Sen. Barack Obama’s platform is his politics of “understanding.” Obama has been careful not to define the issues upon which he runs; rather, he explains that it is time to “move forward,” to discard “ideology,” to reach a new “common ground” built on an “understanding” of broad-based values. Of course, this is pure Grade A pap, since Obama fails to define those values, except in broad generalities. Yes, he’s for the flag (but not against burning it – he voted against the flag-protection amendment), motherhood (as long as taxpayers foot the bill for day care and abortion on demand remains legal) and apple pie (he has not had to vote on apple pie). But where does he stand?
Obama is a liberal, and a rather radical liberal at that. According to Obama’s new best seller, “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama hates Ronald Reagan: He was “disturbed … by Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 … unconvinced … by his John Wayne, ‘Father Knows Best’ pose, his policy by anecdote and his gratuitous assaults on the poor.” (31)
He loves Jimmy Carter: “a Democrat who – with his emphasis on human rights – seemed prepared to once again align moral concerns with a strong defense.” (288)
Despite his protestations to the contrary, he dislikes President Bush: “The president’s eyes became fixed; his voice took on the agitated, rapid tone of someone neither accustomed to nor welcoming interruption; his easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty.” (45) He repeats “war for oil” slander: “Is cheap oil worth the costs – in blood and treasure – of war?” (310)
He slimes Rush Limbaugh: “If Rush Limbaugh’s listeners enjoy hearing him call me ‘Osama Obama,’ my attitude is, let them have their fun.” (122) As Limbaugh has explained repeatedly, it was Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who first mislabeled Obama “Osama.” Limbaugh is making fun of Kennedy, not Obama, when he references the misnomer.
Obama insults evangelicals: “Their fervor has gone mainstream. There are various explanations for this success, from the skill of evangelicals in marketing religion to the charisma of their leaders.” (202)
He suggests that the Bible tolerates homosexuality: “For many practicing Christians, the same inability to compromise may apply to gay marriage. I find such a position troublesome, particularly in a society in which Christian men and women have been known to engage in adultery or other violations of their faith without civil penalty. … I [am not] willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.” (222)
He rehashes worn-out liberal anti-religious arguments: “Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests that slavery is all right and eating shellfish is an abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?” (218) Then, after all of that, he also attempts to capitalize on his own religious journey: “I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.” (208)
Obama is a fervent believer in global warming and wants dramatically to raise fuel efficiency standards as well as taxes on oil companies. He wants to raise the minimum wage and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. Though he says he’s for free trade, he voted against CAFTA. He wants to spend billions more dollars on early education, though Head Start has been a debacle. He wants to heavily regulate health care and, in doing so, essentially nationalize it. He wants to raise taxes across the board.
He cites as his economic guru Warren Buffett and quotes him as stating, “[Billionaires] have this idea that it’s ‘their money’ and they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don’t factor in is all the public investment that lets us live the way we do.” (191) This is Marxist trash. “Capital is therefore not a personal, it is a social power,” Marx wrote in “The Communist Manifesto.” Viewing private property as social property is a mandate to tyranny. Yet that’s precisely how Obama views private property: “I simply believe that those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has a chance for that same success.” (193)
These are not the words of a moderate. They are the words of a man who fits right in with his radical base. The hatred for Reagan, Bush and, in particular, the revulsion he feels at traditional religion, is palpable. Those who endorse Obama must look beyond his fraudulent rhetoric before signing off on his agenda.
Related special offer: