been the target of protest groups this year. The Occupy Wall Street movement has focused on large financial institutions on Wall Street, while the Tea Party movement continues to focus mainly on the federal government.

Class warfare has been typically used as an election stratagem. And most likely this movement may have also been a maneuver used by the beleaguered and seemingly desperate incumbents to preserve their fragile hold on power which will be contested during the coming elections.

GOP CNN Nevada Debate: The Unflinching and Remarkable Ron Paul

Watch Ron Paul's remarkable consistency, detailed and candid responses in the GOP CNN Nevada Debate (hat tip Lew Rockwell Political Theater)

Obama’s Presidential Re-Election Campaign: Has the Strategy of the Politics of Divide been working?

I recently observed that Occupy Wall Street seem to be a part of President Obama’s re-election campaign strategy which fundamentally revolves around the groupthink “us against them” gimmickry.

Has this been working?

Current evidence indicates that there has been little impact in swaying the tide to favor President Obama.

Professor Brad Smith at the Division of Labor writes

In a column today in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer excoriates President Obama's new style of more aggressively "scapegoating" Republicans and "the rich," and giving succor to the OWS crowd. But while Krauthammer calls it "dangerous," he concludes, "it's working."

Is it? In it's August monthly poll, Gallup showed the President leading a generic Republican by 45-39%. On September 8, the President kicked off his re-election campaign with his call for the "American Jobs Act," (the AJA) and spent the next several days pushing for it. Gallup conducted its September monthly from September 8 through the 11th. The result: Generic Republican led the President by 46% to 38%. In late September, Occupy Wall Street began to garner attention - it crowded the Brooklyn Bridge on the last weekend of the month and has been almost non-stop in the news since. But Gallup's October poll, released today, shows a generic Republican leading the President by 46-38% - exactly the same as a month before.

Amongst Independent voters, the generic Republican edge has grown from 40-35% in August to 43-30% in October (though down slightly from September).

When he gave his AJA speech in September, Obama's average approval was 43.8, per Real Clear Politics. Today it stands at 43.6, though with a slight uptick in the last week - almost entirely the result of a surprisingly strong (for the President) poll from Rasmussen, the pollster liberals love to hate. The most recent polls from other pollsters in the field since OWS briefly seized the Brooklyn Bridge, compared to their prior poll, show him down in Gallup, flat in Ipsos/Reuters, down in ABC/Washington Post, and down in Fox New.

The politics of promoting guilt, envy, hate, blame and anger will unlikely help advance Mr. Obama’s re-election chances, unless this has been more than just a re-election agenda.

Maybe sowing social divisiveness has been meant to promote a popular revolution that would justify the imposition of socialism, if not despotism.

As Ludwig von Mises wrote,

The worst consequence of the antidemocratic spirit is that it divides the nation into hostile camps. The citizenry lose confidence in the working of democratic government. They fear that some day one of the antidemocratic minority groups may actually succeed in seizing power. Thus they think it necessary to arm and defend their rights against the menace of an armed minority.

Occupy Wall Street: More Evidence of President Obama’s Re-election Campaign

I harbored suspicions that Occupy Wall Street could be part of President Obama’s re-election campaign strategy. And the unfolding events seem to be validating my position.

From Intelhub.com

As the Occupy Wall Street protests have grown and evolved we have seen a major change in overall direction coming from the most vocal supporters.

While many still claim that this is not a political movement, the unfortunate fact is that everyday we see more and more evidence that the establishment left has, at least in part, co opted the movement.

Yesterday’s so called Millionaires March has drawn major media attention around the world, with support popping up in places that most wouldn’t think would support protesters targeting the financial district.

Linette Lopez, writing for the Business Insider, revealed that the real powers behind the march were numerous extreme leftist organizations with open socialist and communist ties.

Now here’s who they are specifically:

-The Working Families Party

-UnitedNY

-New York Communities for Change

-Strong Economy For All Coalition

-VOCAL-NY

-Community Voices Heard

Those are some pretty established New York groups that span across the state, and they have some powerful people behind them.

So we have super leftist organizations running large scale protests for the Occupy Wall Street protesters yet we are supposed to believe that this is not a political movement?

While it is clear that these organizations do not speak for ALL the protesters, a growing majority are seemingly falling in line with groups who openly support one of Wall Streets biggest supporters, President Barack Obama.

Read the rest here

Considering that President Obama’s approval rating has been drifting at a nadir (record low from many polls as gallup or Quinnipiac University), thereby diminishing his chance of re-election...

From Gallup

And considering that the tea party movement has served as an influential force in shifting the political tide as revealed by the last Congressional elections…

From Reuters.com

President Obama desperately needs a gimmick…and real quick

And there’s no easier way to pander to the masses than to resort to groupthink gimmickry which have mostly been based on class warfare (Buffett Taxes), nationalism (via protectionism also here) and racism.

For the left, desperate times call for desperate measures

Landslide Win by Ron Paul on the GOP NBC Debate Poll

From prolific libertarian author Robert Ringer

According to a poll conducted by NBC News Political Unit Poll, the guy whom Bill O’Reilly referred to prior to Wednesday’s Republican debate as “a loon” and Dick Morris dismissed as the only candidate who had no chance of winning, 174,354 Americans not only believed Ron Paul won the debate at the Reagan Library, but did so in a landslide.

As of 4:00 pm Thursday, 54 percent (94,096 votes) voted for Ron Paul, with Mitt Romney a distant second at 15.8 percent (27,523 votes). Rick Perry, the supposed front runner, was at 13.2 percent (23,065 votes), Jon Huntsman at 6.5 percent (11,411 votes), and the rest of the field below 5 percent.

This is downright embarrassing to the Republican Party, whose establishment wishes Paul would just go away and rejoin the Libertarian Party. Left-wing moderators Brian Williams (NBC) and John Harris (Politico) did their best to diminish Paul in two ways. First, they asked him very few questions, and, second, the questions they did ask him were aimed at painting him as an extremist.

If the media cover-up regarding Paul’s popularity continues, establishment Republicans may just get their wish — at least partially. I don’t think Paul would run on the Libertarian Party ticket, but he might just form a third-party, which would probably end any hopes the Republicans have for taking back the White House.

Despite media bias against Presidential aspirant Ron Paul, the poll reveals that the trend following on classical liberalism, which Mr. Paul champions, seems to be snowballing.

Here is The Daily Show host Jon Stewart's hilarious take on the latest GOP debate

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook