above my pay grade - Obama

By now the conversation on Barack Obama’s answers to the abortion questions are traveling across the internet. YouTube videos, along with the commentaries addressing his statements are available to all.

So given all of these avenues for review, I hope these comments are not merely repetitive but offer some additional insight for those perusing this site.

Obama explained in answering some of the opening questions that we as a nation should consider the Biblical admonition to care for the “least of our brothers” as he marked that lack of action as one of America’s moral failures. It would prove to be somewhat ironic. Later in the interview, he would fail to recognize that the unborn child is a member of this human community and should be afforded some basic human rights.

One would expect that Obama would know and anticipate a question on abortion. What he did not plan was the focus of the question. It proved to be his great undoing.

The question from Warren:

Rick Warren: “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”

Barack Obama: “Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.”

Warren did not ask him when life began, but that is the question that Obama heard. Indeed, Obama stammered at first before moving into his groove and then ending with the flippant response. He later raised the issue again by asserting that recognizing the life of the child in the womb is a matter of faith.

I mean one of the things that I've always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then -- and you are consistent in that belief, then I can't argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you.

Here one sees the core problem of pro-abortion liberals and Democrats in their efforts to attract the pro-life vote. The matter of whether the unborn child is a human being has nothing to do with religion. The only thing relevant is the nature and composition of the being. Is the being the result of the penetration of the human male sperm into the human female ovum? Now candidly people do not talk that way. They merely ask is what the mother is carrying a girl or a boy? Most people know what is inside the womb of a pregnant woman is a baby. Take a simple course on biology if one has any questions. So Professor Obama, reminding me of the law professors back when I was in law school who refused to discuss the question, fumbled the ball.

Further he opened himself up to the question we pro-lifers always ask someone who does not pretend to know. This inquiry was mentioned in Michael Gerson’s article referenced below. Simply stated, when in doubt, do no harm.

Michael Gerson, writing in the Washington Post on Monday August 18, 2008, said it succinctly. “It is now clear why Barack Obama has refused John McCain's offer of joint town hall appearances during the fall campaign.” He went on to say that “McCain is obviously better at them. Obama's response on abortion -- the issue that remains his largest obstacle to evangelical support -- bordered on a gaffe. Asked by Warren at what point in its development a baby gains "human rights," Obama said that such determinations were "above my pay grade" -- a silly answer to a sophisticated question. If Obama is genuinely unsure about this matter, he (and the law) should err in favor of protecting innocent life. If Obama believes that a baby in the womb lacks human rights, he should say so -- pro-choice men and women must affirm (as many sincerely do) that developing life has a lesser status. Here the professor failed the test of logic.”

The question by Warren presumed the reality that the baby is alive. Warren wanted to know when Obama would provide legal protection to the baby. Obama’s answer is – never. Perhaps he would agree after the baby was born, although there are those like Peter Singer from Princeton who would like to withhold legal protection for three days to “weed” out the undesirables. In fact this is the argument that the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was designed to prevent the Singers of the world from destroying babies born alive even after abortions. After all it would be consistent with the goal of the abortion – a dead baby.

The desire by those pro-abortion apologists to focus the debate on “choice” is because they cannot win the debate on life. Should we protect innocent human life? That is the question. It is not a religious question. Men and women who have no religion can understand that we are discussing human life. Nat Hentoff is a self described “liberal atheist” who is very pro-life. It is not one believes in the strict sense. It is what one knows.

The First International Conference on Abortion was convened in October 1967 in Washington D.C. to decide the question of "When does human life begin?" Sponsored by the Harvard Divinity School and the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation, medical professionals, biological scientists and authorities in the fields of law, ethics and the social sciences met to debate and resolve the question. With the discussion of abortion very much in the news at that time, it was important that science answer the question. It is tragic to say the least that the U.S. Supreme Court and many members of the courts and Congress have failed to explore the results of this conference convened over 40 years ago.

Here was the decision of this group by a vote of 19 – 1:

"The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg (or at least the blastocyst stage), and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life. The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six month fetus, a one week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation."—First International Conference on Abortion, Washington B.C., October 1967.

This quote came from a packet of information researched in 1974 when I first began to examine the political and legal nature of the abortion question. Not a lot has changed in 34 years. We in the pro-life movement still have to explain the facts of life to otherwise intelligent people.

But Obama – the law professor – the man who wants to be president - will not tell us when he would have the law protect unborn children. It is ‘above his pay grade.”

Prediction: Obama has to do something big to take attention off his lackluster performance at Saddleback Church. Maybe the discussion for VP will go into high gear.

the proposed Democrat platform on abortion

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

Compare the proposed language to that which is currently in the Democratic Party platform:

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Notice the effort to have it both ways in the proposed language. The Democrats want to affirm the right to kill babies BUT they want to pander to the compassionate elements of the party and therefore want to "reduce abortions" by increasing health care and education.

Of course the Democrats want Planned Parenthood to provide the health care and education. Care to guess what kind of education they want to provide to your children? Read Kathryn Lopez and weep.

Do not be confused by the efforts to attract the frustrated and the gullible. The abortion minded Democrats have only one thing on their mind - and it ain't protecting babies.

do not sit out this election

I have noticed that there is a move among some disgruntled conservatives who, having failed to advance their choice for president, have decided to encourage voters to choose "none of the above" come Election Day. Such action on the part of such voters could prove disastrous for the country and the future of our children and grandchildren. It reminds one of the playground antics of children who having not gotten their way regarding the choice of game have decided to prevent their other classmates from having any fun during recess. Only in the case of this election of 2008, the stakes are much more serious than some hurt feelings.

Barack Obama is probably the most left leaning candidate ever fielded by the Democratic Party in recent history. He is the combination of Al Gore, George McGovern and Michael Dukakis all rolled into one. Actually he makes those fellows seem rather moderate. And we all know their history. McGovern was the first of the anti-war zealots, promoting amnesty and abortion. Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, all were left leaning government expansionists. But Obama is a clear cut socialist. His programs are all about taking from one group and giving to another. He is about income redistribution with the government taking its cut and giving that cut to his friends. And I have not even touched upon his willingness to join in on the persistent attack on the family, the unborn, and the institution of marriage.

John McCain is a political figure who first and foremost loves this country. He loves his family. He believes in family values. He is pro-life. He is the first to admit he is a flawed human being. But who among us has not made mistakes. He has his qualities and his talents that can help this nation navigate through some treacherous waters in a very dangerous world. He is not so taken with himself as his opponent that he does not rely on Almighty God for strength. He is passionate and like many of us, when he is upset, people know it. But think about what we need in a president in this world of global combustibility. We need someone who has been in the fire and did not flinch.

Now to all those die-hard "I don't like John McCain" folks, I will pose this thought. Put aside your current disagreements and work to insure his election .Make sure everyone knows that you are working to elect John McCain. Make it clear that you are putting aside but not forgetting these issues of concern. However make it clear that your love for the country is more important. Once John McCain is elected, you have a place at the table to discuss your concerns, your fears, and your worries. You will have earned a right to claim his attention because you were in the battle. You fought shoulder to shoulder against those who would sell out this nation.

And after November we will still have a lot of work to do. We still have to end abortion. We still have to defend and protect the institution of marriage. We still need to reduce the size and the overreach of government. We will have the opportunity to support those conservatives who in the future will be the next generation of leadership for this beloved country of ours. We will still have to address the energy crisis and the social security crisis and the border issues. We will still have to re-claim the judiciary from the activist liberal judges who legislate from the bench.

The election of John McCain will allow us to continue our efforts.

But the election of Barack Obama will put the efforts of the last 20 years at risk.

Obama wants to fund abortions with tax dollars and expand the evil reach of Planned Parenthood around the globe.

Obama wants to pass the Freedom of Choice Act and wipe out all state regulations of abortions that have been responsible for the declining abortion rate in this country.

Obama would select pro-abortion activist judges who will codify not only abortion in to law for the next thirty years but also same-sex marriage. Imagine what these judges would do to the freedom of the church to promote justice and preach the gospel.

Look, it does not take a whole lot of brain matter to realize that Obama would damage this nation for more than a few years.

"These are the times that try men's souls," speaks a voice from the past. Are you gong to sit this one out and then complain when those who would radically reconfigure this nation do what they are telling us they will do if put in power? Are you afraid to be that difference you can be? Do you have what it takes to put aside disagreements that can be solved to protect your nation for your children and their children?

If so, I invite you to participate in this great republic and this electoral process.

Let’s show the liberal politicians, the liberal media and the liberal elites what the people can do and what we mean when we pray that God would bless America

The Trenton Times news exposure continues

The story about the Trenton Times misrepresenting the Catholic position on the lie issues and the responsibility of voters has received more attention. Deal Hudson wrote on InsideCatholic.com that

There will be much media mischief aimed at Catholic voters between now and November 4. Perhaps the best example thus far appeared in the Trenton Times on July 30.

The headline of reporter Jeff Trently's article tells you all you need to know about his intentions: "U.S. Bishops: Vote your conscience, Catholics urged to weigh stands on all issues."

But Trently's version of the erroneous conscience-is-king argument is notable for several reasons: First, his bias is more obvious than usual; secondly, he puts the worst possible spin on a controversial line from "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" published by the USCCB. Finally, he misinterprets quotations from Bishop John Smith of Trenton, the bishop's communications director, Ravenne Bennett, and the director of the Office of Social Concerns, Rev. Ronald Cioffi.

Not only did InsideCatholic pick up on the story but today there is a statement by Bishop John M. Smith of the Diocese of Trenton in LifeNews.com addressing the Trenton Times news story. The Bishop noted that the headline and the story gave the wrong impression of the USCCB document.

It is so important that we all remain vigilant and not allow the press to misrepresent Catholic teaching on the subject.

Actually it is very simple. We who value the sanctity of innocent human life do not vote for pro-abortionists like Barack Obama.

Obama is Clueless as to Education and Helping the Poor

Barack Obama has stated his opposition to vouchers and tax credits and other means to assist lower and middle income families in their efforts to find a decent education for their children. Especially in poor and working class neighborhoods, substandard schools are a major reason for the increase in crime, the continuation of poverty and a general depression in efforts to improve those neighborhoods.

One of the bright spots for families has been the possibility of sending their children to private, charter or parochial schools. This hope that their children can get a good education needs to be supported by the political and educational establishments. after all a well educated society ought to be an involved society.

Barack Obama though has publicly opposed these means to help inner city children. He opposes school choice.

So I asked myself - where does Barack send his children to school?

As luck would have it Jim Geraghty over at National Review did a small piece on the subject.

Allow me to quote part of the story.

Well, Obama’s daughters attend the University of Chicago Laboratory School, a private school. Malia is 10, and presumably just finished the fourth grade. Sasha is 7 and presumably just finished the first grade.

Standard full 2007-2008 tuition for grades one through four: $18,492.

For a fifth grader, it moves up to $20,286. If last year's rates apply to this fall, full tuition for both students for the coming year will be $38,778.

Because Barack Obama used to teach there, or because Michelle Obama is an employee of the University of Chicago’s hospital system, the Obamas most likely qualify for a staff discount.

Like I said, I guess vouchers might seem pointless if you saw private school tuition as jaw-droppingly expensive. These numbers from the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics for the 2003-2004 school year put average tuition paid by private elementary school students at $5,049, about a quarter that of University of Chicago Laboratory School's tuition for this year.

So I went over to the University of Chicago Laboratory school to get the numbers for myself. Here they are:

http://www.ucls.uchicago.edu/operations/registrar/tuition.shtml

Grade	2008-09 Tuition & Fees	Quarterly Tuition
Nursery School (Half Day)	$11,442	$3,814
Nursery/Kindergarten (Full Day)	$16,674	$5,558
Grades 1 - 4	$18,492	$6,164
Grades 5 - 8	$20,286	$6,762
Grades 9 - 12	$21,480	$7,160

It would appear to me that Obama has no concept of what average working class families sacrifice to put their children through private school. In fact his tuition costs reflect what many working class families bring home as a paycheck on an annual basis. ( 2 children = $38, 778)

And this guy thinks he understands the needs of the average working class or "middle class" family. I do not think so.

For the record John McCain supports expanding opportunities for children to get a decent education. He supports vouchers, school choice, tax credits and other alternative efforts to increase options especially for the poor and lower middle class families.