Possible Stock Market Treason

Months ago I saw a rumor that some crooked billionaires had worked out a scheme to profit from a stock market crash.  At the time I thought it must be just an urban legend.  No one could be so stupid as to try to crash the stock market, particularly while the nation is at war.  Now I'm not so sure it's just an urban legend. 

Ron Paul and other hucksters are advertising that we should follow their advice to avoid the economic debacle they claim is coming.   Someone needs to tell these dopes that if they succeed in causing an economic panic they could face prison or worse.

The United States is in a war with the terrorist groups al Qaeda and ISIS.   Wars are not just fought with bullets and bombs.  Damaging an enemy's economy can also be a weapon of war.

Al Qeada's 9/11 attack didn't just kill people.  It temporarily damaged the U.S. economy.   Terrorist groups could use a major American economic calamity as evidence that the United States is finished and they are going to win.   Such a claim could be a powerful recruiting tool.

If people were to cause a stock market crash, they would in effect be "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"(i.e., committing treason).  

Stock market "panics" are as much, if not more, psychological events rather than economic events.   Getting people to believe a crash will occur can be a deliberate attempt to cause the crash.  Predicting a crash can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In time of war an American President such as Barack Obama could charge those involved in crashing the market with treason regardless of whether they were motivated by greed or actually wanted to help an enemy of the United States.   Action might involve more than just criminal prosecution.   If individuals are "giving aid to an enemy", government could convince the courts to allow confiscation of their economic assets to prevent the assets from being transferred to the enemy.

Spreading rumors of imminent stock market crashes can be considered the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater and the United States Supreme Court has said yelling fire in a theater is not protected by the first amendment.    This fact means that any television station, newspaper,  online media site, etc.  that provides a forum for spreading such rumors could be prosecuted as a "co-conspirator".

Congress needs to examine this situation to see if legislation is needed to discourage any economic problems or to provide additional grounds for prosecution.  

Democrats Need a Bobby Kennedy Now

If Democrats want to win next year's presidential election, they need a new candidate. President Barack Obama has very little chance of being reelected in the current economic situation because he is clueless about how to deal with the economy.

His so-called "jobs bill" is just more of the same approach that hasn't worked. Then there is the ticking time bomb in the deficit proposal he foolishly agreed to.

The election laws in 1968 allowed potential presidential challengers to wait until the primary season had begun to enter the race. Sen. Robert Kennedy had the opportunity to reconsider his decision to not run for president in 1968 after it became obvious that fellow Democrat President Lyndon Johnson was unlikely to win reelection. Kennedy decided to run after Johnson's poor showing in the New Hampshire primary running against largely unknown Sen. Eugene McCarthy. Many of those who voted for McCarthy falsely believed that McCarthy, who opposed the War in Vietnam, wanted a stronger war effort

Two weeks after Kennedy announced he would run, Johnson dropped out of the race because of the situation in Vietnam.

Kennedy was well on the way to winning the nomination when he was stopped by an assassin's bullet. Had he won the nomination, it is very likely he would have defeated Republican candidate Richard Nixon. The assassination of Kennedy caused the Democrats to nominate Vice President Hubert Humphrey instead.

Obama's consistently low approval ratings indicate he has little chance of reelection. Democrats shouldn't let themselves be misled by worthless public opinion polls showing how he would supposedly do against potential Republican candidates. Most voters aren't paying close attention to those running for the Republican nomination and their final decisions may be influenced by whatever ads the Republican candidate and private groups run next fall.

Democrats need a dynamic candidate who knows how to appeal to independent voters. Considering the low opinion voters have of Congress, the strongest candidate would be someone from outside of Washington.