Chicago – President Obama and leaders of the United States’ NATO allies formally agreed Monday to hand over the primary role in providing security in Afghanistan to the Afghans themselves next summer, beginning the end of U.S. involvement in a decade-long war.

In a declaration at the summit meeting of the 28-member alliance, the leaders insisted that the transition was “irreversible.”

“We are gradually and responsibly drawing down our forces” to complete the Afghanistan mission by December 2014, when the rest of the U.S.-led NATO troops in Afghanistan are supposed to come home, the declaration says.

Obama told the other leaders: “Our forces broke the Taliban’s momentum. More Afghans are reclaiming their communities. Afghan security forces have grown stronger.”

CONTINUED at SF Gate.

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

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

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

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

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

CONTINUED at Yahoo News.

The paratroopers had their assignment: Check out reports that Afghan police had recovered the mangled remains of an insurgent suicide bomber. Try to get iris scans and fingerprints for identification.

The 82nd Airborne Division soldiers arrived at the police station in Afghanistan’s Zabol province in February 2010. They inspected the body parts. Then the mission turned macabre: The paratroopers posed for photos next to Afghan police, grinning while some held — and others squatted beside — the corpse’s severed legs.

A few months later, the same platoon was dispatched to investigate the remains of three insurgents who Afghan police said had accidentally blown themselves up. After obtaining a few fingerprints, they posed next to the remains, again grinning and mugging for photographs.

CONTINUED at the LA Times.

Taliban militants battled their way into a prison in northwest Pakistan on Sunday, freeing close to 400 prisoners, including at least 20 described by police as “very dangerous” insurgents, authorities and the militants said.

The raid by more than 100 fighters was a dramatic display of the strength of the insurgency gripping the nuclear-armed country. The escaped prisoners may now rejoin the fight, giving momentum and a propaganda boost to a movement that has killed thousands of Pakistani officials and ordinary citizens since 2007.

The attackers, armed with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades, stormed the prison before dawn in the city of Bannu close to the Afghan border, said police officer Shafique Khan. They used explosives and hand grenades to knock down the main gates and two walls, said Bannu prison superintendent Zahud Khan.

“They were carrying modern and heavy weapons,” said Zahud Khan. “They fired rockets.”

Once inside the building, the attackers headed straight to the area of the prison where death-row prisoners were being kept, he said. They fought with guards for around two hours, setting part of the prison on fire before freeing the 380 inmates, including at least 20 “very dangerous Taliban militants,” said Shafique.

One escaped prisoner, Adnan Rashid, was on death row for his involvement in an assassination attempt against former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, said Zahud Khan.

The prison in Bannu housed 944 inmates.

CONTINUED at the Chicago Sun Times.

*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..

The Western-backed overthrow of Libyan strongman Muammar Gadhafi likely provided huge stocks of heavy weapons to terrorist groups and criminal organizations operating in the Sahel region of North Africa, the United Nations confirmed January 26 in a report. Among the groups benefiting from the arms are al-Qaeda and the deadly Islamic terror organization Boko Haram, which is currently on a killing spree in Nigeria.

The UN report explained that “due to the Libyan upheaval … governments in the region are faced with the return of millions of economic migrants, the smuggling of weapons from Libyan stockpiles, terrorist activities, youth unemployment, trafficking in drugs and human beings, and a surge in criminality,” the international body summarized in a press release on its findings.

But the international body carefully ignored its own obvious role in creating the tragedy. The UN, of course, first called for the “no-fly zone” over Libya and all measures necessary to “protect civilians” in March of last year. Western powers including the U.S. government promptly interpreted the international resolution as a green light for military strikes and eventually regime change.

Almost incredibly, the UN and some of its member governments are now calling for even more international intervention. To deal with the fallout crisis created by the previous round of failed intervention, a collection of regimes in the region seeking to quash rebel groups joined forces with various UN officials to seize on last week’s report, demanding more support from the international body and the regional African Union (AU).

NATO and its Libyan “National Transitional Council (NTC)” ally on the ground — comprised mainly of known terror leaders, former Gadhafi officials, and assorted Islamic extremists — promised throughout the war to take steps to ensure that Gadhafi’s massive stockpile of military weaponry did not fall into the wrong hands. But it did — almost from the beginning.

As The New American reported throughout the war and the UN’s recent report confirmed once again, everything from machine guns and grenade launchers to anti-aircraft weapons, explosives, and even missiles have made their way out of Libya. Fears also exist about the possible proliferation of chemical agents or other Weapons of Mass Destruction Gadhafi may have hidden.

The UN investigation, which focused on the effects of the Libyan war on the Sahel region of Northern Africa, found that national governments ruling countries like Chad, Mali, Nigeria, Niger, and others were having trouble dealing with the surge of arms. “The governments of the countries visited indicated that, in spite of efforts to control their borders, large quantities of weapons and ammunition from Libyan stockpiles were smuggled into the Sahel region,” the report explained.

UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs B. Lynn Pascoe told the Security Council on January 26 that the surge in weapons and other problems linked to the Libyan war were exerting pressure on the already-struggling regimes in the area. Terrorist groups and criminal organizations, meanwhile, were using and distributing military weapons smuggled out of Libya. And other arms stockpiles are likely still hidden in the desert for future use.

Pascoe admitted that many of the problems – especially with heavy weapons – were directly attributable to the Western-backed overthrow of the Gadhafi regime. Libya’s new NATO-sponsored rulers, however, claimed that many of the concerns already existed before international military forces helped kill the Libyan dictator and topple his government, Pascoe told the UN Security Council.

But not everyone was entirely convinced. The Russian government, which claims it opposed the NATO war against Libya yet failed to block the UN resolution purportedly authorizing it, used the UN Security Council briefing to lecture Western powers and Libya’s new regime. Other governments used the meeting as an opportunity to subtly gloat and criticize the NATO war.

The new UN report confirmed that the “real consequences of the Libyan crisis, the real scope of which is only beginning to come to light, are a serious threat to security and stability in the entire region,” saidRussian envoy Alexander Pankin, noting that his government was particularly concerned over “the uncontrolled spread of weapons in Libya and beyond its border.”

Moscow also blasted the new Libyan rulers for failing to properly control the situation and for allowing weapons to flow toward terrorists and criminal organizations. The whole disaster greatly increased the risk of global terrorism, Pankin added during the Security Council meeting.

A representative for the Indian government echoed Pankin’s statements, saying that “military operations carried out ostensibly to protect civilians had led to adverse consequences for millions in the Sahel,” the UN summarized. He also pointed out that in a relatively short time period some three million people had lost their livelihoods with disastrous implications for the region.

South Africa’s envoy emphasized that the UN resolution purporting to authorize military force against Libya was largely responsible for the crisis and for exacerbating existing problems. The new report confirmed his government’s views that the NATO war would lead to arms proliferation and more terror, he said.

On the other hand, representatives of Western governments like France, the U.K., and the Obama administration that participated in the war — like the new Libyan regime they installed — claimed the problems existed prior to NATO’s intervention. But even more international intervention would be needed to solve the disasters anyway, they all agreed.

Other serious problems affecting surrounding countries resulted from the NATO regime-change operation as well, explained the UN report detailing the regional fallout from the Libyan war. Investigators working with the UN Inter-agency Assessment Mission to Sub-Saharan Region discovered, for example, that the collapse of Libya led to a mass influx of destitute civilians into neighboring countries.

The conflict and resulting chaos in Libya also dried up crucial remittances sent home by migrant workers from the once relatively prosperous oil-producing nation. According to the UN, a humanitarian disaster has been intensified as North African countries seek to feed and reintegrate the affected populations displaced by the fighting.

But the weapons are among the biggest concern, threatening to affect the security and stability of the whole region and possibly beyond. As always, the UN recommended supranational measures and international support to regimes in the area to deal with the problems.

Meanwhile, inside Libya, the bloody battles are still raging on. Competing militias, Gadhafi loyalists, and assorted armed factions are all vying for power in what some experts worry could easily become a second civil war.

The new rulers — terrorists, Islamists, Gadhafi officials, and a few individuals whom critics have dubbed “Western puppets” — barely hold sway even in the capital, where deadly clashes still continue adding to the death toll. But the new central bank that replaced Gadhafi’s state-owned monetary authority is firmly in place.

Outside of North Africa, Western powers have toned down their bizarre celebrations over the alleged “success” of regime change in Libya against their former ally Gadhafi. But many are still openly pushing for more military intervention in the Middle East, apparently — on the surface at least — having failed to learn a lesson from the disastrous results of past operations.

Source: New American.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Written by Rob Rimes.

I’m not going to sit here and type up some bullshit scare piece about how American society is ripping apart at the seams. However, I am going to point to the fact that the actions of our military and the words of several of our political elite in this country have come off as pretty disgusting the last few days. This has been a weird week full of strange happenings and none of it really paints a positive picture as to where this is all going. Tensions in Iran are at an all-time high and the truth is, we are at war, it just hasn’t been declared yet. I mean, between drone attacks, assassinations and secret sabotage attempts, what else would someone call it? Over in Afghanistan, tensions are also pretty high, if not even higher than they were a few days ago.

You see, two incidents have happened recently that are a bit unsettling. The first incident involves United States Marines pulling their dicks out and pissing on dead Taliban soldiers. Now while I understand that these dead men are pretty much dead dogs and terrorists, it doesn’t excuse this immature and classless act. A lot of people are really upset about this and there are also a good amount who are praising these servicemen for emptying their bladders on these slain bastards. Now while I am not a person who is easily offended by things, I do find this to be disturbing because of the message it sends.

Now I understand that war is hell and outsiders can’t necessarily put themselves in the mind frame of a soldier in the heat of battle but regardless of that, this is still inexcusable. When a man or woman wears that uniform they are representing all of us and to partake in such actions makes our country, as a whole, look like a bunch of assholes. It’s also going to just piss the Taliban off even more, as their dead are being disrespected. Granted, I could care less about showing them any respect but what this incident really does is it disrespects the United States and what it is we are supposed to stand for. This sort of behavior just paints a really clear picture of reality, that we are an evil empire toppling regimes and milking resources all over the globe. It’s obvious that this isn’t about fighting terrorism anymore considering that the guy we went in there to get, we got. Realistically, even though we just snuffed Osama bin Laden last year, it doesn’t mean that we didn’t lose sight of our purpose before that. In all honesty, I think our leaders were completely dishonest about the real reason as to why we went over there to begin with.

As for the soldiers pissing on dead people, I understand that they may have been high on adrenaline and disgusted by the evil fucksacks that they had just killed but if they are incapable of maintaining the behavior and decorum of an American man in uniform, then they need to be dealt with. In this case, they obviously weren’t able to do the right thing and not succumb to their sophomore antics. What these soldiers failed to understand, in the heat of the moment, is that America needs to be the country setting the example across the globe. If we’re going to preach all the things we preach to people, then what are they going to think when they see our military personal pissing all over their fresh kills. Just because the Taliban beheads dead American soldiers and parades them around in the streets, doesn’t make it right for us to disrespect them in a tasteless fashion. Truthfully, if you were to commit an act like this, you shouldn’t take pictures or video for fuck’s sake! On stupidity alone these guys should be court marshaled.

Needless to say, the Pentagon is pissed. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said:

I have seen the footage, and I find the behavior depicted in it utterly deplorable. Those found to have engaged in such conduct will be held accountable to the fullest extent.

Former Marine and U.S. Congressman Michael Grimm said:

This actually hurts me. This is painful. There’s no excuse for this ever happening. They were trained, and they know better, and they disgraced their country.

Former Army lieutenant colonel and U.S. Congressman Allen West said this in a letter to the Weekly Standard:

I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.

I agree with West, for a change, but do find myself at odds with his last sentence. The people don’t need to shut their mouth, they need to hold their leaders and their military accountable for their actions, whether he thinks that we can wrap our heads around war or not.

The point of all this is that when you are in the military you take an oath to serve and protect this country. With that oath comes the responsibility of carrying yourself in a certain manner, with a certain attitude and a certain set of principles. These four men who urinated on these dead Taliban soldiers did not carry themselves in such a way and should be punished for their actions. The world already sees us as a giant bully and now we’ve given them more reason to think that. In fact, we’ve probably ignited even more hatred within the hearts of our enemies and the repercussions of that could just be more of our servicemen sent back home in body bags as we continue on this pointless conquest.

All the pundits praising these guys are assholes. Then again, those same pundits want perpetual war in an effort to combat this fictitious “War on Terror”. These pundits are even praising the assassination of Iranian scientists as well, which brings me to my next point.

Just yesterday, an Iranian scientist was assassinated when men on motorcycles put a magnetic bomb on his car and detonated it. Several other people, besides this scientist, were injured in the blast. Now it is suspected that Israel was behind the attack, which means that the United States was involved or most likely knew about it. So, why was the scientist killed? Well, he was working on Iran’s nuclear program. Apparently, just because of that, he deserved to be murdered and the innocent people around him deserved to be maimed.

Now this attack wasn’t the first one like this. A similar assassination happened a few months back and that one took the lives of two people. Of course, the American mainstream media praised the attack and completely ignored the reality of the situation. With this latest attack, the mainstream media followed the exact same formula and condoned this action as well.

In fact, Sean Hannity on his radio show, just after the attacks, said:

Whoever is involved in the killing of these Iranian nuclear scientists, God bless them.. ..I wish we were involved.

You can hear him for yourself at this link.

So not only is Hannity condoning murder, he is condoning terrorism, YES terrorism. I guess where Mr. Hannity sits it is only terrorism when it is someone else doing it to us. How would he react if the roles were reversed and Iranians killed either Israeli or American scientists, not to mention innocent bystanders? Hannity and every mainstream shitcock like him would be outraged and calling for war! Hell, we’d hear about how the dead scientists were just patriots doing their duty for their country and now their children have to grow up without their mom or dad. When you flip the fucking coin, this bullshit is absolutely transparent and it is sickening! To steal an old overused cliché adage: what has America become?

I can’t just point the gun of reason at Sean Hannity, I’ve also got to point it at my favorite punching bag, the big bag of dicks himself.. Rick Santourm! Of course this piece of crap asshole had to open his mouth in regards to all this. Here’s what the bastard said:

On occasion, scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead. I think that’s a wonderful thing, candidly. I think we should send a very clear message that if you are a scientist from Russia, North Korea, or from Iran and you are going to work on a nuclear program to develop a bomb for Iran, you are not safe. And people say ‘well, you can’t go out and assassinate people.’ Well tell that to al-Awlaki. Okay, we’ve done it. We’ve done it to an American citizen, so we can certainly do it to someone who is producing a nuclear bomb that can be dropped in the state of Israel or provides a nuclear shield for a country which spreads terrorism with impunity and changes the face of the world.

Hey, here’s the video!

God, I hate this guy. Santorum is so quick to fight abortion yet so quick to murder anyone he can paint as a fucking boogeyman and he does it while carrying the cross. This sanctimonious fucksack is the worst kind of evil and the fact that people would vote for this guy just blows my goddamned mind! The fact that the people in the room when he said this didn’t throw the closest objects they had next to themselves at Santorum’s head is a fucking travesty. Guys like Santorum, with comments like that, are just terrorists themselves. Rick Santorum will never let the crusades end, he won’t stop until he drowns in the blood of Islam as he is blinded by faith in a God he thinks he understands. The difference between Rick Santorum and the crusaders of the past is that Mr. Santorum is a fucking coward. He would never fight this perceived evil himself, he’d rather just send countless kids over there to die for his archaic vision and just like Sean Hannity, he would condone all acts of terrorism by our guys and our allies because we are on the right side of this bullshit holy war.

So while condoning all these evil deeds, these guys keep trying to sell us on the idea that Iran is either building a bomb or already has one. Funny, considering Leon Panetta was caught on tape admitting that Iran has no immediate plan for nuclear weapons. That came directly from the mouth of our Defense Secretary yet these establishment conservative cockpuppets continue to ignore facts and preach insanity. These are the same vile dickbags that are high-fiving each other over soldiers pissing on terrorists, even if they don’t publicly support that action. The fact is, we’re a nation lead by and preached to by cowards who would never pick up arms themselves. Fuck these cockroaches.

To be frank, America’s behavior is becoming deplorable in the realm of the military, politics and the media. At least there are us sane people that can see through this sort of bullshit and not succumb to its influence. Then again, guys like O’Reilly and Hannity have consistently high ratings and the attendance at patriotic organizations like Tea Party events has been overtaken by Fox News drones and Newt Gingrich supporters instead of real constitutional conservatives and libertarians who are willing to look passed party politics and promote liberty. I guess I have to wait for that third group to emerge that bridges the gap between the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement and is strictly made up of the best from both groups not the joiners and sycophants. I don’t think this country can wait on that however.

Now I know that this is probably coming off as negative but I do think that there are enough of us that see the forest for the trees. In fact, I know that our numbers grow by the day and even if we have to ride out this storm awhile longer, we are still going to come to a point where enough is enough and the sort of actions and rhetoric that taint the image of our unique society will no longer be effective. The mainstream media and the horrible politicians and the bully military will no longer have a hold on the free minds of the public and they will lose their power. “Live free or die” used to mean something and even if it seems like some overused throwaway slogan from a few hundred years ago, the truth in those words will mean something incredibly significant again.

A number of websites including TMZ and YouTube posted a video Wednesday showing four men dressed in U.S. Marine Corps combat gear urinating on the apparently dead bodies of three men sprawled on the ground in front of them.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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