Word in the news and on the back alleys of politics has it that Caroline Kennedy is going to be the choice to replace New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who, as all should know now, has been selected to be the Obama administration’s Secretary of State. This is probably, in this writer’s opinion, not a good move for America. Caroline Kennedy will bring to the US Senate all of the values and positions of her predecessor, with a few new twists. While the people and state of New York may accept these values and positions, there are a couple that should give all of America pause; they do me.
Caroline Kennedy would bring not only the liberal values of her predecessor, but also the interesting marks of Massachusetts liberalism. Also, Caroline might be more willing to espouse and fight for her views than Senator Clinton has proven. Caroline Kennedy would likely join forces with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in pushing a more liberalized agenda upon what seems to be turning out to be a pragmatic Obama administration.
Caroline Kennedy professes two anathematic positions that should make every sane and rational person in the US think twice about her. For one, she is an ardent and strident supporter of gun control along the lines of Sarah Brady; this pretty much automatically makes her susceptible to the influence of billionaire financier/shipping magnate George Soros. Her second offensive position is favoring abortion- not so bad, in my opinion, except that she supports the idea of minors being able to obtain one without parental consent or even knowledge!
On gun control, the unenlightened Kennedy has said that she would support a return to the so-called assault weapons ban of the Clinton years. This is unfortunate in that all of the evidence suggests that the ban did nothing to reduce crime, as such weapons are the least likely (as in 1% involvement in crimes of violence before, during, and after the Clinton ban)to be used in an act of violence. I think that some of these people see the spree killings which have occurred since 1985 as a source of concern over these weapons. Unfortunately, thanks to intensive cover-up work by the American Medical Association and pharmaceutical companies, few people realize that spree killings and Prozac use, unlike assault weapons, have a 100% statistical correlation. Yes, gun grabbers, a specific drug is more likely, so far every time, than a specific sort of firearm, to be involved in the spree killings we all fear. Every single spree killing, of which there were very few before the introduction of Prozac, since the introduction of Prozac has had at its helm a Prozac patient. Even the foreign ones in Europe. Better regulation of Prozac and its similar pharmaceuticals would do more to prevent the massacres feared than more regulation of weapons.
There is no rational reason for the expansion of abortion rights. The first trimester should be plenty of time for over 90% of women to detect and decide about her pregnancy. Except for recent Bush administrative decisions that will be shortly overturned, the rules already generally allow for exceptions in the event of potential risk to the mother’s life. And to suggest that a minor female should be able to opt for abortion without parental consent or knowledge is just foolishly permissive. A child cannot legally drop out of school or seek out other forms of elective surgery without parental consent; how can one legally justify allowing them to have an abortion?
Caroline Kennedy is already admittedly in possession of at least two of the least reasonable positions of the far left. Yet, when it comes to issues of wealth and taxation, she appears to lean back to the right in opposing a more equitable graduated income tax-distribution scheme. It seems that perhaps Caroline Kennedy’s liberalism may be reserved for only those who can afford it. In recent interviews, she has primarily leaned to the more extreme end of the Democratic Party on social issues while backing the Republicans on economic and wealth issues. Her positions have not been explained fully enough to analyze her reasoning, but then again, she may be looking to popularity socially while protecting her own economically. This combination of discordant views tends to indicate an unfocused, and perhaps less than informed, worldview. In any event, she draws the concern of this writer.
No comments:
Post a Comment