Why the GOP Is Trying to Pin High Gas Prices on Obama (and Gullible Americans Are Falling for It)

The Republicans are hoping to blame this rise in the price of gas on Obama's environmentally friendly policies. But here are two major problems with their story.

February 27, 2012

President Obama seems to be enjoying some good luck in that the economy appears to be picking up just in time for his re-election campaign. While the economy is still weak by almost any measure, growth is likely to be in the 2.5-3.0 percent range for 2012. This should lead to the creation of close to two million jobs and a modest drop in the unemployment rate.

That is not much to cheer about in an economy that is still down close to ten million jobs from its trend level, however compared to the recent past, this is good news. And research shows that voters tend to focus primarily on the direction of change. This means that if the unemployment rate is falling and the economy is creating jobs at a respectable pace throughout the year, President Obama stands a very good chance of being re-elected in November.

This explains the decision of the Republican Party to focus on the price of gas. The price of gas has long played a pivotal role in US politics. High gas prices will be forever a symbol of the economic malaise of the Carter presidency in the late '70s. The drop in gas prices under President Reagan was associated with a resurgence of America's political and economic power.

The fact that both the rise in the price of oil in the '70s and the subsequent decline in the '80s had little to do with domestic policy decisions and much more with international politics (e.g. the Iranian revolution in 1979) mattered little. President Carter got the blame for events beyond his control and President Reagan got the credit.

The Republicans are hoping to benefit from this pattern again in the fall election.   READ MORE

Why 'Corporate Psychopaths' May Really be to Blame for the Recession

Looks like the soulless SOBs who wrecked our economy may really be "corporate psychopaths," and yep, they are still in control of our financial institutions. 

According to Bloomberg News:

Clive R. Boddy, most recently a professor at the Nottingham Business School at Nottingham Trent University, says psychopaths are the 1 percent of "people who, perhaps due to physical factors to do with abnormal brain connectivity and chemistry" lack a "conscience, have few emotions and display an inability to have any feelings, sympathy or empathy for other people."

As a result, Boddy argues in a recent issue of the Journal of Business Ethics, such people are "extraordinarily cold, much more calculating and ruthless towards others than most people are and therefore a menace to the companies they work for and to society."

How do people with such obvious personality flaws make it to the top of seemingly successful corporations? Boddy says psychopaths take advantage of the "relative chaotic nature of the modern corporation," including "rapid change, constant renewal" and high turnover of "key personnel." Such circumstances allow them to ascend through a combination of "charm" and "charisma," which makes "their behaviour invisible" and "makes them appear normal and even to be ideal leaders."

READ MORE

After 10 years, US blames Iran for 9/11

A US judge has signed a judgment that finds Iran, the Taliban and al-Qaeda responsible for 9/11, counter to the FBI's official reports relating to the incident.

Press TV talks with James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for the 9/11 Truth in Madison about why Iran has only now been included in the list ten years after the fact and why Saudi Arabia was excluded from the list even though 15 of the alleged highjackers were from Saudi Arabia according to the FBI list. Mr. Fetzer outlines numerous facts and references that indicate a strong involvement by Israel in 9/11, but Israel is also not listed on the US default judgment. What follows is an approximate transcript of the interview.

Press TV: This filing and leveling of charges against Iran in a US court seems to be a habit for the US recently. To begin with - Is it legal to charge another country without representation?

James Fetzer: It's of dubious legality and the finding is quite preposterous on its face. When President Ahmadinejad addressed the UN and called for a new investigation suggesting that the US and Israel were involved in 9/11, the New York Times was besieged with letters claiming that al-Qaeda was responsible. So who was it - Iran or al-Qaeda?

Fifteen of the alleged highjackers were from Saudi Arabia - So why not Saudi Arabia? Well... they're our friends - Let's blame it on Saddam Hussein. Even George W. Bush would eventually admit that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Independent investigations by the Senate and The Pentagon concluded that there was no collusion between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

The FBI would eventually admit that it had no hard evidence tying Osama Bin Laden to 9/11. The 9/11 Commission report is an elaborate fabrication. Elias Davidson has shown there's no proof any of the hijackers were aboard any of those planes. David Ray Griffin has shown that all of the phone calls from the four flights were faked. Colonel George Nelson US air force retired has observed that of the millions of uniquely identifiable component parts from each of those planes, the US is yet to produce even one.

Two of those flights were not even scheduled to fly that day - flights 11 and 77. And I have FAA registration data showing that the planes corresponding to flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered until 28 September 2005. Which raises the question - How can planes that were not in the air have crashed? And, how can planes that have crashed still be in the air four years later? READ MORE - See Video