In this post yesterday, commenter Paul Breed attempted to get me to support Ron Paul. Individualist Robert Bidinotto explains why I cannot support blame-America-firsters like him:

For a detailed look at Paul’s warped foreign-policy perspective, sample his commentary “The Blame Game,” where he declares, “There was no downside when we left Vietnam.” No downside? Here he blithely evades the wholesale butchery and the enslavement of millions that transpired after our ignominious retreat from Southeast Asia — and the consequent, devastating loss of America’s credibility, both as a military power and as a reliable ally. Add to this Paul’s infuriating use, in the same commentary, of the word “empire” to describe U.S. foreign policy aims — which claim, contrary to all historic facts, rationalizes the bogus charges raised against America by communists and Islamists, giving aid and comfort to these enemies of the U.S. Add to this also Paul’s indiscriminately declared hostility to “war” as such, which (regardless of his protestations) can only translate into a de facto pacifism and isolationism.

Is this foreign-policy outlook realistic? Not since about 1789.

The relentless advance of communication, transportation, satellite, and weapons technology has simply obliterated the geographic “isolationism” that was still largely possible at the time of America’s founding.

When a plot hatched in remote mountains in a backward nation like Afghanistan, with conspirators drawn from places like Saudi Arabia, can bring down iconic buildings in New York and Washington, DC —

— when Chinese rockets can “blind” in outer space the U.S. intelligence satellites that we depend on for our nation’s defense —

— when Iranian rockets and subs can threaten to shut down international shipping lanes, thereby interfering with free trade —

— when Islamist terrorists and despots can shut down at whim international traffic in a commodity as basic as oil, etc., etc.

— it is no longer possible to pretend we can draw any meaningful national-defense line at the water’s edge. Those days are long gone.

National defense today requires the ability and willingness to project credible power globally, in direct protection of the very trade, travel, communications, and contacts among peoples that Ron Paul and many other libertarians declare to be the pillars of international relations and peace.

Without the forward projection of U.S. military power — through foreign bases (which implies alliances), naval-carrier battle groups, special ops forces, advanced military aircraft, and first-rate intelligence agencies (which means an effective CIA, NSA, etc.) — the “foreign-trade-and-travel” model of foreign policy prescribed by Dr. Paul and many libertarians would be revealed for the ridiculous fantasy it is.

Well, then, is this foreign-policy outlook principled?

What “principle” does it cite? A vacuous “noninterventionism” that clashes with the proper defense of U.S. interests and the individual rights of Americans? As his coercive positions on abortion and immigration underscore, Ron Paul doesn’t even grasp what the principle of individual rights is all about. His is the traditional, platonic view of “natural rights” shared by many other libertarians, which tacitly equates anti-government positions with pro-liberty positions — as if they are the same.

They aren’t.

Read the whole thing.

[Update mid morning]

This seems related. Evan Coyne Maloney writes about the surrender impulse that is intrinsic to multi-culturalism:

The dogma of multiculturalism holds that all cultures are equal, except Western culture, which (unlike every other society on the planet) has a history of oppression and war is therefore worse. All religions are equal, except Christianity, which informed the beliefs of the capitalist bloodsuckers who founded America and is therefore worse. All races are equal, except Caucasians, who long ago went into business with black slave traders in Africa, and therefore they are worse. The genders, too, are equal, except for those paternalistic males, who with their testosterone and aggression have made this planet a polluted living hell, and therefore they are worse.

Once you understand this, the Multicultural Pyramid of Oppression, you can begin to understand how to turn to your advantage certain circumstances that are beyond your control: such as where you were born, the type of genitalia you were born with, into what race you were born, and the religion of your parents. You see, the fewer things you have in common with The Oppressors, the more you can cast yourself as The Victim. And as The Victim, you are virtuous, so there are certain things you can get away with that others can

In this post yesterday, commenter Paul Breed attempted to get me to support Ron Paul. Individualist Robert Bidinotto explains why I cannot support blame-America-firsters like him:

For a detailed look at Paul’s warped foreign-policy perspective, sample his commentary “The Blame Game,” where he declares, “There was no downside when we left Vietnam.” No downside? Here he blithely evades the wholesale butchery and the enslavement of millions that transpired after our ignominious retreat from Southeast Asia — and the consequent, devastating loss of America’s credibility, both as a military power and as a reliable ally. Add to this Paul’s infuriating use, in the same commentary, of the word “empire” to describe U.S. foreign policy aims — which claim, contrary to all historic facts, rationalizes the bogus charges raised against America by communists and Islamists, giving aid and comfort to these enemies of the U.S. Add to this also Paul’s indiscriminately declared hostility to “war” as such, which (regardless of his protestations) can only translate into a de facto pacifism and isolationism.

Is this foreign-policy outlook realistic? Not since about 1789.

The relentless advance of communication, transportation, satellite, and weapons technology has simply obliterated the geographic “isolationism” that was still largely possible at the time of America’s founding.

When a plot hatched in remote mountains in a backward nation like Afghanistan, with conspirators drawn from places like Saudi Arabia, can bring down iconic buildings in New York and Washington, DC —

— when Chinese rockets can “blind” in outer space the U.S. intelligence satellites that we depend on for our nation’s defense —

— when Iranian rockets and subs can threaten to shut down international shipping lanes, thereby interfering with free trade —

— when Islamist terrorists and despots can shut down at whim international traffic in a commodity as basic as oil, etc., etc.

— it is no longer possible to pretend we can draw any meaningful national-defense line at the water’s edge. Those days are long gone.

National defense today requires the ability and willingness to project credible power globally, in direct protection of the very trade, travel, communications, and contacts among peoples that Ron Paul and many other libertarians declare to be the pillars of international relations and peace.

Without the forward projection of U.S. military power — through foreign bases (which implies alliances), naval-carrier battle groups, special ops forces, advanced military aircraft, and first-rate intelligence agencies (which means an effective CIA, NSA, etc.) — the “foreign-trade-and-travel” model of foreign policy prescribed by Dr. Paul and many libertarians would be revealed for the ridiculous fantasy it is.

Well, then, is this foreign-policy outlook principled?

What “principle” does it cite? A vacuous “noninterventionism” that clashes with the proper defense of U.S. interests and the individual rights of Americans? As his coercive positions on abortion and immigration underscore, Ron Paul doesn’t even grasp what the principle of individual rights is all about. His is the traditional, platonic view of “natural rights” shared by many other libertarians, which tacitly equates anti-government positions with pro-liberty positions — as if they are the same.

They aren’t.

Read the whole thing.

[Update mid morning]

This seems related. Evan Coyne Maloney writes about the surrender impulse that is intrinsic to multi-culturalism:

The dogma of multiculturalism holds that all cultures are equal, except Western culture, which (unlike every other society on the planet) has a history of oppression and war is therefore worse. All religions are equal, except Christianity, which informed the beliefs of the capitalist bloodsuckers who founded America and is therefore worse. All races are equal, except Caucasians, who long ago went into business with black slave traders in Africa, and therefore they are worse. The genders, too, are equal, except for those paternalistic males, who with their testosterone and aggression have made this planet a polluted living hell, and therefore they are worse.

Once you understand this, the Multicultural Pyramid of Oppression, you can begin to understand how to turn to your advantage certain circumstances that are beyond your control: such as where you were born, the type of genitalia you were born with, into what race you were born, and the religion of your parents. You see, the fewer things you have in common with The Oppressors, the more you can cast yourself as The Victim. And as The Victim, you are virtuous, so there are certain things you can get away with that others can

Trent Lott is resigning from the Senate.

What a shame.

This is a tragic day for diversity. We’re going to lose our first black Senate Majority Leader.

Gosh, it seems like the good old days of the nineties:

Several obvious questions for Hillary Clinton arise from these many, varied relationships.

• Why would you and your husband sell the Clinton Library Donor List to InfoUSA but not disclose the list to the public?
• Will you describe all of your family’s financial ties to Vinod Gupta and InfoUSA, such as your husband’s true compensation?
• Should we trust any poll coming from CNN/Opinion Research Corporation given various financial ties — not all of which have been disclosed — between Vinod Gupta and your family as well as other key Democrats?

I won’t hold my breath waiting for the mainstream media (especially CNN) to ask these questions. But perhaps one day during a debate, some real — not scripted — questioners will ask the tough questions that can and must be asked.

Apparently Gupta is the new James Riadi. I wonder if there’s a twenty-first century version of the Lippo Group?

Do people really want to go through another eight years of this?

A lot of pundits are wondering if there will be a third-party or independent run by someone this year. The usual scenario is that it if Giuliani is nominated, then a lot of the evangelicals will abandon the Republican Party. But in the previous post, I thought this an interesting comment:

I really don’t like him either. What the hell am I supposed to do if the contest ends up between Clinton and Huckabee?

It would be a pretty depressing prospect for conservatives and libertarians, to have no candidate in either major party with either a conservative or libertarian bone in their bodies. To my mind, this would be the most likely scenario to cause a revolt of the Republicans (and some Democrats). There would be an opportunity for someone to run on platform of individual and market freedom (particularly if they combined a tough stance on the war). I’m not sure who that would be, though, or how it would happen. Thompson would fit the bill, but I’m don’t know if he’d abandon the party, or be able to pull it off, given his seemingly lackadaisical campaign style to date.

[5 PM EST update]

Here’s an evangelical who thinks that Fred is the man, despite his secularism. He’s a “leave-me-the-heck-alone conservative“:

We Jesus Freaks (I’ll embrace the term) can mostly accomplish what we want to accomplish with a “leave me the heck alone” conservative like Fred (heck, or even McCain). We can live and let live. And Fred’s a likable guy. So I’m with him. And the nice thing about it for me is that I’m not with Fred because the others suck. I’m with Fred because I want to be. In a small bit of irony, back in February I was attending an event in Kansas at the Dole Institute. I told the Director that I was supporting Mitt Romney, but that I really wished someone like Fred Thompson would get in the race. The Director agreed. His name is Bill Lacy. You might have heard of him.

A good bit of me loves Huckabee and Rudy really excites me as a candidate against Hillary. But I want an across the board pro-life, pro-defense, small goverment, pro-entrepreneur conservative. And of the three men who fit the bill, I think Fred offers the most with the least baggage. He’ll make sure the government leaves me the heck alone.

Though I’m not a theist, let alone a Christian, that works for me, too. I think that’s a good sign, if he can survive Iowa and New Hampshire.

This article has the headline, “McCain Pounds Clinton On Iraq” (which he does, and she is more than deserving of the pounding), but what caught my eye was this comment from Mike Huckabee:

Huckabee responded to Romney

From a comment at this post about the JFK assassination, which has drifted far off topic because an anonymous moron came in and asked if I thought that Clinton was involved with it (for the record, as far as I know, JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, unassisted).

Rand, it was clear from even a quick google search that everything you said about Newsweek, Isakoff, and Drudge were true, and I’m not disputing them. What I couldn’t figure out, from admittedly just a quick search, was _why_ Newsweek “spiked” the story, I assume by “spiked” you mean “suppressed”.

I saw lots of sources that suggested that they did because they were still building the story.

The bigger more interesting picture: I’m just a vanilla Hillary-Supporter, and my support Hillary is probably only of interest to you in that I’m similar to the vast majority of voters who simply aren’t knowledgeable about this stuff. Maybe unlike most voters, I read the NYT every day, and lately I’ve been reading politico.com obsessively. But I never hear about this stuff. I respect your opinion (this blog isn’t in the rat’s nest), and when you have time and interest, I would like to hear more about a) the worst things you suspect eithor of the Clintons did and why, and b) why in the world the NYT and the Washington Post (and Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, etc), don’t cover the evidence for these deeds. No hurry, although I hope you write about it (or link to it) before I vote on Feb 5th.

That was suggested by many (lots of things were always suggested by many to deny the press bias in favor of the Clintons in the nineties), but my understanding is that Isikoff thought it was ready to go, and expected it to, and it was spiked at the last minute.

As to why they did it, the media was always reluctant to print negative things about the Clintons, and when they did, they always gave prominence to their spinmasters to minimize the damage. Don Hewitt claimed credit for saving Clinton’s candidacy with the Sixty-Minutes puff piece on the “problems with their marriage” after the Gennifer Flowers audio tapes surfaced. In one particularly shameful episode, when Gary Aldrich came out with a damaging book about them, and was scheduled to go on This Week, Stephanopolous (who ironically now, was working for the White House at the time) got them to cancel his appearance.

Continue reading What I Think Of The Clintons →

Let’s hope there are a lot of traitors there:

Brandishing a little red book listing his desired 69 revisions to Venezuela’s charter, Chavez exhorted his backers to redouble their efforts toward a victorious “yes” vote in the Dec. 2 ballot.

“He who says he supports Chavez but votes ‘no’ is a traitor, a true traitor,” the president told an arena packed with red-clad supporters. “He’s against me, against the revolution and against the people.”

People here who support this budding despot, like Jimmy Carter, should be ashamed of themselves. But I think they have no shame.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here are some of the potential traitors standing in food lines, waiting for milk.

[Another update a couple minutes later]

I wonder if the leche lines are why he’s lost his lead?

…the survey was the latest blow to Chavez. He has suffered a series of defections over his plan, including an ex-defense minister who had restored him to power after a brief 2002 putsch but who called Chavez’s reforms a new “coup.”

“The debate over voting ‘yes’ or ‘no’ has burst into the very heart of Chavez’s support base,” Leon said in an interview. “We can see moderate Chavez backers ready to vote ‘no’ even though they like him.”

The question is, what will he do if he loses? Have the “traitors” shot?

This seems a worthy cause to me.

Jonah Goldberg writes:

It is, for example, absurd that we’ve decided the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of morality in this country and it is even more cockeyed that, having arrived at this absurd place, we continue to appoint lawyers to the court on the assumption they are the experts best qualified to adjudicate not merely the law (which is fine, of course) but right and wrong and all of the mysteries of metaphysics and meaning. Why lawyers? Why not priests, doctors and philosophers too