New Stanek WND column, “Obama digs deeper on ‘pay grade’ gaffe”
On ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday, Barack Obama tried to undo the damage he inflicted on himself at the Aug. 16 Saddleback Showdown with his now infamous “above my pay grade”
response to Rick Warren’s question, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”
But Obama hadn’t learned. He tried once again to redirect the clearly constitutionally based question into something esoteric and religious, and therefore unsolvable:
Obama: “I mean, what I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into…”
But Warren clearly had not asked, “When does a baby get a soul?”…
And what did Obama mean by….
Continue reading my column, “Obama digs deeper on ‘pay grade’ gaffe,” on WorldNetDaily.com.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Great column Jill. Can’t put lipstick on that one.
Mr. Obama:
Obama, if you claim to be a follower of Jesus and believe in God, for clarification here is what you need to understnad what abortion is:
Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator,
Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, it negates God as Redeemer,
Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy,
Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it’s earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it’s earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive,
Abortion’s desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness.
Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it’s solution; annihilation, it’s goal; death, it’s dream; breaking God’s heart, it’s vision, Satan’s ultimate power.
Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of Satan are everywhere to be found in its performance;
Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom,
Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God, Yes, abortion is Satan’s feeble attempt at killing God Himself, for abortion is a metaphor for Satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him……for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception.
Copyright 2007, 2008 by HisMan
Lol, mods are on top of it this morning!
Jill,
the reporters who interview Obama don’t ask follow up questions because their trying to cover for Obama.
Jill says: “I don’t know what to call the person who claims not to have a clue.”
A “proabort”?
Something tells me that Obama’s “pay grade” is not going to be changing anytime soon….
Something tells me that Obama’s “pay grade” is not going to be changing anytime soon….
Posted by: Doyle at September 11, 2008 2:54 PM
It may be going down, down, down.
Michelle has certainly been laying low since Palin came on the scene. Why is that???
Obama; like every other supporter of abortion, does not want to look at the images of a fetus because the evidence is irrefutable that a human life is what they want to end.
My neighbor’s daughter was born at 25 weeks. She barely weighed 1 lb. and spent the first 4 months of her life in the hospital. But today she is a high school soccer player and straight A student. People like Obama are perfectly happy to have babies like our neighbors aborted viability be damned.
The only course is to err on the side of life is he doesn’t know. But he knows that’s not a path to the Democratic nomination. And power is more important than life.
Obama; like every other supporter of abortion, does not want to look at the images of a fetus because the evidence is irrefutable that a human life is what they want to end.
My neighbor’s daughter was born at 25 weeks. She barely weighed 1 lb. and spent the first 4 months of her life in the hospital. But today she is a high school soccer player and straight A student. People like Obama are perfectly happy to have babies like our neighbors aborted viability be damned.
The only course is to err on the side of life is he doesn’t know. But he knows that’s not a path to the Democratic nomination. And power is more important than life.
Posted by: Zee at September 11, 2008 5:56 PM
………………………………………………..
Please give evidence that Obama has a problem with viability laws. Or any pro choice person let alone every Democrat for that matter.
Outstanding, Jill.
You wrote this: “Because only an idiot would say that what you get when fertilizing a human egg with a human sperm is a hamster or milkweed pod.
I don’t know what to call the person who claims not to have a clue.”
Answer in one word: “Obamanation”.
http://www.CountUsOut.WordPress.Com
Outstanding, Jill.
You wrote this: “Because only an idiot would say that what you get when fertilizing a human egg with a human sperm is a hamster or milkweed pod.
I don’t know what to call the person who claims not to have a clue.”
Answer in one word: “Obamanation”.
http://www.CountUsOut.WordPress.Com
Posted by: Count Us Out at September 11, 2008 7:14 PM
………………………………..
Calling Jill an idiot usually gets the post deleted.
Sally:
Did you miss the whole ‘botched abortion resulting in a live baby not worthy of being protected’ debate on this site? The one where Obama said he would have voted for The Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act but spoke out in the Illinois senate against a bill with the identical language?
Obama believes (like many if not most Deomcrats) that abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade. That means that a woman can abort the fetus whenever she wants viability be damned. Unless there is another Roe v. Wade that I am not familiar with.
Because only an idiot would say that what you get when fertilizing a human egg with a human sperm is a hamster or milkweed pod.
Nobody’s saying that anyway.
Zee: That means that a woman can abort the fetus whenever she wants viability be damned. Unless there is another Roe v. Wade that I am not familiar with.
You’re not familiar with the first one.
Roe v Wade in conjunction with Doe v Bolton allows abortion at any time after viability.
Are you saying restricting abortions after viability is a position Obama supports?
HisMan,
Wow, your post is very powerful.
Not that anyone who is for abortion on demand cares one iota that actual human beings are being murdered.
I’m coming across more and more people who claim they are Christians who support abortion on demand.
I can only bear to know this because I feel they are the products of brain washing. After 35 years of abortion rights and the lies that have been told, even those who should know better, don’t.
Not that it will be an excuse for those who say they are Christians when they stand before God.
It’s impossible to be a Christian and stay pro-abortion.
Sally:
Did you miss the whole ‘botched abortion resulting in a live baby not worthy of being protected’ debate on this site? The one where Obama said he would have voted for The Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act but spoke out in the Illinois senate against a bill with the identical language?
Obama believes (like many if not most Deomcrats) that abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade. That means that a woman can abort the fetus whenever she wants viability be damned. Unless there is another Roe v. Wade that I am not familiar with.
Posted by: Zee at September 11, 2008 8:56 PM
…………………
You are obviously not familiar with much of anything concerning the subject of abortion.
Roe v Wade in conjunction with Doe v Bolton allows abortion at any time after viability.
Are you saying restricting abortions after viability is a position Obama supports?
Zee, I’ve never heard what Obama’s position is on viability, exactly. As far as I know he’s okay with the way we have it now.
Roe allows the states to protect the unborn life after viability, if they want to. There are only about 1,000 abortions per year after 24 weeks, and 500 – 600 after 26 weeks, most of them for reasons that few people would object to, compared to those opposed to abortion “in general.”
I think it’s 41 states that have restrictions past viability, and it’s only one or two states where there are clinics that do abortions as late as the third trimester.
Perhaps you could point to a hundred or so women, per year, that are having abortions after viability primarily because at that point they don’t want to be pregnant. And whether the actual number is 200 or 50, it wouldn’t bother me much if mental distress was ruled out, i.e. that wouldn’t qualify as “danger to the mother,” etc.
If I give you that, are you going to quit worrying about abortions before viability?
An angry, bitter Sally said: “You are obviously not familiar with much of anything concerning the subject of abortion.”
Wow…. after many days of documentation right here about the “Born Alive Protection Bill” and you still don’t know what that was all about?
Just amazing…… it’s like someone had attended the Democrat convention and still doesn’t know who Obama is….
Doug asks: “If I give you that, are you going to quit worrying about abortions before viability?”
Not trying to speak for Zee, but I can tell you that prolifers do not bargain for lives, Doug.
“Viability” is not a legitimate point of discussion in the abortion debate to us, because the lack of it does not in any way make an unborn baby and less entitled to have a moral right to life, or any less deserving of a legal one.
“Viability” is not a legitimate point of discussion in the abortion debate to us, because the lack of it does not in any way make an unborn baby and less entitled to have a moral right to life, or any less deserving of a legal one.
Doyle, it’s not a big deal in the abortion debate anyway because there are so few abortions after viability in the first place, the vast majority of them for reasons which really aren’t at issue, compared to the main argument over abortion.
I do understand that being viable or not doesn’t change anything for you and Zee (I presume). Thus, it’s not really that some very few women have abortions after viability in the absence of state restrictions or the enforcement thereof, it’s really that you’re just against abortion from the get-go.
So, this stuff about “Boo-Hoo, the Roe decision allows for elective abortions past viability” is really somewhat of a red herring, since the states are free to restrict it if they want to.
“You are obviously not familiar with much of anything concerning the subject of abortion.
Posted by: Sally at September 12, 2008 1:56 AM”
—————————-
Abortion kills the life of an unborn human…..is there anything else to know, Sally?
Abortion kills the life of an unborn human…..is there anything else to know, Sally?
RSD, as far as the abortion argument, there’s everything to know, after that.
Doug,
The question was about ABORTION per se…there can be a million arguments about it depending on who you ask.
Abortion is and will ALWAYS be the KILLING of unborn humans.
Even SoMG acknowledges that and he’s “in the busines” as we all know.
RSD, I really don’t think that Obama has said that abortion does not kill an “unborn human.”
He might have, depending on the usage of “human,” but I’ve never even seen that mentioned.
Has he?
Doug, Mr. Obama refuses to say. He probably also has never said that abortion does kill an unborn human being. Remember the abandoned baby that Jill Stanek held for an hour or so: he called such cases a “whatever” (the relevant quotation is in one of the National Review articles.)
The Rev. Rick Warren: “At what point does a baby get human rights?”
Obama: “I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
It doesn’t matter what Mr. Obama has said. You can know a man by those with whom he keeps company. Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and other evil organizations are core supporters of Mr. Obama. Their support says a whole lot more than Mr. Obama’s words. He is apparently one of the most pro-abortion politicians in American history.
Jon, I think Obama should have said the baby gets rights at birth, or perhaps a limited form of rights at viability.
Aside from that, and apart from all the ranting, raving and attempted demonization of Obama, I don’t think he’s said anything to the effect that the unborn in this argument are not “unborn humans,” and the entire abortion debate remains, as I was saying to RSD.
Doug, what Mr. Obama should have said he didn’t say. And what he should have said isn’t what he would have said or what you have said.
As part of that, and consistent with Mr. Obama’s general alignment with demons who quote Scripture, I don’t think he’s said anything to the effect that the unborn in this argument are “unborn humans,” and he is fundamentally pro-abortion and anti-life, as I was saying.
Jon, then you’re really only going with your own characterization of him, rather than what he’s said.
How can the left rant about Bush trampling the Constitution (and by inference the Bill of Rights) and in the same breath deny Constitutional protections to the most fragile of human lives? What right is sacred, ie. holy, to them if not the right to live? And what is Christian about permitting or enabling murder?
There isn’t any “denying Constitutional protection” to the unborn. The unborn are not covered by the Constitution.
Abortion was legal to a point in gestation before, during, and after the writing of the Constitution.
then you’re really only going with your own characterization of him, rather than what he’s said.
Doug, I haven’t made a characterization; I’ve made a representation. Representations can be true or false. I am indeed going by what he hasn’t said. Mr. Obama couldn’t care less about prenatal Americans. I’m also going by what he has said: he refers to born-alive infants as a whatever, and he says the question of the beginning of life is “above his pay grade.” And I’m going by what he has done, which is to align himself with evil organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL and vote against measures to criminalize the killing of born or pre-born children.
An agnostic and an atheist are practically the same. “I refuse to answer” is also an answer. And answer Mr. Obama must, because as a politician in government, he shares responsibility for the protection of his people. But he doesn’t. He is in cahoots with those who kill prenatal Americans.
If you don’t believe in God, then I suppose you can deny that you existed before your birth. Practically, you believe yourself to be god, and you call the shots. What I now want to know, Doug, is the reason for your defense of Mr. Obama. You are “pro-choice”; why would you have Mr. Obama made out to be pro-life? Is the “pro-choice” position untenable?
Abortion was legal to a point in gestation before, during, and after the writing of the Constitution.
Doug, supposing that your assertion is correct, I strongly suspect that abortion was either uncommon or difficult to prosecute in cases where it was common. Doctors wouldn’t kill children–do you know the Hippocratic oath?–and mothers wouldn’t ask to have their children killed. There weren’t professional abortionists. There probably were no chemical abortions, e.g. using herbs as in Asia. The culture was much more pro-life.
The Constitution couldn’t envision every future moral perversion. What the Constitution could do is establish general principles. This it did with its references to life, liberty, and happiness. Also, even though the Constitution is heavily influenced by Christian thought, it isn’t perfect. That is to say, there is the possibility of amendment.
I am indeed going by what he hasn’t said. Mr. Obama couldn’t care less about prenatal Americans.
Jon, I think that’s once again your characterization of him. I see him wanting women to keep the same legal rights they now have. That is not the same as “not caring about the unborn” or “prenatal Americans.”
He is in cahoots with those who kill prenatal Americans.
You made me laugh with that one. : )
…..
If you don’t believe in God, then I suppose you can deny that you existed before your birth.
Nope. There was the physically existing body, same as there is one now. There was some consciousness (I think) inasmuch as most fetuses have it before birth, too.
…..
Practically, you believe yourself to be god, and you call the shots.
Again, nope. I’m a person who would rather go with the desire of the pregnant woman, to viability, rather than with the desire of people such as yourself who would take away some of the legal freedom she now has.
…..
What I now want to know, Doug, is the reason for your defense of Mr. Obama. You are “pro-choice”; why would you have Mr. Obama made out to be pro-life? Is the “pro-choice” position untenable?
In the context of the abortion debate, Obama is certainly pro-choice. I think the reason he voted against passing the amended Illinois Senate bill was political. It’s not because he “wants born babies to be killed” to to suffer, etc.
I’m not saying he or the other Democrats should have voted against it, either. I think they had nothing to lose, from what I can see, though of course I don’t know all the stuff that was then going on or had occurred. Looking back, I think it was a political blunder, regardless of what they thought they were getting by splitting the vote right along the party lines at the time.
“Abortion was legal to a point in gestation before, during, and after the writing of the Constitution.”
Jon: Doug, supposing that your assertion is correct, I strongly suspect that abortion was either uncommon or difficult to prosecute in cases where it was common.
It wasn’t illegal, to “quickening,” in the first place, so prosecution was not an issue. I don’t know how common it was.
…..
Doctors wouldn’t kill children–do you know the Hippocratic oath?–and mothers wouldn’t ask to have their children killed. There weren’t professional abortionists. There probably were no chemical abortions, e.g. using herbs as in Asia. The culture was much more pro-life.
You’re supposing quite a lot…
…..
The Constitution couldn’t envision every future moral perversion. What the Constitution could do is establish general principles. This it did with its references to life, liberty, and happiness. Also, even though the Constitution is heavily influenced by Christian thought, it isn’t perfect. That is to say, there is the possibility of amendment.
I think it’s more perverted to want to subvert the will of pregnant women to your own will, rather than have legal abortion as we do.
Yeah – there is the possibility of amending the Constitution. I see that as most unlikely. If anything significant is to happen for the pro-life side, I think it’d be the Roe decision being overturned, and once again having it be a matter of state law. Some states would obviously mostly ban abortion, and some would not change from the way it is now.
Doug said, “I see [Mr. Obama] wanting women to keep the same legal rights they now have. That is not the same as ‘not caring about the unborn’ or ‘prenatal Americans.'”
You’re wrong. It is the same.
Doug said, “I’m a person who would rather go with the desire of the pregnant woman, to viability, rather than with the desire of people such as yourself who would take away some of the legal freedom she now has.”
Practically, you believe the woman to be god; she calls the shots.
Doug said, “In the context of the abortion debate, Obama is certainly pro-choice. I think the reason he voted against passing the amended Illinois Senate bill was political. It’s not because [Mr. Obama] ‘wants born babies to be killed’ to to suffer, etc.
But if Mr. Obama had his way, Gianna Jessen would be dead like so many other babies. Where are his priorities? Where are your priorities? Mr. Obama is fundamentally pro-abortion and anti-life, as I was saying.
Abortion was legal to a point in gestation before, during, and after the writing of the Constitution.
Doug, supposing that your assertion is correct, I strongly suspect that abortion was either uncommon or difficult to prohibit in cases where it was common. Doctors wouldn’t kill children–do you know the Hippocratic oath?–and mothers wouldn’t ask to have their children killed. There weren’t professional abortionists. There probably were no chemical abortions, e.g. using herbs as in Asia. The culture was much more pro-life.
The Constitution couldn’t envision every future moral perversion. What the Constitution could do is establish general principles. This it did with its references to life, liberty, and happiness. Also, even though the Constitution is heavily influenced by Christian thought, it isn’t perfect. That is to say, there is the possibility of amendment.