Bent Corner

From the AP:

Bowing to President Bush’s demands, the Senate approved and sent the White House a bill Wednesday to overhaul bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and heated debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling over surveillance rules and the president’s warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would sign it soon.

Barack Obama was one of the many Democratic Senators to bow to Bush’s demands. Hillary Clinton was not. She voted “Nay“.

Remember Ron Paul? Back when the House voted on the matter, Ron Paul was no where to be found. He didn’t vote.

It appears Ron Paul is throwing in the towel. I’m not sure why. Just because he has no chance of becoming the Republican nominee shouldn’t stop him or his campaign. He never stood a chance to begin with.

I wonder how much of that money he still has. He very well might need it to win back his congressional seat. I’m not sure if his vanity run for president is costing him back home like it is Dennis Kucinich, but I wouldn’t be shocked if it was. Just because Ron Paul got real popular with guys on the Internet doesn’t mean he did with the folks back home.

What do the members of the Ron Paul cult do now? Scientology is always looking for people.

Here is a message he sent to his followers:

February 8, 2008

Whoa! What a year this has been. And what achievements we have had. If I may quote Trotsky, of all people, this Revolution is permanent. It will not end at the Republican convention. It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked. Not because of me, but because of you. Millions of Americans — and friends in many other countries — have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties. How much I owe you. I can never possibly repay your generous donations, hard work, whole-hearted dedication and love of freedom. How blessed I am to be associated with you. Carol, of course, sends her love as well.

Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties — just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.

Sincerely,

Ron

Ron Paul claims that he’s been excluded from a New Hampshire January 6 Republican debate being organized by Fox News. This is the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary. Ron Paul says he is being excluded because Fox News is scared of him. Why is Doctor Paul constantly questioning everyone’s bravery? First a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor and now a cable news network.

Ron Paul’s Internet fans aren’t taking this exclusion sitting down. They are organizing a boycott against any company that advertises on Fox News. They have a list. They are getting the word out to all followers of Ron Paul to not to buy products from these companies.

One of these companies is Gold Bond. That means if a Ron Paul fan were to get a rash in an embarrassing place, they would have to turn elsewhere to get some instant relief. Let’s just hope that they go rash-free.

What’s even funnier is that some Ron Paul supporters are also advising fellow Ron Paul supporters to contact the FCC and complain. This is from a post on a Ron Paul message board:

I’m actually surprised that I haven’t seen this tactic posted yet. Along with advertisers, this is the other major weakness of broadcasters/networks.

The other critical items we can influence directly are the FCC broadcast license for each affiliate, AND FCC approval for station purchases/mergers/trades. By specifically targeting FCC approvals, your comments will have a LOT more long-term weight. Endangering the local affiliate’s license with enough negative comments in the right way will change their attitude from “It’s the network, nothing we can do” and largely ignoring you to actually calling the NewsCorp on your behalf saying “OMG, fix this NOW!”

Remember, the FCC threatened to hit EACH broadcast station with a 6-figure fine for the half-second “wardrobe malfunction” at the SuperBowl*.

This is funny for two different reasons. First, Ron Paul represents a political philosophy that believes a big federal government is bad. If he had his way, not only would the FCC cease to exist, so would the IRS, the Department of Education, the CIA, the FBI, and a whole host of other federal agencies. What do Ron Paul supporters do when they think their man has been slighted? They whine about it to a government agency.

It makes you wonder why they are Ron Paul supporters in the first place.

Secondly, the FCC doesn’t have any jurisdiction over Fox News. It’s a cable network, not a broadcast network. Whining to the FCC about something a cable network is a waste of time. Then again, why should that stop a Ron Paul supporter?

And why is Fox News excluding Ron Paul from the debate? Because there is no debate. It was canceled three weeks ago because of it’s close proximity with another similar event. Ron Paul had been invited to attend, but reportedly his staff never got back with the event organizers to confirm that he would attend.

Why would Fox News exclude someone like Ron Paul from the debate? Including Ron Paul ensures more people will watch. Not only his rabid die hard fan base, but people like me that think he’s a loon. I would watch just for the entertainment value. Who knows what he would say.

When Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul proclaimed that Abraham Lincoln started the American Civil War, maybe he wasn’t talking about the same Abraham Lincoln everyone assumed he was talking about.

Maybe he was talking about Star Trek Abraham Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln is one of our most beloved presidents. Star Trek Abraham Lincoln on the other hand can be a real asshole. I wouldn’t put it past Star Trek Abraham Lincoln to start a war. Can you say with unwaivering certainty that Star Trek Abraham Lincoln did not cause the American Civil War?

I didn’t think so.

I don’t trust Star Trek Abraham Lincoln. I never have. There is a reason the Red Shirts in the above photo have their phasers aimed squarely on Star Trek Abraham Lincoln. If there is one thing Red Shirts know is taking the proper precautions to be safe and secure. If you ever find yourself in an Away Team to some strange alien planet, stick close to the guys in the red shirts. They will keep you safe. At least the ones assigned to the U.S.S. Enterprise.

I have no doubt those phasers are set to Kill and not Stun. You cannot mess around when it comes to Star Trek Abraham Lincoln.

I may have to rethink my opinion on Ron Paul. If he is against Star Trek Abraham Lincoln, he can’t be all that bad. That doesn’t mean I would vote for him or put one of his stupid signs in my yard. One would have to be nutty as a suger-free fruitcake to do something like that.

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul did a phone interview this morning on MSNBC to respond to being called a “crackpot” by correspondent David Shuster. This was in response to Ron Paul’s factually incorrect and totally asinine assertion that Abraham Lincoln “started” the Civil War. Ron Paul went on to claim that the hosts of the morning show had simply not read the right history books concerning the Civil War. He even went on to tell host Jack Jacobs that he was not “brave enough” to read the right American history books.

Not brave enough?

Jack Jacobs is a retired Army Colonel and Congressional Medal of Honor recipient. He also holds three Bronze Stars, two Silver Stars, and two Purple Heart Medals.

Being that Ron Paul is a member of Congress, perhaps he has heard of the Congressional Medal of Honor. It’s the most revered and respected honor in the entire military. Not only is any recipient of the Medal of Honor brave, they are the epitome of bravery. If there is one thing a person who holds the Congressional Medal of Honor should never have to worry about is having their bravery called into question on national TV by a member of Congress. Even if that member of Congress is a whack-job.

When will Ron Paul’s followers realize their idol doesn’t deserve their unwaivering worship?

First Ron Paul said that Abraham Lincoln started the Civil War. Now he claims a distinguished war hero isn’t brave enough to read a certain history book. What will Ron Paul say next? Whatever it is, it’s sure to be entertaining.

Update: Video from Ron Paul’s interview is now up on YouTube, but the first part where he claims Col. Jack Jacobs is not brave enough to read a book that says Lincoln started the Civil War is missing from the video. I was able to find an audio only version that includes the statement by Ron Paul. It’s right about at the 6:40 mark.

Republican presidential hopeful and all around crackpot Ron Paul was on Meet The Press this past weekend and capitalized on the opportunity by showing America just how kooky he is. He blamed Abraham Lincoln, arguably our most beloved president of starting the Civil War. This from MSNBC:

Paul repeated his claim that Abraham Lincoln should not have started the Civil War to get rid of slavery. “Six-hundred-thousand Americans died in the senseless Civil War,” he said. “No, he should not have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original tenet of the Republic,” he told NBC’s Tim Russert.

“Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world,” Paul continued, responding to the question if America would still have slavery had there not been the Civil War. “The way I’m proposing that it should have been done is do it like the British Empire did — you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans?… I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.”

Except “buying the slaves” would give credence to the idea that humans can be bought and sold like farm animals. That was kind of the whole point in abolishing slavery.

People are not livestock.

Lincoln did not choose to go to war. The war came to him. The United States did not declare war against the Confederacy. The Confederacy declared war against the United States. The southern states illegally seceded from the United States one by one in reaction to Lincoln winning the election. They feared that Lincoln would abolish slavery. Lincoln only called from states to provide troops to assist retaking U.S. forts in southern states after the Battle of Fort Sumter.

A part of me feels sorry for Ron Paul supporters. I understand why they gravitate towards him and his candidacy. Ron Paul is the only anti-Iraq war candidate on the Republican side. Unlike most candidates in either party, Paul comes out and clearly says what he believes. It’s refreshing. The problem is that some of the stuff he comes out and says that he believes in is just plain wrong. Not philosophically wrong, but factually wrong. Like that Lincoln stated the Civil War or that a fertilized egg is a human being. To be a Ron Paul supporter, you have to chose to ignore an awful lot.

Not only is Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul popular with dorky men on the Internet. He’s also popular with at least one live girl who likes to take her clothing off while standing in front of her webcam. She says she’s a Paul supporter because his presidency would mean more personal liberty for individuals.

Unless of course she was raped and needed an abortion.

In that case, Ron Paul wouldn’t want her to make that decision. No, he would want that decision to be made for her by someone else. He believes that the issue of abortion should be made not by the woman, but by the state in which a woman lives.

If every state decided that the issue of abortion is strictly a private matter and should be up to the woman, Ron Paul would most likely then say the issue should be decided at the county level.

Even though he pretends that the issue of abortion should be decided at the state level, Ron Paul tried to invoke a federal law that stated human life begins at the moment of conception. He authored H.R. 776, the “Sanctity of Life Act of 2005.”

That means the moment a rapist’s sperm fertilizes his victim’s egg, the result is a human being no different then you, me, or any other real person. I have no doubt that if the impossible happened and Paul somehow became President, he would abuse the power of the Oval Office to promote his own personal beliefs about abortion. Much like he has tried to do with his position as a congressman.

Ron Paul believes this microscopic fertilized-egg citizen deserves all of the rights and privileges afforded to all Americans. Is it any wonder why Ron Paul attracts so many kooks?

Link to Ron Paul underwear girl (SFW)

After a recent CNBC Republican candidate debate, CNBC threw a poll of on their website asking readers who they thought won the debate. Ron Paul supporters responded by flooding the poll with votes for Ron Paul in an attempt to skew the poll’s results. Ron Paul won by a whopping 75%. CNBC responded by removing the poll from the website. This from the CNBC website:

And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can’t help but admire that.

What’s to admire? I didn’t realize that being “well-organized” and “feeling strongly about something” were necessarily traits to admire. Nazis were well-organized. Nazis felt strongly about something. Should they be admired too? Not that I am comparing Ron Paul fanboys to Nazis. Even though at least some neo-Nazis are Ron Paul supporters and it seems that at least some of the people helping to flood these online polls in Ron Paul’s favor have goose-stepped over from antisemitic white supremest websites.

What about substance? Having fans on the Internet that spam online polls and vote for every Ron Paul story on Digg aren’t things to brag about.

Also from the CNBC website:

But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest “show of hands” — it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn’t our intention and certainly doesn’t serve our readers … at least those who aren’t already in the Ron Paul camp.

I don’t know what Ron Paul’s über fanboys expect when they do stuff like this. Sure, they may get some momentary personal pleasure by throwing the results of an online poll, but all they are really doing is making their candidate look bad. Manipulating Internet polls just makes their candidate look weird. That’s something Ron Paul doesn’t need any help with.

He already has that down pat.

Texas Republican/Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul is running for President and he thinks the above photo is that of a human being. It’s a fertilized egg. He believes it is a person like you and me.

I was listening to Air America Radio yesterday and heard the host conduct an interview with Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is at his core a Libertarian which means he thinks the government shouldn’t pass laws that prohibit people from doing things unless doing those things impede or intrude on the rights of others. Unless it’s something Ron Paul personally doesn’t like. In that case, he’s all for laws that prohibit that.

Ron Paul is against abortion. I heard him say so on Air America Radio. Normally I would tell someone who is against abortion to simply not have one. In Ron Paul’s case, that’s not very practical advice because he doesn’t even have a uterus.

He wont ever need to have an abortion.

That’s not good enough for Ron Paul. He doesn’t want anyone else to get an abortion either. He said in the Air America Radio interview that he is an OB/GYN doctor and over the course of his career he has delivered close to 4 million babies. Maybe it was closer to 4 thousand babies. I don’t remember. The point is, because he has delivered a whole bunch of babies, he doesn’t want a woman to have a choice when it comes to something as important as her own reproduction.

He wants to make that choice for women everywhere.

Ron Paul even authored legislation that sought to define that human life begins at conception. He not only believes a fertilized egg is a person, he wants everyone else to believe that too. He wants it to be a law.

That doesn’t sound too Libertarian to me.

Rudy Giuliani should have been spending less time flying around the country giving paid speeches on the 9-11 terror attacks and spent more time actually learning more about them. Including the reasons we were attacked.

This following is a partial transcript from the recent Republican South Carolina Presidential debate.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.

We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.” They have already now since that time — (bell rings) — have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were — if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

Congressmen Ron Paul is correct. Bin Laden didn’t attack the United States because of our love of apple pie and baseball. He didn’t attack us because we love Jesus.

Rudy Giuliani has made a lot of money off of 9-11. You would think he would try to learn a thing or two about it. Instead he comes off looking like an idiot.

Congressman Ron Paul was right. The so-called “America’s Mayor” was wrong.