Connecting the Dots on Obama's Radicalism

Defining Obama as a liberal is at this point a given. At this point, the question is just how liberal is he. As most astute political observers know, the National Journal voted Obama most liberal Senator in 2007. While he continues to try and paint himself as more moderate, I believe his own record paints a much different story. In fact, I believe that the label of radical is in order. I will attempt to connect the dots between his radical positions and the radicals he associates himself with, and what all of this may mean. I see his radicalism on four issues in specific: abortion, the borders, geopolitics, and the 2nd amendment.

On abortion, Barack Obama isn't merely pro choice, but rather pro choice for the entire nine months and frankly then some. For instance, Barack Obama is for partial birth abortion, a procedure done only in the last three months (as well as a brutal procedure in which the baby is partially removed from the mother and then the brain is literally sucked out of the head). This past summer the Supreme Court ruled that a state law banning partial birth abortion was in fact legal and here is how Obama responded...

I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.”

Being for partial birth abortion is a fairly radical position in and of itself (and one that puts Obama in the significant minority), however Obama's radicalism on abortion doesn't end there. In fact, when he was in the Illinois State Senate he voted in favor of the practice of a form of infanticide...

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

...

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”

In other words, Obama voted in favor of a procedure in which a baby was aborted, the abortion failed, and the baby was killed anyway. This means that there is no abortion procedure that Obama isn't in favor of.

On the issue of the borders, Obama also shows the same kind of radicalism as he does on abortion. Here is what Obama said in front of the group La Raza...

And I will never walk away from the 12 million undocumented immigrants who live,work, and contribute to our country every single day.

He has consistently shown favor for illegal immigrants over securing the border through his voting record. He didn't show up to vote on an amendment to end sanctuary cities, however only a week later he voted in favor of the DREAM Act, a scheme to legalize the children of illegals. Here is how he responded to me regarding the DREAM Act.

In order for an undocumented student to qualify and apply for conditional legal status under the DREAM Act, he or she would have to: have arrived in the United States at age 15 or younger; have been continuously present in the U.S. for at least five years; have good moral character; graduated from high school or obtained a GED in the U.S.; not have a history of criminal or terrorist activity; and be age 29 or younger when the DREAM Act is signed into law. The undocumented student would then be required to either serve in the military or attend college for at least two years within a six year time frame. If the undocumented student is able to meet all of these requirements within six years, he or she could then apply for legal permanent residency; if the student fails to meet all of these requirements, he or she would revert to illegal status and become deportable. This legislation offers hope and opportunity to young people who have chosen the right path and who want to become contributing citizens of the United States.

When he was in the Illinois Senate, he was leading the charge to bring driver's licenses for illegals to the state.

There is strong Latino support for the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, State Sen. Barack Obama, an African American, who forcefully supported the drivers’ license bill in the Illinois Senate.

Obama is against the border fence, putting guards on the border, and is nowhere to be found in the bi partisan support for the SAVE Act. Thus, he finds himself in front of radical open borders groups, he supports most if not all measures that are pro open borders, and has been nowhere on any measures that move toward sealing our borders. This, I would say, is a radical open borders position.

On geopolitics, Obama uses his open borders position to form the nexus of a radical geopolitical position. Obama is in favor of a protectionist trade policy. He is also in favor of unconditional dialogue with most if not all of our enemies. He has gone so far as to say that he wants to meet unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his first year in office. In other words, he wants to shun our closest allies economically at the same time he extends a diplomatic hand to our worst enemies. Furthermore, while he is closing our markets to our neighbors, he is opening our borders to its people. To me, this is quite radical.

Finally, just yesterday, I analyzed his radical position on the 2nd amendment. While he pays lip service to the second amendment being an individual right, his voting record says something much different. Both the NRA and Gun Owners of America each gave Obama a grade of an F on the 2nd amendment. Here is what he said about concealed carry permits...

I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could [get shot during] altercations.”

In the 1996 survey, he took it one step further and was in favor of a ban on all handguns. Finally, here is what he said about D.C.'s gun ban

I think that local jurisdictions have the capacity to institute their own gun laws . . . the City of Chicago has gun laws, as does Washington, D.C... The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws . . . isn’t borne out by our Constitution

D.C. has of course banned nearly all firearms within the city. In other words, Obama is always against citizens carrying guns, has been against all gun ownership, and is perfectly fine with municipalities deciding on their own to ban all guns (like in D.C.). This, again, is another position that isn't merely liberal but downright radical.

Now, given Obama's record as a radical on many different issues, let's examine some of his associations with radicals. We all know about his two decade relationship with radical anti American pastor Jeremiah Wright. That relationship has been hyperanalyzed. What has been talked about less is some of his other associations and relationships with other radicals.

For instance, there is radical and former terrorist William Ayres.

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.

Ayres once tried to bomb the Pentagon and in 2001 said he wished he had been more successful. Obama still considers Ayres a friend.

Next, there is the group La Raza which stands for The Race. La Raza's stated mission is the total destruction of our Southern border and giving back to Mexico what it had lost in wars in the 1800's. La Raza was a driving force in each of the marches of illegals coordinated in our country over the last couple years. Obama has spoken at La Raza numerous times. In fact, once they were used as an alibi for a purported meeting with his radical pastor Jeremiah Wright.

Finally, there is the head radical of them all, George Soros. So far, their association is limited, however I have already pointed out Soros is trying to buy the 2008 election and puppeteer the Democratic party after they win. While their current relationship is murky at best, you can all bet that it won't be long before Soros gains favor with Obama. He is spending hundreds of millions so that he gets a friendly administration in office. His millions won't go to waste.

The two of them are fairly natural allies. Obama and Soros see eye to eye on all four of the issues I mentioned. Soros is virulently anti 2nd amendment. Soros is a leading secular progressive with radical positions on numerous social issues including being pro abortion in nearly all instances. Soros has made his goal a one world society with no borders. Finally, Soros totally rejects Bush's vision for the GWOT and here is what he said about negotiating with our enemies...

Second, terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi army in Iraq are very different forces, but President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.

Thus, we have some very important common ground between two radicals. One radical may in fact be President and the other radical is hoping to put him there in order to puppeteer him and his party to radically change our nation around. There are all the dots connected on radicalism that should frighten everyone...