Saturday, September 20, 2008

Communism and Baby Killing

The title of this column is very, very strong. I hesitated before using it. Mr. Obama's recent comments in Elko, Nevada changed my mind for me. From the San Francisco Chronicle:
"In Elko, Obama tried to anticipate his critics and called on the crowd of about 1,500 to sharpen their elbows, too.

"'I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face,' he said."
Fair enough, Mr. Obama. If it's time to get unpleasant, we can do that. I'm not entirely decided on my vote in November. As a registered independent voter (in California, that's "decline to state") I'm not really happy about my choices, but I know I'm not going to vote for a communist baby killer.

That sounds like an insult, but it's not. It's just factual. I have been meaning to post on this for some time, and there are other commentators who have beaten me to it. I'll add my thoughts and link some of them.

First, let's look at communism. Make no mistake, Barack Obama is a communist. He's not responsible for his supporters hanging a Che Guevara flag in his Houston Campaign office. Despite his romantic and popular image, by the way, Che Guevara was nothing more than a brutal thug using communist revolution to indulge in violence and killing. Not the best symbol for a friendly movement, but people have short memories. I digress. The fact is, though Mr. Obama is not responsible for what his supporters hang in their offices, his supporters are completely aware of what the image symbolizes and that Mr. Obama is their best chance to implement it.

As for Mr. Obama himself, there's no doubt that it is his intent to take rightful income from those who make "too much" and give it to people who will waste it instead of making more with it. His motivation isn't good policy. It's class warfare and ultimately communism.

A quotation that shocked me when it first came out was discussed in an interview with David Freddoso by conservative commentator Glenn Beck. Obama has called Freddoso's book a "hit piece" and sought to keep him off of radio stations with letter campaigns. While there are hit pieces out there, Freddoso's book is thoroughly vetted. It's not slander, and it's not a hit piece.

In the course of the interview, they discussed the quotation I remembered:
"FREDDOSO: Of course, you are referring to when he was asked by Charlie Gibson, I believe, about the capital gains tax, and he wants to raise the capital gains tax. He said he wants it to go up to maybe 28%. Right now it's 15%. When you raise the capital gains tax, historically revenues go down because people engage in fewer transactions when the marginal when the capital gains rate is high. So in fact, every time that rate has been cut, the government revenues have increased and so Charlie Gibson asked him, well, if raising this tax doesn't actually raise more money for the government, why are you going to do it. And Obama's answer was fairness. So now we have a government I mean, and this is you could say this is a great indicator of socialism. You have the government trying to make the economy more fair by hurting some people and not helping the others."
Here's a transcript of the actual exchange:
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28%. It's now 15%. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28%.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15%.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
People have argued about the mathematics of raising taxes, but Mr. Obama wasn't doing so in this quotation. Even though it would hurt government revenue, Obama would raise the tax on capital gains out of "fairness." It doesn't help the government. It doesn't help the poor, since there's less money to hand them. It only hurts investors. In today's market, a lot of middle-class people invest, so this is no longer a tax that only affects the rich. Mr. Obama is willing to hurt a lot of us in the interests of class warfare, which he calls "fairness."

Supporters and opponents alike of Mr. Obama know he supports government-supported universal health care and universal education, along with a host of other programs. Implemented by government, this is known as socialism. Ultimately, with government currently buying private businesses in trouble, it's communism.

Note in this case that I'm not saying many of McCain's proposals aren't socialist, something I can't say since quite a few are. Mr. Obama is willing to take the U.S. into a fully socialist economy, however, and is happy to talk about it. The rhetoric is sufficiently strong that it really amounts to communism.

Why do I think socialism is a bad idea? Americans are innovators. As we watch socialized medicine fail in the U.K. and Canada, and note the troubles socialized economies experience, it seems nonsensical to remake the U.S. into a copy of those systems instead of coming up with something better, something that really works. Our recent economic troubles were caused by socialist government interference in the lending policies compounded by the greed of actual lenders.

I do think it's a moral obligation to help the needy, the infirm and the disabled. I simply think the government does an incredibly poor and inefficient job of it. Private charities do and always have done a better, more efficient job of helping the needy than government. Why? They know money and resources are limited, and so they use them carefully. The government shows no such restraint. After all, they can deficit spend, or simply tax you more. Charities that fail to live up to their promises must dissolve as their donors find worthier causes. The government can simply take more of your money (ultimately at gunpoint) if they believe they need more. Finally, private charities will cut off the flow of money if someone tries to take advantage of them. The government has a few safeguards, but those can be circumvented. So, the government should get out of the charity business and allow private citizens to research the best private charities and put their money there instead.

More controversial than the fact Mr. Obama is a socialist is the matter of abortion. This matter is one that I try to avoid as a Libertarian. I would much prefer that people focus on fiscal responsibility than social issues, but the history of Mr. Obama’s position on abortion is so extreme it must be addressed. Even most supporters of abortion won’t go as far as he was willing to go.

Here’s the video that has catapulted the issue into the view of most of the public. Bear in mind, it’s from a 527 group, which are not necessarily the best sources of information, but the information here appears to be accurate.



Mr. Obama did respond to this video. His response, and text back and forth are available here, at Michelle Malkin’s site. Yes, Ms. Malkin is partisan. Her post does give space to both sides on this matter, however. Mr. Obama says Ms. Jessen, featured in the above video, is lying. His ad says, “Obama’s always supported medical care to protect infants.” I noticed the very careful wording. Mr. Obama supports healthcare for all people in the U.S. regardless of age or immigration status, and whether we can afford that coverage or not. What he didn’t say is whether he supports medical care for botched abortions, who are babies, after all. If you go by his voting record in the Illinois legislature, he absolutely does not support care for such “accidents.”

In his first interview with David Freddoso (full text available here), Glenn Beck addressed this issue, using the above video as a starting point. The excerpt here is lengthy, but I’ve tried to stick to the most vital parts.

FREDDOSO: Well, this is the story of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act and it goes back to a hospital in the southwest suburbs of Chicago called Christ Hospital where they were performing on a regular basis induced labor abortions and these are late second, early third trimester abortions in which the drugs are given to the mother to induce violent labor and the baby is usually killed in the contractions and comes out. But about 15 to 20% of the time this produces a a live baby is born, I should say. And sometimes the babies will live just for a few minutes, sometimes for several hours. But this hospital was not giving any thought to medical treatment for them when they survived and could have potentially lived on and saved in incubator under whatever sort of medical technology we have to keep premature babies alive. They were simply shelving them and

GLENN: Hang on just a second. I just, I don't care how you feel about abortion. If you think abortion is a right, you know, a woman's right to choose, et cetera, et cetera, fine. I disagree with you. We're going now to a step of partial birth abortion. Now people are not for partial birth abortion. The vast majority of people. They are pro choice but they are saying you can't take the baby and have them birthed all the way except for the head and then suck the brains out while the head is still in the mother. That is a that is a step way beyond. And Republicans and Democrats agree on that. This is something further than that. This is a baby that survives an abortion and is living outside of the mother, is now just neglected and dies from neglect. Right or wrong, David?

FREDDOSO: This is what yeah, that is exactly what was happening and, in fact, that fact isn't even in dispute. What is in dispute is exactly what condition that they were being left to die in. According to the nurse, Jill Stanek whom I interviewed for the kids against Barack Obama, they were one of the places they would put these babies to die while they were struggling is the utility closet where medical waste goes. According to the hospital they were putting them into comfort rooms where they would just simply leave them to die with a blanket or something. So that was the practice. And the attorney general of Illinois told Jill Stanek, this nurse, that this was not violating the law… You can certainly leave them, there's such a thing as negligent homicide as well. But in any case, there wasn't a law protecting them and that was what they went to the Illinois legislature to do was to pass a law that would define anyone who is already born and alive as a person. And that would have made the laws of the State of Illinois apply to these premature babies.

GLENN: How did Barack Obama stop it?

FREDDOSO: Barack Obama was the only state senator to speak against this law and

GLENN: Sorry. Repeat that, please.

FREDDOSO: He was the only state senator to speak against this law on the floor of the Illinois Senate.

GLENN: Okay.

FREDDOSO: In all the times it came up, in fact, he was the only one to speak against it. And his speech that he gave is very interesting, and I've given it in full in Chapter 10 of The Case Against Barack Obama because the argument is basically this, that if we go and recognize premature babies born alive in what some people call a previable condition, although they were clearly living for a while, if we do this, then it might down the road affect the right to abortion. It might cause it might create some kind of

GLENN: Slippery slope that they always say doesn't exist.

FREDDOSO: Yes. Senator Obama voted he voted present on that bill. It was part of a strategy that he devised, that he and some Planned Parenthood lobbyists had devised that basically everyone would vote present instead of voting no. And just to you know, it came up the following year; he did it again. The bill, by the way, it passed the state senate and died in the state house committee. In 2003, though, Democrats had taken over the state senate and Obama was now the chairman of the Senate health committee. And as chairman he presided as they made the reason that Obama has ever since said he voted against this bill in committee is that it didn't contain the same language that the federal board of live infants protection act contained. Sort of redundant protection against this law ever effecting the right to abortion. What he didn't realize, didn't or was misleading people about is that, in fact, in 2003 the bill that he voted against in his committee did contain that language, was exactly the same as the bill that had gone to the U.S. Senate floor, that Barbara Boxer had stood up and said, "I support this bill, everyone should vote for this bill." Obama voted against it and that puts him on the very fringes when it comes to issues of human life at its very beginning.

GLENN: So wait a minute. He is Barbara Boxer was on the other side of this issue?

FREDDOSO: Yes, that's right. Hillary Clinton was also on the other side. The vote was 98 0 and the two guys who weren't there to vote were pro life Republicans. So basically every abortion proponent in the United States Senate is more protective of human life in its early stages than Senator Obama.


Edmund Burke is famously quoted as having said, "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." All Mr. Obama did was nothing, though he knew full well voting “present” in this case was no different from voting “no.”

I don’t care what side of the abortion issue you’re on. Letting babies die alone when they might easily be saved, whether in a “comfort room” or in a utility closet, is negligent homicide. There are plenty of families waiting to adopt these children, and letting them die is equivalent to the very childish and selfish cry, “If I can’t have it, no one can!” In this case, however, we’re not talking about a toy, we’re talking about living human infants. That’s just sick. It’s treating babies as property rather than human life, which is something we vowed as a nation never to do again after purging ourselves of the evil of slavery.

Whether Mr. Obama really supports what amounts to infanticide, or whether he was simply trying to keep his voting record entirely unobjectionable to extreme pro-choice activists, the end result was the same. For about two years until the law was passed at the Federal level, Mr. Obama, having power to save live infants in Illinois, chose to let them die.

I can not think of a realistic scenario that would cause me to cast a vote for Barack Obama. I think that as more of his record comes out, more and more of the public will agree.

No comments: