| THINK-ISRAEL |
| HOME | September-October 2008 Special Edition | Background Information | News On The Web |
IS KEEPING ROE VS. WADE SAFE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRESERVING
THE CONSTITUTION?
A THINK-ISRAEL Editorial
Some people say they are voting for Barack Obama because they worry who John McCain will appoint to the Supreme Court. They fear his appointees will overturn Roe Wade. McCain doesn't support abortion -- and has bluntly said so. He favors repeal and has said so. But he has put this in context, best expressed in August, 1999: "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations." This qualifier is less often reported in the press.
If this be flip-flop, he's in good company, Republican and Democrats alike tend to reflect the mood of their audience on this touchy subject. It's not one that encourages subtlety and rounded examination. Even Obama has softpedaled his acceptance of completing a partial-birth abortion before some audiences, though he voted against a ban on partial-birth abortions as a state senator in Illinois. He also voted against a bill that "would provide immediate medical attention to a child born of a failed abortion." in the Judiciary Committee. On the floor of the Senate later, he fearlessly voted "Present."
So how would they select candidates for a Supreme Court judgeship? In the last Presidential debate on October 15, 2008, (http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2008d.html), McCain said
I would never and have never in all the years I've been there [the Senate] imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court. That's not appropriate to do.
He has said he would select judges who strictly interpret the Constitution, which not the same as requiring the candidate to have particular views on particular issues. As he pointed out, he voted for Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg.
"Not because I agreed with their ideology, but because I thought they were qualified ... Senator Obama voted against Justice Breyer and Justice Roberts on the grounds that they didn't meet his ideological standards. That's not the way we should judge these nominees. Elections have consequences. They should be judged on their qualifications."
Interestingly enough, Barack Obama said
Well, I think it's true that we shouldn't apply a strict litmus test and the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people.
He didn't explain how a "strict litmus test" differed from an ordinary litmus test. And he swiftly shifted from abortion to a woman's pay issue case before the Supreme Court.
My own opinion is that we will have so much to
confront in the next few years from a weak economy to an ever-more
strident resurgent Islam, Roe vs Wade is one for the backburners.
BUT THE FEAR OF OVERTURNING ROE VS. WADE REMAINS. It is often so severe that some people have pushed aside aspects of Obama's ideology and intentions that they should perhaps examine more carefully.
They should consider whether he has the ability to make the right foreign policy decisions quickly and correctly under pressure.
We saw his reaction when Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008, a direct challenge to us in that Putin wants to enlarge Russia and bring back the good days, while Georgia is actively pro-American. Obama wrote, "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war." McCain wasn't into both sides showing restraint. Russia was the invader. He said, "Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory." Obama waffled, interviewed his experts, and finally came out with a statement that agreed with what McCain had said immediately.
If Obama wins and Joe Biden is right that some manufactured crisis will test Obama early into his presidency, do you really see him standing up to Putin of Russia or Ahmedinejad of Iran or Chavez of Venezuela? He will chat them up and they will eat him up. Be prepared -- Obama will always flinch first.
On the other hand, Israel, always eager to cooperate, will be easy game.
At Aipac in June, he made the right noises about an undivided Jerusalem as capitol of Israel, and though he repudiated this sentiment the next day, we are constantly reassured by enthusiastic Jews that he really has Israel's best interests at heart. Ali Abunimah of The Electronic Intifada, an activist pro-Palestinian website, likely had a more realistic take on Obama's new-found sympathy when he wrote on March 4, 2007 (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml) that it was:
"disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans,[emphasis added] Obama's about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected ..."Ali Abunimah was annoyed that Obama now talks of helping Israel defend herself, when millions of Palestinians suffer. He reminisced about the old days in Chicago.
Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor [likely, Rashid Khalidi]. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.
As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"
I would like to hear Abunimah stories about Obama's friendship with
the notorious Rashid Khalidi, when they were both at the University of
Chicago. Khalid, who worked as press agent for the PLO from 1976 to
1982, now preaches hate and teaches Middle East history at Columbia.
During the time Obama served as director of the Woods Fund board
(1999-2002), along with William Ayers, the ex-terrorist, Woods funded
the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which Khalidi co-founded. In
true Alinsky fashion, AAAN described itself as working to "empower
Chicago-area Arab immigrants and Arab Americans through the combined
strategies of community organizing, advocacy, education and social
services, leadership development, and forging productive relationships
with other communities." What could be more innocent?
Obama has said that "no one is suffering more than the
Palestinians." Has Obama really changed his sympathies? No. Obama's
true attitude towards Israel is probably to the left of Jimmy
Carter's. A man who wants a viable Israel doesn't ask foreign policy
advise from Robert Malley, who wrote anti-Israel articles conjointly
with Yasser Arafat's advisor, Hussein Agha; or from Scott B. Lasensky,
who wants Obama to restart the peace process and involve Hamas and the
other terrorists groups; or from senators Dick Luger and Chuck Hagel,
who, as the
WHEN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE LOST THE VAST EXPANSE WE KNOW AS THE
MIDDLE EAST in World War 1, the initial plan was to create one
large Arab state in 99% of the land, and let the Jews create a State
in the rest. As it turned out, the Arab segment was divided into a
number of states. This has consequences in the U.N., where the Muslim
bloc of 57 states (exactly the number of states Obama said were in the
U.S.A.) by sheer numbers and by pressuring countries dependent on Arab
oil -- and who isn't? -- has turned what was to be a mechanism to
mediate disputes between countries and promote human rights into a
virulent amplifier of the Arab hate of the Jews and of western culture
in general. Obama has announced his preferred way is to let the U.N.
handle disputes between us and other countries. He is willing to
accept the decrees of the artificial majority in the U.N. even if this
jeopardizes rights we enjoy under our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The U.N. can ignore the wishes of our citizenry, criminalize gun
ownership, and severely restrict freedom of speech. It has already
defined factual statements against Muslim extremists as a punishable
hate crime while subsidizing a hate-fest against Jews in Durban.
McCain, who understands the U.N. is no friend of the U.S.A. or Israel,
has called for a League of Democracies to be formed as "the core of an
international order of peace based on freedom". -- a very different
thing.
The one-issue people worried about McCain's choice of judges also
push down their fear that Obama will try to solve the current weakness
of the economy as the Democrats always do -- by throwing money at it.
By taxing the rich. That doesn't sound so bad, does it? 40% of the
population pays no income tax. The top 5% is already paying 95% of the
taxes. A little more won't hurt them. Not until you remember the very
rich are able to protect their money offshore. Obama's definition of a
rich man seems to be rapidly sliding downward. A few months ago, you
had to have a million or more for him to consider you rich. Now it
means a married couple earning $250,000 or more will have a higher tax
bill. Companies will of course just pass the cost down to the working
slobs if they can, or go out of business if they can't. McCain wants
to encourage the growth of new jobs, new products, innovations that
create wealth. Obama wants large, costly government programs for
health care, for education, aand for whatever comes up as the economy
becomes weaker (and even less capable of paying for these program).
With him, we're in for Stagflation in a big way.
So for sure, Roe vs. Wade is secure with Obama. It is likely just
as secure under McCain, but admittedly this is one area where they can
be absolutely certain Obama won't flipflop.
OF COURSE, IT WOULD BE NICE IF THEY ASKED THEMSELVES
WHETHER THEY WILL BE HAPPY WITH THE JUDGES THAT OBAMA IS LIKELY TO
PICK. Will they really be happy with judges that cherry pick the
Constitution and interpret it in a way that not only spreads the
shrinking amount of wealth but changes the idea of America from a
country where people can strive to succeed to a giant cargo cult, with
people waiting for a handout? Do they really want judges that will
agree that freedom of speech is subservient to hate speech and hate
speech is whatever the courts say it is. Already, Obama is demanding
that a special prosecutor investigate GOP Voter Fraud Activities. It's
Obama's Acorn buddies who have committed fraud. They have
sought out the unregistered and have been signing them up to vote.
Over and over again. Obama wants the attack on the Acorn
operation to stop. How dare the FBI investigate! Ari Melber of the
Washington Independent writes
(Obama says: Stop Investigating Acorn Voter Fraud).
[...]
The letter requests that the special prosecutor's inquiry "include a
review of any involvement by Justice Dept. and White House officials
in supporting the McCain-Palin campaign [and RNC's] systematic
development and dissemination of unsupported, spurious allegations of
vote fraud."
This is the man who talks about openness. He won't release his
birth certificate. He won't release his college records. It is
starting to come out that he is taking money from foreign sources and
this has also come under attack. In fact, some one has quipped that
half his funds come from overseas and half of his voters from the
cemetary. Shades of Tammany!
FOR SURE, ROE VS. WADE IS SECURE WITH OBAMA. So the
one-issue-ers tamp down their uneasy awareness that Barack Hussein
Obama's family on both sides, his college buddies, his mentors, his
friends, his close co-workers, his associates, the organizations he
joined are on the far left. Some of them want to change America into a
socialist paradise. Some of them want to turn America into a
protectorate of resurgent Islam. Does this sound absurd? Look at his
close friends: William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi. look at his mentors:
Frank Marshall Davis, Edward Said. Look at his spiritual leaders: Rev. Michael
Pfeger, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakan.[1] Apply the test the civil
right lawyers did. You can blow away one incident. Ten incidents. You
blow them away one at a time. But the lawyers looked at the
pattern -- and that's how they demonstrated the evils of segregation.
Obama himself is a very far left ideologue. He was a member of the
Chicago Socialist party (
Article/photo here.). In 2001, he laid out his plan for wealth
redistribution in a radio interview on Chicago Public Radio. (Click here.)
He saw it then and he sees it now as a form of "economic justice.".
Just a few weeks ago, in a rare moment of honesty, he told Joe the
Plumber what change means to him -- it is redistribution of the wealth
-- not voluntarily, but under government edict. It mean overhauling
our capitalist system and restricting its benefits to suit a small
group of far-left ideologues. In the interview he criticizes the
Constitution "because it doesn't guarantee equal outcomes."
Care about Roe vs Wade. But care about your country more.
Please vote for John McCain.
[1] OBAMA'S FRIENDS AND AFFILIATIONS
RADICAL AND SOCIALIST INFLUENCES: Saul Alinsky, Khalid Abdullah
Tariq al-Mansour, William Ayers, Carl Davidson, Frank Marshall Davis,
Bernardine Dohrn, John L. McKnight, Democratic Socialists of America,
Gamaliel Foundation, New Party, Socialist Scholars Conference.
POLITICAL ALLIES AND ADVISORS: Ali Abunimah, Mohamed Salim
Al-Churbaji, David Axelrod, Joe Biden, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Gregg
Craig, Jim Johnson, Marilyn Katz, Anthony Lake, Tony McPeak, Robert
Malley, Raila Odinga, Alice Palmer, Eli Pariser, Samantha Power, Susan
Rice, Bettylu Saltzman, George Soros, Cass Sunstein, Dorothy Tillman,
Joyce Wheeler, Tim Wheeler.
RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS: Louis Farrakan, Rev. Joseph Lowery, James
Meeks, Rev. Otis Moss, Rev. Michael Pfleger, Rev. Al Sharpton, Jim
Wallis, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATIONS: ACORN; Arab American Action Network;
Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC); Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland,
P.C.; Democratic Socialists of America; International Crisis Group;
New Party (Chicago, Socialist); MoveOn; National Council of La Raza;
Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Project Vote; Sojourners.
ACADEMIC AFFILIATIONS: William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said,
Cornel West.
FOUNDATIONS: Joyce Foundation, Woods Fund of Chicago.
Charging that the FBI probe of ACORN represents an "unholy alliance"
between Republican operatives and potentially illegal conduct by law
enforcement targeting voter fraud, the Obama campaign demanded Friday
that the U.S. special prosecutor looking into the U.S. attorneys
scandal investigate the matter.
HOME
September-October 2008 Special Edition
Background Information
News On The
Web
_________________________End of
Story___________________________