My thoughts on what some in the Tea Party call the Conservative Savior. Who really is Marco Rubion and what does he stand for? Is he just a puppet for the Bush family? This and much more. Subscribe to my channel for weekly updates and follow me @Fabian4Liberty

A coalition of advocacy groups has begun a week of intensive protests against the latest attack on the free and open internet, The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). The draconian legislation would force companies to ignore existing privacy laws and share information with the federal government.

The burst of attention devoted to Congressman Paul Ryan’s 2013 federal budget seems to have passed, at least momentarily, but don’t be deceived: the plan rolled out last week by the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee is going to be important for a long time to come.

If Mitt Romney wins the presidential election, the budget, which he endorsed, is a good guide to what he will try to accomplish. If Mr. Romney loses, the budget is a good guide to what Mr. Ryan might try to run on as a Republican presidential contender in 2016. And it’s certain that President Obama and his allies will try to use the plan to attack the Republican candidates in the upcoming election.

For all those reasons, it’s worth going back and taking a careful look at what is actually in the Ryan budget. Proponents of smaller government may be unpleasantly surprised.

For one thing, it doesn’t balance the budget. For those of us who believe that the federal budget ought to be balanced over the course of a business cycle, it’s an unpleasant surprise to see that after ten years of Mr. Ryan’s plan, the federal government would still be running a $287 billion annual deficit. That is what the plan produces in the year 2022.

For a second thing, it doesn’t reduce the national debt. Mr. Ryan’s figures show the national debt held by the public growing to $15 trillion in 2022, up from about $11 trillion this year.

For a third thing, the Ryan budget doesn’t reduce the share of GDP that the government takes from taxpayers. In fact, Mr. Ryan’s numbers show federal government revenue as a share of GDP growing to 18.7% in 2022 from 15.8% this year.

For a fourth thing, the Ryan budget doesn’t reduce government spending. It would increase federal outlays to $4,888 billion in 2022 from $3,624 billion in 2012, an increase of about 35% over ten years.

Voters may be forgiven for deciding that if they are looking for a party that will increase the federal debt and fail to balance the budget while also increasing the federal government’s bite out of the economy, they might as well choose the Democrats, because Mr. Ryan’s plan doesn’t offer a clearly contrasting or attractive alternative.

In Mr. Ryan’s defense, President Obama’s plan is even worse. Also in Mr. Ryan’s defense, it says something about the depths of the fiscal problems America is facing that not even as principled and passionate and intelligent a fiscal conservative as Mr. Ryan can find an attractive way out them.

When Mr. Ryan complains, “the president’s budget calls for more spending and more debt,” it’s technically accurate — the president’s budget does call for more spending and more debt than Mr. Ryan’s budget does. But both the president’s budget and Mr. Ryan’s budget call for more spending, and more debt, than we have now.

Mr. Ryan boasts that his budget “cuts spending by $5 trillion relative to President’s Budget.” That’s like bragging that your dinner has fewer calories and less cholesterol than the quadruple bypass burger at Heart Attack Grill. It’s Washington-style “baseline budgeting” spin, and as Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney both on some level probably know, Americans are tired of it.

What attracted the most attention in the Ryan budget was his plan to reduce the top individual and corporate income tax rates to 25%, a figure with historical resonance. But at 25%, the corporate tax rate would still be too high to be international competitive. Mr. Ryan himself notes that Canada’s corporate tax rate just went down to 15%. A 25% corporate tax rate in America would be higher than Ireland, higher than South Korea, higher than Switzerland, higher than Hungary, higher than Poland, higher than the Czech Republic.

As for the 25% individual income tax rate, it would come on top of payroll taxes that, in the absence of a “holiday,” take 13.85% of the first $110,100 in wages. And it would apply in addition to state income taxes that also take a hefty bite in states that impose them. Remember, until the 16^th Amendment was ratified in 1913, America didn’t have any peacetime federal income tax at all.

And remember, these rates are Republican starting points, which, if history is any guide, would only be negotiated upward in the inevitable compromise with Democrats on the way to getting them passed.

All of this is not to attack Mr. Ryan. He’s one of the best things the Republican Party has going, and if he were left entirely to his own devices rather than having to operate in the context of Speaker Boehner and the rest of the Republican caucus, it’s entirely possible he would come up with a plan more palatable to conservatives, though less likely to pass the House. But, sadly for the country, to say that Mr. Ryan is one of the best things the Republican Party has going these days isn’t saying much.

Ira Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of Samuel Adams: A Life.

Source: Reason. Written by Ira Stoll.

Medical establishment seeks to chemically castrate ‘aberrant thoughts’.

As part of the headlong rush towards a Brave New World society, the establishment is feverishly pushing pharmaceutical drugs that chemically castrate an individual’s ‘aberrant thoughts’, with the latest proposal claiming that people can be given a drug to “cure” racism.

A study conducted by Oxford University experimental psychologist Dr Sylvia Terbeck into the heart disease drug Propranolol, published in the journal Psychopharmacology, found that the drug “may have the unusual side-effect of combating racism.”

“Volunteers given the beta-blocker, used to treat chest pains and lower heart rates, scored lower on a standard psychological test of “implicit” racist attitudes,” reports the Telegraph. “They appeared to be less racially prejudiced at a subconscious level than another group treated with a “dummy” placebo pill.”

The test subjects were shown images of people of different races along with positive and negative words. They were also asked to rate how “warm” their feelings were to different groups. Results showed that participants on the drug were more likely to be “biased towards being non-racist at a subconscious level” compared to those taking the placebo.

“Such research raises the tantalising possibility that our unconscious racial attitudes could be modulated using drugs, a possibility that requires careful ethical analysis,” said Co-author Professor Julian Savulescu, from Oxford University’s Faculty of Philosophy.

By arguing that the widespread use of antidepressants like Prozac has established the ethical foundation of using drugs to alter thought patterns and behavior, scientists contend that “manipulating morals” through “pharmacologically-induced altruism” should also be acceptable.

And they’re right – it is acceptable – but only if you wish to create a society along the lines of Aldous Huxley’s fictional scientific dictatorship in his 1932 dystopian novel Brave New World. In the book, the consumption of the drug soma is universally endorsed by the ‘World State’ in order to destroy individuality, which is frowned upon as a mental illness, and eliminate the need for personal allegiances to religion or anything beyond the state itself.

CONTINUED at Prison Planet. Written by Paul Joseph Watson.

Roseanne Barr said Thursday she’s running for the Green Party’s presidential nomination — and it’s no joke.

The actress-comedian said in a statement that she’s a longtime supporter of the party and looks forward to working with people who shareher values. She said the two major parties aren’t serving the American people.

“The Democrats and Republicans have proven that they are servants — bought and paid for by the 1% — who are not doing what’s in the best interest of the American people,” Barr said.

Occupy Wall Street protesters popularized the “We are the 99 percent” slogan in their fight against economic disparity and perceived corporate greed.

Barr has submitted paperwork to the Green Party for her candidacy. The party’s presidential nominee will be selected at a convention in Baltimore in July.

Barr said she has been fighting for working-class families and women for decades.

“I will barnstorm American living rooms,” she said in a candidate questionnaire submitted to the Green Party. “Mainstream media will be unable to ignore me, but more importantly they will be unable to overlook the needs of average Americans in the run-up to the 2012 election.”

Barr’s hit TV sitcom “Roseanne” aired from 1988 to 1997 and earned her an Emmy and a Golden Globe. She played a wise-cracking mom in the comedy about a blue-collar family. Barr has a 46-acre macadamia nut farm in Hawaii.

Source: CBS DC.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Introduction:

I don’t hate Mitt Romney but I am certainly not a fan, which should be obvious at this point. I do hate the goddamned media for giving him an unfair advantage over the other candidates but truthfully, that isn’t his fault. Romney isn’t the absolute worst presidential choice out there, which many of my colleagues and readers may disagree with vehemently, but he is still a progressive statist bastard that is hellbent on controlling the lives of all of us in an effort to keep the giant wheel of the establishment machine rolling. I have been nasty to the guy many times in my countless diatribes about the 2012 election but my distaste and malcontent has been for a very good reason. Point being, I know that Romney can’t save this country and I feel that this is painstakingly obvious even though I find myself completely befuddled over the fanfare and support that this guy gets, not just form the media – their support is understandable, but from the conservative voting public who are all pretty much in unison behind this guy’s idea of smaller government, less taxes and squashing the budding police state. This guy will not solve any of those problems. In fact, he will only magnify them and dig our giant pit of legislative bullshit deeper and deeper. Hell, the pit is practically bottomless at this point but electing Mitt Romney will only solidify that fact even further.

I’m certainly not saying that Obama is a better choice out of the two. Realistically, I don’t think there is much difference between one or the other. This is a prime example of there being just one big government party with two wings: one that wears blue shirts with donkeys on them and one that wears red shirts with elephants on them. The worst part about this is that most “conservatives” are following Romney, as well as Gingrich and Santorum, believing in the hypocritical rhetoric that they’ve got a small government guy on their side who will fight for them. Realistically, those who support these guys are ignorant in economics and foreign policy. It is incredibly unfortunate but as Ron Paul said in a recent debate, “Conservatives have lost their way.”

Now I can’t completely cover every negative thing on Romney’s record, as there is a lot, but I am going to talk about a few points. In the end, it is really your decision as to where you want to put your vote but you really need to think this through and ask yourself where you want to be in four years. Do you want to be climbing out of the hole or do you want to be yelling at the guys that are still digging and digging?

Smaller Government:

The first thing worth getting into is definitely the issue of Mitt claiming that he’ll work towards making government smaller. Mitt Romney, who has preached for this over the course of all these debates, has a really shitty record of practicing what he’s been preaching. In reality, Mitt has been feeding into the desires of the voter base and has been stringing them along with his version of the popular rhetoric of the day. The sad thing is that many of the people who support this douchenugget are taking all this bullshit at face value and not looking at reality. Truthfully, maybe Romney actually believes his empty words and his supporters might not be adept enough to see through the Orwellian doublespeak. Let me rundown his track record of big government bullshit by ripping the fucking band-aid off: exposing the man’s economic sores.

I could write a whole damn article about the monstrosity that is Romneycare but I won’t bore you or myself with the details that have already been recycled a million times and beaten into the ground with Thor’s hammer by every critic for several years now. I’m over the Romneycare issue personally. I don’t like it, I think it’s shit, it was the blueprint for what became Obamacare but it was done at the state level, not the federal level and most Bay Staters still approve of it, so that is their economic cross to bear.

One thing that many Romney supporters don’t know or just choose to ignore is the fact that he significantly raised taxes in Massachusetts while he was governor. While preaching fiscal conservatism and pimping himself out as friendly to business, Governor Romney increased the tax bill on businesses by $300 million! He and his cronies also approved hundreds of millions of dollars worth of higher fees and fines on businesses in just four years! Many business owners were incredibly dissatisfied with Romney as governor. Essentially, corporate taxes under Romney almost doubled in just his one term.

I guess the tax hikes were necessary though, as Romney drastically increased spending in Massachusetts. In 2006, Ol’ Mittens increased spending in just that year by 7.6 percent. In 2007, he increased spending again, this time all the way up to 10.2 percent. During just his four years in office, he increased state spending by a total of 20.7 percent! That’s a lot of debt thrown on the taxpayer but at least those hefty tax hikes on corporations absorbed some of the burden. Maybe this tax burden accounts for the fact that Mitt Romney managed the 47th ranked state, out of 50, in the realm of job creation. That brings me to my next point.

Romney has been touting his job creation success while working at Bain Capital. He proudly boasts about creating corporations like Staples, Sports Authority and Steel Dynamics, all of which have created hundreds of thousands of jobs. However, as governor, unemployment was a real problem in Massachusetts. Sure, he did great in the private sector and as Romney himself has said, “Jobs are created in the private sector.” However, all of his job creation skills didn’t translate to success when he reached office. So what makes the public think that this job magician’s magic wand will suddenly work this time? Yes he is a self-professed business master but he couldn’t tap into that while running Massachusetts so essentially his trial run at it was a failure. On the issue of Romney’s job creation woes, Boston Herald business reporter Bret Arends wrote:

During the four years Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, it had the second worst jobs record of any state in America…it wasn’t a regional issue. The rest of New England created nearly 200,000 jobs.

The question no one ever seems to ask Governor Romney is how many jobs were destroyed in an effort to build his monstrous corporations. Now I am not attacking him for building giant successful businesses, as that is the nature of the beast – good or bad. I am just trying to point out how skewed these sorts of statistical claims are because if you created say 300,000 jobs but your new businesses eliminated the jobs of say 250,000 people whose businesses you closed down through competition, well then you’ve only really created 50,000 jobs. This is a simple ballpark example but it should show you how some statistical claims can be made when you only tell one side of the story. Hell, government has been using these sorts of statistical tactics for years when releasing inaccurate numbers to sway public opinion for a candidate, a bill or whatever else they have needed public approval on.

Another issue that shows how non-small government this ass clown is, is the TARP bailouts. Mittens hates when people bring the subject up and has gone as far as lying and completely denying that he ever supported it but there is tons and tons of evidence that says otherwise. In fact, Romney was incredibly passionate about poorly run banks getting a massive taxpayer funded bonus for sucking at business. On CNN, a few years back during the bailouts, Romney said:

I think there is a need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion dollars in net worth. That translates into about $400 billion dollars a year less spending that they’ll be doing, and that’s net of additional government programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time. And that’s one of the reasons why I think a stimulus program is needed.

Sounds like small government to me! So why would he be so pro-big bank? Well, let’s look at his top campaign contributors from a recent list. His top contributor is Goldman Sachs who gave $354,700. Next up is Credit Suisse Group at $195,250 and Morgan Stanley at $185,800. Every other contributor in the six figures is also in the banking industry. You’ve got HIG Capital, Barclays, Kirkland & Ellis, Bank of America, PricewaterhouseCoopers, EMC Corp. & JPMorgan Chase. His top ten contributors are all fucking banks! Occupying Wall Street should start on Mitt’s front lawn! This shows a sharp contrast from Ron Paul whose top three campaign contributors are the Air Force, the Army and the Navy. Paul’s biggest contributor is also a lot less than six figures. So who really understands the plight of the average person? Romney is so far up on the Wall Street crony capitalist ladder than he can’t remember how to get down – not that he wants to.

People that call Barack Obama the Wall Street president haven’t seen anything yet. On campaign contributions from the big banks, Obama has made significantly less than Romney. Goldman Sachs gave Obama $49,124, Morgan Stanley coughed up $28,225, Bank of America gave $46,699, JPMorgan Chase came in at $38,038 and Citigroup was at $36,887. You do the math but it is obvious who the bailed out banking industry supports.

Another thing worth noting is that Romney has gotten more money from lobbyists than all other Republican candidates combined. I guess you need all that special interest money to work towards smaller government. Damn it! That Mitt Romney doublethink is taking over my brain!

The fact of the matter is, love it or hate it, Mitt Romney has a proven track record of being nothing less than one of the heads on the big government hydra. He is an economic nightmare but because people take him at his word and don’t look at his record, he can continue to dupe the masses into thinking that he’s on their side.

Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected.

Continued in Part II: Foreign Entanglements..

*Written by Rob Rimes.

This is the first debate after voting has officially started. It is also the first of two New Hampshire debates, the second one being just twelve hours later at nine in the morning. I’m already dreading waking up that early on a Sunday to watch it. I guess my typical Saturday night must be put on hold so I can type up this debate critique and prepare for tomorrow’s early morning rap battle between six whiteboys.

Anyway, this debate started with your typical intro, which was actually nice and fair to everyone involved in the debate. That’s not something I can say about myself because I am about to let the douchebags have it, as I always do. As with every ABC debate, we are stuck dealing with Diane Sawyer, who is a really feminine looking fellow, as well as George Stephanopoulos. There is also some dude named Josh sitting at the table this time. Everyone is announced and there are no cheers or boos so either the crowd is boring as fuck or ABC decided to get all Mussolini about the rules. They’ve also brought out that red light, yellow light, green light timer thing again, which is just fucking stupid. Have a real fucking timer people, colors are confusing. Besides, what if one of the candidates are color blind? You liberal shitcocks didn’t think of that did you? You wouldn’t want to be insensitive would you?

Now with this debate, I’m going to just write about the key moments. The reason for this is because this debate was literally a mess. It was easily the worst one yet and even though I’ve said it before, this one was plagued with amateurish technical issues and the questions, format and refereeing were so poor that this was like a free-for-all 12 and under night at CiCi’s Pizza Buffet. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the cable channels, with smaller budgets, put together better debates than the major networks. ABC sucks mule cock because this damn thing was almost unintelligible and to top that off, it ended twenty minutes early!

So of course, the first question goes to Mitt Romney. Although ABC sits on the left and the candidates are supposed to sit on the right, there is an obvious bias towards Romney in this debate. Reason being, at the end of the day, ABC and Mitt Romney are both progressives. It’s also worth noting the Rick Santorum is now standing at one of the center podiums. That’s bullshit! He isn’t one of the top two frontrunners. He didn’t win Iowa and in New Hampshire he is polling 4th out of 6! The guy polling second is Ron Paul but god forbid they put him center stage with Romney.

So Mitt is asked about job growth. He says that he is optimistic and that the current growth is great but he then points out that Obama is going to take credit for it when in reality he had nothing to do with it. In fact, Romney goes on a tangent about how Obama’s policies have made the situation worse and made the road to recovery that much harder.

Rick Santorum is questioned next and all he does is ramble about how great he is and all the great things he has done. Yep, he’s fantastic! In fact, I just wrote an article about this moron and his moronic policies (read it here). Ricky Boy warns that Iran is the most pressing issue of the day. No it isn’t, unless you are an Islamophobic warmonger that can’t pull their finger off the trigger. He tells us that we need to strengthen our ties with our allies and we need to throw our weight around with our enemies. Santorum then takes a shot at Mitt and says that we don’t need a CEO as commander-in-chief. Apparently Santorum isn’t worried about jobs and the economy. He just thinks that the president needs to be a military man above everything else. Well Santorum, you are neither a CEO or a military man, so go fuck yourself.

Mitt Romney responds by saying that people who spend their life in Washington, like Santorum, don’t understand how a CEO or a business owner could be a real leader. Mitt says that his experience is in real leadership. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney then go back and forth about records and other boring shit I’ve covered in the other seven dozen debates. Mitt ends the exchange by going on and on about all the jobs he’s created; he claims that the 90,000 jobs at Staples were part of what he helped start.

Jon Huntsman is asked about Mitt’s record and he immediately goes in to say that it is fair for the country to dig into any of their records because everyone’s is quite extensive and will most likely have something questionable in it. Huntsman points out though that the candidates need to realize that in their current position, they have to expect their record to be picked apart, analyzed and scrutinized. He then finishes by touting his economic successes in Utah.

Ron Paul and Rick Santorum got into it, which was great. It started when Paul was asked about his attack ads against Santorum and he started to defend them but was immediately interrupted by the buzzer. Then Santorum cut in and yelled at Paul that he was lying. Fuck, Santorum is such a whiney wimpy bitch with extremely thin skin. Paul goes on to explain Santorum’s shitty record but the buzzer continues to malfunction in the background. It’s like ABC is just trying to throw Paul off. Whatever, I’m not going to get all conspiratorial about it.

Santorum, who is just acting like a pissed off pussy, says that the group Dr. Paul cites that labeled him “corrupt” is a liberal attack group and that Dr. Paul should be ashamed for even bringing it up. Aw, poor baby. Santorum then tries to go on and defend his big government waste and just fails miserably at convincing anyone. He just talks about how great he is and how his garbage policies have saved America. He then fallaciously attacks Ron Paul on earmarks. Really? Did he not hear Dr. Paul’s answer to this last debate? Maybe if he’d shut up and listen to someone else for a change then he wouldn’t be such a self-centered egomaniacal asswipe.

Shaking his head, Paul makes it clear that he has always voted against big spending. He goes on to explain that Santorum is a big government conservative and no matter how he tries to explain himself it doesn’t matter. He’s a statist and that’s all there is to it. Santorum snaps back saying that his record is good, which is by far the most laughable thing in this entire debate. He then disses Paul’s libertarianism and says that he isn’t like Paul because he doesn’t vote against everything. He says that as if it’s a bad thing! Santorum is a fucking cry baby dork dick pissant that was seriously about to break out in tears or have a meltdown if Paul kept pushing him on the truth. The moderators stepped in and saved us from full Santorum meltdown, which was the stupidest thing they could have done! Fucking ABC! Just when Icarus was getting too close to the sun, you you handed him a fucking parachute!

Rick Perry, who is still in this race somehow, points to Paul and Santorum and says that Washington insiders are a problem and since he’s not an insider, he’s the man for the job. Yeah, you’re a Bilderberger dude; you can’t get much more “insider” than that. Stephanopoulos asks Perry to clarify if he is calling Ron Paul an “insider” and Perry says yes and then goes on a rant that ends with him calling Ron Paul a “hypocrite”.

Cutting in, Huntsman says that we just witnessed a bunch of insider “goobly goop”. He then reminds us again that he did a bunch of amazing stuff that helped take Utah to the moon. Huntsman says that the United States has a “trust deficit”. This is becoming his “999″. He then says that “everyone knows that Congress needs term limits”. No dude, everyone doesn’t know that. In fact, I’m undecided about it. It’s something I need to do more research on. On paper it sounds good but you can’t just go off of that.

Crazy ass Diane Sawyer turns to Mitt Romney, who gets confused because Sawyer forgot to ask him a question! God, ABC sucks! Mitt goes on to say anyone up there would be better than Obama. He then rambles a bunch of gibberish and I can’t follow what he’s saying. I just hear something about a “dangerous world” and “shrunken military”.

We then get to the next good fight of the night and this time it is between Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. Newt is asked about Paul’s “chicken hawk” comments which refer to Newt being so pro-war yet never having served his country as a soldier. Newt responds to this by talking about how his dad was in the military and that he was an army brat. He tells some story and then tries to convince us all that he “gets it”. Great, are they going to start making former Army brats generals now?

Ron Paul is asked if he would use that phrase again to describe Newt. He says yes and then he goes on to defend all the youngsters that are being pulled into war by non-military leaders who have never served a day in their lives. Ron Paul reminds the other candidates that the Constitution has rules and that all these wars break those rules. He doesn’t like it when leaders who have never experienced war send our kids off to die over some bullshit.

Newt rebuttals by saying, “Ron Paul has a long history of saying things that are inaccurate or false”. Shit, I just spit my soda across the room.. hahahahahaha! Did Newt really say that?! Yes he did! Jesus Newt, you talk more bullshit than most of these people combined and you’re going to try and call the only honest man on stage a liar? Really? Newt closes by saying that he resents Paul’s comments and the fact that he slurs people. Newt really can’t stand personal attacks by other politicians. In fact, he was on Fox News this past week urging Mitt Romney to pull his attack ads off the air. Naturally, Mitt just laughed at him. Ron Paul comes back at Newt and says that when he was drafted he had a wife and two kids and he still went. Ron Paul, believe it or not people, is the real experienced military candidate.

Ron Paul is then asked about the racist newsletter issue again and he is asked to explain it for the umpteenth time. Paul says that he did not write it and says that looking at something he didn’t do 20 years ago is distracting from what’s important in the world right now. He adds that the moderators need to ask him what he will do to work against racism. He goes on to talk about how the drug war hurts minorities because they are treated much worse than whites when hit with the law. He also points out that minorities suffer more in war due to how they are treated. He promises to end this sort of racial tyranny.

Mitt is asked if states have the right to ban contraception, which just kicks off a really weird five minute block of strangeness starring Mr. Romney. First of all, Santorum rudely cuts in and mumbles something because he is an attention-starved whore. Mitt says that he would oppose any ban to contraception. He is asked if states wanting to ban it is Constitutional. Mitt immediately looks confused and tells the moderators to ask “the constitutionalist” Ron Paul. So Mitt doesn’t know and he’s looking for  Dr. Paul to bail him out. He then diverts the discussion and goes into a rant about the Supreme Court but George Stephanopoulos asks Mitt to answer the question again. Once again, he cannot answer it and brushes it off by saying that no state wants to ban contraception so why is this being brought up. Stephanopoulos asks Mitt a third time and this time the crowd boos, they’re over it.

Ron Paul while discussing the Constitution says that the 4th Amendment is clear and that you can’t just go into people’s houses and disrupt their lives. He talks about how thew PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional which causes America’s favorite shit stain Rick Santorum to chime in that the PATRIOT Act does not violate the 4th Amendment. Apparently Mr. Santorum has never read the fucking thing. He then throws in that he wants to turnover Roe v. Wade.

The topic shifts over to gay marriage. Gingrich says that marriage is exclusive to a man and a woman but regardless of that, we don’t have to make gays miserable. He says that we need to clearly define it. Okay, so where’s the part about not making gays miserable? Huntsman says that civil unions are fair and that his marriage and his family aren’t threatened by civil unions. Huntsman says that recognizing a civil union between gays and lesbians “brings dignity to their relationships” and he feels that it is “absolutely appropriate”. Santorum on same sex adoption says that it is a state issue. He says that marriage is a federal issue however. Huh? He says that you can’t get married in one state and not have it recognized in another, so therefore it has to be defined at a federal level. Okay, so if a gay couple has a kid in California but then they go to Nevada, is the child magically not theirs then? This logic makes no sense. Plus, if marriage is defined at the federal level, then doesn’t that eliminate gay marriage across the board and thus eliminate a married gay couple from adopting a child, even at the state level? On gays, Mitt Romney says that everyone has the right to form long-term relationships but that doesn’t mean that they have to call it marriage. He says that gays could have some sort of “contractual relationship”. Aw, how sweet!

Ron Paul starts to talk and is immediately interrupted, not sure if it was Romney or Santorum but whoever it is should shut the fuck up. These idiots are so afraid of this guy that they can’t even let him get out a sentence. Paul says that we need drastic changes in foreign policy and monetary policy. He adds that there has been no real talk about cutting spending in this debate. Well, no shit Dr. Paul, you’re on progressive ass ABC with a bunch of progressive ass neo-con RINOs and Jon Huntsman. Paul does point out that the “cuts” to military spending that everyone is bitching about is really just an end to future increases.

Joining the military discussion, Huntsman says that it is time to bring the boys home. He says that our occupation of Afghanistan is not to fight an insurgency but that it is to nation build and it’s time to end it. Huntsman warns that civil war is around the corner in Afghanistan and he doesn’t want to stick around and endanger our troops any longer.

Newt jumps in to say that we’re asking the wrong questions about Afghanistan. He claims that Afghanistan is one piece of a larger puzzle. Gingrich goes on to point fingers at Pakistan, Iran, Syria and pretty much everywhere else that doesn’t have Christianity as their state religion. Newt’s solution? Bomb him some motherfuckers!

Santorum says that America is soft and can be pushed around too easily. He blames Obama’s handling of Iraq as to why we are so soft. He then gets mad at Huntsman for wanting to leave Afghanistan and goes on an angry rant about “RADICAL ISLAM! RADICAL ISLAM! RADICAL ISLAM!” He then gives the fucking spiel about how they hate us so we have to murder them. He obviously can’t wrap his fucking peanut brain around the fact that maybe they hate us because we are bombing the shit out of them and setting up bases in their backyards!

Super-fucking-genius Rick Perry jumps right in and says that he would send troops right back into Iraq. He then drunkenly rambles about treasure and blood money. Perry claims that Iran will move into Iraq. Wait, didn’t all these guys, like a month ago, say that Iran would move in the second we left? Okay, so where are they? None of them really care about solving this problem. In fact, Newt says that if you want to stop Iran coming into Iraq, you just have to go stop Iran at the source. For the uninformed, that means he wants to flatten their country.

Ron Paul is asked about his questionable foreign policy and how he expects to win when that is seemingly his Achilles’ heel. Ron Paul says that the president is the commander-in-chief not a king. He says that we need to go to war the right way and not the way that we have been for the last 50 years.He points to all the countries that we are in and how many of our leaders now want to bomb so many others. Ron Paul tells us that we need to change our ways. He then tells a story about how just this week, the Navy rescued some Iranians from pirates and how those sort of actions are what we need to be doing to build relationships with other countries. He warns against throwing around sanctions and threatening aggression. He says that our actions push those that we perceive as enemies into the arms of China, which is bad for all of us.

Rick Santorum then comes on and explains that the Iranian people want to be liberated and that they have taken to the streets and protested against the current regime. He says that Obama missed an opportunity by doing nothing. Of course, even though he knows there are innocent people who want freedom, Santorum’s answer is to sanction them to death and then bomb them if they’re still alive.

The next topic is jobs and truthfully, every dickhead on stage just talks about how Obama sucks and how they have created trillions of jobs in the private sector, yada yada yawn. Santorum does go on some long-winded sanctimonious speech about spending cuts. Funny, considering the douche only knows how to spend. Honestly, I can’t listen to this fucking prick anymore so when he comes on, I’m just going to put my earbuds in and listen to Morse code because at least that’s more exciting.

Ron Paul is asked to give a realistic vision of what he feels would be a great America. He says that people need to understand economics, not of the Keynesian variety obviously, and that they need to learn about bubbles and how they break. Ron Paul says that we are in the midst of a really big economic correction. He talks about how the Republican Party used to stand for real cuts but that they don’t any longer. He continues by saying that we need to stop bailing people out and we need to truly understand the business cycle.

The debate moves over to Huntsman and he warns against putting tariffs on China. He says that we need to sit down with China and work through our trade issues. Mitt Romney jumps in and takes a cheap shot at Huntsman by pointing out that he worked for Obama as Ambassador to China. Well no shit asshole, that’s why he knows so much about China! Maybe you should STFU and listen to him, eh? Nope, Romney goes on to talk about how China manipulates our money and sends us computer viruses. First of all Mittens, WE manipulate our fucking money! Romney says that he won’t talk about how we need to get along with China. He says that they need to play by the rules and not kill our jobs. All I can think of right now is that ‘South Park’ episode where the town rednecks repeatedly yelled “They took errrrrr jobs!” Huntsman says that Romney is just using easy talk to get easy applause and says that his ideas will create a real trade war. Romney essentially says that he is willing to call China’s bluff.

We come back from our final break and the moderators ask some stupid fucking question I won’t even address here. I’m tired of time wasted on dumb shit that doesn’t move the debate forward. I guess it doesn’t matter though because they end the debate twenty minutes early and that’s that.

This debate was horrible. End of fucking story.

Grading Scale:
Grade A: Ron Paul
Grade B-: Jon Huntsman
Grade D+: Newt Gingrich
Grade D: Mitt Romney
Grade D-: Rick Perry
Grade F: Rick Santorum

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Santorum: 1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. 2. Senator Rick Santorum. – Definition take from the Urban Dictionary.

Politics are amazing. I mean, with certain candidates people are so quick to jump on every potential fault they come across but with other candidates, people are blind as fuck and only see what it is that they want to see. In the case of Rick Santorum, who is now technically a frontrunner, people are either blind or just absolutely fucking insane! I mean, how has this guy come from out of near obscurity to become a GOP frontrunner in just a couple of weeks? Those goddamned Iowans and their stupid caucuses have unleashed a beast on us and if this beast isn’t stopped dead in his tracks now, we will all pay greatly for this Iowan insanity.

Rick Santorum is the worst choice for president out of all the GOP candidates that have come and gone this election cycle and that’s a hard feat to pull off, as most of them are severely flawed. Santorum is a bigoted prick that wants to force us all to live within his corrupt Christian vision. His perfect America would be a Catholic dictatorship with him as de facto ruler. Abortions for rape victims would be outlawed, gays would be in prison or most likely slaughtered and we’d all be forced to stay married to assholes and raise our children as Bible-loving zombies who have to bow to Santorum first and God second. Maybe this seems extreme but after reading through a huge list of quotes from the man, this most assuredly would be his perfect version of the United States.

Hell, Santorum wants to force his brand of Christianity on the world. In fact, he is ready to go to war with pretty much every Islamic nation in an effort to prove his point. It’s actually better if I just let his words do the talking here:

“The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. … What I’m talking about is onward American soldiers. What we’re talking about are core American values.”

First of all “core American values” aren’t violence and aggression, his stance on that is “anti-historical”. Secondly, you can look at this and analyze it a few different ways but the point is, he does hold a lot of resentment towards Islam. In almost every single debate where any nation that is primarily a Muslim one has come up, he has preached for aggression towards them. He is so eager to go to war and drop bombs and throw sanctions on everything in an effort to perpetuate a religious war that should have died centuries ago. Rick is of the belief that these people simply want to kill us because we are a free white Christian nation. Santorum, like anyone else that shares this incredibly flawed and dangerous logic, is a fucking idiot that could benefit from picking up a book other than the Bible.

Now I am not trying to attack his Christian views, as I have no beef with any religion, but I am attacking the fact that if he actually read his sacred book and believed the words written across its pages, he would realize that his actions and his motivations are very unchristian. Anyone who believes that Santorum is right and that we should just aimlessly bomb all these “threats” is an accessory to murder. When looking at the bigger picture, the actions Santorum and several of his colleagues want this country to take aren’t that different than the cowardly actions of Al-Qaeda. One nation’s freedom fighters are another nation’s terrorists. Rick and those with his school of thought could benefit from actually listening to the words of Osama bin Laden and other terrorists who have explained over and over why they attack us. Apparently no one is getting the message because the actions that have caused these groups to take up arms against us are still being committed by our government everyday all over the world.

Stateside, his religious intolerance of things he doesn’t understand and doesn’t want to learn about have dug him into some pretty deep holes throughout the years. He has bashed homosexuality and has probably been the most anti-gay candidate since the horse and buggy days. As I did with the last subject, I’ll let Santorum’s idiot mouth spell it out for you:

“Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?”

He also said this:

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. … That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.”

And:

“A lesbian woman came up to me and said, ‘why are you denying me my right?’ I said, ‘well, because it’s not a right.’ It’s a privilege that society recognizes because society sees intrinsic value to that relationship over any other relationship.”

God this guy is a fucking moron. I’m sorry and maybe it is my libertarian stance but I just can’t stand people, especially politicians, that are this vehemently opposed to gays. I could argue that this is modern times and not the 1700′s but fuck, everyone was gay back then. Dudes would marry their wives, not because they loved them but because it was a business transaction, and then they would go off with their friends and fuck young boys all night. As twisted as that may sound to some, this was common amongst the aristocracy of the day back then. Hell, the ancient Greeks who gave us democracy as well as major advancements in philosophy, maths, science, astronomy, law and language were some of the gayest people ever. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of art from that era that depict gay sex. It’s not some new freak thing that just happened in the last few decades. If Santorum had his way however, they’d all be sent to concentration camps or killed and used for dog food.

Santorum’s bigotry doesn’t just end with gays and lesbians, he actually said this about black people:

“I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”

Why did he single out black people? Aren’t whites, latinos and all other races on welfare? I guess Ricky Boy just sees this as a black thing. It doesn’t stop there, on President Obama’s race and pro-choice beliefs, Santorum said:

“I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people’.”

Jesus dude, this guy can’t be serious, right? Well, it doesn’t just stop with black people, gays, lesbians and Muslims. He said this about Mormons:

“Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?”

Mormonism a dangerous cult? Funny, they’re not the ones wanting to bomb the everliving shit out of the world! They just want to have mad wives and lots of kids. If it is all consensual between the adults, what is wrong with that? Who the fuck is Rick Santorum to say what is and is not acceptable? What gives him that authority? Well, where he sits, it’s his complete misunderstanding of the Bible that gives him that authority.

You know, fuck all this social madness. I think it is pretty clear that this bastard is full of hate and intolerance and would just rather kill you than look at you if you aren’t living up to his moral code. So how does this piece of shit hold up as far as being a politician? Well, several watchdog groups throughout the years have added Rick Santorum’s name to the list of “Most Corrupt Members of Congress”. You see, Santorum is a big government asshole that shows no concern over our country’s economic woes. Truth is, he is a big reason why we are dealing with these economic woes right now.

Rick Santorum’s own book “It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good” really spelled out his philosophy on government and our daily lives. Basically, the book goes on to argue for more government intrusion into our lives at home. Santorum believes that it is the government’s role to dictate to parents and families how they should live. Of course, Rick wants the government to push a Christian agenda on everyone, which completely goes against everything that the Founding Fathers wanted for America. In his book, he supported several big government programs, such as national service, publicly financed trust funds for children, community investment incentives and economic literacy programs to be put in every school in America. That’s kind of funny though considering that Santorum had this to say about our education system:

“It’s amazing that so many kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socialization they get in public schools.”

Right, is what he is proposing not a form of socialization? This guy is a classic doublethinker or he just doesn’t think the rules apply to him because he is in the service of a higher power. Yep, that same higher power that told Michele Bachmann to run for president. Maybe people should stop talking to that higher power, he gives shitty advice. Then again, these are idiots trying to decipher something greater than themselves.

Rick Santorum also supported No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit and other very costly pieces of legislation that were all a form of socialization and a contributor to our budget being out of control. He has always been a big supporter of earmarks and not just in his own state. Santorum was one of the idiots that was heavily in favor of the now infamous “Bridge to Nowhere”. The truth is, Rick Santorum is one of the biggest benefactors of earmarks in congressional history! According to a Rick Perry attack ad against Santorum and verified by Taxpayers For Common Sense, Santorum has received over a billion dollars in earmarks during his time in office!

In 2005 alone, Santorum received $483 million dollars in earmarks for 872 different projects! Defending himself on Fox News, Santorum said:

“I’m proud of the money that I did set aside for things that were priorities in my state instead of having bureaucrats do that.”

Santorum worked closely with Tim DeLay in developing the K-Street Project which was an effort by the GOP to put pressure on lobbyists to hire Republicans in their top positions as well as to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with special access to influential officials. Hell, Rick Santorum is a crony capitalist at his fucking core. This corporatist really needs to have his front lawn “occupied” by protestors. Santorum, like many others, used this as a tool to get free money to flow into his state. Of course there is no such thing as free money as it is us, the American citizens, who are paying for it now.

If you are a free trade person, good for you – that’s awesome. Unfortunately, Rick Santorum has been a long time opponent of free trade and true capitalism. He has spent his entire career backing higher tariffs on goods from other countries. He always has and still supports government intervention in the manufacturing industry. Rick Santorum feels that it is the government’s job to pick the winners and losers. Apparently this guy has never read anything from an Austrian economist or watched Milton Friedman’s series “Free To Choose”. If he had, Mr. Santorum would be very well aware of how his policies damage American interests stateside and abroad and how this just adds to our economic peril and rampant joblessness.

I could honestly go on and on about this worthless piece of shit but I don’t really think it’s all that necessary. Truth is, one could write a book about Rick Santorum and all the bullshit shenanigans this hate-mogering scumfuck was a part of. He is not what this country needs now or ever. He is a big reason why this country is in the shitter and electing him to be president would be the biggest mistake this country could make right now. In all honesty, I don’t see how this guy could be any better than Obama. In fact, I guaran-damn-tee that Rick Santorum would be much worse. You know how you see those signs with George W. Bush that say “Miss Me Yet?” on them? Well if Santorum became president, you’d see the same slogan attached to a picture of Barack Obama. Then again, being caught with such pictures in Santorum’s America would end with you being sent off to be a guinea pig in his Jesus indoctrination camps.

Hell, when your own nephew writes and publishes a piece urging people not to vote for you and instead to vote for Ron Paul, that’s saying a lot. When your own campaign staff is caught at a rally supporting Ron Paul, that should also tell you something. Rick Santorum is a statist shitcock that isn’t above turning the United States into a religious fascist dictatorship that will spend itself into oblivion. Those closest to him have warned us, yet people keep sending this douchebag money. The fact that he has made over two million dollars in the last two days is absolutely frightening.

It’s time to pay attention America!

Here’s a video showing how statist and liberal, yes liberal, this guy is. I didn’t even touch on his love of the Federal Reserve and dislike of the gold standard but this video hits it:

Rick Santorum, like most Republican candidates, fashions himself the one true conservative running in 2012. If the thought of big, intrusive liberal government offends you, he might just be your man. And if you favor a big, intrusive Republican government, he’s unquestionably your candidate.

People are taking a look at Santorum. Important people. People in Iowa. Even New York Timescolumnist David Brooks recently celebrated his working-class appeal, newfound viability, and economic populism, noting that the former Pennsylvania senator’s book It Takes a Family was a “broadside against Barry Goldwater-style conservatism”—or, in other words, a rejection of that Neanderthal fealty for liberty and free markets that has yet to be put down. Santorum’s book is crammed with an array of ideas for technocratic meddling; even the author acknowledges that some people “will reject” what he has to say “as a kind of ‘Big Government’ conservatism.”

Santorum did once grumble about too many conservatives believing in unbridled “personal autonomy” and subscribing to the “idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do…that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom (and) we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.”

Perhaps Santorum confuses libertinism with libertarianism, but for him “cultural issues” go way beyond defending the life of the unborn or opposing gay marriage. Santorum believes that conservatives should recognize “that individuals can’t go it alone,” which sounds a lot like the straw-man justification for nearly every state expansion in memory. Why does Santorum, a conservative, believe that getting government out of our lives means a person must “go it alone,” anyway? Maybe it means that person can go to his local church or his family or his community or his local bar to seek help—or maybe he can figure things out himself.

Opposing Barack Obama’s presidency and lamenting Washington’s lurch left are not great acts of bravery. When it mattered, Santorum was nearly always there for the establishment — most (in)famously backing professional opportunist Arlen Specter over conservative favorite Pat Toomey in the 2004 Republican Pennsylvania primaries when an endorsement may have had some consequences.

Santorum also claims that “budgets began to explode” after he left Washington. I suppose that’s all relative. As Club for Growth pointed out, Santorum could be a fiscal conservative with the election far off, but “there is a troubling part of Santorum’s record on spending, which is found in the years sandwiched between these periods of fiscal restraint.”

Today, Santorum tells voters that Medicare is “crushing” the “entire health care system.” In 2003, Santorum voted for the Medicare drug entitlement that costs taxpayers more than $60 billion a year and almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Santorum voted for the 2005 “bridge to nowhere” bill and was an earmark enthusiast his entire career.

These days, Santorum regularly joins a chorus of voices claiming that he would greatly reduce the role of federal government in local education. When he had a say, he supported No Child Left Behind and expanded the federal control of school systems. In his book, in fact, Santorum advocates dictating a certain curriculum to all schools. The right kind. It’s not the authority of government that irks him, but rather the content of the material Washington is peddling today.

This week, tea party favorite Sen. Rand Paul called Santorum a “warmongering moderate.” The opposite of Rand’s father, Ron Paul, Santorum makes an unequivocal case for putting Americans in the middle of military confrontations across the world—and putting us there forever. Why not export American social engineering? After all, Santorum seems to think it works so well at home.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter.

Source: Reason.