So, lets ring in the Christmas holiday week with some grim news about or great nation.

Republican primaries 
This week finds a new leader in the polls in Iowa: Dr. Ron Paul. What the hell happened to Gingritch? Well, thanks to serious negative ads, people realized just what an asshole he is. He did surprisingly well in the eyes of Iowa Republicans, for a while, but has always polled low nationally, including against Obama.

So, what's the deal with Republican voters? The deal is they have a clown posse to deal with. In some cases, an insane clown posse (not the proper noun, rap group ICP, but a group of mentally challenged clowns).

Take Michelle Bachman - she's deeply religious, and nuts. She'll say just about anything. What she says shows that she's dumber than a sack of doorknobs, and oblivious to just how dumb she is.

Then there's "man-on-dog" Rick Santorum, who is so full of hate for everyone not like him, AND as stupid as Bachman that, well, he's up to 10 points in the polls in Iowa.

Mittens Romney - sleazy, corrupt, plastic Wall Street hypocrite, which means Republicans would love him if he wasn't a Mormon. Seriously, around 30% of Iowa's likely caucus goers said that his Mormonism is a non-starter - they simply will not vote for a Mormon. And that's 30% who were asked by a real person, and essentially said "yeah, I'm a bigot." Think of how many more feel the same way and aren't saying it publicly.

Herman Cain - took his campaign slogans and policies from the SIMs game, and the Pokemon movie. That was what he considered "two layers deep." That and shoving women's heads down into his crotch when he had the opportunity. He led the field for a month!

Rick Perry - maybe dumber than the others combined. Seriously, this fucker shouldn't be allowed to eat with a fork. How is he the governor of Texas? Oh yeah, they elected Bush as governor there too. But Perry makes Bush look like a Rhodes Scholar.

There's a few others who are in the low single digits. They're no fun.

Which brings us to Ron Paul. Paul is now leading in Iowa, two weeks ahead of the caucus. He is now likely to win - although two weeks may be too long. Attack ads may chop him down the way they did Gingritch. What's funny, as Cenk Uygur points out on TYT, is that the pundits and the MSM are apoplectic about a likely Paul victory in Iowa. Conservative pundits are saying that if Paul wins in Iowa, that it just won't count. Wait a minute - didn't Obama set the world on fire, and fuel his eventual victory by winning the Iowa caucuses? C'mon conservatives...Paul only has a chance because your field is pathetic. Don't get me wrong, Paul's crazy too. But he is somewhat principled, and that is what almost NO POLITICIAN is anymore. People like that.

Suffer the Children
1.6 million children in the US are homeless. Children make up a majority of Americans who live below the poverty line. But don't worry, we still have the Bush tax cuts, and are cutting education and social services.

Defense Reauthorization Act
So, with overwhelming support from Democrats, the Defense Reauthorization Act was passed. The final version passed with over 80 votes in the Senate. This legislation allows for the indefinite detention of terror suspects, including American Citizens. Now, there was a provision that says American Citizens get processed by civilian criminal justice systems, so some pundits are saying this means it's no big deal. But the legislation also contains language that says NO MONEY CAN BE PUT TOWARD CIVILIAN TRIALS. Get it? That is the poison pill clause that undoes the protective language.

So, habius corpus, gone. The Fifth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process, gone. No bail? The Eighth Amendment, gone. All someone has to do is say "terrorist" and point the finger, and you could be disappeared. If you support this, you hate America. If you are in Congress and voted for this, you hate America and work to change it into corporate/military oligarchy. Here's my question though: why?

I don't see how a corporation gets rich from this in the short term. It's true that prison is a big for-profit business now, but why this? It is so egregious! In my now paranoid state, I think it is a reaction to Occupy Wall Street. I think this is the anti-dissent clause of the Defense Reauthorization Act. People who criticize the corporate takeover of our government will be considered economic terrorists and just simply grabbed up by the police, or some agency having to do with homeland security.

Now, do you remember how Obama said he would veto this? (In truth, he said he would "oppose" it.) Well, he has now given it the nod. This is not what I expected when I voted for "change" in 2008. But why would Obama want this? He loves Wall Street. They were and still are his number one donors. And if you buy into my paranoid assessment, then this part of the Act is the Wall Street protection clause.

Obama defenders, including WH press secretaries, say that "this legislation doesn't put into legislation things that the President couldn't already do." Well I say "that's the fucking problem!" This NORMALIZES HORRIBLE BEHAVIOR BY THE GOVERNMENT! Obama was supposed to, was in fact elected to reverse the awful direction of the Bush White House. Instead he's taken things further in the horrible direction.

Obama has normalized the wiretapping and indefinite detention of American Citizens. Worse, he has assassinated American Citizens without trial. This is now NORMAL behavior for an American President. Now, how bad do you think it could get with a President Gingritch exercising these same executive powers?

Obama in 2012?
No, no no...the above rant tells you how horrible the choice is in 2012. The absolute clownish abomination that is the Republican field, or the so-called Democrat Obama who is allowing huge portions of the Bill of Rights to be shredded, and left for naught. The laughably called progressive Obama who has Goldman Sachs bitch Tim Geithner as our Treasury Secretary, and Jeff Immelt (GE CEO) as his top financial advisor. To put it in brief, we can elect a Republican who will openly serve the corporate oligarchs, and make us pay for it, or a Democrat who will barely hide the fact that he serves the corporate oligarchy and is making us pay for it.

So what do you do? Well,  here's where we come full-circle to Ron Paul. Now, I'm not over the edge yet. I am not ready to vote for a Republican. But Paul seems to be the most principled candidate in the election. Still, he's crazy. He want's to get rid of five cabinet departments. He wants to cut a trillion dollars from the budget. This would cripple the nation. It would be a disaster.

But, could he do it? The cabinet departments...maybe. After all, he would be the executive. But there would be pressure to keep them. And cutting a trillion? That's up to Congress, and he would probably not get all of his cuts.

The upside? He'd end the wars. He'd cut defense. Again, there would be tremendous pressure from the oligarchs and the Pentagon, but he'd probably be able to use public sentiment to end the war in Afghanistan. That's a huge win. Also, he'd work to restore civil liberties. That's another HUGE win, and way more than Obama has done. What is clear at this point is that Ron Paul is NOT for the oligarchy. He's not a Wall Street bitch, like the majority of BOTH parties, and like EVERY other candidate for president, including Obama.

Maybe he's just fooling us, like Obama did in 2008. But is it worth a shot? Again, I'm not there yet, but I'm considering it. I see the Paul acolytes on the freeway overpasses, waving their signs. I used to roll my eyes and snicker, but now I wonder.

What would Paul do when a Supreme Court justice needs to be replaced? That would be a key question. My gut tells me that could be a disaster. Obama did a decent job...twice (maybe - I'm still not sure about Kagen). But do we make the choice based on a potential Supreme Court nomination? While the Constitution burns and the President fiddles?

Uhg. What a choice. Happy Holidays.