Barack Obama: Morally Depraved
Let us not mince words.
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 | Born Alive Infants Protection Act | culture of death | Liberals | Obamafiles — Comments (152) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Obamania is sweeping the country. The phenomenon has become so powerful that otherwise sensible conservatives and alleged center-right pundits have written posts explaining why he is worthy of at least their primary votes. The general feeling expressed is that he seems to be a good, kind and generous person, would be loads better than Hillary, and probably wouldn't be all that bad as a President. I am writing this story today to hopefully disabuse all people with moral sense of the notion that Barack Obama is either a morally decent person or a potentially decent President.
Being a good President is ultimately about having good judgment. Candidates win votes by looking good on TV and embracing positions that voters like. Being a good President, on the other hand, has very little to do with television savvy (I would have said "none" before the Presidency of George W. Bush) and/or holding the right policy positions. Although he was much mocked for saying it, George W. Bush was correct when he noted that the job of President basically involves being the "decider," of being the person at whose desk the proverbial buck stops. Day in and day out, difficult decisions concerning issues that don't come up on the campaign trail find their way to the President's desk. Often, he has to sift through mountains of carefully constructed and conflicting advice in a split second and ultimately make a gut decision on an issue that could affect the safety and lives of millions of people.
Which is why, when I examine what Presidential candidates say on the campaign trail, and how they have voted or governed in the past, I am not so much looking for a checklist of positions, or someone who makes me feel warm and fuzzy when they speak, but rather I am looking behind all of that to see what those speeches/votes/actions say about the judgment of the candidate. I do this because I know that when new and important questions approach the Presidential desk, President X will not go back and consult what he said as Candidate X in stump speeches; he will go where all leaders and decision-makers go: to his character and gut. And if a President's character and gut are rotten, it is a safe bet that bad decisions will flow from it.
This brings us to Amanda Carpenter's excellent story about Barack Obama and the Born Alive Infants' Protection Act ("BAIPA"). For those who may not know, abortion is not always a "successful" procedure, insofar as "success" is defined as the killing of an unborn child. Most early term abortions involve the dismemberment of the child in utero and subsequent removal of the "pieces" of the uterus via suction. As you might imagine, this method does not leave many unborn children alive. However, most late-term abortions involve some combination of poisoning the unborn child and inducing the mother to deliver early. However, some of the unborn children in question are not as ready to die as their mothers are ready to... ah... "eliminate" them, and they are born alive. The Born Alive Infants' Protect Act requires, very simply, that if doctors are unsuccessful in killing the children through abortion, they may not kill them by refusing medical treatment, thus ensuring that they will die cold and alone on, say, an operating table. Or perhaps a toilet.
With this information given, Barack Obama's vote against [updated for accuracy - the IL version of] BAIPA really needs no further explanation. By way of contrast, BAIPA passed in the United States Senate unanimously, without even a dissent from Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy. The House passed the vote by a shocking 380-15 vote. NARAL was fine with BAIPA. I disagree strongly with this notion that we can draw an arbitrary line between small humans in utero and small humans ex utero wherein the former class may be legally killed but the latter may not. However, the latter proposition is not opposed by even the most committed merchant of death, with the exception of the proudly morally depraved like Peter Singer. And it is in this company that we find the alleged moderate and decent person Barack Obama.
It cannot be said that Obama voted against this bill in ignorance. As Amanda's story notes, Jill Stanek appeared personally in front of Obama's committee and explained in painstaking detail the horrors endured by children who were born alive after "failed" abortions and left to die in toilets and on steel tables. Obama, we are told, was summarily unimpressed with it all, and singlehandedly kept the bill from coming to the floor of the Illinois Senate.
The question I have for conservatives and moderates - and, what the heck? liberals - is this: what sort of man thinks it should be legal to allow living infants to drown in a toilet immediately after birth? The answer is very simple: a morally depraved one. And the next question that I have is this: do you want such a man making the most important decisions that will face this country over the next four years?
Morally serious people should not allow themselves to be so easily swayed by good looks and public speaking ability that they refuse to look behind the facade to see the moral depravity that lies beneath. Because a good speech and a comforting smile will not be able to undo the damage that putting such a man in power will cause.