Hong Kong vs. Cuba: a stark contrast Reply

by • the Economy

By Tom Quiner

Hong-Kong-v-Cub

In light of the Democratic Party’s embrace of socialism, it is worth contrasting its effectiveness when compared to free enterprise using real world examples. A perfect comparison is Cuba vs. Hong Kong.

In 1961, Cuba embraced unabashed socialism while Hong Kong embraced unabashed capitalism.

Interestingly, Cuba owns some nice assets, such as productive agriculture thanks to their rich soil; such as 7% of the world’s Nickel and Cobalt reserves; such as 20 billion barrels of oil reserves (top 20 in the world); such as tourism, thanks to their beautiful beaches. Oh, and their people were well-educated.

By contrast, Hong Kong had nothing except a harbor and uneducated people.

When the Castro brothers took over then-capitalist Cuba, how did they leverage their nation’s considerable assets? Under their new socialism system, per capita GDP rose from about $2500 in 1961 to about $4000 by 2007.

By contrast, Hong Kong’s per capita GDP grew from about the same starting point as Cuba in 1961 to over $30,000 by 2007.

To make this really simple, the Hong Kong economy grew more than 7 times faster than Cuba, as you can see on the accompanying chart. And that was with practically no assets.

When they started out, the per capita GDPs of these two countries were in alignment with global averages. But the economic drag produced by socialism, and the corruption that usually accompanies it, has ground Cuba into the dirt.

Interestingly, the Corruption Perceptions Index produced by Transparency International ranks Hong Kong as the 15th least corrupt public sector in the world (ahead of the United States’ 19th place ranking) compared to Cuba’s abysmal 63rd place ranking.

I present this data in the humble hope that a few socialist wannabes will rethink their infatuation with Cuba and the Castro brothers.

Everything you wanted to know about ‘born alive’ legislation but were afraid to ask Reply

by • Pro-Life

By Tom Quiner

born alive legislation

“You are pathetic for believing and spreading such garbage!”

What sparked this intense outburst? The meme above which appeared on our Facebook page. The meme reveals the incoherence of Democratic politicians when it comes to born alive legislation. The responder  was livid and continued:

“This is probably the very worst lie that the far right is spreading! It is ugly and untrue. No doctor is killing babies once they are viable, and definitely once they are born! If continuing to spread this lie because you want votes-it is just sickening.”

Iowans for LIFE is non partisan. Our mandate is to defend the gift of life from conception until natural death. As the Democratic Party becomes increasingly anti-life in their public policy pronouncements, they are increasingly finding themselves in IFL’s crosshairs.

So, is the meme a lie?

Sadly, no. Let’s look at the issue in a simple question & answer format:

When is a baby in the womb viable? The age of viability keeps changing thanks to medical advances. When Roe was decided, the age of viability was 28 weeks; today, it is 24 and in some cases, the markers have been moved to 21 weeks.

Is there really any distinction between a 24 week old human being in 2018 compared to one in 1973?  No, there’s not. It takes a leap of faith to think otherwise, but that is the leap of faith abortion advocates make. If you think about it, a human being is not viable for a number of years after birth. They will die of hunger or exposure without the intervention of their mother and father.

By the same token, human beings in a coma or afflicted by dementia or other ailments are not viable without intervention. Viability is not a rational or moral standard for defining human dignity.

Ok, but be honest, no doctor is killing babies once they are viable, right? Sadly, wrong. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 5597 abortions took place in the U.S. when the unborn person was 21 weeks or later. These numbers are for 2015 and include data from only forty states. Some states, such as California, don’t collect this data, so the numbers are actually much higher. Here in Iowa, nine abortions took place when the unborn person was 21 weeks or older.

Ok, but “no doctor is killing babies once they are born!” Right? Tragically, wrong. Dr. Kermit Gosnell is the most notorious example. Prosecutors believed Dr. Gosnell killed hundreds of newborns who survived his late term abortion procedures. He was ultimately charged with seven counts, convicted on three of them, and is serving a life term in prison without the possibility of parole.

That’s but one example. Can you name one other? As you might guess, abortionists don’t like to admit their “failures.” Their job is to kill the baby in the womb, even if that baby is on the cusp of being born. So statistics are spotty. Nonetheless, data from the Centers for Disease Control identify 362 deaths to babies that initially survived an abortion for the ten year period beginning in 2001.

What happens if a baby survives her abortion? Watch the undercover video below of a conversation between a Washington DC abortion doctor and a pregnant woman. She pointedly asked what happens if the baby survives the abortion. His response:

“I mean, technically, you know, legally, we would be obligated to help it, you know, to survive. But, you know, it probably wouldn’t. It’s all in how vigorously you do things to help a fetus survive at this point.” [Emphasis ours.]

[Tom Quiner is President of Iowans for LIFE’S board. Click here to read the rest of this blogpost at http://www.IowansForLIFE.org]