Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

This blog is devoted to a variety of topics including politics, current events, legal issues, and we even take the time to have some occasional fun. After all, blogging is about having a little fun, right?

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Barack Obama -- radical in every sense of the word

The Obama-bots can keep pimping this guy, but sensible people have to see what this man is about. He isn't for "hope" and "change" except in the most radical sense. And Lord knows what he wants isn't right for America. His Spend-O-Meter is already at $874.35 BILLION, and that's in the first four years alone of his presidency. But some new information has come to light in recent days, thanks to the studious duties of the alternative media.

First, let's focus on Barack when it comes to issues of life. Michael Gerson in today's WaPo has this to say about his record on abortion:

But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.

For decades, most Democrats and many Republicans have hoped the political debate on abortion would simply go away. But it is the issue that does not die. Recent polls have shown that young people are more likely than their elders to support abortion restrictions. Few Americans oppose abortion under every circumstance, but a majority oppose most of the abortions that actually take place -- generally supporting the procedure only in the case of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Let me be perfectly clear here. Marcie and I are anti-abortion. We dislike the procedure, and we dislike how it's being used. Right now it is being used as a form of birth control for stupid people who neither have the inclination to take precautions, or decide that it's simply too inconvenient at this point in time in their lives. Abortions, quite literally, should be as the last sentence of the previous paragraph state -- in the case of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother. ALL other abortions should be banned. BUT that will never happen. Even if the issue is somehow sent back to the states (via overturning Roe v. Wade) there will still be states that allow the procedure.

As for Barack, his positions are extreme, even for members of his own party. Look at the extreme wing of the Democrat Party. Did Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, or Patrick Leahy voice their displeasure at the Supreme Court striking down partial-birth abortion? Not that I recall, and after doing several Google searches, I came up with no quote. Yet Barack did. So, his track record when it comes to life issues is hardly worth bragging about. And remember this, folks -- 63 House Democrats and 17 Senate Democrats supported the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003. Bill Clinton vetoed it when it was presented to him in 1995 because, in his opinion, it didn't go far enough to protect the life of the mother. We're hedging bets that had Barack been present, he would have voted against it.

Now, let's move onto guns. He's is equally radical on this issue, to the point of being referred to as a "gun-grabber." See, Barack believes the only firearms that should be in anyone's possession are those that are used for sport shooting or hunting. Don't believe me? This is the questionnaire that Politico dug up. In it he answers the following way with regard to firearms:

Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes

Now I know this will drive gun advocates nuts, but we could care less about the last two questions. (NO ONE outside of a law enforcement official or military personnel should have assault weapons, and given how Democrats act in "defining" what constitutes an assault weapon, our view on what one is and their view are probably not the same.) However he is in favor of a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns. Those are the number one weapon that average people have to protect themselves, their homes, and their families, and Barack would favor taking them from you. That is beyond radical. His stance mirrors that of the 1919 firearms ban of the Weimer Republic though at that time, it should be noted, the ban was put in place to stabilize Germany after it's defeat in World War I. Later the ban was lifted, and firearms were regulated. Hitler's goal, upon seizing power, was to disarm any of his opponents, and the Jews. Barack wants to disarm everyone, unless your weapon is used for sports or hunting.

Additionally, as Geraghty the Indispensable notes he was in favor of banning any gun stores within five miles of a school or park. Yet his concerns for children didn't extend to the porn industry:

Obama was also the sole present vote on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted present on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship, which ultimately did not pass the Senate.

So, it's OK for a porn shop to be across the street, or even down the street from a school, but not a gun shop. Sort of makes sense in a convoluted, Barack Obama kind of way, given his stance on abortion.

And what of his record on civil rights? Well, it obviously doesn't apply to another minority group:

Just as the dust surrounding Sen. Barack Obama’s long-term association with controversial minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright has begun to settle comes new reports of the democratic presidential hopeful’s connection to another racially divisive public figure—the stridently homophobic Rev. James T. Meeks, an Illinois state senator who also serves as the pastor of Chicago’s 22,000 member strong Salem Baptist Church.

Described in a 2004 Chicago Sun Times article as someone Barack Obama regularly seeks out for “spiritual counsel”, James Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the democratic frontrunner.

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he frequently campaigned at Salem Baptist Church while Rev. Meeks appeared in television ads supporting the Illinois senator’s campaign. Later, according to the same Chicago Sun Times article, on the night after he won the Democratic primary, Sen. Obama attended bible study at Meeks’ church ‘for prayer’ and ‘to say thank you.’

Since that time, not only has Meeks himself served on Obama’s exploratory committee for the presidency and been listed on the Obama's campaign website as one of the senator’s ‘influential black supporters’, but his church choir was called on to raise their voices in praise at a rally the night Obama announced his run for the White House back in 2007.

Interestingly, the Chicago Sun Times has also reported that both Meeks and Obama share a history of substantial campaign contributions from indicted real estate magnate Tony Rezko. ...

But the question remains: At what point must a candidate for the highest office in the United States be held accountable for the small coterie of individuals who make up his or her inner circle and potentially bear influence on his interpretation of the constitution? And at what point does the benefit of the doubt give way to guilt by association?

Moreover, how can a candidate cultivate a constituency like that of Rev. James Meek, essentially espousing a shared belief in their value system, become an effective and powerful advocate on behalf of issues like LGBT rights that run counter to fundamental agenda of that constituency without experiencing severe repercussions? The answer is he can’t.

Just as Hillary Clinton cannot cherry pick the successes and pitfalls from her husband’s administration that suit her campaign, neither can Barack Obama divorce himself from the implications surrounding the bedfellows he has made over the course of his relatively short political career.

He has a number of extreme figures he looks to for guidance. First, it was Jeremiah Wright. Then there's Michael Pfleger who preaches much like Wright does (see the video at Michelle's site. And then there's Meeks. These people are all considered "spiritual mentors." The problem is the spirit they're preaching is hardly God's love or tolerance. It's hate. Pure, unadulterated, spittle-filled hate. As for being connected to such a vitriol-filled homophobe, we have to question his integrity on such issues. Again, we go back to the survey:

Do you favor adding sexual orientation to Human Rights Act? Yes. Do you favor
domestic partnership legislation? Yes

Can he be trusted on those issues? Given his association with Meeks? That's hard to say. I don't think we could (if we supported him) in good conscience. If I were gay, I couldn't. (It should be noted here that Marcie and I do have a couple of homosexual friends. Marcie has a lesbian in her study group at school. We don't have a problem with their lifestyle as long as they don't try to force it on us.) But this isn't about us. It's about him.

Barack Obama is as extreme as extreme can get in this day and age. His record on issues of life, gun rights, and civil rights for other minorities is atrocious. As is his ability to take a stand on issues. His "present" votes in the Illinois legislature are disgusting, and his excuse of voting that way -- "I wanted to send a message I didn't approve of the bill in question" -- doesn't wash. That's why you vote against the bill, senator.

We don't understand how so many people can be in favor of this man as president. His inexperience is bad enough. The man doesn't know how the government works, or the proper constitutional role Congress and the Executive have. Add his extremist views and stances on certain issues, and you don't have a man of "hope" and "change." You have a dangerously inept neophyte that shouldn't be trusted with the nation's chief executive position.

Publius II


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home