News and Opinions - Blog Chow

Ron Paul Blows Any Chance of Ever Getting the Republican Nomination

One thing definitely came out of the Republican Presidential debate Tuesday night and that’s that Ron Paul has no chance of getting the nomination. Not that too many people could have given him a shot to begin with. He looked like an antique salesman out in the country. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

What is wrong is that he’s an excuse maker for the terrorists. He is nothing more than a plant for the liberal party. He is an abomination to conservatives and freedom loving Americans everywhere. There are few things that can compare with making excuses for murderers and blaming innocent people. While he is a conservative on most things, he lacks the credibility of someone like a Rudy Guiliani, who because you trust them you can possibly overlook some things. It would be impossible for me to give anyone a pass who runs cover for murderers.

Fox News Analysts Unable to Explain the Obvious

The Fox News analysts were perplexed after the debate as to why Paul scored so well on their text message poll. They tried to blame it on Paul having a some kind of campaign to get people to vote for him. While that could be some of it, and while text message polls are extremely unreliable, that’s not the main reason for getting a good result.

The reason is simple and I cannot believe that the Fox guys including Sean Hannity did not have the explanation for Ron Paul’s poll numbers in their post debate coverage. If the liberal Alan Colmes knew the reason he wasn’t going to say. There is really a very easy explanation. While it was a Republican debate, many on the other side of the isle are still watching. There was only one person who a liberal would think of voting for out of that group and that was Ron Paul. Conservatives split their vote up between the 9 other candidates. So really the fact that Paul was so bad actually gained him some absolutely meaningless good poll numbers. This guy could not win as a republican, democrat or an independent. He has as much chance of winning as a goat has of winning the Kentucky Derby. He was a hero for a day to the liberals.

Ron Paul: 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…

Wendell Goler: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

Ron 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.

Rudy 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.)

Ron Paul: 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.

Tom Tancredo: I just have to disagree with you, Ron, about the issue of whether or not that — whether Israel existed or didn’t, whether or not we were in the Iraq war or not, they would be trying to kill us because it’s a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it, and we have to defend ourselves.

These were some interesting quotes from Larry Flynt after the death of the Reverend Jerry Falwell:

After meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. He would visit me in California and we would debate together on college campuses. I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling.

The famous lawsuit involved a ‘Hustler’ piece with a parody of an intoxicated Jerry Falwell having incest with his mother. While I’m all for free speech, it was, much like most of Flynt’s doings, beyond vulgar. It showed a complete lack of class and lack of conscience. I do give Flynt credit for showing some respect for Falwell and for admitting they had become friends.

It is interesting to note that while the majority of American people claim to be Christians, Falwell took a lot of heat over the years for actually believing what the Bible says.

For those of you who are lied to by those who try to rewrite history, this blog’s for you. It was four years ago the speech took place that President Bush is often credited with saying the mission was accomplished. Aside from being a phantom quote, what those who wish to deceive you try to do is equate that with what’s going on in Iraq right now. The mission that was accomplished was removing Saddam Hussein. Saddam is still gone. He’s quite dead in fact.

Not only do they try to deceive the naive and people who are too busy to pay attention, they hide the fact that President Bush said repeatedly way back when that patience would be needed and that this would go on for a long time. I’ve heard him say it many times with my own ears and so have most of you. As time goes by and the same lies get repeated over and over it’s easy to forget. They repeat the lies so often they become accepted fact, even though they can’t prove their rhetoric.

Do you remember hearing President Bush saying mission accomplished? If you do, you are a victim of the repeated propaganda. You probably actually do remember seeing a banner with those words. A banner that came from the crew of the aircraft carrier from which he spoke. Something he actually did say was: “And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.” It’s not a crime to forget that, but it ought to be a crime to try to convince people that certain things happened that didn’t. They are playing you for suckers.

It’s so bad that some people forget what they see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears. They are like parrots and just repeat the rhetoric they hear over and over. Sheeple. I’ll never understand why people would choose to believe those who have proven repeatedly to be liars. Why would you even want to be on the same side of people like that? It must be some kind of mental defect. In the case of terrorism, many choose to side with people who murder innocents, even their own children.

The only real and honest way to look at a war is from a historical perspective. When you do, you see that this war is more successful than most. It’s simply a fact. Look at the lives lost in World War I and World War II. Enormous losses in single battles. The fact that we tie the hands of the troops and make them scared to do their job certainly isn’t making things easier. They somehow have to now be perfect or else be treated like criminals. It’s even gotten to where they are guilty till proven innocent.

Did we support the troops in those other wars by telling them to run home where it’s safe so we could all become slaves? People would have been tried for treason for some of the things that are done today that encourage the enemy. Do you think they were parading around grieving family members and doing the propaganda work of our enemies? How disgusting is it to feed off the pain of those who have lost loved ones and try to use them to paralyze us from doing what needs to be done? To help an enemy by playing on people’s emotions like that would seem to be a form of terrorism in and of itself. The fact that a few family members are parading around who didn’t support their loved ones in the first place, disrespecting their memory, just shows how low some can go. Can you imagine not wanting a loved one to be considered a hero who served and died for their country? Shameless. How much of a reward would you need to piss on the grave of a loved one who died serving their country? There’s been a lot of new lows hit the last few years.

“Those we lost were last seen on duty. Their final act on this Earth was to fight a great evil and to bring liberty to others.”
– President Bush during the misrepresented Mission Accomplished Speech

When someone says that major combat operations are over, does that mean everything is over? There is violence all over the world, even in places that are considered peaceful. Why would anyone possibly believe that means we are completely done? What is going on now in Iraq is dirty and dangerous and often fatal, but it’s not major combat operations. Certainly not historically speaking, not unless the military has gone completely downhill and we don’t have sophisticated weaponry anymore. Otherwise, this is a dangerous police action, not major combat. It’s not even Shock ‘N Awe. Do you remember that? That was a pretty major operation. That was back when the politicians had the jewels to try to win. Or maybe it was that some of them didn’t have the jewels to speak up against it. You make the call. Either way we have more than a few people who could use a couple.

It’s one thing for someone to actually be against this military operation, but why do people have to lie about the facts? Why is it so hard to tell about all the infrastructure improvements and the accomplishments of American forces? You are told almost gleefully about the numbers of our own people who die like it’s a telethon and the deaths are dollars. The only thing missing are bells and whistles that go off in celebration of hitting certain milestones. How often do you hear the numbers of the terrorists killed? We are told we are losing the war, so enemy casualties must be less, right? Then again, we are also led to believe that most deaths are just innocent civilians.

If you listen to people like Rosie O’Donnell or John Kerry you wouldn’t expect our troops to be capable of winning. They are just dolts who can’t get a real job to people like that. It’s good to hear they support the troops. I guess they just don’t support the mission of sending idiots off into combat. I think if you have to lie or mislead, then you don’t really care about anything but politics and somehow enjoy hurting people who do care. Do you think people who mislead you are interested in your freedoms?

There’s more than a few people out there who feed on the uninformed. You’ve got the liberal politicians, the liberal media, and the anti-American sheep who repeat the same lies over and over. If you don’t like being played for a fool, you need to start paying attention. Once you know who isn’t interested in the truth you will at least know who to stop listening to. That’s half the battle. It’s not hard to see who they have invested their futures in. They’ve sold out the very people who made them who they are.

Just like the Imus fiasco, the political opportunists will be out to take advantage of the terrible tragedy at Virginia Tech and use it to advance their own agendas. They will blame everything from the right to bear arms to President Bush. They will call for even more laws that will wind up infringing on your rights and doing more harm than good.

If you were stuck in the group of people being butchered wouldn’t you have liked for a law abiding citizen to have had a handgun? Police have guns. What kind of society would it be if they didn’t? So many lives would have been saved. Such things also act as a deterrent to people like this. The only thing that stops some criminals is the fear of running into someone who will fight back. Look at what happens in a disaster like Hurricane Katrina. The criminals pull out guns and wreak havoc. Do you remember that? They will always find a way to get a weapon. This is 2007. People can make guns. Criminals will buy and sell them just like they do drugs.

Banning guns would not have changed anything that happened at Virginia Tech. I suppose a gun was better than a well placed bomb. Imagine what could have been done with a bomb or two in a college with over 25,000 students. If anything it should cause a stronger commitment to fighting terrorism, as this could have easily been carried out by a terrorist. Instead, the vultures who feed on taking away your rights will take full advantage of the pain and suffering and convince some they are trying to solve the problem, when in fact they are simply trying to elevate themselves. Some people care more about the rights of terrorists than the rights of decent citizens.

I remember in a gun control argument Archie Bunker saying to Meathead, “would you rather they was pushed out of windows?” It was a very funny line, but it really was very profound. People have always found a way to kill other people. Now, in the age of terrorism, there are more effective ways of carrying out mass murder. An alert and armed citizen could potentially save thousands from such killers.

Look at what happens in China. Despite over a billion people they are terribly oppressed. Thrown in prison for having their own opinions. It is slowly getting to that point here. When nobody is allowed a gun, the criminals and politicians will have total control. In many instances the criminals and politicians are one in the same. Every time something happens, a do-gooder politician will pass another pile of laws. That is one of the biggest dangers to freedom right now. New laws streaming in and old laws staying on the books. What happens is selective enforcement. Some get arrested and some don’t. Some people get off with a slap on the wrist and others do hard time for a lesser offense…

The Imus lynching was proof of that. Even if you think someone doesn’t have a right to free speech, shouldn’t they go after the worst offenders first? Therein lies the hypocrisy. Bill Maher and Rosie still have jobs despite their anti-American and anti-Christian comments. Rosie the waste product with her accusations of a 9/11 conspiracy and “terrorist are parents too” comments. Nice parents who blow up their own children. What about the degradation of women on a daily basis by Howard Stern? How much money has he made from his right to free speech?

What about some of these rappers and hip hop artists? Some of their songs are so vulgar it’s sickening when you consider a large portion of the people listening to this stuff is kids. How many kids were watching 66 year old Imus? Speaking of kids, Leslie Moonves fired Imus under the guise of cleaning up the airwaves. This is the guy who was in charge of MTV. Do you know what is on MTV? If you have kids that you care about you better watch it. Not just the videos, some of their kids shows. You won’t even believe it. It’s kiddie porn. Talk about sick hypocrisy.

Funny thing about Imus is that he was a liberal. Had he been a conservative that’s all you would have heard. Imagine if it was Limbaugh or Hannity. I guess he fit the stereotype of a republican so that was close enough to throw him to the wolves. Ironically, some of his accusers have said far worse things.

The same people who tell you abortion should be legal because a woman will take a coat hanger to herself and rip out a baby will tell you that a criminal won’t buy a gun off the street. Most of the political people and Hollywood/entertainment big shots who want to outlaw weapons have their own security who are armed for their protection. That won’t change. They are entitled to protection. You aren’t. It’s the same way they can fly jets everyday, but you should drive your car less to save the planet from global warming. You put them in power, but they are better than you. You are a pissant to them.

note: The mayor of Nagasaki, Japan was shot to death today, despite the strictest of gun laws there.

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has answered the question I’ve had for a very long time about the global warming hysteria: “what is the proper temperature for the planet earth?” This is what he has to say on the subject in his article for the April 16 Newsweek issue:

The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth’s climate history, it’s apparent that there’s no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperature wise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman’s forecast for next week.
–Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Well said. There really is no such thing as a normal temperature for a day, much less a century. What is considered normal is an average. It’s possible for a month to come out on average without ever actually hitting the normal temperature for a single day. In most places the temperature for any particular day usually does not land on the average temperature. Check the records for your area for a month and see how often you hit the normal high/low temperature for a particular day. You could also check today’s high/low and compare it to last year’s high and low for this date. Doubt they will be the same. In more places than not they will be cooler since much of the country has experienced well below average temperatures lately. Where does all that cold weather come from when the earth is a greenhouse with the sun beating down on it?

Saying that last century the earth was at the right temperature is like saying yesterday’s temperature must be the normal temperature for today. It’s very improbable. You would need accurate temperatures for many centuries to even come up with a reliable average. Odds are such an average would be different from both last century and this one. Since there has always been warming and cooling periods, I don’t think normal could ever be established. There is simply no way to measure “proper” temperature.

If the temperature was usually the same everywhere and it rose a degree in a century then there could possibly be a problem. Since temperature swings of 20 degrees or more in a day are not unusual in many places there is certainly no reason to think 1/10th of a degree rise in average temperature in a decade is anything that animals can’t adapt to. Look at the change in temperature from season to season. How do animals ever survive?

What we are being told about global warming can’t be proven and isn’t even logical. There are short, medium and long term weather patterns, so establishing norms is always going to be a moving target. Since life has survived all those climate changes there is no reason to believe that last century’s average temperature was ideal. There is even less reason to believe that a 1 or 2 degree rise in temperature is going to wipe out life on the planet. Panic and stupidity have a much better chance of accomplishing that. So do terrorists and regimes who are promising mass destruction.

Mel Gibson ripped into hecklers before they were escorted from a college film class after ranting that he was racist in the making of the movie ‘Apocalypto.’

Lady, Fuck off… Make your own movie!
– Mel Gibson

I’d have to say he at least handled it better than Kramer did. Even historical movies out of Hollywood tend to be closer to fiction than fact. I think Gibson has been far more historical in his movies than the average Hollywood movie has. Why don’t people go after the worst offenders first?

One of the latest outrages is the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys. Harriet Miers recommended that all 93 be let go. That is what happened under the Bill Clinton/Janet Reno reign. They want Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign for eight. Janet Reno didn’t resign. Let’s not forget some of the other things that went on under Janet Reno, such as Elian Gonzalez and the Waco massacre. She didn’t resign, nor was she fired.

The firings under Clinton/Reno went by with barely a whimper. ABC and CBS never even reported it, according to the Media Research Center. The truth is that these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, so it is within their rights, although firing 93 would seem to be an abuse of that power.

Political opportunists like Chuck Schumer are saying how this is somehow unprecedented. Their turning a least offender into a worst offender is abominable. This is so typical of the extreme left. Anyone who thinks they are getting it straight on from the politicians and the media only need to look here. These vermin have turned the whole system into a mockery. The facts are out there and they are clear to those who want to go beyond the headlines and one-liners. The spin and hypocrisy these days are what’s really unprecedented.

Hello, everyone. President Bush tonight is defending the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. He says it was the right thing to do. What was wrong, he says, is the way the Justice Department told Congress about it. That would include saying the White House wasn’t involved. Turns out it was.
– Katie Couric (CBS, March 14)

It’s funny how freedom of speech goes out the window when a Conservative says something over the top. Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot and there are some who are more upset by this than by Iran getting Nukes or terrorists trying to destroy their way of life.

There were people who cheered John Kerry’s “joke” about our troops being stupid. Where was the outrage from the liberals? It’s called the old double standard. The people should decide what is right and what is wrong. In Kerry’s case it cost him any chance of becoming President. He is still a Senator, however. I haven’t heard an outcry amongst the democrat party for him to step down. But I guess he was for the troops before he was against them…

It’s supposedly patriotic to bash our leaders in a time of war and denigrate the troops. If someone says something derogatory against certain behaviors it is likened to racism. Homosexuality is not a race. Any straight black person should be offended when comparisons arise between gays and homosexuals.

John Edwards hired a couple liberal bloggers who’s writings routinely included vulgar and blasphemous comments against Christianity. It took a public outcry for this union to end. Edward’s excuse was that he hadn’t read all their stuff. What did he hire them for in the first place if he didn’t know what kind of writings they were doing? Where are the liberals screaming for an end to his Presidential campaign? Again, the double standard. The fact that the Catholic League pointed this out to Edwards and he kept them on only adds to the hypocrisy. It clearly did not appear to be a mistake.

The liberals embraced the Dixie Chicks when they started their anti-American tirades. Where was the condemnation from the liberal politicians? That is considered free speech. In fact, you get awards after that kind of thing. Doesn’t matter if they have to cancel a lot of their concerts because people aren’t buying the tickets. If it weren’t for liberals contributing to the cause, the Dixie Chicks would be out of business.

Then there’s the Clintons. Hillary’s thesis and suppression thereof is apparently no big deal to liberals and the liberal media. You can run for President and support a radical leftist like Saul Alinsky and it is a not a big deal. Instead, people worry about name calling. Bill Clinton degraded the White House when he was cheating on his wife while President. He lied under oath as well. But that’s his “personal business.” Even though he was really in the people’s house. Again, it’s name calling that’s bad.

Why didn’t liberals demand Hillary Clinton apologize for her accusing others of making it up about Bill’s screwing around on her in the White House? Does anyone remember her charge that it was a vast right wing conspiracy? News flash: It Wasn’t! No demands for an apology or demands for other Presidential candidates to condemn her remarks. Don’t say these things are ancient history. Remember George Bush’s decades old DUI that was brought up right before the election? One is an old indiscretion, the others are patterns of beliefs and political tactics…

Free speech is okay when it is aimed against things that this Country was founded on. It is okay against Christians, Jews, Conservatives and any group who attempts to exercise their own free speech when talking out against liberalism. You can’t even say that homosexuality spreads aids without liberals being highly offended by it. It is okay to say that the Jews are responsible for all the problems in the world, but to say promiscuous homosexuality was responsible for aids becoming an epidemic would make some people rant and rave. Free speech is used to defend many a vile comment, but when the shoe is on the other foot, censorship is suddenly desired. Do you see the hypocrisy?

It’s okay to sell books that trash Christianity or for a greedy film maker to try to make a profit by saying Jesus was married with kids. That’s considered free speech and “though provoking.” I suppose it is, but if you say things about Mohammad you are intolerant and attacking a religion. Again, anybody getting the hypocrisy here?

There is a call to censor scientists and meteorologists if they have other ideas about global warming. No free exchange of ideas here. If facts about long term emotional problems to many who have had abortions are brought up, there is no tolerance for that information. Nor for information regarding pain to the fetus. These are areas where liberals say free speech is not allowed. Pornography a mouse click away from children is allowable. Just remember, no swearing at a liberal.

Political correctness is an attack on free speech. It gives some people the right to say anything they want, while silencing others. There are college professors who are allowed to spew anti-American venom to their students under the cover of “free speech.” It’s insanity.

It’s even acceptable to some for people to say they wish Vice President Cheney had been killed in an attempt on his life. Bottom feeders like Bill Maher hide behind the right of free speech. Is there any comparison between such remarks against the Vice President when American soldiers are in harm’s way fighting a war and calling someone a name?

Ann Coulter is not a politician like most of the examples I’ve used, yet the media will be sure to repeatedly show how “intolerant” she is. Too bad they aren’t so concerned about things that are said when they come from liberal politicians running for President or the people who support them. Funny how selective some can be. Doesn’t Ann Coulter have the right to not support the mission?

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards. But it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word “faggot,” so I’m — so I’m kind of at an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards. So I think I’ll just conclude here and take your questions.”
– Ann Coulter, at CPAC 2007