• You are currently browsing the a nail in His place weblog archives for June, 2008.

• Categories

  • Events (2)
  • General (50)
  • Historical (10)
  • Letters (4)
  • Politics/Law/Worldview (80)
  • Syndicated (39)
  • Technology (4)
  • The Tuesday Ten (2)
  • Theology/Apologia (14)

• Meta

  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • Register
  • Log in

• Archives

  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • November 2007
  • September 2007
  • July 2007
  • April 2007
  • January 2007
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • December 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • March 2004

“It is indeed a new look…a new branding, if you will.” That’s the explanation offered by Leslie Durgin, a senior vice president at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. She was speaking of Planned Parenthood’s new “upscale” approach to marketing abortions and other “services” to wealthier suburban women.

This new strategy and marketing plan was described in chilling detail by reporter Stephanie Simon of The Wall Street Journal [article available by subscription only]. “Flush with cash, Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide are aggressively expanding their reach,” she explains, “seeking to woo more affluent patients with a network of suburban clinics and huge new health centers that project a decidedly upscale image.”

Read Full Blog…

The world-wide Anglican Communion has been skating on thin ice for decades now, skirting disaster only by an infinitely creative arrangement of compromises. Now, with the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops coming in just a few weeks, a group of 300 conservative Anglican bishops is meeting in Jerusalem. Their meeting will make history, and may well define the ultimate breakup of global Anglicanism.

The Global Anglican Future Conference [GAFCON] featured an address by Dr. Peter Akinola, Archbishop of Nigeria, on Sunday evening. Archbishop Akinola has emerged as one of the most courageous and theologically committed leaders of worldwide Anglicanism.

Read Full Blog…

As the calls for domestic drilling grow louder, some Democrats have another idea: nationalize the oil refineries! During a House briefing yesterday, Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey said, “We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.”

Many bloggers echo the Club for Growth’s Andrew Roth, who says, “Explicit, in-your-face socialism. Hugo Chavez couldn’t have said it any better.” Michelle Malkin adds, “It’s a short trip from railing about ‘obscene profits’ to cheerleading Hugo Chavez-style takeovers of private industry.”

At The Moderate Voice, Jazz Shaw asks Hinchey, “Is your Democratic Party so fearful of winning two elections in a row and having to take the reins of power that you’ve simply decided to throw yourselves on your swords? Or have you perhaps spent too long in cozy chats with Hugo Chavez that some of his thinking is creeping into the cloak rooms of Congress?” And Wizbang’s Kim Priestap says that advocates of nationalization “are packaging this nationalization scheme in the same way all communists do: let ‘the American people’ own the oil companies. It’s a complete sham, a lie, and an unbelievably manipulative and condescending one.”

Hinchey’s remarks remind bloggers of Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters’s similar call to “socialization” a few weeks ago. How many more Democrats agree? Hot Air’s Allahpundit says, “This makes two congressional Democrats on record within the past month as supporting an overtly socialist ’solution’ to gas prices.” As The Gateway Pundit says, “Viva la revolucion!”

On the Wall Street Journal editorial page this morning, Michael Oren, whose analysis of the Middle East is unfailingly superior, argues that the Israeli truce with Hamas is a dangerous delusion. Weakness, he argues, begets weakness.

The roots of this tragedy go back to the summer of 2005 and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The evacuation, intended to free Israel of Gaza’s political and strategic burden, was hailed as a victory by Palestinian terrorist groups, above all Hamas.

Hamas proceeded to fire some 1,000 rocket and mortar shells into Israel. Six months later Hamas gunmen, taking advantage of an earlier cease-fire, infiltrated into Israel, killed two soldiers, and captured Cpl. Gilad Shalit.

Hamas’s audacity spurred Hezbollah to mount a similar ambush against Israelis patrolling the Lebanese border, triggering a war in which Israel was once again humbled. Hamas now felt sufficiently emboldened to overthrow Gaza’s Fatah-led government, and to declare itself regnant in the Strip. Subsequently, Hamas launched thousands more rocket and mortar salvos against Israel, rendering parts of the country nearly uninhabitable.

The Israeli Defense Forces response was relatively restrained but nonetheless met with international condemnation. The terrorists were emboldened once more.

Tellingly, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who once declared Hamas illegal, will soon travel to Gaza for reconciliation talks. Mr. Abbas’s move signifies the degree to which Hamas, with Israel’s help, now dominates Palestinian politics. It testifies, moreover, to another Iranian triumph.

As the primary sponsor of Hamas, Iran is the cease-fire’s ultimate beneficiary. Having already surrounded Israel on three of its borders — Gaza, Lebanon, Syria — Iran is poised to penetrate the West Bank. By activating these fronts, Tehran can divert attention from its nuclear program and block any diplomatic effort.

The advocates of peace between Israelis and Palestinians should recognize that fact when applauding quiet at any price. The cost of this truce may well be war.

What’s interesting about Oren’s analysis is just how much things have changed in a very short period of time. In late March, I spoke to a senior Bush administration deeply involved in Israeli-Palestinian issues. When I asked about the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in the near term, he said: I think it’s much more likely that we’ll see military action in Gaza.

In today’s WSJ, Karl Rove observes both John McCain and Barack Obama are proving “that in close elections during tough economic times, candidates for president can be economically illiterate and…

By this point in the presidential campaign, the public knows that a charismatic Barack Obama wants sweeping “change.” While the national media have often fallen hard for the Illinois senator’s rhetoric — MSNBC’s Chris…

Barack Obama, evidently stung by the fact that his statements on foreign policy have come across as naive at best,…

The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.
By James Kirchick
June 16, 2008
latimes.com

Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there “morally right and necessary.” Two years later, however, Romney — then seeking the Republican presidential
nomination — not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

The rest of the story…

The Obama campaign has released the roster of its National Security Working Group. You’ll want to take your No-Doz before reading the full list:

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
Senator David Boren, former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Secretary of State Warren Christopher
Greg Craig, former director of the State Department Office of Policy Planning
Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig
Representative Lee Hamilton, former Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder
Dr. Tony Lake, former National Security Advisor
Senator Sam Nunn, former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Secretary of Defense William Perry
Dr. Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State
Representative Tim Roemer, 9/11 Commissioner
Jim Steinberg, former Deputy National Security Advisor

Okay, one obvious quibble–what the hell does Eric Holder know about National Security? I know he did the high profile prosecution of Dan Rostenkowski and was instrumental in getting Marc Rich his presidential pardon, but even so, Holder’s national security bona fides aren’t immediately apparent. Since his name keeps coming up in regards to Obama-related activities, he’s probably your next Attorney General if Obama wins. While Holder wouldn’t be an inspiring pick, we could do worse. (Hint: rhymes with “Schmeval Schmatrick.”)

But I digress. What really leaps out about the list is what a thoroughly conventional crew of advisors Obama has cobbled together. Does anyone really think Warren Christopher will devise a revolutionary national security plan? Or Madeline Albright? Or Tony Lake?

This goes back to what I was saying about Obama a couple of weeks ago. Rhetorical skills aside, Obama is a decidedly inside-the-box thinker. If he were really going to take America’s national security in a new direction, he wouldn’t be seeking counsel from these fossils.

Obama’s penchant for conventional–nay, clichéd–thinking provides equal measures of hope and fear. Those who fear that Obama might just turn over our national security checkerboard can probably breathe easier. That’s not how this particular politician rolls.

But the reliance on such a conventional cast of advisors suggests that Obama hasn’t really given much thought to national security. Instead, he has opted for the George H.W. Bush route of prudence. Everyone on the list of advisors (with the exception of Holder) has establishment credentials. If Obama has a national security vision, it remains impossible to discern.

The news coverage and media analysis that followed the arrival Monday of same-sex marriage in California was absolutely predictable. There was the inevitable flood of profiles and personal stories, along with celebratory reportage.

The general theme of much of the coverage was that same-sex marriage had become a reality and yet civilization continues.  The same theme predominated after the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004.

Read Full Blog…

Read this post »

Read this post »