Barack Obama disappointed freedom-loving Americans earlier this summer with his flip-flop from opposition to warrantless wiretapping to an embrace of it. Obama’s move is a betrayal of the notion that the U.S. Constitution is not a suggestion but a binding compact; it’s a betrayal of his oath of office as a Senator and his presumptive oath of office as a president — to support and defend the Constitution.
Since Obama’s move against the Constitution, I’ve been peppered with e-mails from people who tell me that they have rejected voting for Obama, and that former Republican congressman and current libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr is now the best presidential candidate for people who believe in liberty. When I write back and point out that Bob Barr voted for the USA Patriot Act, they tell me it was long ago and that he’s really, really, really sorry. But if you want to understand what someone will do in the future, the best predictor is what they’ve done in the past… and it’s not just the Patriot Act that looms in Barr’s past, but a wide variety of actions to undermine freedom in this country.
Take a woman’s right to control her own body. Flaming arch-conservative congressman Bob Dornan succeeded in getting the House of Representatives to vote for a measure prohibiting any federal funds or facilities from being used for women in the military to have abortions. Bob Barr voted for the measure. Rep. Rosa DeLauro pointed out that hey, in a number of countries with American military presence abortion cannot be obtained; American military facilities are the only places where American military women could obtain an abortion. Cutting off those facilities as a place for abortions means entirely removing the possibility for these women to have abortions at all. So DeLauro proposed an amendment to Dornan’s measure to allow women in the military to obtain abortions at American military facilities if those women paid the entire cost of the abortion themselves. Bob Barr voted against the DeLauro amendment.
So here’s another set of votes in which Bob Barr had the chance to choose between authoritarianism and freedom. Barr chose authoritarianism. I don’t trust Bob Barr.
What about little baby’s bodies?
You mean embryos, Marc. Babies are already born. They can’t be aborted.
It’s interesting to me that you begin your article railing against Obama for voting against the precepts of the Constitution, and then you go on to complain about the abortion issue. Where does is specify in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the right to spend any money on such things? The correct way to look at this issue is not “Pro Life” or “Pro Choice”. At the federal level it should be a non-issue. Since the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion, the Tenth Amendment clearly states that the issue is the purview of the states to decide. This, I believe, is Bob Barr’s view. And it’s the libertarian view. It’s none of the government’s business what you do with your body.
Now, it’s true that Barr has a lot of skeletons in his closet, and has made a lot of traitorous votes while in Congress. But since then he claims he’s seen the error of his ways and the past five years he has worked tirelessly against the Patriot Act and its successor, the federal drug war, and other such things. You have every right to not trust him, but your argument doesn’t hold water.
“It’s none of the government’s business what you do with your body.”
Isn’t this Jim’s point? He voted against something saying that women in the US military can’t even pay for their own abortions at American military facilities?
They DO treat STDs and sexual injuries/conditions, so it’s hardly something that will help keep sexual equality. In fact, unless they’re also offering (temporary) sterilisation to all those in the military it seems quite decidedly unequal.
I, frankly, don’t trust any politician at the moment. I think we can trust Obama a little bit more than we can trust Barr.
Thanks, HareTrinity. That was exactly my point. Bob Barr voted to use the power of government to keep women in the military from being able to have abortions, even if the women themselves agree to pay the entire cost! How much further from a libertarian position can you get?
The legitimacy of abortion can not be determined by libertarian principles because libertarianism does not tell you when a fetus becomes a human being. While the party position remains pro-choice, Bob is free to oppose abortion as a personal matter. Bob now supports the Ron Paul position that abortion is an issue best left to the states and thus is not relevant to his run for president. On the specific issue of abortions for women in the military I have not heard him comment on it recently, but given that he has reversed himself on Wiccans and Gays in the military, I suspect he would now also support choice for military women.
That’s interesting. Given the choice between a suspicion and a track record, I go with the track record. Bob Barr has a lot to repudiate, and a lot that he has not repudiated, which makes him highly suspect as a presidential candidate.