It’s an exhilarating, if somewhat mystifying, experience to find yourself a supporting player in a modern media maelstrom. It’s even more instructive to learn that a dust-up over a few words can obscure a much more significant message.

“My first thought was, this is what they do in China on party matters if you talk off script.”

Those words were spoken Sunday night by Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor and Republican presidential candidate, in a public interview with me at New York’s 92nd Street Y. Huntsman was describing how his comments about the potential appeal of a third party got him disinvited to speak at a Republican National Committee event in Florida.

Before dawn, websites were reporting the quote under headlines like “Huntsman compares GOP to Communist Party of China.” By sunrise, Huntsman was on “Morning Joe,” scoffing that “bottom-feeder” blogs had taken his comments out of context. By midday,Buzzfeed–the target of Huntsman’s critique–had posted a lengthy video excerpt from my interview to argue that no, he had not been taken out of context.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Huntsman was painting with a brush so broad as to compare the Republican Party with Communist China. For one thing, Huntsman is not yet under house arrest with his Internet access forbidden.

But here’s what the dust-up missed. If you take all of what he said to me over some 90 minutes, it is all but certain that John Huntsman is not going to be a Republican much longer.

CONTINUED at Yahoo News.

‘Council of Governors’ member McDonnell could try to sabotage anti-NDAA law.

The Virginia Senate has passed a law that forbids authorities in the state from using the ‘indefinite detention’ provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act against Americans, but whether or not Governor Bob McDonnell will sign it remains to be seen given the fact that he is a member of Barack Obama’s infamous ‘Council of Governors’, whose role it is to increase military involvement in domestic affairs.

“Today, the Virginia State Senate nearly unanimously passed my bill, HB 1160, to prevent Virginia’s state and local government agencies from cooperating with the federal government in the indefinite detention of Virginians under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (“NDAA”). I am grateful that the vote in the Senate to accede to the bill as passed by the House of Delegates was 37-1,” said a statement by Delegate Bob Marshall, who was the driving force behind the bill.

“Congress, by including this provision in a must pass bill affecting our Armed Forces, made a terrible mistake in empowering this or any future President and the military to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely, without charges, without the chance to confront their accusers, without legal counsel, and without a trial.”

Having already passed the Virginia House by a vote of 96-4 last month, the final bill will be sent to Governor Bob McDonnell. However, McDonnell has already attempted to sabotage the legislation using “secretive, backdoor” tactics, according to Marshall, so whether he agrees to sign the bill without trying to weaken its language remains to be seen.

The fact that McDonnell was included on President Obama’s infamous ‘Council of Governors’ probably explains why he has been so reticent to support the bill.

The executive order which established the Council of Governors (PDF), created a body of ten state governors directly appointed by Obama to work with the federal government to help advance the “synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States”.

CONTINUED at Prison Planet. Written by Paul Joseph Watson.

ORLANDO, Fla. — Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson on Saturday won what he called his first foray into a statewide Libertarian presidential race.

Johnson, who dropped out of the Republican presidential race in December to seek the Libertarian Party nomination, garnered 42 of the 60 Florida delegate votes cast in the straw poll, state Libertarian party finance co-chief Chris Hill told msnbc.com.

The vote was cast after Johnson and five other Libertarian candidates held a debate.

Johnson, who had campaigned extensively throughout the state in the week before the convention, told msnbc.com after the debate that he found the issues on voters’ minds “not different here than anywhere else.”

“The country’s in really deep trouble,” Johnson said.

He said the Republican and Democratic parties contributed equally to woes centered around too much spending and regulation.

He reiterated promises to submit a balanced budget to Congress for 2013 and cut federal spending by 43 percent.

“Our country is not immune to monetary collapse,” he said. “The resulting inflation that is going to hit us … will be catastrophic.”

He also repeated a call for the “fair tax”– a progressive national sales tax – to replace federal personal income and corporate taxes.

“It reboots the American economy,” Johnson said, making Americans more savings driven and less consumptive driven.

He said he takes the best of both established parties in calling himself a fiscal conservative and social liberal.

Johnson has supported same-sex marriage, abortion rights and looser immigration rules. As governor from 1995 to 2003, he sought legalization of marijuana. He also touts his 750 vetoes of spending bills in New Mexico, which he left with a $1 billion surplus. He has opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Keep the government out of the bedroom,” said Johnson, who backed Republican Ron Paul in 2008. He said he still has similar viewpoints as Paul does on many issues but not all of them.

“I don’t see Ron Paul getting the nomination,” Johnson said, adding he wouldn’t support Paul even if he did get the GOP nod.

“No way. I’d still continue to talk about these issues,” he said. “People need to hear it from more than one source.”

Supporter Hill said he hopes voters nationwide will hear Libertarians’ “common-sense” approach to issues at national debates if his party can garner 15 percent support in polls.

A Libertarian candidate has never received more than 1 percent in a U.S. presidential election, according to NBCMiami.com.

Source: MSNBC.

*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.

I like Jon Huntsman. Sure, he has had some policies that were shit but when looking at his stance on the foreign side of things, one of the most important factors in choosing who I want to select as president, he is pretty stellar. He is strongly anti-war and he truly understands our situation with China as well as other countries where we are in a similar boat. He is able to foresee that the Pacific region is the future of trade and understands how to utilize it in an effort to not only build up our economy but to establish a more symbiotic relationship with all these other major countries that most conservatives perceive as nasty competition in a battle for world domination. Huntsman knows that the issues of trade and foreign policy aren’t so black and white. He also understands the cultural revolutions that are going on in places like China and Iran, where the younger generations are begging to be free and to live in a society that closely resembles America. He knows that when the old guard dies in those countries, things will be much different, at least if we don’t take measures that’ll just make them hate us and continue with the old policies once they gain power. He knows that our countless wars are pointless and wants nothing more than to bring our troops home to work on our “core”, as he calls it. Huntsman is one of the few under the Republican banner that gets how all this works. In fact, Huntsman is very close on these issues with my personal pick for president, Congressman Ron Paul. That’s why I found it so disturbing to see him drop out of the race at the peak of his success and immediately endorse Mitt Romney, a man who is the ideological opposite of Huntsman on these incredibly important issues.

So why would Huntsman, who only a day or two before dropping out called Romney “unelectable”, go on to endorse him and call him “the best equipped to defeat Obama”, “a great man” and “terrificly talented”? It’s like Huntsman doesn’t think any of the GOPers are electable but Romney is the best of the bunch: whatever. Most critics of Huntsman’s endorsement feel that it’s “a Mormon thang”. While that may hold some weight, the truth is that this goes much deeper than most people know. This may just be a classic case of blood being thicker than water. Yes, blood.

The truth is, Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney are cousins. Crazy, I know because the mainstream media has pretty much ignored that fact even though it is pretty well known, especially in Utah. Weirdly, it’s as if the media doesn’t want the rest of us to discover this fact. Now they have several times referred to the two men as “frenemies” but rarely, if ever, have they mentioned the fact that these two are blood related. The fact that they have been labeled “frenemies” also raises an eyebrow and makes this strange relationship even more confusing.

Their history of ideological division is pretty lengthy. In 2008, Huntsman was quick to endorse John McCain over his fellow Mormon and cousin, Mitt Romney. It’s also interesting to note that Huntsman’s father donated $130,000 to Romney’s campaign but the younger of the two Huntsmans made it a point not to support him. The odd thing about this is that Jon Huntsman came out and immediately endorsed McCain beating every other governor in the United States to the punch. He was the first governor that year to endorse anyone. Was his mind made up that early or did he just want to stick it to his cousin?

Something else that may contribute to the bad blood between the two happened in 2006, when Romney was gearing up for his first presidential run. According to a story that ran in 2006 in the Desert Morning News:

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said Thursday that Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney entered into “probably problematic territory” in getting Brigham Young University officials to solicit support for what is widely seen as a presidential bid.

“Using a network or using an alumni list in the case of University of Utah or University of Pennsylvania or BYU is what any candidate would do,” Huntsman told reporters after taping his monthly news conference on KUED Channel 7.

“But having someone affiliated with that institution intervene directly as if they were placing an endorsement behind someone is probably problematic territory,” he said. “That seems to constitute the question.”

It was kind of a dick move for Huntsman to point that out, as he seemingly threw his cousin under the bus, but he was also the Governor of Utah at the time and chances are, he was just acting on the “up and up” and trying to be ethical. Regardless, it had to leave a bad taste in Romney’s mouth. In the end, the issue was resolved and Mitt Romney moved on: unscathed. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who owns and operates BYU, said that they were neutral on the issue and claimed that the questionable meetings between Mitt Romney’s backers and the church officials were just “courtesy calls”.

A major difference between the two is that they have very different levels of involvement with the Mormon church. Romney, as he has said, has gone to the same church for decades and very closely follows and proudly promotes his religion. Romney isn’t afraid to wear his Mormonism on his sleeve and in certain ways, it’s respectable, whether you agree with his faith or not. Jon Huntsman however, hasn’t been shy about how much he’s distanced himself from his religion. Now he hasn’t abandoned Mormonism but he has admitted that he looks at and appreciates the philosophies of other religions and ideologies and trusts in the wisdom he finds in other cultures, not just his own. Huntsman, unlike Romney, doesn’t strictly follow traditional Mormon protocol but he is also much more of a well-seasoned world traveler.

Their paths to the top are also very different. Romney has taken the traditional path, being the son of a governor and auto industry executive, he followed in his father’s footsteps. Romney went to BYU, became a leader in his church, went on religious missions overseas, became a powerful executive that lead Bain Capital to the top and also became a governor himself. Huntsman dropped out of school, traveled with his rock band, lived in Asia for some time and eventually became a governor as well. Their very contrasting origins led them to a similar place but the roads getting there went in very different directions.

Looking at their deep family ties, USA Today recently published a detailed article about it; here’s an excerpt:

Parley Pratt, an early Mormon missionary, is Romney’s great-great-grandfather and Huntsman’s great-great-great-grandfather. That’s how the two GOP candidates are related.

Huntsman’s mother, Karen, lived with Romney’s sister, Jane, while they attended the University of Utah.

Huntsman’s maternal grandfather, David Haight, was best friends with Romney’s father, George. (They grew up together in Oakley, Idaho, and would go swimming in a canal near their homes, Haight recalled in 1998 when Brigham Young University renamed its Institute of Public Management after George Romney.)

Huntsman’s uncle, Bruce, once dated Romney’s sister, Lynn.

Utah is too small of a place for all these Mormon elites to live and not cross paths. Whether the families are still close today or not is their business but the truth is, these families have a deep past together and they all come from the same source. So with the seemingly love/hate relationship between Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney, one has to ask what the angle is.

Maybe Huntsman really feels that Mitt is the best chance the country has at beating Obama. Maybe he feels bad for supporting McCain in 2008. Maybe he is just trying to support his cousin. Or, maybe Huntsman and Romney had this planned out all along because if there are two Mormons in the race, it makes Mitt’s religion seem a lot less obscure. I mean, in 2008, evangelical Christians had a huge issue with Romney being a Mormon. Today, the Mormon issue seems moot. One could argue that it is because of Huntsman also being in the race that the issue has kind of been forgotten. Then again, the Mormon thing was so four years ago and maybe people just don’t care anymore. It could also be possible that people just dislike Barack Obama so much that a candidates religious affiliation is a secondary concern.

In the end, no one will know how these two really feel about each other besides the men themselves. I just thought it was important to touch base on these issues, as the mainstream media doesn’t always get to the bottom of the story. These men are cousins with a history of being “frenemies” but regardless of that, Mitt Romney is the frontrunner of the GOP, whether anyone likes that or hates it, and now his cousin and fellow Mormon, Jon Huntsman, is in his corner.

Personally, I wish Huntsman would’ve sided with the man who shares a lot of his foreign policy points, that being Ron Paul. I guess he decided to support someone in his bloodline who is ideologically at odds with him. Whatever Huntsman’s reasoning was, doesn’t really matter. This is his cross to bear but maybe by helping the man who shares his blood, Huntsman will have a future at Romney’s side. That is, if Romney can pull this thing off. Truthfully, I just don’t think he can.

Rick Perry is telling supporters that he will drop his bid Thursday for the Republican presidential nomination, two sources familiar with his plans told CNN.

The Texas governor will make the announcement before the CNN debate in South Carolina, the sources said.

The South Carolina primary takes place Saturday.

It was not known immediately whether Perry will endorse another candidate.

Perry placed fifth in Iowa and last in New Hampshire – a state in which he did not actively compete – and had said he would launch a bid to win in South Carolina.

“South Carolinians are looking for a conservative candidate that will get this country back working again and I am it,” Perry told CNN last week.

On Wednesday, CNN asked Perry about a poll that showed him with only 6% support among likely voters in the South Carolina primary.

He insisted he was continuing with the effort to have a strong showing in the state.

“We’re convinced that that’s our goal, so the idea that we’re going to do anything else, other than try to impact this election is – that’s why we got in it. We didn’t get in it because it was our purpose in life to be the president of the United States. We did it because it was our purpose to serve this country, and that’s what we’ve been called for, and that’s what we’re going to continue doing.”

When Perry entered the race in August, he immediately did well in the polls. But a series of gaffes, particularly at debates against his rivals, sent his support plummeting.

Source: CNN.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Recently, in a memoir he published, a former Navy SEAL came forward claiming that he decked and knocked down former Navy SEAL, former professional wrestler, former Governor of Minnesota and television host Jesse Ventura. Chris Kyle, the SEAL who claims he did this, is a decorated sniper who has been awarded an almost uncountable number of medals. Now while I would hate to discredit someone of that stature, certain things about his story don’t add up and since Fox News is just about the only mainstream media source that is even talking about the issue, one can’t not question this situation. Plus, the incident took place over five years ago and it is just now being brought public? Sorry but that is incredibly fishy.

Another thing worth noting is that the book that Kyle wrote ‘American Sniper’ has been published by Harper Collins which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, who also own Fox News. Now also taking into account that Bill O’Reilly has been vehemently opposed to Jesse Ventura for years and the former Governor has had plenty of spats with O’Reilly and his Fox News colleagues makes him a prime target for Fox News’ top ratings getter. It also probably doesn’t help Ventura that O’Reilly has never really been objective or fair and balanced, as he claims that he is. Hell, the O’Reilly Factor’s slogan “The spin stops here” is a blatant lie. O’Reilly often times refers to himself as a “journalist” even though he is a commentator. O’Reilly is either a horrible liar, as anyone with a single brain cell can see through this charade, or he just doesn’t know the difference between a journalist or a commentator. Another reason why O’Reilly may be coming at Ventura with guns blazing is because the former Governor has been very vocal about his support for Ron Paul, which is someone else that Fox News is trying to smear and brush under the rug, as if he were non-existant. In any event, this whole situation smells about as rotten as sack full of sweaty yeast infected orangutan vaginas, so I had to do some investigating of my own, since Bill O’Reilly the “journalist” apparently doesn’t have that magical ability.

Before I get into my investigating, let’s get into O’Reilly’s lackluster attempt. Now while taking Chris Kyle’s story at face value, O’Reilly and almost every other Fox News show promoted this guy and his book and pushed his tale as factual without actually checking on the story for themselves. This obviously outraged Ventura, who went on the Alex Jones Radio Show and said that this event never happened. Ventura said that he never disrespected a deceased Navy SEAL as Kyle claimed and that he never even met Kyle and therefore was never punched by the guy. Ventura went on to name the restaurant where the incident supposedly took place and said that the owner was a friend of his and people were free to call the guy and ask him if the story was indeed true. So what did O’Reilly do after Ventura brought all this up?

Well, O’Reilly didn’t call the bar owner. In fact what he did do was quote two eye-witnesses, who weren’t even actually interviewed, who claimed they saw the whole thing. The catch was that both of these witnesses were buddies of Chris Kyle and therefore, obviously had some biased input, as they don’t want to tarnish their homeboy’s credibility while he’s trying to pimp his book. O’Reilly before the show where he quoted these eye-witnesses was promoting the segment like he had the smoking gun and was going to expose Ventura. Billy O claimed that he had evidence to support his made up conclusion and when all was said and done, this evidence was placed at the very end of his show in the “Dumbest Things of the Week” segment. Okay, so is he admitting his evidence is dumb? Or is he trying to make a joke out of all this to absolve himself of any backlash after carelessly opening a can of bullshit worms? Also in this segment was a story about a Colorado high school senior who wanted to use a topless photo for her yearbook picture. As you can see, O’Reilly was now filing this story, that he made such a big serious deal about the week prior, into the trash bin.

So why did O’Reilly waste his audience’s time with these bullshit witnesses that he promoted heavily leading up to the show? Then again, anyone who watches this douchenugget is wasting their time regardless. Anyway, why didn’t O’Reilly take Ventura’s advice and call the owner of the bar and get him to make an official statement? Maybe Ol’ Billy Boy didn’t want to have someone come in and ruin this story. Maybe if he asked the owner for his account it would’ve ruined this pointless smear of an American hero who deserves the same amount of respect that Chris Kyle is getting from his News Corp. brothers. Well, being the pot-stirring jackass that I am, I couldn’t let justice not be served so I made a couple phone calls.

Last week I called the restaurant in question and asked to speak to the owner. When I called, he wasn’t in but I did get some information from the manager who picked up the phone. The manager said that he didn’t specifically remember if the event happened or not, as it took place over five years ago. The manager told me to try again to see if I could talk to the owner, who he claimed was hard to pin down.

I called the next day and had no luck and then called a third time and was cued in to something noteworthy. I was told by one of the managers that they were getting a lot of calls about the incident from other people. I asked if any major news organizations had contacted them like Fox and they said “no”. Aha! So O’Reilly didn’t even bother! Anyway, the guy on the phone told me that the owner wasn’t there but that he didn’t want to talk about it anyway and I agreed to not call back out of respect for their wishes not to be bothered. I was told however that even if it happened so long ago, an incident like that wouldn’t have been forgotten and that it would still be the talk of the bar, which it isn’t. In his own way, this was the manager’s confirmation that this story was most likely a fabrication. It’s really for you to decide but the point is, journalists, bloggers and concerned citizens working outside of the mainstream media circle have been trying to get to the bottom of this while the media giants didn’t even make a phone call to check and cover their own asses.

In fact, after O’Reilly quoted the bullshit witness testimonies, he brought on Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville to talk about it. Gutfeld tried to poke fun at Ventura being a 9/11 Truther because that’s all that he could do to try and discredit someone of Ventura’s stature, which is a much higher stature than Chris Kyle in my book. Neville added, “I tend to believe the Navy SEAL in this story.” She was referring to Kyle of course, as the three amigos didn’t mention or just simply forgot that Ventura too was a Navy SEAL. However, by her reasoning, both Kyle and Ventura would be telling the truth! That’s that good ol’ Fox News journalism for ya! I guess the fact that Ventura is a former SEAL and a former governor means nothing to these establishment cockpuppets. What’s sad is that I always liked and respected Gutfeld but ever since he became a co-host of ‘The Five’ he has been firmly assimilated into the mainstream media’s culture of bullshit. When on the television, Gutfeld always came off as the smartest and wittiest guy in the room but once getting himself out of that 3 a.m. time slot, he’s quickly regressed into being your run-of-the-mill mainstream shamster.

The purpose of this is not to say who is telling the truth or who isn’t, it is to show how the mainstream media takes potential bullshit at face value and disregards evidence in an effort to sell a story, that could be complete fabricated garbage. Fox News, as was confirmed, did nothing to really try and find a resolution to this story. Hell, they couldn’t even get an intern to pick up a phone and make a call? I made three calls and I run several websites with no real staff to speak of and I have a full-time job on top of that! If there is anything to learn from this, it is that you should question the trash that these ass clown talking heads try to shove down your throat. I wish we could trust the news coming from the top but this is just another account of why they are just lying bastards more interested in trash television than truth.

Winner of the New Hampshire Republican primary, Mitt Romney has been pretty vocal against illegal immigration.

But now that he is the Republican front runner he realizes that he needs the support of Latino voters to win the presidency.

So he casually mentioned the other day that his father was born in Mexico. He also made an appeal to Latino voters.

“Take a group like Latino-Americans. If I can convince more Latino-Americans to vote Republican, I’ll be doing pretty well pretty broadly,” Romney said at a campaign stop in New Hampshire’s Nashua Chamber of Commerce, according to Univision.

It hasn’t been a secret that he has family roots in Mexico but it’s not something he has touted.

It turns out Romney’s Mormon great grandfather, Miles Park Romney, fled from Utah to Mexico to avoid anti-polygamy laws. His grandfather had four wives in Utah and took a fifth in Mexico.

Romney’s grandfather and his father, George Romney, were born in Mexico. Under Mexican laws, Romney could become a Mexican citizen, even though he is not ethnically Mexican.

This is so ironic. As the author of this Chicanísima blog, I am of 100 percent Mexican ethnicity. But my grandparents, not my parents, were born in Mexico. So I cannot apply for Mexican citizenship. But Mitt Romney could.

Of course, he wouldn’t do that since he wants to become president of the United States.

The bigger issue here is Romney’s hypocrisy. Mexico took in his family when they faced persecution for what he called their religious beliefs. Mexico welcomed his family and he still has relatives there, according to aNBC story.

But Romney is against the DREAM Act and would punish immigrant children brought to the United States through no fault of their own. These youth also came here with their parents seeking shelter and a better life. But Romney would deport them.

Romney can’t play both sides of this issue. It is not so black and white. Many Latinos who are U.S. citizens have relatives or friends who are undocumented. They won’t vote for a candidate who would punish undocumented youth.

And we know the Latino vote is important is many key states. In the last presidential election 31 percent of Latinos voted Republican, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. I don’t think Romney would get those same numbers.

Romney’s connection to Mexico will not help him win a single Latino voter.

Lo siento “Mitteo.”

Source: Chicago Now.

Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman will drop out of the race for the GOP presidential nomination on Monday, a campaign advisor confirmed Sunday night.

The decision comes the day he received the endorsement of The State, Columbia, SC’s newspaper, and nearly a week after finishing third in New Hampshire- a state where his campaign focused as a pivotal launch pad for his bid.

Huntsman appears to have received little if any boost from New Hampshire, still placing at the bottom of most national and South Carolina polls in the low single digits.

Matt David, a spokesman for Huntsman, told the New York Times, that Huntsman will endorse Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

Huntsman, a former two-term governor of Utah, formally entered the presidential race in June well after many of his GOP rivals like Romney who had already formed campaign organizations and fundraising networks. His resignation as President Obama‘s first ambassador to China became effective in late April. His stint in the Obama administration was viewed skeptically by some voters, but Huntsman defended it as service to the country.

From the beginning, Huntsman had vowed to be a different kind of candidate – from his early videos highlighting his love of motorcycle riding to his demeanor in the GOP debates as the adult in the room.

But as the campaign developed, Huntsman began drawing sharper contrasts with his rivals, especially Romney.

When the GOP front-runner said before the New Hampshire primary that he liked “being able to fire people” – a comment that was taken out of context during remarks on health care – Huntsman responded that it indicated his opponent is “slightly out of touch with the economic reality playing out in America right now, and that’s a dangerous place for somebody to be.”

Source: USA Today.

*Written by Tho Bishop.

Giving us another example of what happens when you mix ego and poor primary performance, the major story going into the South Carolina primary is the new line of attack being employed by Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry on Mitt Romney. Failing to win over voters by attacking Romney’s record as governor, the pair has turned their sights on Romney the CEO. While Rick Perry has introduced us to “Vulture Capitalism”, Gingrich is employing a 22-minute film criticizing Mitt’s time at Bain Capital, depicting Romney as “worse than the evil banker in “It’s a Wonderful Life.””

This approach has appeared to backfire with the conservative base.

Though their critiques on Bain Capital seem more appropriate coming from Chicago, Perry and Gingrich’s underlying instincts are correct. The primary, insofar that it is a referendum on the establishment-favorite, has little to do with Governor Romney, whose only real noteworthy achievement is the despised Romneycare. No, the candidacy of Mitt Romney is based entirely on his history in the private sector. It is his success as a CEO that allows him to claim he is the one candidate who understands “the real economy”.

Unfortunately for the country, Romney’s economic literacy is the biggest myth of the primary.

It would be too easy to highlight the fact that Romney subscribes to the same flawed belief that “fair and affordable housing should be a right, not a privilege,” a major contributor to the environment that created the disastrous housing bubble (after all, he said that as Governor, and Candidate Romney is nothing like Governor Romney). Instead, let’s take a look at one of Candidate Romney’s favorite topics: China.

If you have tuned in to any of the GOP debates, you should already know that he is not a big fan. On the subject of trade policy, his website highlights a plan on “Confronting China,” including the aggressive action of labeling the pseudo-Communist nation as “currency manipulators.” He goes on to criticize the Obama Administration’s “acquiescence to the one-way arrangements the Chinese have come to enjoy.” America, he believes, must be we must be “willing to say “no more” to a relationship that too often benefits them and harms us.” To anyone who would argue that there are benefits to our current relationship with the Asian power, you are being “played like a fiddle.”

As such, it is interesting that one of his top economic advisers is Harvard professor Greg Mankiw.

In 2009, Mankiw took to the New York Times to criticize the Obama Administration for threatening much of the same policy his candidate now advocates. In what would be a fitting response to Romney’s accusation of “cheating”, Mankiw writes:

“Like many economists, I cringe whenever I hear the term “fair trade.” It is not that I am against fairness — who is? — but the word “fair” is so amorphous in this context as to defy definition. Most often, the slogan “fair trade” is little more than a rallying cry for protectionism.”

Protectionism? From the man who believes he is the only one who can save capitalism from Barack Obama? Adam Smith is rolling in his grave.

But what of China’s “currency manipulation” Professor Mankiw?

“Perhaps the oddest thing about [the criticism of currency manipulation] is that [the] complaint seems out of date. The yuan-dollar exchange rate has moved considerably in recent years. After a long period of completely fixing the exchange rate, China allowed its currency to start moving in July 2005. Since then, it has appreciated by 21 percent.” (Since this article was written in 2009, it is worth noting the information is not out of date. The Chiense yuan hit an 18-year high in April of 2011.)

So according to Romney’s own expect, his major claim against China is a complete fabrication.

A cynic may argue that Romney doesn’t believe any of the baloney he preaches about China. That he is using our economic rival as a scapegoat for a public looking for someone to blame for their economic pain. This would contradict a POLITICO report that “Romney is dead serious about…putting new tariffs on Chinese imports,” but information from unnamed insiders isn’t always reliable.

So we must conclude that either Romney doesn’t fully understand the trade policy he advocates, or Romney is a demagogue not above misleading the American people to win an election. Sadly even the latter explanation doesn’t defend the governor from Mankiw’s criticism:

“Directing attention to the China currency issue amid a worldwide recession and growing fears of depression is more than a distraction. It is downright counterproductive.”

If we are to brand Romney an economic expert because of his success in the private sector, how does the GOP defend itself from the criticism of Warren Buffet? Or Bill Gates? Being a good President is different than being a savvy CEO. The failure of Romney’s opponents to credibly attack Romney’s credentials in the economy is the reason Romney’s candidacy has the strength it does today. Interestingly, the candidate who is criticized for “crank economic theory”, almost as frequently as Romney is praised for his understanding, is the only one in the GOP field who identified the housing bubble years before it crippled the US economy – Ron Paul.