A letter from my dad to a relative:
I would agree with [him] that overly simplistic summaries are not terribly helpful. But that doesn't make them "blatantly false," and there are some pretty clear lines between the candidates. [He] rightly takes issue with the superficiality of the email, and does a good job using his sources to make his argument. I've not got the time to do a job of equal quality, but let me hit a couple things quickly if only to make the point that his analysis should not carry the day.
I would agree with [him] that overly simplistic summaries are not terribly helpful. But that doesn't make them "blatantly false," and there are some pretty clear lines between the candidates. [He] rightly takes issue with the superficiality of the email, and does a good job using his sources to make his argument. I've not got the time to do a job of equal quality, but let me hit a couple things quickly if only to make the point that his analysis should not carry the day.
The abortion issue is really pretty simple: Senator Obama was the sole opposition voice raised in the Illinois Senate when it considered a bill that would require treatment of infants born and fully delivered consequent to a botched abortion. His objection was that such a child would be given the same right as any other baby had: the rights of a freeborn American citizen. Bear in mind that this is a born child--not one still in the birth canal, not one in the womb that is being aborted--but a living, breathing, delivered baby. And Obama opposed that law for fear it would undercut the pro-abort political position. I can't find words to describe that inhumanity, but I can say this: he is a radical pro-abort, and McCain isn't. That is pretty much a "yes/no" bright line. You can read for your self at http://www.ilga.gov/senate/
As well, he's committed to passing the Freedom of Choice Act, that is a deceptively simple law that not only protects abortion on demand as a "fundamental right," but sets the stage to have most if not all existing regulations on abortion (which have already been upheld under state and federal constitutions) challenged again under this law. Planned Parenthood would have a free-fire zone to attack almost every limit on its commercial abortion business.
He's no better on gun control. He supported a federal bill that purported to ban armored piercing ammo in handguns as a measure to protect police officers. Sounds noble, but its also an old trick to regulate the majority of sporting ammunition and force the majority of civilian arms into obsolecence for lack of ammunition. It had several slick tricks in the bill: it defined the ammo as that capable of piercing the least-protective armor. Police armor comes in a multitude of grades, with the minimum having protection only against the weakest, most obsolete pistol cartridges. The most common hunting cartridges (.357 magnum and up) would have been banned under that law, as would the majority of "rifle" cartidges because their are handguns chambered for virtually every handgun cartridge short of the proverbial elephant gun. Oh...but then, he also banned everything over .50 caliber, which catches the elephant guns. So, no ammo, no rifles. And virtually any rifle cartridge will penetrate the minimum grade body armor. Indeed, Sen. Kennedy used the 30-30 round as an example of an "armor piercing" bullet--its been in use almost a century and is one of the lowest-powered deer rifle cartridges around--when he pushed a similar, early bill. Ironically, Kennedy also promised that the later law would not ban sporting ammo. Go figure.
As well, he voted for an Illinois gun ban (SB 1195) on "assault" weapons which would have banned many common shotguns along with a multitude of semiautomatic rifles, including the AR-15.... This points to two things: First, Obama sees the right to own firearms as based only in hunting and target-shooting...he does not recognize the right to keep arms for self defense (he voted against the "castle doctrine" bill in IL which gives legal protection for homeowners using deadly force to protect their home). With that right grounded only in recreational interests, it is easily eroded. Worse, it completely escapes him that the 2nd amendment is a balance against government power and was intended to protect individuals' bearing military-type weapons. Today, that means the AR-15, which is a civilian version of the current Army rifle--the exact type of arm protected by the 2nd amendment's core purpose would be banned in an instant by Obama. Indeed, he is heartily endorsed by the Brady Center that pursues a no-gun agenda. I know some people don't like guns, but this really reflects the overarching thrust of Obama's policies--personal responsibility is secondary to government care and regulation of the population.
Nowhere is that more evident than in tax policy. The income tax--a concept so perilous to liberty that our founders designed the constitution so it would not be lawful (until the constitution was amended)--is intended for all citizens to contribute a fair share for the national governments necessary activity--defense, regulation/protection of foreign and interstate trade, the conduct of foreign affairs, and so on.
It was never designed to "redistribute wealth" as Obama bluntly proposes. That turns it into a form of welfare program (and is socialism disguised as tax policy). And you and I both are old enough to remember the promises of LBJ's "Great Society," which was the first grand experiment for a modern welfare state. It failed, and it has failed year after year and president after president, despite ever greater mounds of money being dumped into it. Turning the income tax into a welfare plan is a stunningly bad and thoroughly un-American concept: it undercuts personal responsibility; penalizes the thrifty and productive; fosters the entitlement society; and will no more solve poverty than any of the other welfare programs have. And when was the last time when you saw a welfare program actually stop being funded? Once started, there will be powerful impetus for this to continue. There are all sorts of ways to bend and twist the numbers, but to my memory no major party candidate has ever proposed the kind of wealth redistribution plan that Obama has frankly paraded before the public.
Obama on marriage is a book-long analysis but there is no doubt that he has signed off on every major goal of the homosexual movement--ENDA, don't ask/don't tell; civil unions, domestsic partnerships, etc. As soon as he goes in office, I'll guarantee he will order all persons contracting with the federal government to recognize same-sex "marriages," give benefits to same-sex couples, etc. That's exactly the tactic San Francisco used successfully a decade ago. And once in office, I'll bet every gun in my safe that within a year he has candidly endorsed same-sex "marriage."
I don't have time to respond in detail to the other points [he] raises, but almost across the board they can be rebutted with unbiased sources. The Brookings Institute is notoriously liberal, and [he] relies on it....just like I'd probably pull info from the American Enterprise Institute, which is at the other end of the spectrum. Some things you can go to original sources, such as legislative transcripts, vote tallies, etc.
Some things are probably not going to be known any time soon--Obama has been uniquely closed to scrutiny, from the mysterious LA Times video, to his missing thesis, to his role at Harvard law review, etc. etc. Even the birth certificate issue, as loony as it may seem, is starting to reek to me--what he's produced is just a modern, computer-generated report. It is not a copy of a real birth certificate, and that strikes me as odd for a family that was very international, and obviously had a rising star on their hands. One would think that they'd have kept that certificate as a treasured heirloom. But unlike McCain, who had a similar challenge, Obama has stonewalled the issue.
Anyway, I must go; am off to TN tomorrow to welcome back our attorney who just finished a year with the 3rd Armored Cav in Iraq. Iraq, by the way, is a killing field for us; Al Queda in Iraq is on the losing end of a major campaign that is yielding a treasure-trove of intelligence. That info is actively being used against Al Queda (even to the point of us going into Syria with the tacit cooperation of the Syrians). The only real mistake in Iraq was Saddam's error in intentionally misleading the international community about his weapons capability. He fooled Iran (his intent) and unfortunately fooled us. Surely there were some errors in the fog of war, but if I had a choice between the Democrats' "war on terror" (Clinton tosses missles into abandoned camps and Pakistani drug factories, Obama wilts at the notion of putting enough troops on the ground to win) and Bush's, I'll take Bush.
Speaking of whom, we need to keep a bit of perspective here. How many times have we seen or heard that bit of Reagan's famous speech, calling on Mr. Gorbachev to "take down this wall." But how often do we remember that Reagan was reamed by the left for his war-mongering attitude (the "axis of evil" speech provoked a firestorm of criticism from the left). And perhaps more to the point, how many remember what motivated Reagan to make that claim...that the rest of that speech dwelt on the love of Christ, the fruitless efforts of the East Germans to suppress Christianity, and the ultimate inability of evil to overcome love. That motivating faith was the genuine belief of Reagan, of Bush, of Palin, and even of McCain, for all his faults. And it is the faith that truly divides this race at its core over the issue of human life.
I, for one, will live out my life without ever voting for a candidate who uses the force of law to enable the intentional killing of human life for the convenience of the would-be mothers.
Abortion is barbaric, and I cannot compromise the promise of life for political gain. Obama can. And you can take that at face value.
Dad, when are you going to go teach?
******************
Dad, when are you going to go teach?
