Refuses to buy stock over privacy concerns.

In an interview with CNN, Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian said he would refuse to buy Facebook stock because of the company’s appalling attitude to privacy and its support for the CISPA bill.

“I’m not planning on it…I understand the business value to what Facebook is doing. We’ve never seen a company like this before–ever. And it knows things about our private lives that no one else does. And one of the big issues that a lot of us in the tech community have had of late has been their support for bills like CISPA that make it really easy for companies like Facebook to hand over private data about us without any due process. So that’s why I’ll be holding off,” said Ohanian.

Reddit joins Mozilla as the only other major tech company to decry CISPA, with firms like Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, Oracle, Symantec, AT&T and Verizon all backing the bill. Last week, Mozilla released a statement calling the legislation an “alarming” threat to privacy, adding, “The bill infringes on our privacy, includes vague definitions of cybersecurity, and grants immunities to companies and government that are too broad around information misuse.”

CISPA has been identified by many as a greater threat to privacy than SOPA, which was opposed by a deluge of major tech firms after a viral online opposition campaign, but because CISPA has received less attention, corporate giants have found it easier to stay mute.

Not only would CISPA mandate ISPs to share Internet data of users with government “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” it also empowers the Department of Homeland Securityto monitor the communications of the federal courts and Congress, and intercept tax returns sent to the IRS.

The bill “gives companies a free pass to monitor and collect communications and share that data with the government and other companies, so long as they do so for ‘cybersecurity purposes,’” the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has noted. “Just invoking ‘cybersecurity threats’ is enough to grant companies immunity from nearly all civil and criminal liability, effectively creating an exemption from all existing law.”

CONTINUED at Prison Planet. Written by Paul Joseph Watson. Video at link.

Mozilla is first Silicon Valley entity to denounce bill.

Tech giant Mozilla has publicly slammed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) which passed the House last week, labeling the legislation an “alarming” threat to privacy.

“While we wholeheartedly support a more secure Internet, CISPA has a broad and alarming reach that goes far beyond Internet security. The bill infringes on our privacy, includes vague definitions of cybersecurity, and grants immunities to companies and government that are too broad around information misuse. We hope the Senate takes the time to fully and openly consider these issues with stakeholder input before moving forward with this legislation,” Mozilla, which is best known for its Firefox browser, said in a statement.

The statement is important because it marks the first time any Silicon Valley entity has denounced CISPA, with an array of powerful companies lining up in support of the legislation which passed the US House of Representatives 248 to 168 and now heads to the Senate.

Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, Oracle, Symantec, AT&T and Verizon have all backed the bill, with Microsoft re-affirming its support yesterday after rumors the company was getting cold feet, while Google has refused to take either side.

CISPA has been identified by many as a greater threat to privacy than SOPA, which was opposed by a deluge of major tech firms after a viral online opposition campaign, but because CISPA has received less attention, corporate giants have found it easier to stay mute.

Not only would CISPA mandate ISPs to share Internet data of users with government “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” it also empowers the Department of Homeland Securityto monitor the communications of the federal courts and Congress, and intercept tax returns sent to the IRS.

The bill “gives companies a free pass to monitor and collect communications and share that data with the government and other companies, so long as they do so for ‘cybersecurity purposes,’” the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has noted. “Just invoking ‘cybersecurity threats’ is enough to grant companies immunity from nearly all civil and criminal liability, effectively creating an exemption from all existing law.”

“The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a “cybersecurity crime”. Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government’s power,” writes TechDirt’s Leigh Beadon.

As we have documented, the Obama administration’s threat to veto the bill is little more than a crude stunt and carries no more weight than Obama’s promise to veto the National Defense Authorization Act, which he signed on New Year’s Eve after the White House itself lobbied for the NDAA’s most egregious provisions to be included.

Indeed, the White House’s primary beef with the legislation appears to be the fact that it doesn’t handenough power to the Department of Homeland Security.

CISPA now moves to the Senate where it will be amalgamated with one of two other bills before heading to Obama’s desk. Don’t hold your breath on that veto.

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

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

Source: Infowars.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul warned the U.S. is “slipping into a fascist system” dominated by government and businesses as he held a fiery rally Saturday night upstaging established Republican Party banquets a short distance away.

The Texas congressman drew a couple thousand standing and chanting people to Kansas City’s Union Station as the party’s establishment dined on steak across the street at the Missouri GOP’s annual conference. Kansas Republicans were holding a similar convention in a suburb across the state line.

Paul staged his rally near the nation’s World War I museum, asserting that the U.S. got off track about 100 years ago during the era of President Woodrow Wilson, who led the nation through World War I and unsuccessfully advocated for the nation’s involvement in a forerunner of the United Nations.

“We’ve slipped away from a true Republic,” Paul said. “Now we’re slipping into a fascist system where it’s a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen.”

Although campaign aides were aware, Paul told reporters after his speech that he did not know his rally was coinciding with long-established Missouri and Kansas Republican Party events, where Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell – a vice presidential prospect – was the keynote speaker.

Several Republicans slipped away from the banquets to join the Paul rally. Among them was Ralph Munyan, a Republican committeeman in Kansas City’s home county, who said he agreed with Paul’s warnings of a “fascist system” and his pledge to the end nation’s involvement in wars overseas and against drugs.

“His foreign policy is one of peace,” Munyan said.

Paul repeatedly denounced President Barack Obama’s recent enactment of a law requiring military custody of anyone suspected to be associated with al-Qaida and involved in planning an attack on the U.S. Obama said when he signed the legislation that his administration would not authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens without a trial.

Source: AP.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

I’ve been spending so much time covering the 2012 presidential election that I really needed a break from it all. Sure, there were the Nevada caucuses this past weekend and I do plan to write my two cents on the results but I was thoroughly distracted by three days of greatness. Saturday was spent at the Hilton in Naples, FL at an all-day event held by FEE: the Foundation for Economic Education. Sunday was full of lots of meat, beer, a bounce house and the Super Bowl. Monday capped off the long weekend with an event at the Ritz-Carlton that was put on by one of the greatest libertarian think tanks in the world, the Cato Institute.

Friday night, I planned to get to bed early, as I wanted to be bright and alert for the all-day FEE event in my hometown. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get to sleep so I sat in my room, sipping a tall glass of 1792 Ridgemont Reserve Bourbon while picking at some leftover BBQ ribs and watching ‘Battlestar Galactica’ on Netflix, as I haven’t watched the newer series but was a big fan of the original as a kid. I typically don’t get into shows until they are over, as I hate the suspense of waiting week-to-week for cliffhanger resolutions. After that, I tried to kill time in ‘Just Cause 2′ on my PS3 but I just couldn’t doze off. It was well after 3 a.m. before my head finally hit the pillow, which seemed like the quickest sleep I ever had when my iPhone alarm started blaring Wu-Tang Clan’s “Bring the Ruckus” at 6 a.m.

Saturday – FEE’s 1st Annual Winter Freedom Academy: 

So I woke up, showered, killed a bowl of Cracklin’ Oat Bran with a peanut Sweet & Salty bar, threw on a three piece suit, jumped in my car and drove down to the Naples Hilton half-asleep nursing a heavy hangover. Needless to say, I was ready for ten or so hours of hardcore economic thinking. Truth be told, as soon as I hit the hotel, I wandered into Shula’s Steakhouse looking for a tequila sunrise. Apparently it was too early and the bartender wasn’t working yet so I had to fill up on bagels and Diet Coke, which had a very negative effect on my mind and my nerves, as I gave up caffeine a month or so prior. It did nip that hangover in the bud though.

While waiting to move into the hall where the event was being held, I had a good long talk with one of my local heroes, Ismael Hernandez, who runs the Freedom & Virtue Institute. I also spoke to my friends from the Libertarian Party of Collier County, FGCU’s Eagles for Liberty and the Ayn Rand Society for Individual Rights of Naples (ARSIRN). After immersing myself in philosophical and political discussion for a good forty-five minutes, I felt ready to begin my day of economic awesomeness.

The event was emceed by Michael Yashko, who not only did a great job at coordinating and managing the event, but also gave a fantastic presentation on the Founding Father’s Constitution versus the abhorrent version of that sacred document we are stuck with today. I’m not sure if anyone at FEE was filming the event but if they did, I’d definitely link to the video on TheSwash.com as part of our Tuition Free Tuesdays weekly feature.

Yashko was then followed by Professor Nikolai Wenzel who teaches at Hillsdale College as well as Florida Gulf Coast University. Prof. Wenzel’s presentation was a perfect compliment to Mr. Yashko’s as it was about constitutional constraint and government mischief. Wenzel gave a great lecture and like Yashko’s (and really all the lectures at this event) I’d love to post video of it to the Swash so that our loyal SwashPeeps could experience it for themselves.

The next speaker was Lawrence Reed, who I have had the pleasure of seeing several times now between events held by FEE – which is the organization he is the president of, The Southwest Florida Young Republicans and Eagles for Liberty, who are FGCU’s chapter of the more widely known Students for Liberty. Mr. Reed’s lecture was called “Money Mischief Since the Founders”. It was an amazing lecture jam-packed with so much knowledge that taking notes was damn near impossible but it did give me several ideas for articles I should probably write. Like his other lectures I’ve seen, one about the myths of the Great Depression and another that compared the United States to Rome during its collapse, this fifty minute lesson was a real treat and had me captivated the whole time. I leaned over to my friend Shawn when Mr. Reed wrapped up and whispered, “I could sit through four hours of this guy.” He nodded in agreement.

The next speaker was Ismael Hernandez who gave an incredible speech about compassion. Not government compassion with a gun to your head but real honest truthful compassion and how to express it effectively. Mr. Hernandez spoke about his past and how he grew up in Puerto Rico as a communist raised by a Black Panther father and how he came to America and experienced this country for himself without the direct influence of communist rhetoric. After telling his very personal tale and giving the audience the rundown on how compassion truly works, the crowd got to their feet and applauded Mr. Hernandez for his great story and his invaluable insight.

After Ismael Hernandez’s great lecture, we all went off to lunch. I was fortunate enough to partake in a special luncheon with Lawrence Reed that helped to benefit students wanting to go to FEE camps to learn about economics. At that lunch, I was seated next to both Michael Yashko and Lawrence Reed, which was awesome in itself. While munching on salad, a turkey sandwich and a cookie, I got two more doses of Mr. Reed, who went on to tell those of us at the special luncheon two stories. One was about Nicky Winton who saved 669 mostly Jewish children from the Nazis and found homes and safe passage for them in Britain. The second story was about a pirate radio station somewhere in Soviet controlled Europe. I can’t even begin to try and retell these tales, as Mr. Reed did it in such a profoundly poetic way. However, both these stories were really touching and went to show that no matter how bad we think we have it in the United States right now, it could always be very much worse. In retrospect, this is why we need to fight for liberty and freedom because it isn’t a stretch to envision an America that could fall that far.

After lunch, we went right back into more fantastic lectures. Professor Bradley Hobbs of FGCU gave us a pretty awesome lesson about business and economics. He spoke to us about his personal experiences growing up on the Space Coast where, as a kid, he worked for his father in the family pharmacy. The business has been so successful over the years that it has grown large enough to fill up an entire strip mall, minus a bagel shop and a medical supply store that the family also owns. Hobbs lectured greatly and had a very pleasant demeanor that made his presentation enjoyable, which made me feel like I should go back to school and take up economics at FGCU. The college is practically in my backyard, therefore much closer than George Mason where I was thinking of applying if I decided to go back to college.

The next speaker was former CEO of BB&T, John Allison. Mr. Allison, who has had several appearances on one of my favorite shows – ‘Stossel’, has been known to be a big fan of Ayn Rand and her philosophy: objectivism. In fact, Mr. Allison used to assign ‘Atlas Shrugged’ to all of his senior executives as required reading. He has referred to ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as “the best defense of capitalism ever written.” He’s been a large contributor to the Ayn Rand Institute and through the BB&T Charitable Foundation has given dozens of colleges and universities millions of dollars to start programs devoted to the study of Rand’s work. Apart from all this backstory, Mr. Allison gave one of the most inspiring lectures of the day. He talked about leadership and how to properly grab the reigns of a company or any situation and take control effectively and respectfully. John Allison gave us insight into the TARP bailouts and how he fought against them but ultimately lost and was forced to partake in the financial tyranny. He spoke heavily against regulation, especially in the financial industry. Truth be told, I walked away from these lessons with the intent to leave Wells Fargo and put all of my money in BB&T. You have earned a new customer Mr. Allison, even though you no longer work for BB&T.

Following John Allison was author John Blundell. This well-spoken Englishman talked to us abut his newest book ‘Ladies For Liberty: Women Who Made a Difference in American History’. Blundell, who wrote a well-respected book about Margaret Thatcher turned his attention to many of the woman who have played a major part in building and shaping America throughout the years. He gave us some deep insight into the book and how it came to be and through his passion he sold me on buying a copy on the spot: call me an easy sell. I got to talk to Mr. Blundell one-on-one while he signed my book where we briefly discussed the possibility of him doing a follow-up book about woman who fight for liberty today.

After Blundell, two FGCU professors closed out the day. First up was Dean Stansel, who gave a great talk about taxes at a more local level. He pulled out a bunch of studies he did for the Cato Institute that showed the correlation between taxation and economic growth in various cities throughout the last several years. It didn’t teach me anything I didn’t already know but it did present a lot of data, collected through Stansel’s hard work, that solidified my beliefs even further.

The last of the final speakers was Professor Carrie Kerekes. Prof. Kerekes gave us a pretty solid rundown of FGCU’s economic and business programs. I feel like it was a thirty minute infomercial for FGCU but it was effective and made me incredibly happy to know that there was a university, just down the street, that was teaching the right side of economics. If I do indeed end up going back to school, I think I may be a future student of several of the professors who spoke at this FEE event.

Once the event was officially over, I got a tequila sunrise or six and sipped them down at the bar in the hotel lobby where I mingled with the other attendees. I didn’t hang long, as I don’t nurse my alcohol and was pressed for time as I had to drive down to my boss’ lounge to celebrate two of my other bosses’ birthdays. I left that crazy party fairly early however, as I was tired from a previous night of no sleep and a day full of awesome economic discussion.

I do have to say that the FEE event was, by far, one of the greatest economic and political events I have ever attended and trust me, I’ve been to a lot more than my fair share. If you are in the Naples area and you don’t go next year, you’re certainly missing out on a great day; consider me a FEE lifer at this point.

Sunday – Super Bowl XLVI:

The following day was Super Bowl Sunday and even though I couldn’t care less who won between the New York Giants and the New England Patriots, I was geared up to party with my peeps and indulge in a lot of food and booze. It’s hard watching American football when it isn’t a New Orleans Saints game but the overindulgence in food and booze made dealing with my team not being in the big game much more bearable.

I kicked the day off by going to my mum’s where I watched the Chelsea v. Manchester United game, which may have been the best EPL game I’ve seen this season even though it ended in a tie. Between kicks and goals, my mum and I emptied two cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon into a bowl full of flour and made some real serious beer bread. Shortly after this, I helped my friend Michael make our special treat: meat turtles. Essentially, you take a giant mound of ground sirloin and mix it up with a bunch of shredded cheese and whatever sauces you may want to put in it. You then wrap the big ball of meat in a shell of bacon – woven together. You then stick three hot dogs through it – making four feet, a head and a tail, which creates the shape of a turtle (see pic to the left).

So we took our meat turtles (made of Kobe beef and Kobe bacon) and our beer bread to Michael’s co-worker Mikey’s house. Lots of Mikes I know but it gets even more confusing when Mikey’s father and grandfather are also both named Mike. Anyway, we blew up a bounce house, drank beer and had a real party going even before the Super Bowl kicked off. To compliment the day even more, Mikey’s dad made a monstrous beef brisket and a giant mound of pulled pork. There was also BBQ chicken, homemade baked beans and so much other food that listing it all would take entirely too long for me to type and too long for you to read. Plus this is making me hungry again.

The food was beyond amazing! I gorged until I couldn’t move, waited a while and gorged again. We all drank beer and whiskey to wash down the giant mounds of meat scattered throughout the large kitchen and followed that up by firmly planting ourselves in recliners in front of a giant screen to watch the game. I missed parts of the contest between the Giants and Patriots as I kept nodding off into sporadic but very short-lived food comas. When I was able to be mobile enough to get up, I only did so to cut myself a piece of red velvet cake. I was on a serious mission and it was mission accomplished!

In the end, the Giants won and I couldn’t find anymore PBR or whiskey.

Monday – The Cato Institute’s Policy Perspectives 2012:

I woke up late Monday morning, as my alarm either didn’t go off or I somehow crawled across my room, turned it off and then crawled back into my bed. While that is theoretically possible, I’ve never made it comfortably back to my bed after turning off my alarm. Usually I awake to find myself curled up in the fetal position trembling from being in my boxers on my very cold tile floor. It’s kind of like waking up on a frozen lake with nothing more than swimming trunks on. Luckily for me, I didn’t find myself on the floor and I didn’t have to fight off hypothermia as I showered and threw on a suit to head down to the Ritz-Carlton, Naples Resort for the Cato Institute event featuring Tucker Carlson, David Boaz, Ed Crane and Robert Levy.

I arrived at the Ritz-Carlton just before 10 a.m., so I at least got there before the opening reception and was able to score the best table in the house for attendees who weren’t a part of a larger group. The early bird most definitely catches the worm and in my case, these words were never truer, as the table I selected was quickly filled with a few other like-minded early birds – one of which provided me with one of the best moments of my life.

The woman who sat to my left came to my table and asked if she could sit there or if it was reserved. I told her anyone could join me, as I was by myself with seven empty chairs surrounding me. She sat down and I’m not sure how we arrived to this point but we started talking about objectivism. After several minutes of discussing Ayn Rand’s philosophy, this woman – who’s name is Elayne Kalberman, opened up and told me that she used to work for Rand. In fact, she was the sister of Nathaniel Branden, a very close confidant and partner of Rand who helped bring her philosophy to the world.

Mrs. Kalberman went on to tell me that she used to be a part of a group that would meet with Rand weekly at her home to discuss ‘Atlas Shrugged’ while it was being written. This small group of intellectuals met in an effort to make sure that Rand’s philosophy was coming through and that all the points that she needed to make were hit effectively. So here I am, sitting in a room full of libertarians of all ages who would probably worship this woman, if they were even slightly aware of her presence there and I was the lucky guy that got to sit next to her out of the 400 plus other people!

I’m not going to discuss the details of all the things she told me and the stories I found so engaging and incredible, as they are her tales to tell, not mine but it is worth mentioning that we talked for a few minutes about the fall of one-time objectivist and Rand ally Alan Greenspan. Mrs. Kalberman and I discussed the Federal Reserve, inflation and she shared her insightful thoughts and solutions on it with me. We spoke about her brother and about the fact that there was a falling out between their family and Ayn Rand. One thing she did say, that I will share, as I know others who knew Rand felt the same way, is that Mrs. Kalberman didn’t like the way Ayn Rand treated young people who wanted to better understand objectivism. Rand was often times mean and had a very abrasive attitude towards those wanting to come to the same conclusions Rand arrived at.

Mrs. Kalberman and I also talked about Murray Rothbard, my favorite economist and someone who she had a lot of dealings with throughout the years. She was a pleasure to sit next to and a very nice woman. I hope to one day cross paths with her again as I couldn’t fully pick her brain on things due to the fact that we only had a few minutes here or there to discuss these things between all the different speakers who were at the event.

Speaking of which, the event was emceed by Cato’s Robert Levy who is not only hilarious and quick-witted but also a great teacher and speaker. Next up was Cato Founder and President Ed Crane who gave us an informative Powerpoint presentation that included a great scene from ‘Monty Python’s Life of Brian’ about people needing to be individuals and not a collective desperate to follow a leader. Cato’s Executive VP David Boaz lit up the room with his lecture, as he always does. He talked about effective ways of reclaiming freedom and entertained the crowd with his sharp and witty ways. All the Cato speakers aren’t just near-geniuses they are all practically stand-up comedians who know how to properly mix together their lessons and their humor in a way that keeps everyone engaged.

This was followed by a reception in the courtyard outside of the event hall where I may have drank too much “lady wine” – my name for white wine. After the fifteen minute binger, we were brought back into the large hall for lunch. We were served some sort of strange salad with a green dressing that was more like an emerald-colored Béarnaise sauce than actual salad dressing. The main course was a chicken cutlet covered in tomato sauce with a strange potato thing and a mixture of spinach leaves and mushrooms, which was surprisingly the tastiest thing on the plate. Dessert was a small rectangle thing that looked like it came straight out of ‘Alice in Wonderland’. When I bit into it, I realized that it was the world’s fanciest piece of key lime pie. I don’t mean to knock the Ritz-Carlton, as they host events incredibly well, but being the food snob I am, I wasn’t all that impressed with the culinary display on this day.

After lunch we got the main event, which was a great lecture by Tucker Carlson who owns the Daily Caller, works for Fox News and has previously worked for CNN and MSNBC. He talked about the 2012 presidential race and gave us all some of his personal insight on Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. He talked about supporting Ron Paul during his 1988 run for president when he ran under the Libertarian Party. He spoke about Rick Santorum the man but understands why people are turned off from him due to his stance on social issues. Tucker told us about his relationship with Newt Gingrich and mentioned that Newt’s office is practically next door to his. He also talked about Romney being the “prefect candidate”.

Tucker explained that all the things that the voters gripe about they actually don’t care about because it rarely, if ever, sways the consensus. He talked about how people always point to flip-flopping but defends it saying that when you get all the facts and new data becomes available, you should take the best stance and in certain cases, that could mean that a politician flip-flops. Realistically, the issue is what they flip-flopped on and why, not just that they switched positions. While I understand this point and agree with it to some degree, I do feel that politicians should be real students of the game and truly study up and know what it is they are voting on or supporting. I’m not a politician but if I don’t know something as fully as I should, I tend not to comment on it and I’m honest about it when pressed on it. Maybe it’s different when you’re playing the games that the Beltway Suits play.

He also told us that the night before the Cato event he was in Chicago with Andrew Breitbart and a few others where they had dinner with domestic terrorists and leaders of the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. He said that they pretty much denied everything Tucker asked them about and that these fighters for socialist causes hosted the dinner event in the penthouse of one of Chicago’s nicest and tallest buildings. Maybe it took place in the penthouse that the Joker crashed in ‘The Dark Knight’, seems fitting anyway. In any event, Tucker finished by telling us that Ayers asked where he was going from there and Tucker responded by telling him a Cato Institute event, which caused Ayers’ lip to quiver.

During the Q & A session after the lecture, Tucker said that he didn’t believe Ron Paul would run third party and that Gary Johnson going third party and potentially getting a Paul endorsement would most certainly split the vote and get Obama re-elected. Tucker said that Obama was beatable and then went on to talk about how Ron Paul is resonating with people and that the GOP is essentially careless in not embracing him and more of his ideas, as it could cost them the race. He was also asked if Hillary Clinton would run as Obama’s VP but Tucker was certain she wouldn’t and then shared some recently acquired insider knowledge that she may become the new head of the IMF or the World Bank. He then spoke about how Joe Biden is made to look dumb by the press who are fed stories from the White House but in actuality, even though he is an outspoken passionate blowhard, he understands the game much more than Obama and is actually a solid VP for the Democrats.

At the end of Tucker’s time on stage, people quickly filtered out of the large hall, as I walked towards the front of the room to talk to the man. We talked about a few different issues but the most important part, at least for me, is that he was very complimentary of what it is I do. We talked about building Internet new sites from the ground up and he gave me some solid advice on what I need to do to take TheSwash.com to the next level. We talked about the difficulty in getting started and how to build your brand and bring in other contributors. He said that he really likes the name “The Swash” as it was really memorable and it sounded “dirty”. It was a great discussion with a great guy that only wanted to offer advice and to help out another guy clawing his way up from the bottom of the barrel to the top.

Tucker dipped out and so did I while running into a good friend and congressional candidate Trey Radel. I talked to my friend Trey and mentioned interviewing him for the Swash. He’s game and I’m going to try and set something up. He’s already got my vote, not because he’s a friend – I have other friends in the hunt, but because of his stance on NDAA, SOPA and PIPA. He’s also a very pro-constitution candidate, which we don’t have enough of. This was followed up by a thirty minute wait in the valet line and a trip to my local watering hole to reflect on the awesome weekend.

I did good this round.

Hawaii’s legislature is weighing an unprecedented proposal to curb the privacy of Aloha State residents: requiring Internet providers to keep track of every Web site their customers visit.

Its House of Representatives has scheduled a hearing this morning on a new bill (PDF) requiring the creation of virtual dossiers on state residents. The measure, H.B. 2288, says “Internet destination history information” and “subscriber’s information” such as name and address must be saved for two years.

H.B. 2288, which was introduced Friday, says the dossiers must include a list of Internet Protocol addresses and domain names visited. DemocraticRep. John Mizuno of Oahu is the lead sponsor; Mizuno also introduced H.B. 2287, a computer crime bill, at the same time last week.

Last summer, U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)managed to persuade a divided committee in the U.S. House of Representatives to approve his data retention proposal, which doesn’t go nearly as far as Hawaii’s. (Smith, currently Hollywood’s favorite Republican, has become better known as the author of the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA.)

Democrat Jill Tokuda, the Hawaii Senate’s majority whip, who introduced a companion bill, S.B. 2530, in the Senate, told CNET that her legislation was intended to address concerns raised by Rep. Kymberly Pine, the first Republican elected to her Oahu district since statehood and the House minority floor leader.

“I was asked to introduce the Senate companions on these Internet security related bills by Representative Kymberly Marcos Pine after her own personal experience in this area,” Tokuda said. “I would defer to her on the origins of these bills as she has done the research and outreach, and been the main champion of this effort.”

Pine, who did not immediately respond to queries, has been targeted by a disgruntled Web designer, Eric Ryan, who launched KymPineIsACrook.com and claims she owes him money, according to an article last summer in the Hawaii Reporter. Her e-mail account was also reportedly hacked around the same time. The article said Pine would advocate for “tougher cyber laws at the Hawaii State Capitol” as a result.

“We must do everything we can to protect the people of Hawaii from these attacks and give prosecutors the tools to ensure justice is served for victims,” Pine said at the time.

Whatever its sponsors’ motivations, the bill isn’t exactly being welcomed by Hawaiian Internet companies.

“This bill represents a radical violation of privacy and opens the door to rampant Fourth Amendment violations,” says Daniel Leuck, chief executive of Honolulu-based software design boutique Ikayzo, who submitted testimony opposing the bill. He adds: “Even forcing telephone companies to record everyone’s conversations, which is unthinkable, would be less of an intrusion.”

Mizuno’s proposal currently specifies no privacy protections, such as placing restrictions on what Internet providers can do with this information (like selling user profiles to advertisers) or requiring that police obtain a court order before perusing the virtual dossiers of Hawaiian citizens. Also absent are security requirements such as mandating the use of encryption.

Because the wording is so broad and applies to any company that “provides access to the Internet,” Mizuno’s legislation could sweep in far more than AT&T, Verizon, and Hawaii’s local Internet providers. It could also impose sweeping new requirements on coffee shops, bookstores, and hotels frequented by the over 6 million tourists who visit the islands each year.

“H.B. 2288 raises all of the traditional concerns associated with data retention, and then some,” Kate Dean, head of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association in Washington, D.C., which counts Verizon and AT&T as members, told CNET. “And this may be the broadest mandate we’ve seen.”

Even the Justice Department has only lobbied the U.S. Congress to record Internet Protocol addresses assigned to individuals–users’ origin IP address, in other words. It hasn’t publicly demanded that companies record the destination IP addresses as well.

In Washington, D.C., the fight over data retention requirements has been simmering since the Justice Department pushed the topic in 2005, a development that was first reported by CNET. Proposals publicly surfaced in the U.S. Congress the following year, and President Bush’s attorney general, Alberto Gonzales said it’s an issue that “must be addressed.” So, eventually,did FBI director Robert Mueller.

Source: cNet.

White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight.

Months before the debate about Internet censorship raged as SOPA and PIPA dominated the concerns of web users, President Obama signed an international treaty that would allow companies in China or any other country in the world to demand ISPs remove web content in the US with no legal oversight whatsoever.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Obama on October 1 2011, yet is currently the subject of a White House petition demanding Senators be forced to ratify the treaty. The White House has circumvented the necessity to have the treaty confirmed by lawmakers by presenting it an as “executive agreement,” although legal scholars have highlighted the dubious nature of this characterization.

The hacktivist group Anonymousattacked and took offline the Federal Trade Commission’s website yesterday in protest against the treaty, which was also the subject of demonstrations across major cities in Poland, a country set to sign the agreement today.

Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.

A country known for its enforcement of harsh Internet censorship policies like China could demand under the treaty that an ISP in the United States remove content or terminate a website on its server altogether. As we have seen from the enforcement of similar copyright policies in the US, websites are sometimes targeted for no justifiable reason.

The groups pushing the treaty also want to empower copyright holders with the ability to demand that users who violate intellectual property rights (with no legal process) have their Internet connections terminated, a punishment that could only ever be properly enforced by the creation of an individual Internet ID card for every web user, a system that is already in the works.

“The same industry rightsholder groups that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by Internet Service Providers and for Internet Service Providers to terminate citizens’ Internet connection on repeat allegation of copyright infringement (the “Three Strikes” /Graduated Response) so there is reason to believe that ACTA will seek to increase intermediary liability and require these things of Internet Service Providers,” reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The treaty will also mandate that ISPs disclose personal user information to the copyright holder, while providing authorities across the globe with broader powers to search laptops and Internet-capable devices at border checkpoints.

In presenting ACTA as an “international agreement” rather than a treaty, the Obama administration managed to circumvent the legislative process and avoid having to get Senate approval, amethod questioned by Senator Wyden.

“That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it’s a binding treaty), there is a very real Constitutional question here: can it actually be an executive agreement?” asks TechDirt. “The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President’s mandate. That is, you can’t sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here’s the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there’s a pretty strong argument that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.”.

26 European Union member states along with the EU itself are set to sign the treaty at a ceremony today in Tokyo. Other countries wishing to sign the agreement have until May 2013 to do so.

Critics are urging those concerned about Obama’s decision to sign the document with no legislative oversight to demand the Senate be forced to ratify the treaty.

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

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

Source: Prison Planet.

Many of us breathed a sigh of relief when an overwhelming amount of Americans banned together and voiced their opposition to Congress over both the Stop Online Piracy Act, and Protect Intellectual Property Act.

Sites that dimmed the screen for a day or two have gone back to normal — Facebook users have swapped their anti-SOPA images for their previous profile pictures.

We may have even believed that the postponement of the vote originally scheduled for January 24th was some sort of white flag of capitulation. But that is certainly not the MO of most lawmakers.

While the outcry did get the attention of Congress, they are simply returning unflinchingly back to the drawing board to wait out our attention spans. Articles whirled that SOPA was dead and the bill was pulled when the bill’s sponsor Lamar Smith said in a statement that there would be no further action “until there is wider agreement on a solution.”

Lamar isn’t really listening. “It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.”

Actually, SOPA is set to be reformulated in February. PIPA will be revisited with possible amendments in the coming weeks. Case in point, all is still open and possible — nothing is dead, pulled, or cancelled. If that wasn’t enough to keep us on our toes, a new, similar bill has surfaced.

Déjà Vu in the form of OPEN — The New Anti-Piracy Bill

As an alternative to SOPA-PIPA, Representative Darrell Issa (CA-R), and 24 co-sponsors introduced the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade (OPEN) H.R. 3782 on Wednesday, during the Internet blackout.

From PCWorld:

OPEN would give oversight to the International Trade Commission (ITC) instead of the Justice Department, focuses on foreign-based websites, includes an appeals process, and would apply only to websites that “willfully” promote copyright violation.

The bill pretends to only target foreign websites, while keeping Americans free to surf and post, but the bill’s wording is wide open to pursue American sites. Just one example: when describing aninfringing site, it starts with those “that are accessed through a non-domestic domain name,” but continues in section (8)(A)(ii) for any site that “conducts business directed to residents of the United States.”

Also, none of these bills had been decided before the U.S. Government took down New Zealand owned Megaupload.com during the commotion. To which, Anonymous responded by shutting down the websites of the U.S. Department of Justice, Universal Music, Recording Industry Association of America, the U.S. Copyright Office, Broadcast Music Inc. and the Motion Picture Association of America.

“The [DOJ's] action ‘demonstrates why we don’t need SOPA in the first place,’ points out PCWorld’s Tony Bradley.” The government was enforcing a previous anti-piracy law called PRO-IPsigned by Bush in 2008.

OPEN is gaining support from groups like Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Consumer Electronics Association and more.

While it seems admirable that the bill is transparent and open for public comment, most laws of this nature are broad and allow for bigger, no-common sense crackdowns later. Plus, there might only be a couple concessions and the pacifying effects of “being heard.”

One commenter of the bill aptly noted:

‘Reasonable belief’ and ‘credible evidence’ are too vague and have the appearance of inviting highly subjective interpretation with the option for the commission and/or the provider to exercise sweeping powers with impunity.

Whenever any group is appeased after a battle, it cannot be emphasized enough — the lawmakers’ modus operandi will be: aim high, brace for the outcry, make a couple alterations and sneak the bill back in when no one’s looking. Keep it going and going. Call it by a different name. Haggle. It appears there is compromise and reasoning now, but once the bill passes into law, reason goes out the window, and we are the only ones compromised.

Theft is a reality — although not one that has seriously damaged the growing entertainment industry, or caused massive death and devastation. If Hollywood, pitching the biggest fit, were actually going down, why should we go down with it?

It is more unfortunate that Americans must be so tirelessly vigilant to protect their online activities from the same lawmakers who are tanking the country in so many other truly devastating ways.

The dismantling of Internet freedom will not stop here. Let’s borrow an MO and not let up.

To SOPA — Say NOPA!

To PIPA — Pipe down!

To OPEN — Shut it!

Additional Sources:

http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/sopa-and-pipa-postponed-but-not-cancelled/
http://mashable.com/2012/01/20/pipa-postponed/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/nternet-spoke-and-finally-congress-listened
http://www.webpronews.com/lamar-smith-to-delay-sopa-until-wider-agreement-on-solution-2012-01

Source: Activist Post.

At Thursday night’s debate in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich painted himself as a friend of a free and open Internet, but in the past he’s talked up pretty radical proposals to curtail free speech online.

The question Thursday was about the Stop Online Piracy Act, legislation that has the support of the entertainment industry and powerful members of the House and Senate, but is now on life support after running into a firestorm of criticism from Internet users, tech companies like Google, and activists who shut down websites in protest earlier this week.

“You have virtually everybody who’s technologically advanced, including, you know, Googleand YouTube and Facebook and all the folks, who say this is going to totally mess up the Internet, and the bill in its current form is written really badly and leads to a range of censorship that is totally unacceptable. Well, I favor freedom,” Gingrich said. “The idea that we’re going to preemptively have the government start censoring the Internet on behalf of giant corporations’ economic interests strikes me as exactly the wrong thing to do.”

But back in 2006, Gingrich argued censoring the Internet would be the right thing to do when it comes to Islamic radicals who use the web to organize jihad against the U.S.

“We need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually literally lose a city, which I think could literally happen in the next decade if we’re unfortunate,” Mr. Gingrich said during a speech in New Hampshire, according to a story I wrote at the time for The New York Sun. “We now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren’t for the scale of the threat.”

Gingrich’s aides posted the audio on the web at the time, but the file seems to be gone now. My recollection is that the former House speaker didn’t go into great detail, but suggested that a group of retired judges or other respected individuals should be empowered to shut down websites that foment anti-American violence. He did not explain how the U.S. would take down sites on servers beyond the reach of U.S. law.

At the time, Gingrich conceded that the kinds of controls he was proposing for the web would trigger “a serious debate about the First Amendment,” but he said the intrusion was needed because of the apocalyptic nature of the threat posed by Islamic terrorists.

“This is a serious, long-term war,” Gingrich said. “Either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people.”

Obviously, terrorists pose a more significant threat than intellectual property pirates. So, Gingrich could distinguish his positions on those grounds. But both proposals raise serious questions about their practical effectiveness and the degree to which they’d block speech that’s lawful right now.

In any event, Gingrich’s 2006 statements show that he’s not entirely averse to “preemptivelyhav[ing] the government start censoring the Internet” for some reasons and that he’s far from being a champion of unfettered free speech on the Web.

Source: Politico.

SOPA and PIPA may be in zombie mode, having burned up in the fire of SOPA “Blackout Day” protests and the largest attack by Anonymous on record, but activists who opposed the legislation understand that the Internet wars have only just begun.

Barrett Brown, often recognized as a public face of Anonymous, announced that his own group, Project PM, will be keeping an eye on Democratic congressmen who hope to “quietly support” the legislation.

“Yesterday my ProjectPM group began preparations for a campaign to go after any Democratic congressmen who hope to quietly support SOPA without drawing any negative attention that might damage their cred among liberals,” Brown told the Daily Caller in an email.

While Republicans evacuated their support of SOPA and PIPA — the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, and the Protect IP Act in the Senate — en masse Wednesday and Thursday after constituents flooded their offices with calls and emails, only a few Democrats did the same.

The bills were promoted as bipartisan legislation, but the top five beneficiaries of campaign donations from supporters of SOPA and PIPA — amounting to a sum of over $1 million — were all Democrats.

The Daily Caller previously reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who until Friday had planned on introducing PIPA to the Senate floor as a “jobs bill,” received over $3.5 million dollars in campaign donations.

“OpDonkeyPunch is currently in information-gathering phase, ” Brown told The Daily Caller, “we had intended to begin work tonight, but the change in situation now needs to be assessed. This will give us time to decide who is most vulnerable to a series of targeted propaganda campaigns of the sort that will bring attention to themselves and their donors, among other things.”

CONTINUED at The Daily Caller.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Here we are again in South Carolina with the last debate in the state before they hold their primary election. This version of the ongoing shit show was put on by CNN. Unfortunately they brought back the throat gurgling champion of Dorchester, MA Mr. John King himself. Unlike last time however, we weren’t subjected to Mr. King’s guttural throat interruptions and in all honesty, he was pleasant to watch this time around.

Now be forewarned, the majority of this debate consisted of pointless bickering and while I did enjoy the bloodshed, the Santorum-Romney-Gingrich ménage à trois was more annoying than entertaining and for the most part it pushed Ron Paul out of the debate several times. I wish John King had been a bit more pro-active in squashing some of these squabbles, as it created an atmosphere of elitist shitcocks stealing the spotlight from the only sane man on stage. However, even with this issue, Ron Paul was not stopped from pulling off on of his best performances to date. When the man had time, he fucking shined. His smack downs to Rick Santorum were also the best jabs of the night and proved that Paul can battle it out with the establishment Neanderthals when need be.

It was a good night for Ron Paul, in fact he got the loudest ovation during the introductions which was refreshing considering how the South Carolinians treated him during the last debate. I’d like to say that the crowd was great and they really won over my support for South Carolina, as I was about ready to hire a witchdoctor to curse the everliving shit out of that state just a few days ago – following the last shit show. I guess it was just the people of Myrtle Beach that sucked because the Charleston crowd was a beast when it came to cheering for liberty and sanity.

The first question went to Newt Gingrich and it was about his ex-wife, who came out earlier in the day saying that he was a monster that ended their marriage because she wouldn’t give him permission to cheat. Without even answering or addressing the concerns brought up by John King, Newt brushed it off to a loud ovation. Gingrich said that he was “appalled” at the media for promoting this scandal and extremely upset that the subject kicked off the debate. As he continued to bash CNN and John King for their “despicable” actions, the crowd shot up to their feet! Honey Badger don’t give a shit! Newt finally addressed the issue after a long-winded smack down and said that the story was false and claims that he offered real witnesses to ABC that would debunk the story but apparently they weren’t interested. He went on to say that companies like ABC are just out to bash the GOP and protect Obama as he tries to get re-elected.

Now I understand Newt’s frustration and do agree with his feelings about the media but he was really just acting like a cornered dog – snapping at anything he deemed a threat. Whether the incident happened or not, it was well over a decade ago and the fact that the media and his ex-wife are bringing this story out now just shows that they are only out to hurt him. Frankly, as I’ve said before, I don’t care what a politicians dick does; I just care about how they lead and the decisions they make.

In an effort to save himself from looking like an ass, John King asks the other candidates their thoughts on the issue. Santorum skirts around giving a real answer and just mumbles about morals, leadership and Jesus. Romney says “Let’s get to the real issues.” Ron Paul warns about the corporate run media and how they can shape public opinion.

Ron Paul is then asked about whether or not we need the federal government to set up specific plans to help solve the unemployment problem. Paul says that we need sound currency and for the federal government to get out of the way. He calls for a near zero percent income tax and for regulation to be reduced in order to help create more jobs. He explains that we need to get rid of our excessive debt and malinvestments. He adds that the government shouldn’t be bailing people out and that they need to just stay out of everything. He says that they should focus on enforcing contract laws and bankruptcy. On the same subject, Newt says that we have to eliminate Dodd-Frank. He also talks about tapping into offshore natural gas, as that industry could create tons of jobs. He adds that we should look at overhauling the Corps of Engineers.

King switches the discussion over to Romney and Bain Capital. I’m so tired of this damn subject. Newt claims that Bain’s business model destroyed companies. Romney, like a fucking coward, diverts the whole issue and goes back to talking about job creation. Mittens blames Obama for using crony capitalism which is just a soulless attempt at getting cheap pops from the crowd. He then rambles about unimportant nonsense but throws “capitalism” around for even more cheap pops. It gets to the point where all I hear is “Capitalism!” “Capitalism!” “Capitalism!” “Capitalism!” and applause. Santorum jumps in and says that he “..still believes in capitalism.” Man, this guy is funny! He then tells stories about Iowa just so he can make an Iowa connection and brag about how it came out earlier in the day that he actually won Iowa and not Romney.

Ron Paul is asked if the federal government should help veterans get jobs, as statistically the unemployment problem hits vets the hardest. Paul says that he is concerned about soldiers coming home and trying to adjust to regular life again. He says that the vets do need help especially in regards to health. He talks about how veterans traditionally get shortchanged. He also talks about helping them with their mental health, as the suicide rate for veterans is very high.

Santorum is asked the same question as Paul. He feels that there should be special preferences for veterans. He then turns that into a rant about Obama wanting to cut the military and says that it is “disgusting”. On the same subject, Romney says that while he was governor of Massachusetts he helped vets with college and job training. This isn’t about you asshole. He then spins it into typical Romney rhetoric and finishes by saying he will build a military so strong, no one will dare test us. What about people who like challenges Mr Romney? Someone will always test it. Gingrich then talks some smack about Ron Paul which turns into him calling for a transition program for veterans, which is essentially the same thing Paul was suggesting.

On Obamacare, Mitt Romney says that an executive order won’t kill the bill. He says that we have to go after a complete repeal. He adds to his point that the American people need to stand strong and united in order to influence Democrats to help end Obamacare. Mitt then says that he will replace Obamacare with his own program. Huh? Wait.. what? Mitt claims that he will protect people and give them insurance options. He then says that he’ll help save health care with “free market principles”. Oddly, none of this sounds like “free market principles”. All Romney proposes to fix government intervention into health care is a different form of government intervention into health care. Government intervention is the opposite of free market.

Continuing on with the health care portion of the debate, Newt Gingrich tells parents to vote for the GOP candidate because they’ll create an environment that’ll get kids out of the house and off of their insurance plans. Santorum disses Romney and starts a Romneycare rant. Ricky Boy then starts dissing Gingrich for being in favor of individual mandates. Rick then talks about how he was the author and architect of a private health reform project that no one but him was interested in. Romney responds to Santorum saying that Romneycare wasn’t a government run system. He then points out that people in Massachusetts still approve of Romneycare 3-to-1. Mitt also claims that insurance rates dropped under his plan. Ricky Boy jumps back in and says Mitt’s facts are wrong and then reveals that Romneycare was the model for Obamacare! Dude, that’s like really old fucking news. Romney and Santorum then go back and forth for what seems like forever on Medicare and Medicaid.

Gingrich then jumps in, making it a three man dick-wagging contest. He calls Santorum “mildly lazy”. He then says that he led the charge against Hillarycare and that he was the guy that helped Rick Santorum try to gain traction with his private health reform project. He then challenges Obama to a Lincoln-Douglas style debate, which causes Santorum to make fun of him for suggesting that without having yet earned the GOP nomination. They then go back and forth as John King tries to bring Paul, the only doctor on stage, into the health care debate.

Ron Paul admits that the likelihood of repealing Obamacare isn’t good. He then talks about how he practiced medicine before government got involved and describes how well it worked back then. Paul points out that Santorum, regardless of his claims, expanded government control over health care based off of his policies. Paul then gets into the massive spending on the military and talks about how if we can bring that down, we’d have more to use elsewhere, even though he plans to attack the budget on every front.

Rick Santorum is asked about Newt Gingrich’s recent comments that called for Santorum to drop out of the race. Ricky Boy looks kind of hurt by the question, poorly shrugs it off and says that grandiosity is Newt’s style. He then points out again that he won Iowa and had twice as many votes as Newt so Newt should STFU and GTFO. Ricky Boy then claims that he was 2-0 going into South Carolina, which is a blatant lie. Then, comparing himself to Gingrich, says that he is steady and solid and even if he isn’t charismatic and doesn’t have good soundbites he is still a top tier candidate. Santorum basically said, “Hey, if you didn’t know my faults, here they are! Vote for me! Lulz!”

Gingrich then immediately gives us a Reagan name drop, as well as a Jack Kemp name drop. He goes on to describe his record versus Santorum’s and says that Rick isn’t qualified to be president. He adds that we need real leadership that can take on big projects and makes it known that Santorum can’t carry the ball at that level. Ricky Boy snaps back, getting personal, saying that under Newt, the House of Representatives was “undisciplined”. He then says that Newt doesn’t have the courage to stand up against rival leadership. Newt then lists off all the shit he did that he feels is bad ass, in an effort to prove that he is a rebel.

Continuing with the pot-stiriing bullshit, John King asks Romney about him calling Gingrich an unreliable leader. Mitt diverts the question in typical Mitt fashion and instead, talks about how the spat between Newt and Rick is why we need “a guy that’s lived in the streets to run this country.” By streets he means inside of the gated community. Romney filibusters for so long he pauses, looks at Newt and literally asks him “where are we at?” because he can’t even remember the original question and apparently can’t follow his own train of thoughts. Mitt comes back though and takes a shot at Newt saying that if he and Reagan were so tight, why is he only mentioned once in his diary.. oh snap! Gingrich doesn’t even flinch, he just name drops Reagan again, ignoring Mitt’s comment about them not being homies. Suddenly everything starts to fall apart on stage and we are stuck in another long-winded three man dick-wagging contest. There was almost some full-on full frontal fencing between the three swashbucklers.

The issue of releasing tax returns is brought up. Ron Paul says that he is afraid to release his as he’d feel embarrassed to have his income compared to those of the other men on stage. Paul jokingly points out that he isn’t a fat cat like the dick-wagging three amigos who are ballin’ outta control. Romney says he will release his taxes in April when he is done with them. Hasn’t this motherfucker heard of Turbo Tax? It’s January and I’ve got my taxes done already. That shit only took twenty minutes! Romney then wastes everyone’s time to ramble about Obama playing golf while Americans are out of work. He then bitches about the pipeline and Obamacare and doesn’t seem to realize that other people need to answer the tax question. Gingrich says that if there is nothing to hide, then Mitt should release his tax info. Newt adds that he released his earlier in the evening. Santorum says that his taxes are on his computer at home and that he hasn’t done them yet, as he’s been campaigning. When asked exactly when and how he will release his tax info, Mitt says that he doesn’t know and gets greeted with a chorus of incredibly loud boos. However, South Carolinians are apparently gullible as Mitt quickly adds that he “..won’t apologize for being successful”, which causes them all to cheer. I think these people have serious ADD.

Santorum and Paul then get into a spat. Ricky Boy starts by saying he would cut corporate taxes in order to allow us to compete with our foreign rivals. Paul comes in and says that you have to create the right conditions to bring companies back to America. He explains how free trade with China actually helps the American economy, contrary to modern conservative bullshit. Paul then points out that Santorum has damaged the economy by not supporting “right to work”. Santorum snaps back saying that he would support it as president. Sure you would now dicknose because you’re pandering to the people!

The hot button issue of the week, SOPA and PIPA, come up. Just the mention of SOPA gets the crowd fired up to where they boo loudly and uncontrollably. Gingrich is questioned about it first and he responds to King saying, “You’re asking a conservative about the intellectual interest of Hollywood?” In typical fashion, Newt’s clever one-liner got a lot of applause and cheers, however it is just a clever one-liner and pretty soulless as it offers no substance and doesn’t answer anything. Truth be told, whether he’s a conservative and Hollywood is liberal doesn’t matter. Artists have a right to own their own property and not have it infringed upon. Newt doesn’t care about the rights of who he perceives as his enemy however. Now I am not saying this in support of SOPA and PIPA, I vehemently oppose those laws; I am just pointing out how empty Newt’s one-liners are. After his big soundbite, he looks a little befuddled, like he has no idea what all this SOPA and PIPA talk is. He does finally add that laws already exist that allow companies to sue those who infringe on them.

Romney says that Gingrich is right and adds that the SOPA and PIPA laws are too intrusive and too expansive. He feels that these laws would have a “depressing impact” on the Internet and all of the industries attached to it. Romney wants more effective laws to bring the digital pirates to justice and says that these laws aren’t going to do that.

Ron Paul tells us that he was the first Republican to come out and oppose the law. He then says that the bills will not pass but that everyone should be vigilant as similar laws will come back up in the future. Paul feels that the Republicans have been on the wrong side of the issue. He then says that freedom and the Constitution bring people together and this is a great example of it due to the strong opposition to these laws all over the Internet.

Santorum says that he doesn’t agree with the law but then goes on a tangent about how the Internet isn’t a free zone where people can just trample on the rights of others. What the fuck does he know? His computer is powered by musk turtles. Santorum, who is talking against SOPA and PIPA, as the crowd hates it, still thinks that there should be a law like it. He then asks, “Who on the Internet said ‘anything goes’?” Shut up fucktard.

The debate then shifts to illegal immigration and border security, which these fucking guys have talked to death every single debate. I honestly lose interest and find myself staring into an empty bottle of bourbon that was used to wash down the twelve pounds of sushi I ate just a couple of hours prior. I snap out of my sushi-bourbon coma and hear Newt talking about modernizing visas, Ron Paul talking about how taking care of the needs of illegals hurts our schools and hospitals and then I get distracted by porn on the other television.

Gingrich and Romney argue over pro-life shit for quite some time and then Santorum jumps in making it round three of the GOP dick fencing competition. John King steps in after this abortion debate has raged on forever and goes to Ron Paul in an effort to change the subject. The crowd immediately erupts with boos as they are not happy that, once again, the only doctor on the stage was left out of a medical portion of the debate.

Ron Paul, on abortion, says that laws won’t correct the morality of people. Santorum jumps on his shit and says that he only has a 50 percent “right to life” voting record, responding to what he thinks is an attack on him by Paul. Ron Paul laughs and tells Ricky Boy that he is “too sensitive” as he wasn’t referring to him in his comments. Paul then goes on to explain how bullshit his 50 percent “right to life” voting record is, as he follows the Constitution and his record with that is 100 percent. Paul further explains that these “right to life” laws should be handled at the state level and that is how he has always voted. Santorum just stands there like a dork dick with his bitch tail between his bitch knees.

The debate ends with a segment where the candidates are given time to beg the South Carolinians for their vote. They all say what they have all been known to say over the course of this primary adventure and I don’t feel like wasting time typing out the details. This was a pretty good debate, there have been better ones and worse ones. Ron Paul’s time was limited due to the gay three-way the other candidates were having but Paul utilized the time he had brilliantly and really pulled off one of his best performances. Paul was the real winner here and Gingirch, although I don’t like many of his answers, also did well after having a really shitty day due to his ex-wife. Santorum sucked per usual and Mitt just looked like a sack of crap. Mitt getting booed made me giddy inside.

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