Living in America is becoming very difficult for anyone with a moral conscience, a sense of justice, or a lick of intelligence. Consider:

We have had a second fake underwear bomb plot, a much more fantastic one than the first hoax. The second underwear bomber was a CIA operative or informant allegedly recruited by al-Qaeda, an organization that US authorities have recently claimed to be defeated, in disarray, and no longer significant.

This defeated and insignificant organization, which lacks any science and technology labs, has invented an “invisible bomb” that is not detected by the porno-scanners. A “senior law enforcement source” told the New York Times that “the scary part” is that “if they build one, they probably built more.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that “the plot itself indicates that the terrorists keep trying to devise more and more perverse and terrible ways to kill innocent people.” Hillary said this while headlines proclaimed that the US continues to murder woman and children with high-tech drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Africa. The foiled fake plot, Hillary alleged, serves as “a reminder as to why we have to remain vigilant at home and abroad in protecting our nation and in protecting friendly nations and peoples like India and others.”

FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress that the fake plot proves the need for warrantless surveillance in order to detect–what, fake plots? In Congress Republican Pete King and Democrat Charles Ruppersberger denounced media for revealing that the plot was a CIA operation, claiming that the truth threatened the war effort and soldiers’ lives.

CONTINUED at Activist Post. Written by Paul Craig Roberts.

Taliban bombers attacked a heavily fortified guesthouse used by Westerners in Kabul on Wednesday, announcing the start of their annual “spring offensive” in defiance of calls from visiting US President Barack Obama that the war was ending.

Seven people were killed after attackers in burqas detonated a suicide car bomb and clashed with guards at the “Green Village” complex of guesthouses used by the European Union, the United Nations and aid groups, officials said.

The assault raises fresh concern about the resilience of the insurgency on the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death as NATOwinds down its combat presence in the next two years and hands over responsibility for security to Afghan forces.

The Taliban said the assault was a riposte to Obama, who just hours earlier signed a new partnership pact in Kabul to govern Afghan-US relations after 2014 — a deal the insurgents dismissed as “illegitimate”.

In an election-year address, Obama presented himself as a commander-in-chief capable of ending two long wars, following the US withdrawal from Iraq, and crushing Al-Qaeda, and tried to conjure up a new dawn for a US public exhausted by conflict and recession.

CONTINUED at Yahoo News.

Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.

The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.

In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.

Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ‘gutsy call’ made by the President.

CONTINUED at The Daily Mail.

At a press conference with the prime minister of Japan this afternoon, President Obama said that Americans haven’t excessively celebrated the death of Osama bin Laden, and suggested that Mitt Romney would not have made the decision to kill the terrorist mastermind.

“I’d just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and to take out bin Laden,” Obama said, obviously taking a shot at Romney. “I assume that people meant what they said when they said it. And that’s been at least my practice. I said that I would go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him–and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they would do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.”

The president was visibly smirking as he made today’s statement. It also mirrors a campaign ad the president released Friday, which likewise suggests that Romney wouldn’t have killed bin Laden if he, as commander in chief, would have been in the same position.

The Japanese prime minister, for his part, said that the war on terror continues and did not end with the death of Osama bin Laden.

UPDATE: The Romney campaign responds with this statement from press secretary Andrea Saul: “It’s unfortunate that President Obama would prefer to use what was a good day for all Americans as a cheap political ploy. President Obama’s feckless foreign policy has emboldened our adversaries, weakened our allies, and threatens to break faith with our military. While the Obama administration has naively stated that ‘the war on terror is over,’ Gov. Romney has always understood we need a comprehensive plan to deal with the myriad of threats America faces.”

Source: The Weekly Standard.

A federal judge has turned aside calls to publicly release video and photographs of the U.S. military raid and aftermath that left al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden dead.

Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, had asked the Department of Defense to comply with a Freedom of Information request for the material, especially photos of the September 11 mastermind lying dead on the third floor of his Pakistan hideout.

The group argued it was being “irreparably harmed” by the Obama administration’s “unlawful withholding of requested records.”

But Judge James Boasberg ruled Thursday there were legitimate national security interests to deny disclosure.

CONTINUED at CNN.

Operation Foxden, delayed by turf war between the FBI and the CIA, given green light three days before the al-Qaida attacks

The US government shut down a series of court cases arising from a multimillion pound business dispute in order to conceal evidence of a damning intelligence failure shortly before the 9/11 attacks, MPs were told.

Moreover, the UK government is now seeking similar powers that could be used to prevent evidence of illegal acts and embarrassing failures from emerging in court, David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, told the Commons.

The Justice and Security green paper being put forward by Ken Clarke’s justice ministry has already faced widespread criticismfrom civil rights groups, media representatives and lawyers working within the secret tribunal system that hears terrorism-related immigration cases.

Davis demanded to know how its proposals could be prevented from being used to cover up crimes and errors. “In light of previous revelations about the UK government’s complicity in torture and rendition of detainees to locations like of Libya, Afghanistan, or illegally into American hands … how will the Government prevent the Justice and Security green paper proposals being misused in a similar way to cover up illegal acts and embarrassments rather than protect national security?”

Davis said that in 1998 the FBI seized upon an opportunity to eavesdrop on every landline and telephone call into and out of Afghanistan in a bid to build intelligence on the Taliban. The Bureau discovered that the Taliban regime had awarded a major telephone network contract to a joint US-UK venture, run by an American entrepreneur, Ehsanollah Bayat and two British businessmen, Stuart Bentham and Lord Michael Cecil.

“The plan was simple” Davis said. “Because the Taliban wanted American equipment for their new phone network, this would allow the FBI and NSA, the National Security Agency, to build extra circuits into all the equipment before it was flown out to Afghanistan for use. Once installed, these extra circuits would allow the FBI and NSA to record or listen live to every single landline and mobile phone call in Afghanistan. The FBI would know the time the call was made and its duration. They would know the caller’s name, the number dialled, and even the caller’s PIN.”

But the plan, Operation Foxden, was delayed by a turf war, during which “the FBI and the CIA spent more than a year fighting over who should be in charge”, he said.

The operation was eventually given the green light on 8 September 2001 – three days before the al-Qaida attacks. “A huge opportunity was missed,” Davis said.

He added that when Bentham and Cecil sued Bayat in the New York courts, and Bayat lodged a legal claim against the two Britons, the case was struck out and all records removed from the courts public database on the grounds of State Secrets Privilege, a legal doctrine that permits the US government to shut down litigation on the grounds of national security. The Britons attempted to sue in London, Davis said, but the case failed because “so long is the reach of the American State Secrets Privilege” that they were prevented from discussing key details of the US case.

“Through heavy-handed use of State Secrets Privilege, US agencies can dictate what British judges in British courts are entitled to know, and how much British citizens in British courts are entitled to say,” Davis told MPs. “What chance did Bentham and Cecil, or anyone else in a similar position, have of getting a fair hearing when American intelligence agencies can shut down cases without explanation in the US, and use State Secrets Privilege to control what evidence courts can see in the UK?”

Davis said that when he talked about this episode with “someone in the know in one of the agencies involved” he was told: “Ten years have passed, and the culpable people have retired or moved on, so it’s no longer embarrassing.”

Davis said the British green paper proposals are “more Draconian than State Secrets Privilege”, and added: “Giving a government agency an absolute right to secrecy encourages bad behaviour.

“This is the same State Secrets Privilege, and same American government, that the British green paper on Justice and Security is designed to protect,” Davis said, adding that the case demonstrates “how intelligence agencies misuse these laws, not to protect our security, but to avoid their own embarrassment and cover up criminal activity.”

Bayat has previously denied that he or any of his companies acted unlawfully and said that they have never acted as “an agent, informant or spy”. He could not immediately be contacted to comment on Davis’ speech.

The foreign officer minister Jeremy Browne told MPs: “The green paper proposals will enable better scrutiny [of government], which is a vital element in a healthy democracy.” He added that proposals are “not about covering up embarrassment, it is about enabling the work of the courts”.

Reprieve’s Executive Director, Clare Algar, director of the legal charity Reprieve, said: “This demonstrates just how ready the intelligence services are to cry national security in order to cover up their own embarrassment. It is yet another compelling example – if one were needed – of why we cannot let the UK Government’s plans for secret justice go ahead.”

Source: The Guardian.

*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

*Written by Rob Rimes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also said this:

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

And:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s time to pay attention America!

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

*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

*Written by Rob Rimes.

There have been way too many debates in the month of November, this one was the fifth and thank Jesus it is the last one. Luckily I get a break from covering all these damn things until the next one on December 10th. This debate brought some extra fire, especially after the very calm church debate we got just three days prior. The subject of this particular debate was national security, which is one of those touchy subjects that really shows a candidate’s true colors. It is easy to tell the true liberty lovers apart from the bastards just with the issue of the PATRIOT Act alone. So with that said, let’s go!

Legend, icon and show stopper Wolf Blitzer graces us with his presence as moderator for this CNN hosted affair and love him or hate him, he is usually always a solid moderator, minus his incessant bullying of last year’s senatorial candidate from Delaware, Christine O’Donnell. Luckily for us, there were no witches in denial on the stage and Wolf didn’t have to resort to picking on a defenseless joke of a candidate. Not that some of these people aren’t jokes but even the battiest has her shit together somewhat. Okay.. maybe not.

The only thing worth mentioning about the introductions is that Ron Paul got the loudest pop from the crowd, Mitt Romney got the second loudest and Gingrich surprisingly got some boos. Rick Perry pimped out his wife per usual and we all found out that Jon Huntsman is apparently married to Mary Kay. I wonder if he gets a big discount on eyeliner? Anyway, these goddamned introductions go on for so fucking long that we didn’t even get the first question until 13 minutes into the debate! Unlike other channels, CNN apparently doesn’t care about fitting in the most substance in their television time constraints. Fuck Ted Turner.

When a question is finally asked, it is about whether or not the PATRIOT Act should be extended. Really? Apparently there are still a shitload of fear turtle zombies that think that giving up their liberty for safety is a great exchange. Yep, safety from a boogeyman threat that is a lot less likely to kill you than a bolt of lighting. Surely these conservative candidates don’t believe such nonsense?

Well, Newt starts off by saying that there is a distinct difference between criminals and terrorists who we are at war with. Newt has been using this talking point a lot lately. He then says that he would support an extension and expansion of the PATRIOT Act. In fact, Mr. Gingrich says that he would “strengthen” the PATRIOT Act. So far every good thing Newt has said throughout these debates is now overshadowed by this idiocy. When it comes down to police state tyranny, he is just a shitcock bastard trying to shackle the feet of the free people he claims to be fighting for and protecting. For a guy who brings so much fire and always has his nuts on display, he sure is a scared little bitch when it comes to the boogeyman.

Ron Paul immediately comes out in opposition to Newt when he says that the PATRIOT Act is “unpatriotic”. Ron Paul points out that it undermines liberty and it does incredibly more harm than good. Paul says that you can’t have safety and security without having to suspend the rights of Americans. Newt responds by saying that Timothy McVeigh succeeded without a PATRIOT Act in place. Ron Paul tells Newt that his example is like saying that we need a cop in every house to prevent child abuse. Ron Paul points out that Newt’s viewpoint is pro-police state and anti-liberty, he’s right.

In regards to the PATRIOT Act issue, Michele Bachmann says that she takes the side of the Constitution. M’kay, does this dingbat even know what that means because the Constitution says nothing about a PATRIOT Act and at its core, would be vehemently against such tyrannical legislation. Nope, she’s a dumb ass and is an example of a so-called constitutional conservative Tea Party hypocrite as her stance is seemingly pro-PATRIOT Act. Bachmann, in typical fear-monger fashion, builds up our fear by telling us that phones are smartphones now and that they aren’t wired into walls anymore. Really shithead? Thanks for pointing that out while trying to get grandma to think that her cellular device is a goddamned Decepticon waiting to bite her ear off. Bachmann then complains that the CIA doesn’t have enough power to properly interrogate terrorists. Aah, so waterboarding torture isn’t tortuous enough for this Constitution thumper. Bachmann citing the Constitution is just like that old adage warning about the Devil citing the Bible.

Jon Huntsman, one of two sane people in the room in the matters of national security and foreign policy says that we need to find the proper balance between security and liberty. I see his point and it is a lot more admirable than mostly everyone else’s proposed policies but I’d prefer to privatize everything, without the government still defining what the protocol for security is. You see, even if we do privatize the TSA, the replacement firm would still have to practice the Department of Homeland Security’s guidelines. He can’t simply privatize it and we can’t simply find a balance, we have to go beyond that.

The next big question asks if the TSA is necessary and if their pat down policy is a violation of liberty. Mitt Romney says that we can do better than TSA policy. He also says that he agrees with Newt’s side of the PATRIOT Act argument and not Ron Paul’s. Mitt reminds us that we are at “war!” Yep, here we go. Mitt says that we have to defend life, liberty and property. Uh huh homeboy, because that’s exactly what the PATRIOT Act doesn’t do.

Rick Perry is up next and he talks about how he wants to privatize the TSA and in turn, eliminate their unions, which he perceives to be a big part of the problem. Perry points to Denver who he says has successfully privatized their airport security. Funny, considering that the Denver airport is considered to be somewhat of a headquarters to the New World Order according to conspiracy buffs. Rick Perry, like most of his counterparts on the stage, says that he would also try and strengthen the PATRIOT Act.

Rick Santorum, who is STILL in this race, says that he would like to see airport security use profiling methods. Israel has been using this technique for years and it has worked with success. Unfortunately, people would rather be politically correct than be safe. Then again they would rather be safe than be free. So essentially people rank political correctness over safety over liberty. Wow, we’re really fucking doomed!

This fucking idiot Santorum actually cites Abraham Lincoln’s abuse of power as a good example of when one should abuse the power entrusted to them by the American people. Santorum says that Abe showed us that at times, you have to sacrifice liberty for a little security. Where’s Ben Franklin to kick this shitworm in the testicles? Santorum also says that he wants a stronger PATRIOT Act. Yep, all these fuckers really love that small government they pimp out so much.

Ron Paul says that people us the slogan “We are at war!” too damn often and too carelessly: a-fucking-men! Ron Paul tries to explain to the clueless idiots that the PATRIOT Act and other similar legislation mixed with executive powers has made every American vulnerable to be labeled a terrorist and/or assassinated. Nope, they are all unaffected by reason and logic, go figure. Scare tactics only work when it’s bullshit, especially their bullshit.

Herman Cain jumps in and refers to Wolf Blitzer as “Blitz” thus fucking up the name of one of the biggest legends in the media game. Cain goes on to say that he wants to implement “targeted identification” in airports which is his stupid way of calling for racial profiling in a way to not look like he is a racist. He doesn’t need to worry about that though, he already looks like a bigot after recently telling his story about how he was relieved to find out his surgeon wasn’t a Muslim. Cain then tries to scare grandma harder than Bachmann when he tells us that terrorists (the Muslim ones) want to kill all of us, so we have to hurry up and kill all of them. During this tirade, Bachmann can be heard through her mic laughing like a rabid dickbag choking on shit.

Jon Huntsman says that we don’t need to nation build in Afghanistan, we need to nation build in America. He is for expanding the drone program in exchange for bringing troops home.

Bachmann feels that Pakistan is the “..epicenter for dealing with terrorism.” She calls Pakistan violent and unstable and drums up the fear again when she warns that their nuclear facilities can be overtaken by jihadists. She also points out that that big evil bastard Red China is trying to influence Pakistan against the United States. However, she wants to keep sending foreign aid to these people because we need to keep them happy and friendly with us. This woman’s intelligence is fucking non-existent. She closes her rant by calling Pakistan “Too Nuclear to Fail!” Derp! This chick is just a series of shitty unfunny slogans pinned to a pair of crazy eyes.

Idiot Perry then jumps on idiot Bachmann and smugly states that “If you aren’t an ally, you ain’t getting a dime!” Bachmann replies by calling Rick Perry naive. Then to hit her point home she resorts to more fear-mongering per usual and warns that Al-Qaeda, who are essentially dead at this point, could steal nukes from Pakistan and blow up New York City. Jesus fucking Christ lady, just stop it! Besides, how is showering Pakistan with free money going to stop Al-Qaeda from robbing their nukes? You’re own example, that won’t happen, contradicts your whole argument about sending money to a growing enemy. Lady you’re an idiot that needs to enroll in some classes at STFU.

Mitt Romney is asked that if the massive amount of money being poured into Afghanistan is worth it. Without actually committing to an answer and providing a sound bite, which is his modus operandi, Mitt basically agrees with the Afghan War and thinks it is money well spent. Mitt feels that Afghanistan is a breeding ground for terror, yet he doesn’t see that the vast majority of Afghanis want us to GTFO and are getting angrier and angrier by the day over our occupation of their country. Yep, America is turning up the heat on this pot about to boil over. You see, Mitt Romney, like most of the GOP candidates, is of the belief that somehow we can get this country full of warring tribes to become a democratic nation that will be able to stand on its own two feet in an effort to push back all the bullshit in the region. God, Romney and anyone else who thinks this is either blind or has never read any history on the people of that area. You can’t force democracy on those who don’t want it and you certainly shouldn’t sit in their backyard with an entire army waiting for them to finally give it a try.

Huntsman tells Romney that we’ve already accomplished the vast majority of our goals in Afghanistan and that we need to get out. Huntsman once again says we need to nation build at home, not abroad. This gets Huntsman a loud round of applause from the crowd. Mitt disses Huntsman and tries to combat him by repeating his stupid points again and Huntsman slaps him like a hoe and re-solidifies his points to further applause. Mitt Romney responds by saying that Afghanistan has to become a soverign nation and that we can’t stop until they are free of the Taliban and champions of democracy. He says he stands with the commanders on the issue. Huntsman replies by saying that the president stood with the commanders in 1967 and that turned out to be the biggest military disaster in U.S. history.

Newt is asked to chime in but is quickly cut off by Mitt who feels the need to not let Huntsman’s burn stand. Newt says that he should let other people talk but Romney ignores him and tries to throw down more on Huntsman. Mitt just pukes up the same points over and over. We get it dude, it’s the message we don’t like, not how you are interpreting it. Your argument sucks bro.

Newt Gingrich finally chimes in and tells us that we should be furious at Pakistan, as Osama bin Laden was there under their noses this whole time. Imperial Newt is prepared to tell Pakistan to either help us or to get out of our way. Yep, that’d be an act of war if anyone came at us like that. Gingrich believes that Pakistan was protecting Osama bin Laden the whole time.

Rick Santorum gets some more time and says that he agrees with Ron Paul. He then spins his statement stupidly and says that he agrees that we aren’t in a “war on terror”. Oh no, Santorum tells us that we are in a “war on radical Islam”. Jesus dude, stop talking.

The next major question asked of the candidates is would they help Israel if they decided to attack Iran. Herman Cain is the first up to answer and he says that he would make sure Israel had a clear plan on attacking Iran before deciding if he would help them or not. C’mon man, that’s weak. Cain also admits that he would only help them if they had a real chance at succeeding. Okay, so Cain doesn’t like a challenge, he is only down to join up and fight if the odds are stacked in his favor. What a puss. Makes me wonder why Cain is still in the presidential race, considering he is plummeting faster than Lindsey Lohan stock in Hollywood.

Ron Paul says he would not help Israel attack Iran, as Israel is their own nation and can deal with their own problems. Paul points out that the whole scenario of Israel attacking Iran and vice versa is basically ridiculous, as neither country wants to risk killing itself in a nuclear exchange. Ron Paul also points out that Syria’s president Assad called this talk of war between the two nations stupid. Ron Paul then asks “Why does Israel need our help?” He informs us all that we already stand in their way enough and that it is time to allow them to take care of themselves. Ron Paul also points out that we don’t even have a treaty with Israel. He warns us that whenever we try to buy friendship it bites us in the ass, just like what happened in Egypt during the Arab Spring. Paul ends his talking points by proclaiming that we need to stop having such a willingness to go to war.

Thin skin Herman Cain, who is obviously offended by Ron Paul’s statements on behalf of all the people who supposedly need our help in Israel, tries to argue against Paul’s points but says absolutely nothing worthwhile, thus proving he is still an idiot on foreign policy. I guess he didn’t have any advisors telling him what to do or say before he opened his mouth.

The candidates are then asked if there are any sanctions that could prevent Iran from making a weapon of mass destruction. Rick Perry calls for us to shut down Iranian banks before even considering a military strike. Perry basically says that we need to go ape shit with sanctions. Perry also calls for sanctions against Syria and pretty much wants to make the entire Middle East a no fly zone.

Newt is asked if killing Iranian banks would stop Europe from getting Iranian oil. Newt responds by saying that we need a massive “all sources energy plan” in the United States, so we can become the world’s supplier of energy and thus, strip the Middle East of power. He wants us to develop a good strategy to combat radical Islam and says that if need be, we could break Iran in a year. Uh huh, yet we are still dancing around in Afghanistan over a decade later and are close to approaching a decade in Iraq. Yep, one thing our military management is, is quick and exacting. Newt also says that sanctions to hurt Iranian banks are a good idea.

Michele Bachmann agrees with Newt because her brain is just a pile of forgotten Jello shots left in the dirt at a derelict campsite. Bachmann immediately starts Obama bashing, as that is the only way she can get the drones in the crowd to cheer. She mentions that Obama’s mishandling of the pipeline issue is what has fucked up our quest for energy independence. Nope lady, it’s been a fucked issue before Obama even came to power. Bachmann then tries to scare grandma again by saying that Ahmadinejad is going to eat our children and pick his teeth with the bones of our goldfish or something. Whatever, this chick takes the silly threats of a silly dictator way too seriously but I guess one would have to when their entire campaign is about scaring the shit out of everyone whether the boogeyman is Barack Obama or some Moooslim that wants to murder every single one of us while sitting in a cave eating goat ribs 7,000 miles away.

Santorum is asked if we can afford to continue giving foreign aid to Africa to help combat AIDS and malaria. Santorum says that we have to maintain humanitarian aid all over the world. Santorum lets his true colors fly when he says that we have to use ALL of our resources to promote our values through out the world. By “our values” Santorum means his particular brand of Jesus snack cakes.

On the aid to Africa issue, Herman Cain gives an answer that once again shows his lack of knowledge on everything outside of developing pizza deals. Cain says that we have to sit down and figure out if all this aid is working and then make a decision. What a bunch of pandering jackassery that just illustrates how hard this guy is struggling and trying not to dig himself anymore holes.

Ron Paul reminds us once again, that this sort of aid simply takes from the poor in a rich country, the United States, and gives to the rich in a poor country. Paul calls this sort of aid worthless and says that if we are going to aid or teach these other countries anything, we need to teach them about free market principles and economics. Dr. Paul lets it be known that none of the other candidates up there are conscious of the budget. He also says that the most important national security issue is our financial state. Tou-fucking-ché!

Mitt the bitch gets all upset with Ron Paul and tries to argue a bunch of neocon nonsense to which Ron Paul responds by telling him that “All this talk is just talk.” Paul says they are nibbling away at baseline budgeting and nothing is being cut from the military. He calls Mitt’s stance, and frankly the stance of 6 out of 8 of these people on stage, “..a road to disaster”. Mitt says that the cuts are real and he starts listing examples. He then says that military cuts will prevent us from being able to properly defend ourselves. Occupying a country against their wishes is only called defense if you dine on the same bowl of RINO turds that Mitt eats three times daily.

On the subject of defense cuts, Newt talks about how something is very wrong with the system when it takes the military 9 years to develop something new but Apple can change the world every 9 months. Now, I’m sure those aren’t exact figures but he does make a very good point. Shifting to energy, Newt says that we need to open up oil fields everywhere we can but that we won’t because this country isn’t serious about energy. He says that we need to get away from all this mindlessness and get shit rollin’ again! Then after making the statement about “mindlessness” Newt says he would bomb Iran for regime replacement. C’mon Newt, you were doing alright this round.

Jon Huntsman drops some knowledge on the nimrods when he borrows a page from the Ron Paul manual and also states that we need to face economic reality and understand that our national debt is our biggest national security issue. Huntsman says that Washington D.C. has a trust deficit with the American people because they can’t brush the bullshit aside and start working towards fixing the problems. Huntsman adds that we cant have an honest conversation about cutting some of the sacred cows and that we need to put everything on the table when it comes to fiscal responsibility. He finishes his points by saying, “Our foreign policy needs to reflect our economic policy.”

Rick Perry is asked if he would compromise the Democrats in Congress to avoid gridlock. Perry starts his answer by calling the Super Committee a “super failure”. Perry points out that Obama is not a leader and he passed the buck to Congress instead of doing the right thing. Rick Perry feels that the idea that you can’t work with the other side is dumb. He promises to do whatever is needed to get things done. He also, once again, calls for a part-time Congress. He thinks that Congress should work half the time and get half the pay. It would definitely make the career politicians rethink their path in life.

Rick Santorum is posed with the same issue and he claims that he would not “work against himself” if it came down to having to compromise with the other side. Newt says that we need a series of reforms done to entitlements. Bachmann promises to draw a line in the sand in regards to the deficit issue. She also says that when we pay back interest money to China we are transferring our military might because our military will decrease and China’s will increase.

On border security, Rick Perry calls for a “21st century Monroe Doctrine”. He mentions that Hamas and Hezbollah are working in Mexico and need to be stopped from crossing over. He also says that Iran and Venezuela are working together and pose a real threat to border security, which just compounds the issue with Hamas and Hezbollah working in the same region, so close to us. Perry wants more boots on the ground and “aviation assets”, which is just Texan for “drones”.

Ron Paul speaks out against the War on Drugs and says that it needs to end. He says that we need to stop worrying about the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and to give more attention to our own borders. He calls for better immigration services and adds that free medical care and education benefits, as well as welfare for illegal immigrants, is a burden to us all. Ron Paul calls the Drug War “a total failure.” He points out how the federal government has increased their power, as they continually undermine the states when it comes to drug laws. Paul also points out that more people die from prescription drugs than illegal drugs. These are all very valid points and issues that nearly all of the other candidates skirt around or ignore when trying to scare the shit out of us on the drug issue.

Herman Cain says that an insecure border is a threat. What about an insecure candidate, Mr. Cain? He also says that terrorists are coming in from Mexico. Cain  adds that Mexicans feel Mexico has failed, so that is why they come here. I think Cain’s talking points came off of the last piece of toilet paper he used because he’s just talking out of his ass and contributing nothing to the debate on this subject.

Rick Santorum is asked about how we should welcome immigrants. He goes on some wannabe-Reagan rant about shining cities and hills and luck dragons that shit marshmallows. He says something about the economic benefits of legal immigration but he has a hard time commanding my attention.

On the subject, Newt says that we need to attach visas to college degrees in order to keep the good students in America, which will benefit our country. Bachmann states that she is against amnesty and the DREAM Act. Newt responds by saying that we should not punish someone who came to America at 3 years of age that just wants to work to better this country and their own life. Uh oh, the GOPers are getting uneasy, as Newt’s stance does not sit well with the majority of the right-wing crowd. Bachmann tries to battle back at Newt but offers nothing. She tries to do some math but her made-up examples and figures don’t even add up.

Mitt Romney says that amnesty is a magnet. He does say however that he would staple a green card to the diploma of those with great brains. He then goes on to talk about his love of legal immigration and how we should promote the path to citizenship better.

Gingrich says that we cant punish people who have been living here for a quarter of a century, as they have ties to our country, expanded families, etc. Newt makes it clear that we must be humane in enforcing the immigration laws. I fully agree with this point. Sorry conservatives but Newt is right on this one and I know it eats away at many of you. How can you expect to rip someone away from their life and ship them back to a land that they haven’t been a part of for over a quarter of a century?

Herman Cain is asked if he would implement a no fly zone over Syria, he says no. He adds that we have to find a way to get our allies to stop buying Syrian oil. Cain states, “We must have a strong military.” He also says that we must grow the economy. He’s all over the place and he’s boring me at this point. Thank fuck we didn’t get “NINE! NINE! NINE!”every 12.3 seconds this debate.

Rick Perry says that we must make Syria a no fly zone because it would be a huge sanction against them and would keep them in line. Yep, and just like with other examples given, if someone were to do to the U.S. what the U.S. is proposing to do to others, we would view it as an act of war. Rick Perry claims that Syria is in a partnership with Iran in exporting terrorism.

In regards to recent relations with the Middle East, Jon Huntsman says the president has failed with the Arab Spring. He proclaims that we have to remind the rest of the world what it means to be an ally of the United States. Huntsman says that sanctions are not going to work because China and Russia wont play ball that way. He warns that we need to let history be our guide because too often we jump on the side with people we havent had enough time to understand and each time it has ultimately backfired on us.

On terrorism, Dr. Paul says that Al-Qaeda was inspired by the fact that we had bases in Saudi Arabia. He said that all we need to do to inspire them is to just meddle in their area. Paul calls a no fly zone an act of war, he asks what would happen if China forced a no fly zone on us, that is exactly what I’ve been saying! Paul says that we can’t do anything to a country that we wouldn’t want them to do to us. Paul asks, “Why don’t we mind our own business?” Yeah, why the fuck don’t we?

Mitt Romney says that America isn’t just another nation with a flag, it’s something more exceptional than that. He says that a strong military and economy will make sure that no one fucks with us. Romney states that he is not for imposing a no fly zone on Syria.

Rick Perry follows up Mitt by saying that we’ve got to get serious about helping Israel. Ok buddy, we’ve helped them way more than we’ve ever needed to. In fact, we are part of their problem. Lets just let them do their thing. Perry also says that we have to get real serious about Iran and Syria. I thought Texas didn’t scare easily?

In the closing statements, the candidates are asked if they have any national security worries that weren’t addressed in the debate. Santorum says that we need to worry about Central and South America as they are made up of militant socialist regimes with ties to radical Islam. Ron Paul worries about overreaction on our part and people not understanding who the Taliban is and their true motivation. Rick Perry worries about communist Red China and their forced abortions and cyber attacks. Romney worries about China too as well as Iran being a nuclear power. Mitt is also worried a little bit about Latin America. Cain worries about cyberattacks and bad pizza. Gingrich is worried about WMDs, as well as electromagnetic pulse attacks and cyberattacks. Bachmann is worried about constipation, Al-Shabaab and intelligent debate. Jon Huntsman is worried about China but says they are in for real trouble in the future. Huntsman says that our real threat is our problems at home.

In the end, this debate was good for the fact that it showed were a lot of these people stand on these issues. Where many of these candidates agree on most of the fiscal issues, the subject of national security shows that many of them are still just chips off of the old establishment block.

Grading Scale:
Grade A: Ron Paul
Grade B+: Jon Huntsman
Grade C-: Newt Gingrich
Grade D+: Mitt Romney
Grade D: Rick Perry
Grade D: Herman Cain
Grade F: Rick Santorum
Grade F: Michele Bachmann
Grade I: Gary Johnson