Are you sitting down?

Bill Clinton wasn’t completely truthful yesterday.

Unlike Jonah, I won’t go so far as to say he lied. I think that he manages to persuade himself at the time that whatever he is saying is true. It’s a trait of an effective sociopath.

I don’t know if this will help or hurt, but apparently, Rush Limbaugh said today that the only conservative on the stage last night was Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson wants to have some serious debates. I doubt if anyone will take him up on it, though.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Mark Steyn is frustrated with Fred:

Every time I see a Fred policy plan, he seems to have by far the best ideas, and the necessary zeal for reform, on taxes, Social Security and much else. But every time you see him in these TV debates he has the listless air of a bored grandparent at a dreary school play.

…What’s the strategy here? Why does he have great ideas but no campaign?

Similar to my own, from Joshua Zader:

As a libertarian-minded person, I

From Instapundit, about last night’s “debate”:

He’s just terrible, even when — which is often, once he’s off the subject of the war — I agree with him. His voice is too high, he can’t remember who the Kurds are, and he often comes off like a crazy old man in a bus station.

But that’s good news, in a way. Paul’s doing better than anyone expected. It’s abundantly clear that he’s not doing it on charisma and rhetorical skill. Which means that libertarian ideas are actually appealing, since Ron Paul isn’t. Paul’s flaws as a vessel for those ideas prove the ideas’ appeal. If they sell with him as the pitchman, they must be really resonating. I suspect Paul himself would agree with this analysis. Er, except maybe the bus station part.

I’m glad that someone else listens to this stuff, so I don’t have to.

Oh, and speaking of Ron Paul, check out the video over at Lileks’ place:

The likelihood of a candidate

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

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?