During his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned the American people that one of the greatest threats to freedom came not from enemies abroad but from “the conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry,” which over time would lose sight of defending the United States and become devoted only to its own perpetuation. “In the councils of government,” said the man who had commanded the Allied forces in Europe during World War II, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Today we are living Ike’s nightmare.  Defense spending is not just one of the most sacrosanct parts of thebudget but also one of the largest and most inscrutable. Adjusting for inflation, military spending has grown for an unprecedented 13 consecutive years and is now higher than at any time since World War II. Even excluding war costs, the military baseline budget has grown by about 50 percent during the last decade.

Yet the faintest suggestion of a plan to reduce the rate of the defense budget’s growth inevitably triggers dire warnings that Americans will soon be speaking Russian, Chinese, Arabic, or the mother tongue of whoever is deemed the most powerful adversary of the moment. Consider the Pentagon’s reaction to the recent threat of defense spending reductions following the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (popularly known as the “supercommittee”) to find deficit savings of $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The lack of a deal triggered an alternative path to those savings: a sequestration that would cut projected overall spending by $1.2 trillion between 2013 and 2021. Half of those savings are to come from the defense budget—an annual hit of about $54 billion compared to current administration plans.

But don’t confuse that $54 billion with reductions from current spending levels. In August 2011, the Congressional Budget Office projected that discretionary national defense spending (96 percent of all military spending), excluding the wars, would cost $5.3 trillion between 2013 and 2021. After sequestration, that spending will instead total $4.8 trillion, or $500 billion less. That’s 10 percent less than otherwise projected (see the chart) but still 10 percent higher than current defense spending.

How did apologists for the military-industrial complex react to the possibility of an increase of just 10 percent rather than 18 percent? Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in a November letter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), warned that if “maximum sequestration” goes into effect in 2013, “these cuts would be devastating for the Department.” One of Panetta’s deputies colorfully described the cuts as a form of “self-castration.” Former Defense Secretary William Cohen characterized the possible cuts as “draconian” and “calamitous,” Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz fretted that his branch “may not be able to overcome dire consequences,” and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) declared that trimming the rate of military spending growth would do nothing less than “destroy the Department of Defense.”

There is no basis in reality for such hyperbole. Adjusting for inflation, sequester cuts would freeze the military’s budget at its level in 2007—a year in which America was ably defended, and plenty of cash flowed to the armed forces.

CONTINUED at Reason. Written by Veronique de Rugy.

President Obama has unveiled the 2013 Department of Defense’s new budget which is around $614 billion. Among the slightly decreased budget, $3 billion are set aside for operation “Post-New Dawn” for the war in Iraq that has been declared as over. Many critics speculate the need to spend more money on an already unsuccessful war in Iraq and no reports have surfaced to determine how the funds will be used. Douglas MacGregor, a retired Colonel for the US Army, joins us to discuss the possible ways the money will be spent.

David Sarti barred from purchasing guns after doctor reported him to authorities.

Before featuring in National Geographic’s new show Doomsday Prepper, David Sarti visited his doctor complaining of chest pains, only to have the doctor later commit him to a psychiatric ward and alert authorities, before Sarti was declared “mentally defective” and put on an FBI list that strips him of his second amendment rights.

Back in November, Sarti, a resident of Lebanon Texas, visited a cardiologist named Andre C. Olivier, M.D., who examined Sarti and then told him tests would be run. After hearing nothing for two months, Sarti called to make another appointment on January 16th. The doctor informed Sarti there was nothing wrong with his heart but that he could have tubes inserted to help alleviate his breathing difficulties.

When Sarti refused to have tubes inserted, Olivier insinuated that he could be suicidal and insisted on Sarti going to the emergency room. Sarti refused and left the hospital but within 15 minutes of arriving home, police arrived at his house and forcibly took him to the emergency room.

Sarti was subsequently placed in hospital for observation for a period of four days before an attorney and then a judge arrived to hear his story. Sarti repeatedly emphasized to doctors that he was not suicidal and would not commit suicide because of his Christian beliefs.

When Sarti later attempted to purchase a Glock 21 firearm, he was flagged up by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and refused the sale. When he appealed, he received a letter from the FBI stating that he had been declared “mentally defective” and was not allowed to own firearms.

Sarti says he attempted to get legal defense from the NRA, who initially indicated that they would be able to help but ended up refusing to take his case. Gun Owners of America are now talking with Sarti about setting up a legal defense fund for gun owners with similar problems.

CONTINUED at Prison Planet. Written by Paul Joseph Watson.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months.

Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t want to leave the fate of Israel dependent on American action, which would be triggered by intelligence that Iran is building a bomb, which it hasn’t done yet.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon when he asked last month to postpone a planned U.S.-Israel military exercise that would culminate in a live-fire phase in May. Barak apologized that Israel couldn’t devote the resources to the annual exercise this spring.

President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold. But the White House hasn’t yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack.

The Obama administration is conducting intense discussions about what an Israeli attack would mean for the United States: whether Iran would target U.S. ships in the region or try to close the Strait of Hormuz; and what effect the conflict and a likely spike in oil prices would have on the fragile global economy.

The administration appears to favor staying out of the conflict unless Iran hits U.S. assets, which would trigger a strong U.S. response.

This U.S. policy — signaling that Israel is acting on its own — might open a breach like the one in 1956, when President Dwight Eisenhower condemned an Israeli-European attack on the Suez Canal. Complicating matters is the 2012 presidential campaign, which has Republicans candidates clamoring for stronger U.S. support of Israel.

Administration officials caution that Tehran shouldn’t misunderstand: The United States has a 60-year commitment to Israeli security, and if Israel’s population centers were hit, the United States could feel obligated to come to Israel’s defense.

Israelis are said to believe that a military strike could be limited and contained. They would bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz and other targets; an attack on the buried enrichment facility at Qom would be harder from the air. Iranians would retaliate, but Israelis doubt that the action would be an overwhelming barrage, with rockets from Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. One Israeli estimate is that the Jewish state might have to absorb 500 casualties.

Israelis point to Syria’s lack of response to an Israeli attack on a nuclear reactor there in 2007. Iranians might show similar restraint, because of fear the regime would be endangered by all-out war. Some Israelis have also likened a strike on Iran to the 1976 hostage-rescue raid on Entebbe, Uganda, which was followed by a change of regime in that country.

Israeli leaders are said to accept, and even welcome, the prospect of going it alone and demonstrating their resolve at a time when their security is undermined by the Arab Spring.

“You stay to the side, and let us do it,” one Israeli official is said to have advised the United States. A “short-war” scenario assumes five days or so of limited Israeli strikes, followed by a U.N.-brokered cease-fire. The Israelis are said to recognize that damage to the nuclear program might be modest, requiring another strike in a few years.

U.S. officials see two possible ways to dissuade the Israelis from such an attack: Tehran could finally open serious negotiations for a formula to verifiably guarantee that its nuclear program will remain a civilian one; or the United States could step up its covert actions to degrade the program so much that Israelis would decide that military action wasn’t necessary.

U.S. officials don’t think that Netanyahu has made a final decision to attack, and they note that top Israeli intelligence officials remain skeptical of the project. But senior Americans doubt that the Israelis are bluffing. They’re worrying about the guns of spring — and the unintended consequences.

Source: The Washington Post.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

I was late watching this debate, as I had to check the replay. Unfortunately, I wasn’t home and I was unable to take serious notes on it. I was at my boss’ house due to it being the annual national sales meeting for my real job and between the alcohol and festivities, this thing was hard to watch in any serious sort of manner. I regret not being able to give it my full attention but the whiskey and wine were flowing, the girls were distracting to say the least and the copious amounts of food transplanted from several of the world’s most exotic regions somehow took precedence over watching the most recent episode of ‘Three Tyrants and a Wizard’. I do apologize as I have been trying to chronicle every damn one of these things but there are just so many, seven this month alone, and turning down a chance to literally spend the night at a party thrown at the mansion of the Indian version of Caligula is incredibly hard to pass up. Bourbon soaked tits are better to stare at than three dudes arguing over their dicks and the fourth shaking his head because America’s fallen so far that we’re literally having a debate about three dicks.

Now I did go back and read the transcripts from the debate and I did watch Ron Paul’s highlights – the only important parts, as the other three’s highlights would’ve put me to sleep in my hungover stupor. If it wasn’t for my boss’ brother handing me a Bloody Mary when I walked through the office door this morning, I’d probably be curled up in a ball under my desk hiding from the flickering power-draining headache-inducing fluorescent lights over my head. Needless to say, I am not a Bloody Mary fan by any stretch of the word, as it just conjures up the thought of drinking vodka with some ketchup spilled in it, but that fucking cocktail hit the spot today and I’m about 70 percent recovered from guest-starring in the Bollywood version of ‘Eyes Wide Shut’.

I know I’m rambling about my drunken escapades and that might disinterest you, as you came to this article to experience my certain style of critique on these things, so for that I’m sorry. I will do my best to give you the rundown of the debate, as I saw it between nude champagne showers and Chilean sea bass dodgeball.

So I’m just going to go down the line and analyze the candidates one-by-one starting with Rick Santorum. He started by talking about illegal immigration, border fences and telling the story about his immigrant family for the umpteenth time. He got into it with Ron Paul on foreign policy and failed miserably as he tried to cover up the fact that he’s a goddamned idiot on the affairs of Central and South America. I’ll write more on this when I get to Ron Paul, who owned Santorum like a twenty dollar prostitute. Santorum goes on to bitch about Fannie and Freddie and in turn blasts Newt and Mitt for playing personal politics and distracting everyone from discussing the real issues. On the subject of space, Santorum said that America is a frontier country and space is the next frontier to conquer. He calls for the private sector to be more involved with NASA but doesn’t fully support government being out of it. On health care he goes on and on about how awesome he is for trying to create health savings accounts. If you were so awesome, you would’ve got it done pal! He then gets into a health care argument with Romney that is neither interesting or worth writing about but what the hell, I’ll give you the nutshell version. Basically it went something like this:

Rick Santorum: “Fuck Romneycare”
Mitt Romney: “But it was only at the state level Ricky Baby!”
Rick Santorum: “I don’t care Mitt! You’re a bitch and you gave Obama the blueprints to evil!”
Mitt Romney: “Ricky Baby, you’re so silly!”
Rick Santorum: “Jesus Bible! No health care for the gays!”

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich spent most of their time arguing about who was a bigger bastard while both looked like big bastards. Mittens talked about “self-deportation” again. If these guys believe in such a thing as an effective way of handling a situation, can we get them to believe in “self-governance”? If they trust those illegal immigrants to leave on their own accord after sneaking in here in an effort just to come back in a way that is much more difficult, they’ve got to believe that we’re all capable of managing every other aspect of our lives? I mean, they are putting blind faith into something so farfetched that they’ve got to be down with just saying “fuck it” and letting us run our own shit, right?

On the immigration subject, Newt says that Romney is the most anti-immigrant candidate out of the four. Romney gets all pissy and pulls his two Latino cards. The first he pulls is Marco Rubio, the Cuban American senator that came to his defense on immigration. The second card Mitt pulled was Mexico, as his father was born there. I was born in a hospital bro, that doesn’t make me a doctor!

Romney and Gingrich argue about immigration for awhile and then they argue about Fannie and Freddie and who is the biggest crook. Newt, once he gets away from the lame feud for a minute, goes on some tangent about making a moon base. Newt later said that Jacksonville was going to get big pimpin’ because the Panama Canal was widening and would bring them more boat traffic. Shortly after that we were treated to a Santorum-Gingrich-Romney three-way which was like stumbling upon a middle-aged homosexual version of Cinemax at three in the morning. It was a bitch and rant fuck fest that no one in their right mind needed to see, unless of course you’re into middle-aged gay men. If you are, I mean absolutely no disrespect. Do ya thang homegirl!

Fuck all these queens, let’s get to Ron Paul, the only adult in the room. On immigration, he says that if we had a working healthy economy we wouldn’t be so worried about the immigration issue as we’d be looking for workers to fill jobs. He adds that the way we are handling our borders is actually harming our economy. He points out that we don’t have the right amount of resources on the border and that we should pay more attention to our border instead of the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

On the Latin America issue, Ron Paul says, “Free trade is the answer.” He throws in the fact that we’d be a lot better off if we practiced free trade with Cuba. He adds that he doesn’t like the idea that America thinks that they can go down to Central and South America and try to dictate which kind of leaders they need down there, as it is none of our business. He says that the best way to influence other nations isn’t by telling them what to do, it is by practicing friendship and free trade. Paul then references Santorum who said that we have to stand up for these nations. Paul explains that standing up for nations often times comes with us imposing ourselves on the people of these countries while picking their dictators, undermining their government and sending them a lot of money. He warns that this sort of tactic always backfires and the people we are “supporting” end up hating us. Ron Paul calls Rick Santorum’s ideas on foreign policy the “bully way”. Paul adds that he knows a better to way to work with people other than using force. Santorum shakes his head, mumbles some stupid crap and then changes his tampon while wiping his bitch tears. Checkmate Paul!

Ron Paul is asked if Mitt and Newt should return the money they’ve made off of Fannie and Freddie and he responds to thunderous applause when he says, “That subject doesn’t interest me a lot.” Paul says that Fannie and Freddie should have been auctioned off right after the crash came. He said that if it was sold, the problem would’ve been “cleansed” by now. Ron Paul says that he’s been trying to prevent this stuff which is why we need to end the Federal Reserve.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asks says that Ron Paul, if elected, would be the oldest president ever. He asks Paul if he would make his medical records public to show the people that he is healthy. Blitzer basically wants to paint Ron Paul as a geezer who could croak tomorrow and I find the question to be repugnant, just as I found it distasteful when the same issue was brought up with Ronald Reagan years ago. Paul said that he’ll prove how healthy he is by delivering an open challenge to all the other candidates to face him in a 25 mile bike ride in the heat of Texas. Ron Paul face-palmed the shit out of Wolf Blitzer and the other candidates with that answer. He also took a shot at Wolf himself when he jokingly pointed out that there are laws against age discrimination and that Blitzer should be careful. Wolf, after getting bitchslapped, tries to cover up the stupid question by asking the other candidates if they’d release theirs. What a tool.

On space spending, Ron Paul says that he would only approve funding on stuff that fits under defense. He says that going to the Moon and Mars is fantastic but that it could be done better by the private sector if their hands weren’t tied. Ron Paul then takes a shot at Newt, saying that he has stretched the truth with all his “balanced budget” claims from the days when he was Speaker of the House. Ron Paul is taking solid shots backed by facts and there is nothing that can be done about it when he brings these guys a dose of the truth. Strangely, Newt Gingrich was very polite and gracious to Ron Paul all night and gave him props for his ideas in several areas.

In the end, the debate was lightyears better than the NBC debate a few days prior. CNN does the best job, in my opinion, and I’ve watched every single one of these debates. Kudos to Wolf for rocking the house, even with a few prickish questions. Ron Paul owned the motherfucker, Santorum did decent if you are into his religio-fascist bullshit while Newt and Mitt looked like a few bickering Tinas arguing over the last pack of Lee Press-On Nails at K-Mart.

And that’s all I got because I immediately returned to my whiskey-scented orgy on the south lawn.

Grading Scale:
Grade A+: Ron Paul
Grade C-: Rick Santorum
Grade D+: Newt Gingrich
Grade D: Mitt Romney

*Best debate moment in recent memory:

Look out your kitchen window. Your patio furniture is all wrecked to shit, isn’t it? I know, that last BBQ of yours got out of hand. Shots were fired. Enter the $3,500 bulletproof polo from Miguel Caballero’s Black Label Collection, just the thing you need to protect your neck* while flippin’ burgs or refilling the beer cooler. It may look like a regular-ass polo, but oh no — underneath that 100% cotton exterior comes three different levels of bullet protection. Me? I want the one that can stop a cannonball.

OPTION IIA: 9mm / 40 Smith and Wesson FMJOPTION II: 9mm / .357 Magnum / 38 Super / Mini Uzi submachine gun
OPTION IIIA: Uzi machine gun / MP5,MP9 submachine gun / 44 Magnum SJHP / Stab-proof

Haha — there’s even a stab-proof option! Unfortunately, all of them will only stop bullets from the most amateur of assassins. I’ve played Counter-Strike folks, I only aim for the head. “No you don’t.” Okay so maybe I flashbanged my whole team and got us all killed.

*Protection actually starts below the neck.

Source: Geekologie.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

I’ve lost count of all the debates that we’ve had thus far but thank god we only have another half dozen or so, unless of course they decide to work more into the schedule somewhere. This one was thrown by Fox News and held in South Carolina as their primary is less than a week away. Fox News gave us Bret Baier and Juan Williams with Kelly Evans and Gerald Seib from the Wall Street Journal as moderators for this round. I should mention that answers in this debate have been expanded to ninety seconds, as the GOP field is now narrowed down to five. Yes, five.

The reason being, is that Jon Huntmsman dropped out of the race earlier in the day. Huntsman, who was great on foreign policy, jumped ship and announced his endorsement for golden boy Mitt Romney. What’s disappointing about that is Huntsman was incredibly critical of Romney even less than a week prior. Huntsman went as far as to call Romney “unelectable” but now he is supporting him as he sees him as the best chance at beating Barack Obama. Huntsman lost a lot of credibility with me due to his blooming Romney love. Maybe it’s a Mormon thing or maybe it’s because they are both actually cousins, which has been ignored by the media mind you. Whatever the reason, Huntsman is out and he’s now on the Romney train like so many other so-called “conservatives” that aren’t able to see their own progressive ways. At least Huntsman can go back to his regular job of walking around on eight legs and scaring the shit out of Australians.

Newt Gingrich gets the first question and he is asked about his ads that attack Mitt Romney’s business record and if he thinks they are justified. Newtie Bootie says that it is important to look at and analyze job creation. He then quickly gets in a Ronald Reagan name drop and follows it up with a second Ronald Reagan name drop when he said that he and Clinton came up with a Reagan-like program for job creation in the 90′s. Newt points to the fact that Mitt raised taxes in Massachusetts and was actually ranked 47th out of 50 states in the realm of job creation. He stole that talking point from Jon Huntsman. Gingrich adds that if Romney promotes his business skills as part of his campaign then he, as a rival candidate, has the right to question it. He is then asked what he thinks about the Wall Street Journal criticizing him and saying that he is “embarrassing himself” with his attack ads against Mitt Romney. Gingrich responds by saying that he isn’t intimidated by the media just because he is asking questions about candidates.

In an effort to respond, Mitt Romney says that he has real experience in job creation due to his time in the private sector. Mitt says that he learned a lot from working in the private sector, as opposed to the other candidates who have spent much of their time in the public sector. He talks about how four of the companies he helped establish have gone on to create hundreds-of-thousands of jobs. Mitt adds that his record is public and available to anyone that wants to analyze his job creation skills. He claims that he has continually demonstrated a record of success. Romney points out that the unemployment rate in Massachusetts when he left was 4.7 percent. He also throws in that he balanced the state budget every year.

Rick Perry, in an effort to make this debate all about Mitt, is asked about his comments where he referred to Mitt Romney as a “vulture capitalist”. Perry is also asked what he would put in place to curb vulture capitalism. Perry says that his record proves that he is a real capitalist. Really? Tweaking the law and protecting a company that you own a stake in from getting in trouble for distributing porn illegally is the actions of a real capitalist? You mean taking money from Merck and then attempting to force young girls to be vaccinated with Merck products is also the action of a real capitalist? Looks like Perry is a fucking vulture too from where I sit. He then goes on to bitch like a liberal about how Bain destroyed jobs. He then tells us that his record and income tax has been public for years and uses that to call out Mitt and then asks him to release his income tax information so that the public can see how he really made his money. Perry then rambles about killing Dodd-Frank and talks about how regulations are strangling America. He adds that he will get rid of some of the financial regulators. He didn’t say “all of them”.

Responding to Perry, as this is the Romney variety hour, Mitt blames the Chinese and their cheating ways for closing down the steel mills Rick Perry was blaming Mitt for closing. Romney says that he agrees with Perry about regulations but never really defends himself in a proper fashion other than pointing his finger at China. Romney, on the regulations issue, claims that he will end all Obama era regulations. I guess the regulations from the Bush era, the Clinton era and all other eras aren’t important.

So just when you think that’s over, Gerald Seib asks Romney a question! Fucking hell! Romney answers the question, which was abut his experience at Bain. He says that they often times consolidated plants and factories and if they closed one down, the workers were free to move to the new plant or factory. He points out though that many workers didn’t move as the new jobs didn’t come with union support.

Ron Paul is asked about his “scathing” attack ads and whether or not such ads should be abandoned. Well, considering he’s running them, I doubt he’ll feel that they should be abandoned, duh! Paul responds by saying that he is exposing voting records and in that case, his “attacks” are proper. He goes on to say that he couldn’t fit everything he wanted to in his anti-Santorum ad as there wasn’t enough time to get it all in. He then goes on to list all the dumb crap that Santorum voted for.

Thin skinned piss boy Rick Santorum says that Paul is quoting Soros-like leftist groups which discredits his facts because leftist groups attack conservatives. Santorum basically says that being attacked by leftist groups is a badge of honor and he’s proud of the distinction. What a stupid fucktard! It doesn’t matter what the source is, the fact is the facts are FACTS! You can’t just ignore your own voting record and try to spin it to the public as leftist propaganda! Santorum who voted for No Child Left Behind says that he would veto it now. Of course he would, he’s pandering to South Carolinians. He then defends his vote against “right to work” as he says that Pennsylvania wasn’t a “right to work” state. Santorum who is outraged over the attacks on himself is then put on the spot by Juan Williams who asks if Santorum’s own attack ads should be pulled. The crowd boos Juan because they are idiot assholes and Santorum goes on to says that his attacks are “positive”. He then gets all bitchy with Mitt about his attack ads while citing the fact that it is Martin Luther King Day to make some dimwitted point. Why do people support this whiney juvenile brat?

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum get in a spat about whether or not people who have committed violent crimes should be allowed to vote. I get bored to tears listening to them bicker as basically each candidate is trying to steal time from the other in order to make their lame ass points. While I’d like there to be some blood in these things, pink ass bitch blood isn’t as cool to see as the reddish bad ass real American blood. I was really just staring in awe waiting for these two Tinas to breakout with some limp-wristed slap fighting. And just when you think it’s over, Rick Perry jumps in the battle over who has the filthiest tampon.

Time monopolizer Mitt Romney is asked about Jon Huntsman’s recent criticism even though he came out and endorsed him. He is also asked how he can convince the voter that he won’t change his views in the future as he has a career as a flip-flopper. Mittens rambles on and on about how he was a pro-life governor contrary to popular belief and that he has always opposed gay marriage. However he adds that he is for equal rights for everyone including gays. Okay, so how is denying them marriage equal? Damn these Orwellian characters! Romney ends his soulless rant by saying that everything he has ever done and will do is about “strengthening America.”

In an effort to make himself relevant again, Rick Perry said that Texas was under assault by the federal government and then added that South Carolina was at war with Obama. The cheap pop attempt works and the crowd goes crazy. Too bad Perry is crazier than the crowd, he’s still deader than shit in this race. Perry talks about how the federal government is taking states to task on voter ID laws and immigration. He then says that Obama is at war with organized religion. Damn, Perry likes throwing the word “war” around. I’m starting to think he either doesn’t know what it means or it is just the answer to everything. “Obama is at war with peanuts! Send troops to the peanut farm! Obama is at war with puppies! Secure the entrance to PetLand!” Perry finishes by saying that Obama is out of control yet he fails to realize that he is foaming at the mouth and tweaking like an infant after two double espressos.

Santorum is asked if he would extend benefits for unemployment. Ricky Boy says that we need a reasonable time table for people to find a job but points out that 99 weeks is just too much. He goes on to say that this should be handled by the states and not the federal government. He calls for a job training program to be a part of unemployment benefits. Okay broski, how much will that shit cost? I’d imagine such a program would be expensive and even if we shortened the time one could collect benefits, the cost of this program could make all that moot. Truthfully, with the government being as wasteful as it is, this may cost us a shitload more than our current dilemma of 99 weeks. Also, when the hell has government done anything well? They certainly can’t offer a jobs program that will benefit anyone.

Gingrich jumps in the mix and agrees with Santorum that there should be a job training program. Okay idiots, what jobs are they training for and what happens when someone is six weeks into a program and decides that whatever they are training for is stupid and they want to get training in something else? Are people allowed to drop out and start over elsewhere and if so, how many times could they do this? Maybe once they start in something they are forced to finish it in order to get their benefits. Realistically, all this will do is waste more money as they will obviously stay in the program, collect the benefits and rack up more debt due to the cost of training them. What happens when they get out of the program? Well, I doubt they’d look for a job in the field they trained in if they grew to dislike it. Essentially this is a lose-lose for everyone but these statist shitcocks are blind to that reality. Newt Gingrich closes his statements on job programs by saying, “I’ll help you if you think helping yourself is good.” I shouldn’t even have to spell out what is wrong with that statement and I’m not going to.

Mitt Romney gives us another soulless rant. In this one he bitches about Obama’s business practices and use of crony capitalism. Romney says that the system of laws we have now work and that we don’t need government regulation. Is he living under a goddamned rock? The system of laws we have now IS government regulation. He adds that we need to open up markets and stop bailing people out. Right, he really wants to have free trade after all the smack he’s talked about China.

The idiot from Wall Street Journal Mr. Seib asks Ron Paul to explain his stance on cutting defense and more importantly on how his military plans would not cost South Carolinians jobs. Really? Is this a real question? Is this the best guy they could find to sit on the moderators’ panel? Ron Paul says that the moderator is confused about his position. He adds that he wants to cut military spending not defense and once again finds himself having to explain to the establishment conservatives for the umpteenth time over the course of these debates what the difference is between the two. Ron Paul says that cutting back on bases overseas would actually affect other countries not the United States. In fact, the U.S. would benefit greatly by bringing our troops home. Paul adds that the idea that this would make us weaker is “absolutely wrong”. Ron Paul is right on this because our presence is spread too thin throughout the world. He then points out that he raises more than twice as much money from the active duty military than all the other candidates combined! Slam dunk bitch! Watching this exchange is like watching Dr. Paul educate ADD-afflicted kindergartners in a college poli-sci class. Ron Paul finishes by quoting Eisenhower who warned about the “military industrial complex”. Paul slam dunks again when says, “We’re supposed to be conservative and that means spend less money!”

All the candidates are asked what the tax rate would be under them. Rick Perry says he will shoot for a 20 percent flat tax rate. Rick Santorum gives a weird answer because he’s probably never thought about this. Romney says that he would get us down to 25 percent but that is still too much. Newt calls for a 15 percent flat tax. Ron Paul then says that he would try to get us down to zero percent! He points to the fact that we didn’t have income tax before 1913 (well, excluding the Civil War era). His proposal is a reflection of how much he wishes to cut spending but the morons in the room can’t put two and two together and probably just think that Ron Paul’s still that crazy kook at the end of the bar. Paul also says that inflation is a tax and if he stopped inflation, we would be freed up from its hidden taxation.

Mitt Romney is asked if he will release his tax records soon. He gargles something about McCain and Bush and says that he hasn’t planned on releasing them. He says that he isn’t opposed to doing it however. He is then asked about his ties to Mexico and the crowd boos at the question. He is asked that if he has close ties to Mexico, why doesn’t he work towards helping Latinos and does he feel like his actions are alienating the Latino voters. Mitt says that Latinos, like all people, are interested in America because it is an “opportunity nation”. Mitt adds that he must communicate to all people that America can be better. He says that illegal immigrants shouldn’t be showed favoritism over those who have been waiting in line legally to enter this country. He then throws in that he would veto the DREAM Act.

Santorum starts pushing some mumbo jumbo about how if people get married before having children it’ll keep them out of poverty. He then blames Obama for everything and bitches about how public schools can’t promote marriage anymore. Santorum says that Obama is “..deliberately sabotaging young girls.” And Ron Paul is the crazy kook?

The moderators then ask Dr. Paul about racial disparities in drug related arrests and convictions. Paul says that it is very clear that racial disparity exists in both those convicted of drug charges and those sentenced to the death penalty. Paul points out that murderers often times get out of jail before drug offenders. He says that the drug war is bringing violence to our border and that it is the real border security issue of today.

Newt Gingrich is criticized about recent comments he made about blacks needing to ask for jobs instead of food stamps. He’s asked if he sees this sort of rhetoric as insulting to blacks, if not all people. Of course Gingrich says it isn’t insulting. He tells some weak story about how his daughter was a janitor at thirteen and how she loved making money and therefore black people should like it too. Juan Williams presses Newt further but gets booed by the South Carolinians in the crowd. What the fuck? Between this and the Romney-Mexico issue, these people are coming off as backwoods bigoted rednecks and people wonder why Republicans have that sort of stereotype! Newt adds that Obama has put more people on food stamps than any other president. While this may be true, it was the Bush administration that really got that ball rolling for Obama. In the end, Newt Gingrich doesn’t explain how his ideas help blacks, he just brushes it off and doesn’t bother dispelling the concerns brought up by the only minority on the stage or on the panel as a chorus of boos continue to be directed at that minority.

Ron Paul is then asked about comments he never made that he supposedly didn’t want to track down Osama bin Laden. Dr. Paul informs the moderators that he never said such a thing and that he voted for the military to apprehend the Al-Qaeda leader. Paul says his frustration was in how the situation was handled as we had the guy cornered before and didn’t go after him, instead we fucked around for a decade and then finally nabbed him almost ten years after 9/11. Paul adds that he wanted a properly executed mission but the whole situation was handled awfully. He then says that we need to respect other nations’ sovereignty and we need to follow proper procedures and not dig bigger holes for ourselves. Bret Baier takes a jab at Ron Paul and says that his stance on taking down terrorists is “to the left of Obama”. Ron Paul points out that we went in and got Saddam Hussein quickly. He then questions why acting quickly, capturing the enemy and detaining them to ask them questions is a bad thing yet waiting a decade and then flat out killing them is perceived as great.

Gingrich is asked if he would go into Pakistan to kill terrorists without getting permission from Pakistan first, even if doing so would end our relationship with Pakistan. Newt doesn’t answer the question, he just immediately attacks Ron Paul and says that Dr. Paul’s stance on foreign policy is “irrational”. Gingrich continues to ignore the question and goes on to just talk shit about Pakistan for continually reaping the benefits of foreign aid but not helping us militarily. Yep, because giving foreign aid apparently isn’t an act of kindness it is a transaction where we buy the countries we “aid”. Gingrich then channels Andrew Jackson and says, “Andrew Jackson had a clear cut idea about Americas enemies…KILL THEM!” This soundbite was met with thunderous applause because just like the establishment dickheads on stage, the majority of the South Carolinians in that building would rather murder someone who doesn’t like us than attempt to work towards a peaceful resolution.

Ron Paul then responds to Newt by saying that if other countries did to us what we do to them, we wouldn’t be cool with it. He then goes on to use the “golden rule” example and the rude crowd starts booing Ron Paul loudly! These people are sick! They are very vocally supporting murder and want to hear nothing of peace. This is the Republican stereotype that will continue to keep sane people away from their party. Paul doesn’t falter like other candidates however. He powers through his points, despite the evil jeers of the scumbags booing. Those of us that don’t condone unjustified cold-blooded murder and imperialism cheer from our living rooms because the oldest man in the room stood strong against the vehement hatred and hunger of hundreds of establishment zombies who only call a man crazy because they don’t have the brain power to understand him. I think it was Dave Chappelle who once said that people use the word “crazy” to describe things that they don’t understand. At this point, it doesn’t matter how many times Dr. Paul tries to educate the idiots, eventually you’ve got to just accept the fact that some people are ignorant and move on. Hopefully Dr. Paul learned this lesson but kudos to him for not faltering before these assholes. Another lesson learned, South Carolinians are rude as fuck.

So immediately after the sane man made his statements, Mitt Romney essentially went on a rant that we’ve got to “Kill! Kill! Kill!” and he actually said, “A bullet in the head is the right course of action.” Yep, this also got thunderous applause from the pro-murder sect of the Republican Party. Romney then went on to say that he would build a military so strong that no one would test the United States and thus, it would keep us out of war. He does realize that we go to war with everyone else first, not the other way around, right? I know.. I know, I’m giving this haircut too much credit.

Rick Santorum gets in ”Kill! Kill! Kill!” mode as well and starts bashing Obama for being what he deems as pro-Assad because we put an embassy in Syria. Yeah dude, why reach out and try to build a relationship when you can just shove bombs down their throats?! Santorum spins it into Obama being anti-Israel as Syria is in bed with Iran. Of course the racist “bomb the world” crowd cheers and cheers.

Perry has to get some ”Kill! Kill! Kill!” action too! He says that he wants to send a powerful message to Iran, Syria and Turkey. He takes a little bitch shot at Ron Paul because he’s a pandering redneck dickweed. He then goes on to defend the Marines that pissed on the dead Taliban soldiers which gets the asshole crowd on their feet. I get this feeling in my gut that the Sith have finally come out of hiding. Perry rambles on and on about decapitated soldiers in an attempt to excuse the heinous acts of our Marines. He then tries to explain that Obama is to blame as his bad policies affected the military. Huh? What? Is this dude drinking all the left over vaccinations he couldn’t force into young girls’ arms?

Here’s the kicker of the night however. Mitt Romney was asked about NDAA and he actually says that he would have signed it into law as Obama has! Romney gets a chorus of boos from the asshole crowd but this time I agree with them. Mitt demands more time so he can explain himself; time is granted and then he just rambles incoherently about it and about expanding military power. Okay, so unless you have been in the dark for months, Mitt Romney is for a Nazi-like law that allows the military to arrest and detain American citizens without due process! This guy is leading in the polls people!

Oh wait! Rick Santorum is also on board and he even tries to dispel concerns about the law proving that he is completely ignorant on the subject and incompetent as a decision maker. What does that tell you when a guy who has been a Washington insider, as long as Rick Santorum has, can’t understand a law that he is reading. Then again, the prick never even probably thumbed through the evil bill.

They quickly move over to Ron Paul and change the subject. Paul, who has been a big critic of the NDAA bill, requests time to talk about the issue. Paul is given the opportunity by the moderators. He talks about how the bill is tyrannical and how it destroys the 4th Amendment and our constitutional rights. He says that Americans being held indefinitely without habeas corpus is a horrible thing.

On sacred cow entitlements, Romney says that he would adopt the Paul Ryan Plan in regards to dealing with the Medicare problem. He goes on to say that he would provide “..higher benefits for lower income people and lower benefits for higher income people.” Yep, he’s not a progressive shitbag. Newt calls for the Chilean model on Social Security and adds that Social Security under his plan would be voluntary.

Rick Santorum is asked if his jobs plan is crony capitalism as it seems to pick winners and losers. Ricky Boy says that he would cut corporate taxes for everybody, so it’s fair. He then rants and raves about foreign competition. When the hell did our leaders turn into such pussies, so afraid of foreign competition? Man the fuck up and compete bitch! He then goes on to whine about regulations. Wait, isn’t he responsible for a lot of those? Baier signals that his time is up and Santorum snaps at Baier like the little Yorkshire lapdog bitch that he is. No one wants to hear your boring rant dipshit! Not even Fox News who has been the only force pimping you out! Santorum’s tantrum then turns over to Newt and they bicker back and forth and I zone out and go to the kitchen for a granola bar.

Juan Williams questions Mitt Romney’s consistency and asks him how he is pro-gun rights when he was the first governor to ever sign an assault weapons ban. Mitt tells Juan that he worked with both pro-gun and anti-gun groups on the legislation and they all agreed on it. He even mentions that he took a picture with the leaders of both groups when the bill was signed. He then talks about hunting elk and pheasants. Wow, you’re a tough cookie Mittens!

Santorum is asked about his anti-gun history and he goes on to say that all his votes were supported by the NRA. He said that they supported him signing certain laws because if they didn’t something worse might come down the pipeline. Oh c’mon! What a crock of shit! So you eat a small piece of poop today because you fear that if you don’t there might be a big piece of poop tomorrow?! No dude, you stand by your convictions and you kick both piles of poop and call it a day. Santorum is such a weak pushover hoe. He lets fear dictate his life, whether that’s fear of hypothetical future legislation or fear of a God he doesn’t even understand. Rick Santorum is of the old establishment mentality that you have to take away some rights in order to protect other rights. This guy is beyond stupid.

This discussion about guns carries over to Ron Paul who says that gun laws should be left to the state. Santorum then has to make it known that Ron Paul tried to do away with the 2nd Amendment! Really? God, doesn’t the Bible talk ill of liars? There goes Ricky Boy disappointing Jesus again! Ron Paul says that he would repeal anything that would ban guns. He then points out that Rick Santorum is just nibbling away at the Constitution for his own means.

Newt Gingrich goes on to defend himself from being accused of supporting China’s “one child policy”. He says that he never, in any way, supported that policy. He and Mitt then get into a pointless quarrel over Super PACs. Mitt days that he would get rid of Super PACs as they are corrupt and wrong. Rick Perry then closes out the debate talking about troops on the border and “aviation assets”. In his funny Texan accent he promises to “..lock the border down within a year after taking my hand off of that Bible.”

This debate was hard to watch. The audience was absolutely awful and even though I talked some shit about South Carolina, I hope that their attitudes and behavior doesn’t reflect that of the rest of the state. I guess we’ll find out as the next debate is also in South Carolina. If the crowd at that one is just as ridiculous, it’ll deter me from ever wanting to set foot in that state again!

In the end, Ron Paul did well, even with the whole world seemingly against him. It wasn’t his best performance but it was solid enough. I believe that Romney walked away weak, especially after his NDAA comments. Plus he just pandered and filibustered most of the debate. Newt did really well despite the Fox News and Wall Street Journal moderators trying to “gotcha” him to death and hang him out to dry. Rick Santorum is going to end up sucking gay dicks in Hell so I don’t care about him. Perry is probably going to drop the fuck out because again, he’s deader than shit in this race.

I tried to keep this one short and sweet but these idiots just give you so much material to rip apart and bash.

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

Congressman condemns “bold, arrogant, dangerous” move to intern Americans without trial.

Top tier presidential candidate Ron Paul has decried the ‘indefinite detention’ provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, warning that it represents an arrogant, bold and dangerous attempt to establish martial law in America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6pnSHyOG-Y

Speaking with the Alex Jones Show today, Congressman Paul went on the offensive against the bill, which is set to be signed into law by President Obama later this week.

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. The bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.

Paul said he saw significance in “the announcement and the arrogance of it all,” making reference to the Obama administration’s claim that it can now assassinate American citizens anywhere in the world and noting that the passage of the NDAA bill is an effort to codify the policy into law.

“This is a giant step – this should be the biggest news going right now – literally legalizing martial law,” said Paul, noting that the subject did not come up at all in any of the Republican debates.

The Congressman also decried the “arrogance” of an attempt to push through via a voice vote an amendment that would have still authorized indefinite detention even if a detainee was found innocent after a trial. The amendment was narrowly defeated by his son, Senator Rand Paul.

“This is big,” emphasized Paul, adding “This step where they can literally arrest American citizens and put them away without trial….is arrogant and bold and dangerous.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6pnSHyOG-Y

Despite speculation that the Obama administration would veto the bill, it emerged yesterday that it was the White House itself which worked to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from indefinite detention under Section 1031.

The administration has been working with lawmakers to alter a separate provision, Section 1032, which pertains to the military being required to take custody of individuals.

With the administration’s concerns over Section 1032 now largely resolved, a revised and final version of the bill could be signed into law before the end of the week.

“The conferees said they plan to bring the bill to the House floor for a vote as soon as Wednesday afternoon and to the Senate soon thereafter,” reports Politico.

Despite the revisions, the bill still contains language that allows Americans to be detained without trial at a detention center anywhere in the world.

Republican Congressman Justin Amash has again warned that lawmakers are attempting to mislead the American people by claiming U.S. citizens are exempt from the most dangerous provisions of the bill.

“Pres. Obama and many Members of Congress believe the President ALREADY has the authority the bill grants him. Legally, of course, he does not. This language was inserted to keep proponents and opponents of the bill appeased, while permitting the President to assert that the improper power he has claimed all along is now in statute,” writes Amash.

“They will say that American citizens are specifically exempted under the following language in Sec. 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. Don’t be fooled. All this says is that the President is not REQUIRED to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. It still PERMITS him to do so,” warns the Congressman.

Amash is encouraging Americans to contact their representatives and sign a petition expressing their opposition to the NDAA bill, calling it “one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime.”

Click here to listen to the interview with Ron Paul in full.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

Source: Prison Planet.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

I actually really dig these Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Granted, I bitched about the last one while writing about it but that was because I wasn’t all that interested in watching a Cain-Gingrich dick sucking contest. Apart from that, I like the format. However, I would really like to see one with Ron Paul in it but I guess that’s wishful thinking. Either way, it is refreshing to see Jon Huntsman get so much time devoted to him, as he goes head-to-head with Newt Gingrich here.

The debate starts with some dude talking for five minutes, which I just skip through because I have to watch it on a delayed stream, due to my work schedule. A few minutes later, Newt and Huntsman sit down and both give nice introductions. Newt gives props to Huntsman and his wife for being gracious hosts. Newt also applauds Huntsman’s passion for trying to maintain America’s image throughout the world. Huntsman says that it’s an honor to be debating Newt and that he loved having Newt and his wife at his place in Beijing when he was the ambassador to China. He then says that we need to fix our core, promote our values as well as liberty and free markets. Huntsman calls for a foreign policy that puts economics first. He also says that we need to realistically engage terror the right way. Lastly, he adds that he wants the world to know what it is like to be a friend and ally to the United States.

The first subject of the night is our relationship with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Huntsman points out that we have been in the Afghan war for over ten years already. He says that too many military families have already given the ultimate sacrifice. Huntsman calls for us to bring our troops home. He says we need to stop focusing on this idea of nation building in Afghanistan and we need to really focus on terror. Huntsman reminds us that we knocked the Taliban out of power and have been able to establish free elections. He mentions that we have uprooted Al-Qaeda and taken care of business by killing Osama bin Laden. In essence, it is mission accomplished. He says that we don’t need 100,ooo troops on the ground, we just need a serious counter-terror effort and to work on our intelligence gathering in the area. He also wants stronger special forces to deal with a threat if it arises. He calls for better training of the Afghan soldiers, so that they can defend themselves from further tyranny. Huntsman explains that Afghanistan is a tribal country and goes on to describe what that means by using the words of Hamid Karzai, who told Huntsman that it is a very difficult country to be the leader of, as he can’t even return to his own region due to the lack of respect his tribe has for him due to their differences that grew over time.

On Pakistan, Huntsman runs through our history in dealing with them and how it was China that initially got us in there to be allies with them. He also talks about how we set up shop in Pakistan to help Afghanistan deal with the Soviet invasion back in the 80′s. He says that the Ministry of Defense and the Islamist groups have now made dealing with Pakistan somewhat difficult. He says that it is one of the youngest countries in Asia, as far as the average age of its citizens, but that there is a growing anti-American mentality that is spreading. Huntsman wants us to just recognize it for what it is, which is a transactional relationship and country where we have real interests, mainly because it is a nuclear country. He says that we need to work on them to get them to help us in our counter-terrorism efforts. Huntsman believes that foreign aid should be based off of how our relationship goes in the future.

Newt Gingrich starts by telling us that you can now have a 5-star hotel in a third world country that is only a block away from a slum that is made up of people who came out of the jungle. He paints a picture about the different worlds, as the person in the hotel is used to living a very Western life with proper sanitation and things taken care of, where the guy a block over lives in filth. He says that this is what Karzai was talking about in Afghanistan, that those living in filth, even in close proximity to immense wealth, just can’t relate to that sort of life.

Gingrich talks about how if you asked him a year ago where Osama bin Laden was, he would’ve never guessed that he was living in a large compound out in the open in a major Pakistani military city. Newt feels that that would only have been possible if Pakistani intelligence was protecting him. He then points out that when we killed him, the Pakistani government was happy about it, in fact they were mad at the people within their own country that helped the United States take him out. Newt asks what the lesson of this is. He says that it tells him that we have a much deeper problem across the region than we think we do. Apparently Newt hasn’t been listening to those of us who have said for years that hanging around in these countries will build anti-American sentiment and eventually breed more terror. How would we feel if the Chinese constantly drove their tanks up our streets?

On Iraq, Newt says that since we eliminated Saddam Hussein the numbers of Christians in that country has gone from 1.2 million all the way down to 500,000. He says that that is not a success story. He cites all the x-factors of Libya, Syria, Egypt and Tunisia and says that we never know how these things will pan out. Newt says that we just randomly use our forces and drones but that we don’t have any clear cut understanding of what we are doing and what our objectives are. He calls for us to go back to the drawing board as we aren’t any safer than we were ten years ago and our economic situation is much worse now. Gingrich goes on to warn us that a movement that is willing to train their children to be suicide bombers in an effort to blow themselves up, just to kill a few of us, would stop at nothing if they were able to acquire a nuclear missile. The two then exchange a few extra points but really just revisit what has already been said before moving on to the next question.

The second topic is the issue of Iran. Gingrich starts by asking if we are willing to accept them having nuclear weapons or not. He says that everything else is secondary to the issue of them having WMDs. He then says that we need to work on forcing regime change, which never works if he would pay attention to all the other times we’ve done this throughout history. He says that the Iranians have huge underground facilities that are protected and that we can’t just wipe out their nuclear strongholds without harming tons of a civilians in the process. So he feels that we need to start forcing them to change through economic bullying. He goes on saying that they produce lots of oil but import a large portion of their gasoline because they only have one refinery. By stopping the importation of gasoline we would stifle them. He says that we cannot tolerate them having a nuclear weapon. Yep, so as long as we have all the bombs, we can dictate the rules.

Huntsman says that he agrees with a lot of what Gingrich has said. He says that Afghanistan and Iraq are no longer our problems and that we need to focus on how we are going to meet the challenges of the 21st century. He adds that these challenges are economic and educational and that they will play out over the Pacific Ocean. He says that the biggest threat and challenge is Iran. He talks about how our relationship started and how it evolved over the years. He points out that we missed a huge opportunity with the Persian Spring in 2009. Huntsman believes that Obama dropped that ball and if we had done something earlier we could’ve built up good relations with those in Iran opposing the current regime. He asks the same question Newt did, when he wants to know if we are okay with Iran having a nuke. He says that China seems to be fine with it and Russia isn’t really concerned. He adds though, that if Iran gets one, the Saudis will and then the Egyptians and then everyone else in the region. Huntsman says that ALL options need to be on the table in regards to stopping a Iran from becoming a nuclear threat.

Newt adds that all it would take is two or three nukes to create another Holocaust and thus, it would kill Judaism on the planet. M’kay, has he ever been to New York or Hollywood? This is what gets me, where Newt can often time make good points, he ruins it by going over the top with this fear-mongering bullshit. He says that he doesn’t want to be the one guy that would stand to the side and allow Israel to be susceptible to a future holocaust.

Huntsman says that there will be talks of sanctions against Iran but says that it won’t work. He points out that China and Russia won’t work with us and that Iran will still build a nuke anyway. He says that the United States needs to do it their way and that the U.S. works best when it is left to its own devices.

The third topic up for discussion is the Arab Spring. Huntsman goes first by saying that we are in a period of great uncertainty in the Middle East. He said that we make a mistake whenever we try to get involved and pick a winner. He talks about how when he was the ambassador to China, they were on high alert over Middle East issues because depending upon what happened with all the dictators and regime changes, it affected their bottom line. Huntsman says that we need to look for and support groups that share American values but we need to make sure we don’t back those whose viewpoints are inconsistent. So what he is hinting at is that we need to not help a rebellion made up of Al-Qaeda and Taliban soldiers that used to kill American soldiers: Libya is where that happened. Huntsman goes on to say that he couldn’t see a national security issue that could justify us going into Libya. He says that Syria is different however as it is an ally of Iran and it is used as a pipeline by Iran to help keep the region destabilized. He feels that this makes Syria a national security issue, unlike Libya. In my opinion, Libya probably will be a huge threat down the road considering who we propped up there. Egypt also fits this mold now, even though we weren’t involved.

Newt talks about how we made a mistake not doing anything in regards to Egypt. He says that Honsi Mubarak was our ally for decades and that he did a lot to help the United States in that region. So Newt, is basically ignoring the fact that this propped up “president” who fixed elections for over thirty years, deserved to be protected from his subjects who just wanted fair elections and regime change. Newt is excusing Mubarak’s tyranny because we created and approved the tyranny. This whole stance is crap. I’m not saying that the Muslim Brotherhood is better by any means but who are we to say who Egypt can chose as their leaders? Newt feels that we are allowed to dictate the fate of other countries. Newt just goes on and on about how Obama turned his back on our friend and how he was forced to step down without any dignity. Shit, is it just me or was Mubarak’s entire presidency severely lacking any dignity?

Gingrich then goes on a second rant about how poor our intelligence is. He says that we didn’t know who these people were who wanted to overthrow Gaddafi but we helped them because Gaddafi was an evil dictator (and Mubarak wasn’t?). He talks about how the biggest influx of anti-American fighters joining terror cells came out of Saudi Arabia and Libya. Funny because it was widely reported that the rebels fighting Gaddafi, who we were helping, were made up of several former Al-Qaeda and Taliban soldiers. Well, the mainstream media ignored this but the alternative media was all over it. So Newt is saying that alternative media outlets have better intel than the U.S. government. Newt is a good talker and he wins over a lot of people with this bullshit but being a good talker can’t save you from digging your way out of your own bullshit when actual facts are present. Keep building the fear though buddy.

The next topic is how to bring down the debt without destabilizing America’s place in the world. The multiple problems with this discussion topic should be obvious. First, it implies that American imperialism is okay and is essentially wondering how we can continue to maintain our military’s overreaching power. Keep in mind that we are currently in over 130 countries; there are only 196 in the world, so we are roughly in two-thirds of all the countries. Sorry, but I find that to be insane and incredibly wasteful. The second problem with this question is that it completely ignores the difference between defense spending and military spending. The vast majority of our military actions aren’t done as a means of defense, they just lump them into the categorization of “defense” because they need to sell it and they need to keep us controlled through their manufactured fear. That may sound crazy but Newt’s been manufacturing fear all night: read between the lines.

Gingrich kicks it off by saying that you have to build strategies off of all the things that threaten you in the world. He actually says that this is the “first priority of government”. He says that Obama’s proposal of randomly cutting “defense” by 500 billion is horrible and that cutting the military budget in that way is basically bad policy. He then cites the fact that he established the Military Reform Caucus in 1981 under Reagan and that he helped eliminate waste in the area of defense. He then recycles his point from a few debates ago about how Apple can develop new products so quickly and frequently but the military takes a dozen years or so to develop a single weapon. He says that you can’t balance the budget until you make the military you need and handle the foreign policy issues first. Newt is so far from the Founding Fathers it’s like they are separated by more than two centuries!

Jon Huntsman talks about the Navy service of his two sons and how important the military is to him and his family. He goes on to say that the fact that we are 15 trillion dollars in debt, is crazy and that it is our biggest national security issue. Yeah Newt, take that! You and your phantom menaces! He talks about Japan and Europe and their debt to GDP ratio and how much trouble they are all in. He says that everything needs to be on the table, there are no sacred cows. We don’t have the right to bitch about our entitlements like we live in the lap of luxury anymore: this includes defense. He points out that we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined and that we are spending much more than we did at the height of the Cold War. He goes on to say that terror is a real problem and that it isn’t going away anytime soon. He is for counter-terrorism measures and developing the tools necessary to stop the evil bastards but that we need to really look at where we can cut military spending regardless. Bringing the troops home from all these pointless ongoing wars would be a big start. Huntsman also points out that the cost of making a fighter jet now as compared to before is ridiculous. He says that the huge spike in cost isn’t reflective of parts and labor, instead it is reflective of the high cost of red tape and bureaucratic bullshit. Both candidates conclude this discussion by agreeing that we need to look at wasteful spending like having bases in Germany and other silly places.

The final topic is China and the Pacific Rim. Huntsman, the former ambassador to China starts. He talks about how we have elections in America and how China doesn’t, they just have leadership changes. He says that they are in for some major changes as the leadership will soon shift again. He says that the younger generations are of a different mindset of their predecessors. This is very true considering the growing Jasmine Revolution going on that the Chinese government is trying to stop. Huntsman then asks what our objectives should be. Talking about their future economic woes, he talks about how the numbers of active farmers have gone from 800 million down to 200 million and that there are now 600 million ex-farmers that are creating a major burden on the major cities, as they are looking for work in the manufacturing industry. Unlike Mitt Romney and all the other candidates who are trying their damnedest to make us fear China, Huntsman just hits us with logic, reason and actual knowledge of the situation. Huntsman says that we would be “crazy” to not “recognize the tectonic shifts that are happening in the macroeconomic environment.” He adds that we need to prepare ourselves for these shifts and to be ready to make a serious impact. Huntsman is so positive when it comes to this stuff. He closes this point by saying that this country is on the cusp of a “manufacturing renaissance” if we do this the right way. He goes on to another point where he says that we need to communicate with China better because they are the “greatest long-term strategical thinkers in the world” and we are “the greatest short-term tactical thinkers in the world”. He believes that we need to find a way to make these two cultures mesh and to develop a dialogue that works in a respectful way that shows dedication to each other. Huntsman tells us that from 2014 to 2017 we will have more flexibility to work and develop a better relationship with China, due to their next and younger regime coming in.

Newt re-enters the discussion and immediately admits that Governor Huntsman knows more than he does on the China issue. Newt feels that the most important relationship over the next fifty years is the one that the American people need to have with the Chinese people. He says that we have to understand that even though their totalitarian ways go against our American values, that we need to not forget that we are still better off being on good terms with each other. Newt says that where China is now getting more expensive in manufacturing, America is getting better at modernizing it and eventually that will be a big benefit to us. However, fear-monger Newt takes over and immediately starts talking about how we need better weapons to deal with a potential Chinese military threat. At this point, I think Newt is winning in the polls just because he is scaring the shit out of enough people. Vote for me or get bombed! Bwahahahaha!

The candidates then go on to give their closing statements. In the end, I thought this debate was very good and it really provided the viewer with deep insight into Huntsman’s policy, which is always overshadowed by the moderators of other debates giving too much airtime to Romney, Gingrich and Perry. Unfortunately this wasn’t on TV, except for a tape delay on C-SPAN. Personally, I had to watch it online. I really wish that more people would have had access to this discussion as it provided a lot of new ideas and insight on issues that most of the other candidates either don’t fully understand or just use in an underhanded way to scare votes out of us. Unlike the majority of the choices the GOP is providing right now, Huntsman isn’t your typical narrow-sighted fear-mongering bastard. As far as China and foreign policy go, Jon Huntsman fucking gets it. If Ron Paul wasn’t in the race, Huntsman would be my guy in the GOP. This is also assuming that Gary Johnson is now jumping ship to the Libertarian Party.

Grading Scale:
Grade B+: Jon Huntsman
Grade C-: Newt Gingrich
Grade I: Ron Paul
Grade I: Mitt Romeny
Grade I: Rick Perry
Grade I: Rick Santorum
Grade I: Michele Bachmann
Grade I: Gary Johnson

*Taken from yNet.

Iranian Defense Minister General Ahmad Vahidi said Israel would be attacked with 150,000 missiles if it launches any military action against the Islamic Republic, the Iran Independent News Service reported Sunday.

Speaking before 50,000 army volunteers in Bushehr, the minister said “Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, if the Americans make the mistake and attack Iran, we will show them how to fight,” adding “Israel has to be punished for what it has done to the Muslims in Palestine and Lebanon.”

However, according to Iranian news outlets Vahidi did not specify if the missiles would be fired from Iran or other locations.

CONTINUED..