or Acoustic
The other foreign policy.
Carolyn Glick discusses forgotten foreign policy based on American values. (Big Peace). She points out that’ by most current discussions’ you might forget that this approach to fp even exists, as we are usually only given the options of isolationists or neoconservatives.
Excerpts:
In truth, the dominant foreign policy in the Republican Party, and to a degree, in American society as a whole is neither neoconservativism nor isolationism. For lack of a better name, it is what historian Walter Russell Mead has referred to as Jacksonianism, after Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the US. As Mead noted in a 1999 article in the National Interest entitled, “The Jacksonian Tradition,” the most popular and enduring US model for foreign policy is far more flexible than either the isolationist or the neoconservative model.
According to Mead, the Jacksonian foreign policy model involves a few basic ideas. The US is different from the rest of the world and therefore the US should not try to remake the world in its own image by claiming that everyone is basically the same. The US must ensure its honor abroad by abiding by its commitments and standing with its allies. The US must take action to defend its interests. The US must fight to win or not fight at all. The US should only respect those foes that fight by the same rules as the US does.
…Still, it would be a real tragedy if at the end of the primary season, due to neoconservative intellectual bullying the Republican presidential nominee was forced to choose between neoconservativism and isolationism. A rich, successful and popular American foreign policy tradition of Jacksonianism awaits the right candidate.
Newt rebukes Chris Wallace
Taking on the sacred cow.
Kansas, Indiana, North Carolina, New Hampshire and Texas might be taking on the sacred cow, Planned Parenthood, which has come out of the federal budgeting process with out any losses.
That Planned Parenthood is the big abortion provider in the country is pretty much a given. It appears that of the all the pregnant women that came to PP last year 96% got abortions. (Planned Parenthood Fact Sheet) In the tense budget battle (remember pre-Paul Revere Gate, pre-Weiner Gate) Obama refused to cut a penny from PP’s taxpayer funded pot of gold. On the other hand they did cut Community Health Centers by 600 million. Remember these centers, touted to reach the poorest women with prenatal care and expensive breast cancer screening. (see Frank Gannon) They were thrown under the bus, the sacred ideological cow Planned Parenthood, was spared.
Once again Obama is rising to defend Planned Parenthood. While warning Indiana that it will cost 4.3 million if it denies funds to PP, the Administration decries Indiana’s withholding Medicaid money from all abortion providers, implying that thousands of women seeking health care will have no where to go. Not true according to Daniels, who said there are 800 other Medicaid providers available. HuffPo reports that private donations are pouring in to keep the clinics open. Good, this is as it should be. Let the people who believe in PP’s purpose fund it and not taxpayers.
Equally vexing: Why doesn’t the GAO know how much taxpayer money PP receives? And why can’t PP account for it all? And as bad or worse are the reports that Planned Parenthood systematically files falsified claims for government reimbursements. It’s astounding; California – $5,213,645, New York – $17,151,156, New Jersey – $597,496, Washington – $629,142, NYC – $1,254,603 – false charges to the gov’t. Audits note that the clinics habitually claim services are family planning that in fact are not – what a racket. (see Jim Sedlak – The Washington Times) This is taxpayer money.
PP is a sacred cow to which Obama and Democrats are deeply beholden for donations and a political mouthpiece – at the expense of the taxpayer. No hope and change to this ideology, just more of the same. This cow needs to go.
Media wrong about Paul Revere, Palin right.
(Added 6/8 : Palin’s rambling sentence was obviously not a technical report on the “night of Paul Revere’s ride” more an unfocused summary of Paul Revere’s world. It’s all there. As to the objection that He did not warn the British;)
Here is the night of Paul Revere’s ride in his own words;
…I observed a wood at a small distance and made for that. When I got there, out started six officers on horseback and ordered me to dismount. One of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from and what my name was. I told him. He asked me if I was an express. I answered in the affirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston. I told him, and added that their troops had catched aground in passing the river, and that there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the country all the way up. He immediately rode towards those who stopped us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop. One of them, whom I afterwards found to be a Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name and told me he was going to ask me some questions, and if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then ordered me to mount my horse, after searching me for arms. He then ordered them to advance and to lead me in front. When we got to the road, they turned down towards Lexington. When we had all got about one mile, the major rode up to the officer who was leading me and told him to give me to the sergeant. As soon as he took me, the major ordered him, if I attempted to run, or anybody insulted them, to blow my brains out. (History.net)
I’m sure Palin wishes she had taken a moment to think through her meandering sentence – been there. But clearly Revere, and others, set in motion the warning bells and call to arms to end any British hopes that the colonies would lay down their arms. Revere showed real courage that night, not afraid to defy the British in what was certain to be a long dangerous fight.
Let me guess, the media geniuses (public schooled I presume?) based their criticism of Palin on the rhyme by Longfellow thinking it was a historical account. Brilliant.
WH calls something illegal.
One of he most disheartening things about this Administration has been its calculated disregard for American Law. From the defense of Marriage Act to the War Powers Act, you get the feeling that the written law of the US is hardly a bother to these bureaucrats. (see PJ Media) Yet a sense of conviction based on Law surfaces when Indiana decides to withhold Medicaid money from Planned Parenthood because they provide abortions (Newsvine), which cannot be funded with Federal money. And, of course, a warning/threat to any other state with similar ambitions. The administration feels that this isn’t legal. (Fox). Although it may be refreshing to hear the WH is concerned about the letter of the Law, it is disconcerting that it wishes to tell the States how to administer their programs. I guess if it’s liberal enough the law matters, conservative – not so much.
MSM confused.
It seems the gods of media reporting (not to mention the usual political suspects) are in a bit of a fluster trying to get Sarah Palin into the prescribed candidate role. (Politico Drudge) Imagine: a public figure that won’t play the game, shake the right hands make the right calls, issue a press release. Scandalous.
End time wackos?
If I wished to gain an understanding of why so many Americans believe in end time apocalyptic scenarios, I would go to the obvious place: Princeton Theological Seminary! Bwa ha ha. Well, kidding aside, Voice of America/Jerome Socolovsky would. It appears that PTS professor Richard Fenn explains that various feelings of insecurity caused primarily by the economics of a non-socialized nation are the root cause of American apocalyptic thinking. (see VOA News) Such affected Americans, according to Fenn, are also pushing the Mideast towards Armageddon. There you have it.
The truth is, most of these people (44% of Americans) differ in that they have not discarded Jesus Christ as a barely relevant historical personality. It was He who predicted the “end time scenarios.” Also, many Americans have not bought into the idea that the Bible is a flawed unreliable antiquity.
I would make no excuse for Fenn, but it is easy to see why the idea has little street cred among skeptics. There have been plenty of date setting, campus building apocalyptic kooks in the mix. It is sad that so many people support aberrant teachings, presumably for a variety of reasons. But it’s not like Jesus didn’t warn about manipulators. Even so, Jesus predicted a time quite like the present as preceding an “apocalyptic scenario.” Though there have several periods in history that resembled His descriptions, there are a few features that have never materialized, especially if you consider the other New Testament writer’s predictions. Mainly a compulsory global financial system, a Mideast peace treaty (broken), the reappearance of Christ in the Mideast. These things lead many to believe that Jesus’ prediction is yet to come. Jesus, who described end time apocalypse, warned his listeners about the manipulators (Luke 21). Rather, live a full godly life, not consumed with either pleasure or care, and live a life of expectation.
Not much talk about debt at G8
You would expect some discussion about economies, since Europe is on the skids and the US will spend twice its revenue this year. But then maybe that’s be cause the G8 players are largely responsible for the mess. No, instead the world’s leaders, besides setting up the Muslim Brotherhood democracies with some cash resources (and of course some good solid service to African democracies), address the real global catastrophe of the day; regulating the internet, which Sarkozy laments flounders in a complete void of rules. Of course any institution that can throw 20 Billion your way is relevant.
Don’t look at me in that tone of voice. Please.
I have to admit, I’d be a little concerned if the POTUS was looking at me like that. It reminds me of another time someone faced a leader of a former superpower:
“Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”
Canada stands up for Israel at G8
Canada, unlike most of the other leaders and President Obama last week, is insisting that the G8 statement does not mention pre-1967 borders. (see YNET) Canada Prime Minister Stephen Harper feels strongly that Israel be supported saying ”When Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack, is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand.” Canada, it would seem, is not afraid to take a stand even it it is unpopular to do so.
DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz scolds in meeting with prime minister Netanyahu
So much so that Republican Jewish Coalition director Matthew Brooks followed up the meeting with the a letter (Weekly Standard) explaining why it would be folly to just drop the subject (“stifle debate”).
excerpt:
I hope you agree with me that no one – in either party – whether it’s the President of the United States, a candidate for President or a rank and file member – should be shielded from criticism if their positions are harmful to Israel’s well being. Covering up anti-Israel positions by gagging debate about them doesn’t help anyone; instead it only protects those who hope to get away with their anti-Israel positions. The Jewish community has a right to be informed about people’s records and people should be answerable for the positions they take. That is the essence of democracy.
Indeed, several leading Democrats have exercised their right to free speech when they criticized President Obama’s controversial statement that, “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”
Former New York City Mayor and lifelong Democrat Ed Koch responded, “If President Obama does not change his position, I cannot vote for his reelection.”
According to a story in today’s Politico, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in his remarks to AIPAC, rebuked President Obama for his remarks.
However, in our meeting with the Prime Minister, you appealed to us, in front of the leader of a foreign nation, to pledge to refrain from any debate about these matters. I do not think that the timing or the venue you chose for raising this issue was appropriate.
NY 26
Is the message to the GOP via NY 26; Get behind real American conservative values – as opposed to just winning for the GOP – or lose your place?
P.S. I’m not sure how many have really given Paul Ryan’s Budget Holy Grail status.
P. S.S. – Doubtful that this is a referendum on Ryan or Medicare esp. when most of the vote goes to conservative values – most understand that Medicare has to change, but conservative ideas about it need better explanation to rise above the noise.
the Narrow Path by Steve Fuller
I’ve been a Steve Fuller fan since he visited 52 churches in 52 weeks. He has written a parable from Jesus’ statement “Enter through the narrow gate..” Read it here “The Narrow Path.”
