What effect does the French and Dutch voting down the European constitution have on Hal Lindsey’s predictions?

The United States will not hold its present position of leadership in the western world; financially, the future leader will be Western Europe. Internal political chaos caused by student rebellion and Communist subversion will begin to erode the economy of our nation. Lack of moral principle by citizens and leaders will so weaken law and order that a state of anarchy will finally result. The military capability of the United States, though it is at present the most powerful in the world, has already been neutralized because no one has the courage to use it decisively. When the economy collapses so will the military.19

Something else that few have noted–while Chirac certainly lost big, another big loser is Valery Giscard D’estaing, who wrote the socialistic, micromanaging monstrosity that was voted down. I guess that’s what he gets for having a girl’s name.

I hadn’t previously paid much attention to Senator Voinovich until his lachrimose performance on the Senate floor over John Bolton. Now I think that he’s one of the most asinine members of the Senate (which is to say, he still has lots of competition among his colleagues). Apparently, some of his constituents in the Buckeye state think so too. Send him a hankie.

Canadians should keep a close eye on Belinda Stronach, and not just for the obvious reasons.

To quote someone else, heh.

Seriously, though, it is kind of amazing that there are still Japanese soldiers coming home from WW II after all these years. It was always a big story back in the sixties whenever one of these guys was found hiding out on some remote island (there was even a Gilligan’s Island episode based on one–see number fifteen in the link), and that was only twenty years after the war. Now it’s sixty.

I don’t think so. This is just a poll of “Americans,” not “likely” or even “registered” voters. It mainly reflects name recognition.

Besides, the Slick Grope Vets, including Juanita Broaddrick, will have plenty to say if she actually runs.

I’ve previously speculated that Bill Clinton wouldn’t have survived the blogosphere, had it existed in the early nineties. I don’t think that Hillary will either.

[Update at 11:15 AM EDT]

In response to some snark in the comments section, I decided to pull this up into the main post:

I’d just like to point out, for the benefit of the visitors here who didn’t buy the Clinton Chronicles Criterion Edition DVD, that the 3rd of your links itself includes links that suggest the Clintons murdered both Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and at least 34 other innocent people.

Ahhh, six degrees of separation of links. Pardon me while my eyes roll.

Rand, would you care to state, for the record, whether you believe either of those scenarios are true?

With regard to Vince Foster, I have no idea who killed him, but I think that, based on the publicly available evidence, it is extremely unlikely that he died in Fort Marcy Park, and there is little evidence to prove that he died by his own hand, and quite a bit the other way. The case was so badly botched that we’ll probably never know what happened, absent a confession on someone’s part. I do think it likely that the Clintons know who is responsible, but certainly can’t prove that. I also find it amusing that those who would otherwise demonize Ken Starr accept his word unquestioningly when it comes to the Foster report.

The Ron Brown death was extremely suspicious, and convenient to the Clintons in its timing, but again, I’m not going make any direct accusations. As in the Foster case, I lack sufficient data.

Anyways, for all the whining about how Democrats have no ideas, I’m thrilled to hear the GOP plans on leading with Bill’s character issues in their effort to tear Hillary down.

I said nothing about GOP plans. Not being a member of the GOP, I’ve no idea what their plans are (hint: not everyone who thinks that Bill Clinton was corrupt is a “right winger” or a Republican). I was describing the potential response of the blogosphere and the women he (and his wife) molested, slandered and libeled. Thanks for playing, though.

And if you think none of the potential GOP nominees have exploitable character issues, well, whatever. IOKIYAR and all.

Those are theoretical. Hillary’s are real.

[One more update at 2 PM]

Many of the objections in comments are beside the point, because this isn’t about Bill Clinton’s sexual behavior–it’s about his and Hillary’s (often successful) attempts at character assassination of his accusers.

I don’t think so. This is just a poll of “Americans,” not “likely” or even “registered” voters. It mainly reflects name recognition.

Besides, the Slick Grope Vets, including Juanita Broaddrick, will have plenty to say if she actually runs.

I’ve previously speculated that Bill Clinton wouldn’t have survived the blogosphere, had it existed in the early nineties. I don’t think that Hillary will either.

[Update at 11:15 AM EDT]

In response to some snark in the comments section, I decided to pull this up into the main post:

I’d just like to point out, for the benefit of the visitors here who didn’t buy the Clinton Chronicles Criterion Edition DVD, that the 3rd of your links itself includes links that suggest the Clintons murdered both Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and at least 34 other innocent people.

Ahhh, six degrees of separation of links. Pardon me while my eyes roll.

Rand, would you care to state, for the record, whether you believe either of those scenarios are true?

With regard to Vince Foster, I have no idea who killed him, but I think that, based on the publicly available evidence, it is extremely unlikely that he died in Fort Marcy Park, and there is little evidence to prove that he died by his own hand, and quite a bit the other way. The case was so badly botched that we’ll probably never know what happened, absent a confession on someone’s part. I do think it likely that the Clintons know who is responsible, but certainly can’t prove that. I also find it amusing that those who would otherwise demonize Ken Starr accept his word unquestioningly when it comes to the Foster report.

The Ron Brown death was extremely suspicious, and convenient to the Clintons in its timing, but again, I’m not going make any direct accusations. As in the Foster case, I lack sufficient data.

Anyways, for all the whining about how Democrats have no ideas, I’m thrilled to hear the GOP plans on leading with Bill’s character issues in their effort to tear Hillary down.

I said nothing about GOP plans. Not being a member of the GOP, I’ve no idea what their plans are (hint: not everyone who thinks that Bill Clinton was corrupt is a “right winger” or a Republican). I was describing the potential response of the blogosphere and the women he (and his wife) molested, slandered and libeled. Thanks for playing, though.

And if you think none of the potential GOP nominees have exploitable character issues, well, whatever. IOKIYAR and all.

Those are theoretical. Hillary’s are real.

[One more update at 2 PM]

Many of the objections in comments are beside the point, because this isn’t about Bill Clinton’s sexual behavior–it’s about his and Hillary’s (often successful) attempts at character assassination of his accusers.

I don’t think so. This is just a poll of “Americans,” not “likely” or even “registered” voters. It mainly reflects name recognition.

Besides, the Slick Grope Vets, including Juanita Broaddrick, will have plenty to say if she actually runs.

I’ve previously speculated that Bill Clinton wouldn’t have survived the blogosphere, had it existed in the early nineties. I don’t think that Hillary will either.

[Update at 11:15 AM EDT]

In response to some snark in the comments section, I decided to pull this up into the main post:

I’d just like to point out, for the benefit of the visitors here who didn’t buy the Clinton Chronicles Criterion Edition DVD, that the 3rd of your links itself includes links that suggest the Clintons murdered both Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and at least 34 other innocent people.

Ahhh, six degrees of separation of links. Pardon me while my eyes roll.

Rand, would you care to state, for the record, whether you believe either of those scenarios are true?

With regard to Vince Foster, I have no idea who killed him, but I think that, based on the publicly available evidence, it is extremely unlikely that he died in Fort Marcy Park, and there is little evidence to prove that he died by his own hand, and quite a bit the other way. The case was so badly botched that we’ll probably never know what happened, absent a confession on someone’s part. I do think it likely that the Clintons know who is responsible, but certainly can’t prove that. I also find it amusing that those who would otherwise demonize Ken Starr accept his word unquestioningly when it comes to the Foster report.

The Ron Brown death was extremely suspicious, and convenient to the Clintons in its timing, but again, I’m not going make any direct accusations. As in the Foster case, I lack sufficient data.

Anyways, for all the whining about how Democrats have no ideas, I’m thrilled to hear the GOP plans on leading with Bill’s character issues in their effort to tear Hillary down.

I said nothing about GOP plans. Not being a member of the GOP, I’ve no idea what their plans are (hint: not everyone who thinks that Bill Clinton was corrupt is a “right winger” or a Republican). I was describing the potential response of the blogosphere and the women he (and his wife) molested, slandered and libeled. Thanks for playing, though.

And if you think none of the potential GOP nominees have exploitable character issues, well, whatever. IOKIYAR and all.

Those are theoretical. Hillary’s are real.

[One more update at 2 PM]

Many of the objections in comments are beside the point, because this isn’t about Bill Clinton’s sexual behavior–it’s about his and Hillary’s (often successful) attempts at character assassination of his accusers.

That’s the kind of armband I’d like to wear, particularly around these clueless celebrities, whose well-meaning nostrums, as Stephen Pollard points out, would only further entrench poverty.

[Via David Carr]

That’s the kind of armband I’d like to wear, particularly around these clueless celebrities, whose well-meaning nostrums, as Stephen Pollard points out, would only further entrench poverty.

[Via David Carr]

That’s the kind of armband I’d like to wear, particularly around these clueless celebrities, whose well-meaning nostrums, as Stephen Pollard points out, would only further entrench poverty.

[Via David Carr]