When LeighAnn Montieth, the manager of New York Yoga on the Upper East Side, learned last summer that she was being audited on a sales-tax issue, she wasn’t concerned. Yoga studios, she believed, weren’t subject to the city’s 4.5% sales tax.

The yogi now says her relaxed attitude was misplaced.

The New York Department of Taxation and Finance has decided that yoga studios fall into a category of businesses—specifically weight control or health salons—that must pay the city’s levy, officials said.

The decision was revealed last April in a bulletin from the department and is now sinking in as yoga studios across the city prepare their taxes. The state—which collects the city’s sales tax—has already begun auditing yoga studios, presenting them in some cases with bills for back sales taxes for the past three years.

“We do see this as a fairness issue,” said Edward Walsh, a spokesman for the Department of Taxation and Finance, noting that Pilates studios have to pay sales tax. “Businesses that provide similar services should be subject to the same taxes in the city.”

The new tax policy has been met with cries of protest from the yoga business community. For years, studios had budgeted without the expectation of a sales-tax hit.

“Yoga classes have been around forever and not taxed,” said Alison West, executive director of Yoga for New York, a lobbying group.

CONTINUED at the Wall Street Journal.

Barack Obama and Rick Santorum probably couldn’t agree that August falls in summer, but on one important issue they are closer than the Winklevoss twins. Both regard manufacturing as precious beyond words, and both think the federal government should be making special efforts to promote it.

Obama favors an array of tax breaks to induce manufacturers to keep jobs in the United States, and Santorum wants to completely scrap the corporate income tax on companies in this particular sector.

“Everybody benefits when manufacturing is going strong,” said the president. Santorum recently lamented, “We have the manufacturing sector of the economy when I was growing up that was 21 percent of the workforce. It’s now nine.”

These are not exactly new sentiments. Walter Mondale, the 1984 Democratic presidential nominee, demanded, “What do we want our kids to do? Sweep up around the Japanese computers?”

In 1992, independent presidential candidate Ross Perot, railing against the North American Free Trade Agreement, forecast “a giant sucking sound” caused by jobs going to Mexico. Pundits galore have long warned that we are “losing our manufacturing base.”

But if nostalgia were a sound guide to economic policy, we should be building Studebakers and rotary telephones. Neither Santorum nor Obama seems to grasp the realities of manufacturing in 21st-century America.

The first is that it’s not declining in the ways that matter. Compared to1990, the total value of U.S. manufacturing output, adjusted for inflation, was up by 75 percent in 2010 — despite a drop caused by the Great Recession.

CONTINUED at Reason. Written by Steve Chapman.

After last night’s Super Tuesday victories, Mitt Romney’s longstanding lead in the GOP primarylooks increasingly solid. His policy plans, however, are as flimsy as ever. Indeed, exploring his economic policy proposals is rather like touring a Hollywood backlot. Like a street façade on a movie set, Romney’s economic plans are designed to project an outward appearance of functionality. But when you look behind their cleverly made-up fronts, there’s nothing to see. Romney’s policy offerings on taxes, spending, and entitlements consistently lack crucial structural details; his campaign seems intent on emulating the outward appearance of policy proposals without providing anything that’s actually workable.

Take Romney’s proposed overhaul of the tax code. Vague on details and short on substance, it’s more like a press release than anything resembling an actual plan to rewrite the country’s massive, complex tax code. The few details it does reveal tend to focus on the goodies Romney would like to offer and less on their price. Romney proposes an across the board tax cut along with cuts to the corporate rate and various other reductions, including a repeal of the alternative minimum tax. Combined, the Manhattan Institute’s Josh Barro estimates that Romney’s proposals would reduce federal tax revenues by up to $5 trillion over the next decade.

In keeping with his vow to balance the federal budget, Romney also promises to make these cuts in a way that’s revenue neutral. How? He’s yet to say. The plan indicates that Romney would rely on dynamic tax effects while closing tax loopholes and reducing spending in order to offset the lost revenue. Which loopholes would he snip? Which spending would he cut? Anyone wondering about these questions might as well ask a magic eight ball, which would at least provide an answer.

Indeed, Romney has actually employed the plan’s murkiness as a way of responding to outside groups that have tried to tally its economic effects and found it wanting. “I think it’s interesting for the groups to try and score it because it can’t be scored because those kind of details have to be worked out with Congress and we have a wide array of options,” Romney said on CNBC earlier today.

CONTINUED at Reason. Written by Peter Suderman.

Norman Smith seemed to be making progress in his liver cancer recovery at Cedars-Sinai hospital in Los Angeles, Calif. He had some of the best doctors in the world, he was on a transplant list and he had completed a successful clinical trial that had his doctors dubbing him a “miracle man.”

Then, his cancer returned and two months before he was would have received a transplant, he was de-listed for smoking marijuana prescribed by his oncologist at Cedars-Sinai. Now, if he doesn’t receive a transplant, he will die.

“It’s only my life that I’m fighting for,” says Smith. “What do I have to hide? I have nothing to hide.”

Smith’s situation represents one of the first battles being fought over the place of medical marijuana in medicine and it has left him in limbo.

Cedars-Sinai declined interview requests but referred Reason TV to Peggy Stewart, a clinical social worker with UCLA’s transplant program, which holds a similar position to Cedars-Sinai on medical marijuana.

“Marijuana is considered substance abuse,” says Stewart. “The legality of it is really not an issue.”

Stewart and Cedars-Sinai did say that transplant patients who consume marijuana put themselves at potential risk of infection from a mold found in cannabis called aspergillus.

But not everyone sees the mold as a potential threat.

“The truth is that Norman lives in Los Angeles and there are laboratories that he can take his medicine to and make sure that it doesn’t have contaminants,” says Stephanie Sherer of Americans for Safe Access, which works to break down political and legal barriers to medical cannabis.

Further, a 2009 study from the American Journal on Transplantation that looked at potential liver transplant candidates said that there wasn’t a significant difference between marijuana users from marijuana non-users.

Sherer points out that Smith isn’t alone, his problems are the reality for many patients caught in-between managing their pain and receiving a transplant.

“In our database at our office, we know of over two dozen patients that are going through this and unfortunately half of them have passed away because they did not receive these transplants,” says Smith.

Source: Reason.

The latest wave of financial-market turmoil has been caused in particular by growing investor concern about the financial health of commercial banks, especially banks in the eurozone.

It seems that investors have been increasingly losing confidence in banks’ ability to live up to their payment obligations under “normal” market conditions and to generate sufficient profits going forward.

Such an interpretation may contribute to explaining the depressed valuations of eurozone bank stocks, which have lost around 71 percent of their value since the start of 2007.[1] In contrast, losses for US bank stocks amounted to (just) around 50 percent.

CONTINUED at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Written by Thorsten Polleit.

Rick Santorum’s spokeswoman Alice Stewart said in a TV interview on Monday that Santorum was referring to President Barack Obama’s “radical Islamic policies” when he said the president’s agenda was driven by “phony theology” — but then quickly called up MSNBC after the segment aired to say she misspoke.

“There is a type of theological secularism when it comes to the global warmists in this country. That’s what he was referring to. He was referring to the president’s policies in terms of the radical Islamic policies the president has,” Stewart said on “Andrea Mitchell Reports.”

Mitchell later said on the air that Stewart phoned the show after the interview to say she had slipped up and said “radical Islamic policies” instead of Obama’s “radical environmental policies.”

Mitchell noted she had missed Stewart’s phrasing of “radical Islamic policies” during the live interview.

“She had repeatedly said during that same interview ‘radical environmental policies’ and she said she slipped when she apparently said [it],” Mitchell said. “I did not hear it, or I would have caught her on it and tried to get a correction at the moment. I really, frankly, did not hear her use the word Islamic, but the tape tells the tale.”

Santorum said in Ohio on Saturday that Obama’s agenda is “not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology.”

Santorum stood by his remarks later, telling reporters he wasn’t suggesting Obama is less of a Christian.

“No one’s suggesting that,” he said. “I’m suggesting, obviously we all know in the Christian church there are a lot of different stripes of Christianity. I’m just saying he’s imposing his values on the church and I think that’s wrong…If the president says he’s a Christian he’s a Christian.”

Santorum said on Sunday that he was referring to what he described as Obama’s radical views on the environment and on Monday he continued attacking the president’s environmental record on the campaign trail.

During a panel discussion on MSNBC on Monday after Stewart’s slip of the tongue, The Washington Post’s Anne Kornblut said she thought Stewart would apologize for the comment, but that it may not stop conspiracy theorists from grabbing onto her statement.

“I expect we’re going to hear more from Alice Stewart apologizing about those remarks. But there will be conspiracy theorists thinking it was some kind of message she was trying to get out or it was really on the mind of the Santorum campaign when they are talking about President Obama,” Kornblut said.

Source: Politico.

And here’s Santorum’s newest stupid ad:

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Continued from: The Mitt Romney Problem, Part I: Smaller Government.

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” – James Madison

Foreign Entanglements:

Mitt Romney is like the world’s dumbest used car salesman for war. While that might sound like an unfair and unjust observation, let’s look at this guy’s ideas on what our foreign policy should be. To be frank, his actions either call for immediate war or create and perpetuate the environment for war. If Mr. Romney were to have his way, we’d be locked in wars with Iran and China not to mention all the other ones we’re involved in at the moment. Also, who’s to say that this guy wouldn’t pile on even more wars with his careless actions due to his inability to understand why other nations hate the American Empire.

Let’s first look at Iraq, an issue that Romney has either been confused by or has flip-flopped on, the latter is more likely as that is his modus operandi. On whether or not he has supported the war, Mitt’s stance has been cloudy to say the least. The main reason is that there isn’t any consistency between the different times he’s been asked the question. Recently in December of 2011, Romney said that if he had intel that said that there weren’t nuclear weapons in Iraq, then we shouldn’t have invaded that country. In fact, here is how that interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd went down:

Romney: ”If we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction, if somehow we had been given that information, obviously we would not have gone in.”

Todd: ”You don’t think we would have gone in?”

Romney: ”Well of course not. The president went in based upon intelligence that they had weapons of mass destruction. Had he known that that was not the case, the U.N. would not have put forward resolutions authorizing this type of action. The president would not have been pursuing that course. But we did not know that. Based upon what we knew at the time, we were very much under the impression as a nation, our president was under the impression, that they had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam Hussein was intent on potentially using those weapons, and so he took action based upon what he knew. But to go back and say, well knowing what we know now would we have gone in. Well, knowing what we know now, they did not have weapons of mass destruction, there would have been no effort on the part of our president or others to take military action.”

Odd, considering what he has said before this interview. During a 2008 presidential debate, Mitt Romney said the Iraq War was “a good idea worth the cost in blood and treasure we have spent. It was the right decision to go into Iraq. I supported it at the time; I support it now.” For the record, it was well-known in 2008 that Iraq didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction. You see, Mitt Romney’s stance in the Iraq situation is all over the place. Like most answers he gives, the words he speaks are dependent upon who he is talking to or what the political climate is at the time. Romney, like the professional politician he is – yet claims he isn’t, will say anything to win the hearts of the voter. The reason I have started with this example is to show you how soulless the man is and how his stance on the other foreign entanglements, which I’m about to get into, could be nothing but pandering bullshit and probably is.

On the ongoing war in Afghanistan, Romney has given us a giant spoonful of his bullshit rhetoric. He’s said that he will refuse to talk to the Taliban. Well okay asshole, how do you expect to get anything done or solve the problems over there if you aren’t willing to talk to the other side of the conflict? Romney is either a complete fucking idiot on this issue, a total coward or just pandering to the GOP voters in order to get cheap pops at the debates.

So with the moronic stance that Mitt Romney has, what can we expect for the future of the United States-Afghanistan relationship? Well, contrary to the sort of hype and bullshit that these politicians and pundits try to feed you, we cannot conquer Afghanistan and force our ways on them. The country doesn’t have the structure of a typical nation. It is made up of feuding tribes that fight for dominance and supremacy; there isn’t one organized enemy to point your guns at. Sure, the Taliban takes the blame for everything but the issue of Afghanistan certainly isn’t as black and white as that.

Besides, who gave the Taliban their power to begin with? Well, the United States did. Why? Because we were scared shitless of the Soviets during the Cold War and we training and gave arms to these men that we now call terrorists. If Mitt even listened to what the people in countries like Afghanistan said about us, he’d understand their hatred towards America. However, guys like Mitt (and Santorum and Gingrich for that matter) have all the answers and have apparently never heard of a little something called “cause and effect”. If he had, he’d know that these people are sick of us being in their country swinging our dicks around and telling them what to do. Common sense is just too fucking much for some people to muster!

On the issue of Libya, Mitt has also pandered and always found himself on the side of the issue that best fits his situation at the time. In March of 2011, around the time the conflict started, Romney immediately came out in a radio interview and said that Obama waited too long and should have acted earlier. He said that the president’s handling of the situation made him look “weak” and that we should have led the charge instead of following NATO. Jesus, where do I even start on how ridiculous his statements are? The truth is, we shouldn’t have been involved.. AT ALL! Once again, America intervenes and oversees a regime change. Throughout history, this action has always proved to be disastrous. Also, Romney apparently, at that time, didn’t care about the Constitution as the invasion of Libya wasn’t properly brought before Congress. None of this matters though, as Romney flip-flopped again and again on this – like every other issue.

Less than a month later, Ol’ Mittens was in Las Vegas to speak to the Republican Jewish Coalition. When asked about his stance on Libya, Mitt Romney ignored the concerns and refused to provide an answer. In fact, it was reported by Las Vegas Review-Journal that:

Romney was silent on Libya, the newest and stickiest military and U.S. policy problem as the United States and its NATO allies enforce a no-fly zone to help rebels oust Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. After his speech, Romney refused to take questions from reporters about his position on Libya. Instead, he and his wife, Ann, fled down a hallway and escaped up an escalator at The Venetian, where the event was held. ‘I’ve got a lot of positions on a lot of topics, but walking down the hall probably isn’t the best place to describe all those,’ Romney said, deflecting a Libya query as he walked quickly with half a dozen journalists trailing him.

Writing about this situation, Daniel Larison of American Conservative said:

Romney seems unable to stake out a foreign policy position until after the Republican consensus has formed, and he then adapts himself to whatever that consensus happens to be…This does save him from the acrobatics required to maintain an anti-Obama position when Obama switches from restraint to starting a war, but it is just another reminder that Romney doesn’t hold foreign policy positions so much as he mimics those who do….For someone who is so fond of mocking Obama’s leadership or lack thereof, it is revealing that when Romney has to stake out a position one way or the other on a controversial question he is unable to show any leadership at all.

So while Romney went from bashing Obama for acting too late and then went mute on the situation, he then flip-flopped completely and took the position that Obama was acting too aggressively! Mitt wrote an op-ed for National Review where he stated that Obama should have just enforced a no fly zone, this way Libya couldn’t bomb their own citizens. Right, the Libyans bombing the Libyans is what we need to worry about? Has Mitt seen the pictures of Tripoli before and after the NATO strikes? I think NATO shouldn’t have been flying over Libya because they treated the damn place like a litter box in the house of a cat hoarder!

Romney then decided that maybe he did like the Constitution and that the way this war started, being that it wasn’t approved by Congress, suddenly had Mitt’s panties in a bunch. He wrote:

Military action cannot be under-deliberated and ad hoc. The president owes it to the American people and Congress to immediately explain his new Libya mission and its strategic rationale.

Well shit man, you were all for it only a few months earlier, what-the-fuck-ever. Shortly after that he was quoted as saying:

Now the president is saying we have to remove Gaddafi. Who’s going to own Libya if we get rid of the government there?

Funny he should say that since Gaddafi was killed shortly after that. After Gaddafi’s death Romney said:

I have seen those reports and if accurate I think the response is it’s about time. This was a tyrant who has been killing his own people and of course is responsible for the lives of American citizens lost in the Lockerbie attack….I think people across the world recognize that the world is a better place without Moammar Gaddafi.

Apparently he wasn’t too concerned with who would take over for Gaddafi, as he was worried about it a few weeks prior. The truth is, the “freedom fighters” that the United States and NATO helped and have propped up as the new dictators are comprised of Taliban members – you know, those people Romney refuses to talk to. Point is, Mitt is all over the place on this shit and the term he is often times associated with, “flip-flopper”, is a massive understatement!

On Iran, Mitt Romney is already geared up to go to war if he is elected president. He feels that if they are developing a nuclear missile, then it is America’s job to go over there and bomb the bejesus out of them. The truth doesn’t matter to guys like Romney, even with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently admitting that Iran has no immediate plans for a nuclear warhead. Nope, who cares about the truth, lets just keep selling lies to the American people and push the nation towards war with Iran. But what’s the real issue here? If it is known that Iran is not making a nuclear bomb, then why is Romney (and also Gingrich and Santorum) so quick to go to war with them? Could it be because they just don’t want Iran working on getting any sort of nuclear capabilities or is it something more sinister?

Well, Romney wants to put serious sanctions on Iran, which will just harm the innocent people there and in turn, create another group of people who would have a reason to hate us. Romney also wants to focus these sanctions on the CBI (Central Bank of Iran). Why does Romney want to try and cripple the Iranian financial system? Maybe it’s just a way to thank all of his top ten contributors, each of which is a major banking firm. Now I am not trying to play conspiracy theorist here but when you destroy a country’s financial infrastructure, it isn’t hard to move your banks in and start trading off of the resources of that toppled country. When that main resource is oil, it isn’t hard to see where this is going. Hell, former economic hitman John Perkins has made a career out of writing about this stuff, which is a lot more common than people think.

What Romney should be doing is trying to tap into the growing liberty movement in Iran. The youngsters there want to be free and generation after generation, regardless of what their monstrous Iranian government tries to do to stop it, the people become more and more Americanized. Our influence on the younger culture of Iran is paramount and for a so-called leader to bomb them instead of reaching out to them, as the guard will change eventually, is completely careless, reckless and vile! It’s obvious that Romney doesn’t care abut the people of Iran or he just chooses to be ignorant of what is actually going on over there.

This brings me to China, a country that has more in common with Iran than most people know. This is because China also has a younger generation who are sick and tired of the archaic ways of their leaders and want nothing more than a freer society that resembles something along the lines of the American Dream as opposed to the stifling grip of communism and tyrannical control. Instead of recognizing this and working towards a better situation with China through free trade and friendship, Mitt Romney wants to get stricter and punish China, who we do a lot of business with.

Mitt Romney wants tariffs and sanctions and all types of stupid crap, which will just hurt China and hurt us in the long run. Romney believes the fairytale that if we make business difficult for those we don’t like then somehow they’ll bow down to the great and powerful America and thus jobs and prosperity will magically return to the United States. I guess Romney can’t wrap his head around the fact that a tariff is a tax that will just be pushed on to the end consumer, that being the American people. Essentially, we will have to pay for this form of punishment from China, as they will just pass the buck to us. Doesn’t Romney the self-procliamed King of Business understand how this stuff works?

He talks about how China needs to be slapped around because they manipulate our currency. I guess Mitt fails to understand something else. The truth is, we manipulate our own currency by allowing the Federal Reserve the power to print money and manipulate the markets! Romney wants to punish China over an issue where we are the real criminals! I hear him talking all this trash about being strict and not rolling over for the Chinese but I don’t hear anything about shutting down the Federal Reserve. Oh yes, I almost forgot, Mitt has all those big banks in his pocket and he wouldn’t want that!

Mitt Romney’s stance with China can only lead us down one path and that is a trade war with the biggest manufacturer in the world. We will lose more American jobs, people will buy less from us and our currency will continue to be devalued because this puppet of the corrupt financial system either can’t see for the forest for the trees or he has to obey the masters who own his campaign.

On foreign policy, Mitt Romney is a joke and a whole slew of disasters just waiting to happen. For someone who claims to be so business savvy, you’d expect him to bring some actual knowledge to the table. His understanding of foreign affairs and economics is about as on par as that moronic blowhard Bill O’Reilly. Chances are Mitt, like O’Reilly, has probably never heard of Keynesian economics. He certainly doesn’t know how to take this great country of ours and pull it out of the depths in an attempt to set it back on the right track. Mitt Romney’s foreign policy will cost us so much money that our economy will become a sinkhole. The damage is already damn near irreparable and Romney will only make it worse. This shuckster should either open a used car lot or a pawn shop because if he has his way, we’ll be in a few more expensive wars and in a trade battle with China. Mitt Romney wants America to wear cement shoes to the pool party.

“Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.” – John F. Kennedy

Continued shortly in Part III..

*Written by Tho Bishop.

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

This approach has appeared to backfire with the conservative base.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Written by Rob Rimes.

You’ll have to excuse me, I barely got any sleep and had to wake up early as fuck on a Sunday morning to watch this goddamned debate. This probably won’t be my best written debate critique but I have a duty to fulfill and must see to it that I keep moving forward and continue to cover these shit shows. It’s just hard to get motivated when sitting through these awful things. Apart from Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, the rest of these assholes are the same and frankly, I’m over it. But whatever, we’ve still got a little while left on this journey but hopefully after New Hampshire, a few more people will fall off and narrow this race down to just a few candidates.

So here we go, just twelve hours or so after the last debate and we’re off on another one. This debate was essentially a special episode of NBC’s Sunday morning news program ‘Meet The Press’. And just like that show, it was hosted by David Gregory, a man who looks like the love child of the Joker and a gremlin. Nothing was more annoying on a Sunday morning, when I should be sleeping off a hangover instead of watching this shit, than having to sit through the first fifteen minutes of this crap. Why? Well, the entire first portion of this debate was about Mitt Romney, as gremlin ass David Gregory wasted a quarter of an hour asking the candidates about the former Massachusetts governor. Jesus, where’s my damn bourbon!

Well, one good thing that I did notice was that Ron Paul was finally at a center podium! At least NBC isn’t afraid to show that Dr. Paul is a frontrunner. So I do have to give them credit for that. Shit, it must be tearing at Rick Santorum. He’s so pissed he gave his feathery baby mullet and extra bit of fluff this morning.

Anyway, Gingrich was the first to be asked about Romney’s record. Newt diverts the question and calls himself a Reagan conservative and says that he is more likely to succeed against Obama than Mitt, who Newt calls “timid”. Newt drops another Reagan reference and then another! He can’t just leave Reagan’s ghost alone, he has to continue to align himself with the 40th president because he knows that he is the hero to most Republicans. The truth is, Newt is NOT a Reagan conservative and at this point, if you can’t see why he isn’t, then you haven’t been paying attention.

Mitt Romney rebuttals by going on and on about his record and success at creating jobs in Massachusetts. He then talks about all the conservative leaders who have endorsed him. Santorum is pulled in and asked the same question as Newt. Then this all goes back and forth between Romney, Santorum and Gingrich for fifteen minutes. This entire section of the debate was pointless. Finally, David Gregory brings Ron Paul into this discussion and Paul says that this entire debate thus far has been “superficial”. Dr. Paul just slams Gregory and NBC for subjecting us to this, which causes Gregory to admit that Paul’s right and thus, the debate gets away from the time-wasting bullshit.

Jon Huntsman comes out and says that he was criticized at the previous night’s debate for putting his country first. Huntsman is of course referring to when Romney basically tried to make him look like a traitor for being Ambassador to China under Barack Obama. Romney says that working under Obama doesn’t truly represent a conservative stance. Huntsman cuts right in and says that the nation is divided because of statements like Mitt Romney’s. The room erupts into applause and cheers, in what was the greatest moment Jon Huntsman has had at any debate. In fact, the response was so good for Huntsman and so bad for Romney, after this exchange, that I would be shocked if there wasn’t a major number shift in the New Hampshire polls leading up to their elections.

Jon Huntsman is asked to name three areas where Americans would feel some pain over major spending cuts. Jon Huntsman immediately pimps the Paul Ryan Plan and says that the best thing about it is that there aren’t any sacred cows. He then goes on to say that defense spending shouldn’t be based off of a percentage of our GDP. He says that it would be determined realistically by looking at what we’re doing, what we need and eliminate all the waste.

Santorum is posed with the same question.He says that he won’t burden future generations with the Social Security problem. He also says that tax on labor makes us uncompetitive. He promises to take welfare and food stamps out of the federal government and return that power to the states. Santorum refers to all these entitlements as “dependency programs”.

Gingrich is asked about the negative comments he made last year in regards to the Paul Ryan Plan. Newt basically brushes it off, as he has already addressed the issue several times and now supports the plan. What he does say is that there needs to be a transition towards a Medicare program that makes sense.

Perry makes a joke and everyone laughs. I missed what he said as I accidentally spilled Chex Mix all over my couch and was frantically trying to clean up the mess; I’m paranoid of bugs. Rick Perry goes on to say that we need to create an environment that brings jobs and gives people their dignity back. He says that he did this in Texas and makes a case as to why he would be the best guy to do it for the whole country.

Rick Santorum comes back in and says that people often tell him that they want the same healthcare program that members of Congress have. Santorum agrees with those people and said that they should be allowed the same choices as Washington’s elite. Okay, so is he for socialized medicine then? Sounds like he wants to replace Obamacare or restructure Obamacare with something that reflects the same insurance plan members of Congress have.

Mitt Romney says that the right course for America is to not raise taxes. He adds that the reason why the government always wants to bring in more tax revenue is because they need to pay for their massive size. Mitt says that we need to shrink the size of government and claims that he has a plan that can reduce it’s size. He goes for the cheap pop from the New Hampshire crowd when he says that the first thing to do to stop over-spending is to kill Obamacare.

Jon Huntsman re-enters the debate and tells us that he put a tax reform proposal on the table that was endorsed by the Wall Street Journal. He says that we have to get rid of all the legislative loopholes and eliminate corporate welfare and subsidies. The crowd is being really receptive to Huntsman this debate.

Gingrich is asked about the personal attacks on him by Harry Reid. Apparently Reid said that if Newt became president, he would do everything in his power to make sure that he was just a one-term president. Gingrich cooly responds that the opposition always wants you to be a one-term president. He doesn’t cite this as an example but he’s right. Hell, nearly every single GOP candidate has said repeatedly that their mission is “..to make Obama a one-term president.” Hell, Michele Bachmann used to scream out this mantra again and again. Gingrich then goes on to cite Reagan again. He also gives Huntsman props for standing up to Romney earlier when he talked about putting partisan bullshit to the side and putting the country first. Newt says that people of goodwill can talk about the problems and work through them. He says that there is always time to fight and bicker later. He reminds us of how well he and Bill Clinton worked together in the 1990′s.

Romney jumps in to defend himself and says that he can work well with others. He talks about how the legislature in Massachusetts was 85 percent Democrat and regardless of that, they all worked well together. He talks about how the Democrats put their trust in him and allowed him to cut spending any way he saw fit. He claims that even though the state was full of Democrats, he cut taxes 19 times.

Ron Paul is asked about argument versus accomplishment or more precisely rhetoric over action. He is asked how he thinks he can get Congress to work with him when so few of his proposals have actually gone before Congress and only one has become a law. Ron Paul says that that shows how disgusting the politicians are and how sick Washington is because his policies work for the people as they are constitutional and promote individual rights, property rights and attack spending. He then says that he wants to first start by bringing our budget back down to the levels that it was at in 2006.

Rick Santorum is asked a question but, being the rotten bag of dicks that he is, ignores it and uses his time to attack Dr. Paul. He says that Paul has accomplished nothing and that he has proven that he is unsuccessful at working with anyone. Right, and everything Santorum has accomplished has been very strong liberal policies that somehow make him, and his supporters, believe that he is a conservative. Santorum goes on to say that Paul’s foreign policy will leave America vulnerable. Yep and Santorum’s foreign policy will murder innocent people and destroy their economy through sanctions and the cost of rebuilding the mess we leave them with. Not to mention the fact that it’ll just manufacture more hatred towards the United States. He concludes by saying that the things Republicans like about Paul, he can’t accomplish, and the thing they don’t like, he can accomplish and those things will put us in harms way. Santorum runs out of time and then tells the moderators that they have to give him more time to answer the question he ignored. This guy is such a fucking prick.

Defending himself, Ron Paul says that we can’t get involved in all these pointless attempts at nation building. He also adds that we can’t afford to have all these bases everywhere. Ron Paul warns us about our horrific monetary policy. He then answers Santorum’s claims that he has no influence by telling everyone that he has changed the rhetoric in this country. He has educated people on the tyranny of the Federal Reserve and made dissatisfaction with that agency go mainstream. He says that most Americans now favor an audit of the Fed and they want more transparency.

They go back to Santorum to answer the question that he ignored and he just babbles a bunch of crap. Huntsman then jumps in and brings up “trust deficits” again. He also brings up his strong desire for congressional term limits.

Rick Perry is asked about leadership and the crowd laughs. He is then asked about how he would buck his party and make decisions that might not be popular with the GOP establishment. Perry says the biggest problem with the country is Congress’ out of control spending. Referring to a few unnamed people on stage, he says that those who voted to raise the debt limit are a part of the problem. Perry, like Huntsman, calls for term limits for Congress but he also calls for them to be cut down to part-time so that they would all have to get real jobs like the rest of us. So, does Perry have a regular job?

Jon Huntsman gets on energy and says that we have to stop favoring oil over other resources. He tells us that we need more diversity and that we need to treat oil in the same way we treated broadcasting. He says that we have to break up the oil monopolies or else we will never truly have energy independence.

Ron Paul is asked about his stance on oil and energy subsidies. He responds by telling the moderators that subsidies are bad economic and moral policy as it takes government force to transfer money from one group to another, which can cause great harm in the long run. Ron Paul says that when the dollar is manipulated it drives prices up elsewhere, especially in regards to energy.

Mitt Romney starts talking a bunch of shit. He says that we have massive overhead because there are too many government problems. No shit dickweed, did you just figure that out? He is then asked about his pro-gay comments from some random magazine that was published in 1994. In that interview, Mitt said that he would stand up for gay rights. Mitt responds by saying that he doesn’t discriminate and that he had a gay person in his cabinet while he was governor. He says that he has always promoted a stance that wasn’t discriminatory in the hiring process or anywhere else. The moderator asks Mitt, “When was the last time you stood up for gay rights.” Mitt quickly snaps back, “Right now!”

The topic of defending gays is then brought up to Santorum. This bigoted fuck says that all people should be treated with respect and dignity but he is against gays trying to write or change laws. Yep asshole, sounds like respect and dignity to me. He is then asked how he would treat a son that came out to him as gay. He says that he would love him the same. Yeah, except he probably wouldn’t let his hypothetical gay son vote during major family decisions.

They go to Rick Perry and he just rambles about wrangling steer and wrestling illegal aliens before handing them free tuition checks. Mitt also has a ramble session but says unions suck and we need federal “right to work” legislation. He goes on to say that unions have too much political power and points to the unions for government employees as being one of the worst examples of political corruption. Santorum jumps back in to get his two cents on unions into the debate. He admits that he didn’t vote for Pennsylvania to be a “right to work” state but he supports it nationally. Uh.. does he not know how this works?

Newt Gingrich blames Barack Obama’s policy for killing jobs and raising gas prices. This lead in is just another opportunity for him to rant about how he is the second coming of Ronald Reagan again! Newt, who has always been a good debater is now carrying himself like Michele Bachmann, who was synonymous for continually repeating catchphrases over and over. I don’t see how this continued talk of how he is Reagan-esque is going to help him. His strategy has always worked well in debates and he doesn’t need to hold onto this cheap talking point.

Mitt Romney blames Obama for the slow economics recovery but doesn’t blame him for the recession itself. He adds that business owners feel like they are under attack from the Obama administration due to his shitty policies. He then goes on a tangent about clean air or something. He finishes up by calling for a real effort at tapping into our natural gas resources. Scientists have recently come out and said there is a lot less natural gas than these politicians claim. This is something I should probably look more into. Continuing the energy talk, Newt explains how radical and incompetent the EPA is. He gives a bunch of examples of how they suck and concludes by saying that he plans to replace the EPA with a different environmental agency.

Rick Perry is asked about John McCain’s comments where he recently praised Obama by saying that on foreign policy he reflected our Founding Fathers. Mr. Texas didn’t agree with McCain’s comments and he pointed out that Obama is a socialist and is therefore incompatible with the Founding Fathers. Really? Because on foreign policy, Obama and Perry don’t really differ all that much. Perry then rants about how Obama needs to respect the 10th Amendment.

Due to the fact that he has had very liberal policies, Santorum is asked if he has advanced socialism. He doesn’t really answer the question and goes on to describe all the things he’s done to reform the health care industry. The moderator gets flustered because Santorum is beating around the bush. Ricky Boy explains that he and the moderator aren’t communicating well. He says that his record proves that he is anti-socialist. You sure about that homeboy?

One of the idiot moderators asks Ron Paul what people are entitled to get from the government, as if people should expect the government to give them hand outs galore. Paul smacks this dickhead down and says that entitlements are not a right. He goes on to say that he hates the term “gay rights” because that puts people into a group. He says we’re not groups we’re all individuals and then says that it is individual rights that we have to protect. He says that we must think in terms of individuals and not groups and then warns that we can’t expect one group to be forced to have to give to another group.

Being that they are in New Hampshire, Jon Huntsman is asked what “Live Free or Die” means to him. He says that it is a motto that people from New Hampshire take very seriously. He says that they also take leadership very seriously and leadership is about unifying people, not vilifying groups and attacking them. Huntsman then goes on another rant about the “trust deficit”.

Rick Santorum is asked why he thinks that we need to worry about Iran when we survived the Cold War, as Russia had thousand upon thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at us. They also cite the fact that North Korea, who hates us, is also armed with nukes but Santorum doesn’t think we should invade them. Rick says that Iran is an Islamic theocracy and they are willing to die to kill us, so that is the major difference. Santorum needs to learn about Iran and its people.

Gingrich is asked about the fact that he has been vocally opposed to all the attack ads coming out against him but now he is releasing attack ads too. The moderators challenge Newt’s consistency. He says that he is consistent because his attack ads are “fact based” unlike all the ads from other candidates. Oh, what a crock of shit! This honey badger really has thin skin and a mouth full of bullshit to hide it! Gingrich then gets fired up and tells Romney to come out and say that his attack ads are “untrue”. Mitt says that he didn’t make the ads and by law he can’t direct them, they are made by all of his PACs. Mitt says that if the ads have anything that is wrong, that material should be taken out. However Romney immediately starts going through every single point in the ads and says that each one is true. Newt can’t dispute it, he just looks like a whiney fool and tucks his tail between his legs. Romney literally owned Newt! That just leaves one to wonder, what the hell has happened to our beloved honey badger? He’s gone from super-debater to being a guy that just babbles, repeats catchphrases and cowers at the sight of a fancy haircut!

To close out the debate, Rick Santorum goes on to talk about the book he wrote. Fuck you asshole, I’ve written two and am nearly done with my third! Plus mine don’t suck. And that’s pretty much it, other than Ron Paul talking about how he will always preach the gospel of liberty. This debate was pretty poor overall and most of these people still look like the weak douches they are. Paul did pretty good but not as good as last night. Huntsman did really well! In fact, the people of New Hampshire were cheering him many times throughout the debate. I wouldn’t be surprised if Jon Huntsman surges in the polls after this showing.

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

Despite numerous Republican candidates attacking Ron Paul over his “dangerous” foreign policy, Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer praised Paul for being the “most accurate” out of all the GOP contenders when it came to his perspective on Iran.

“I think Ron Paul’s perspective or policy on Iran is probably the most accurate of the current GOP candidates,” said Shaffer during an appearance on Fox News, adding that Iran probably already has a nuclear weapon.

As Shaffer points out in the clip, Iran would be committing suicide if it decided to create any kind of pretext for a US/Israeli attack by targeting US military assets in the region. The Iranian economy would almost certainly collapse and Iran would be completely outnumbered and outgunned.

Indeed, as this illustration highlights, Iran is completely surrounded by US military bases. The characterization of Iran as an immediate and deadly threat to the security interests of the United States is nothing less than fearmongering propaganda that has been used by numerous GOP candidates to pose as tough leaders. It is their foreign policy of pre-emptive war that represents the greatest ‘danger’ to US security interests.

While the likes of Rick Santorum and John Huntsman have openly declared they wouldn’t hesitate to bomb Iran, Ron Paul has consistently pointed out that pre-emptive wars against countries that pose no threat to the United States have bankrupted the country.

Paul was attacked yet again following the Iowa caucuses by Newt Gingrich, who in the midst of an angry rant said Paul’s foreign policy was “stunningly dangerous” to the U.S. Paul responded by pointing out that Gingrich is a chickenhawk.

“You know, when Newt Gingrich was called to service in the 1960s during the Vietnam era, guess what he thought about danger? He chickened out on that, he got deferments and didn’t even go,” said Paul.

The true popularity of Paul’s foreign policy can be judged by the amount of money he receives from the U.S. military.

Ron Paul has has received more money in donations from active duty military personnel than all of the other Republican candidates combined and more than Barack Obama himself.

“Paul’s military-connected contributions for the three months more than double such contributions to all the other Republican presidential candidates—and they also exceed Obama’s,”confirms Politifact.

In the three months from April through June, Paul received “more than $25,000 from individuals who listed their employer as a branch of the military” (the campaign itself puts the figure closer to $35,000).

So if Paul’s views on how the U.S. military should be used throughout the world are so “dangerous,” as Gingrich and others have charged, why are his foreign policy positions backed by the very people tasked with fulfilling that role?

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

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

Source: Prison Planet.