Hypocrisy of Obama
Published: Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Updated: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 20:10
Leila Green wrote in her Oct. 30 article, “The Morality of Mitt,” that “Obama is by no means perfect.” This concluded her criticism of the president’s morality, as she took the president at his word regarding his support for freedom, equal rights and dedication to alleviating poverty.
However, a thorough analysis requires less attention to rhetoric and more attention to reality.
President Obama promised in 2008 that within the first 100 days of his presidency he would close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, notorious for torture of alleged terrorists. As of Sept. 2012, 167 detainees remain there.
President Obama pledged to close the wage gap between men and women by signing the Lily Ledbetter Act. Yet President Obama pays his own female staff 17 percent less than he pays his male staff.
President Obama pledged his support for equal rights for women. Yet President Obama opposed the Pre-Natal Nondiscrimination Act, which would have protected thousands of girls from being killed in utero because of their sex.
President Obama declared this May that he supports gay rights. Yet last Friday, he said in an MTV interview that “it would be up to future generations of Americans to implement meaningful reform,” rather than his administration.
President Obama declares that he tolerates the beliefs of all people. Yet President Obama is forcing religious institutions to violate their consciences by paying for contraceptives and abortifacient drugs.
President Obama says as Commander in Chief he supports the troops. Yet President Obama denied security to the US consulate in Benghazi and furthermore denied support when it was attacked, resulting in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
President Obama says he cares for the plight of the poor and unemployed. Yet under President Obama, the poverty rate has risen by 1.8 percentage points.
Ms. Green’s article displayed a shallow, fallacious and naïve understanding of both morality and the candidates’ policies. Yes, Governor Romney tempers his morality to appeal to a broader base of people, but President Obama has no morality — only plenty of hypocrisy.
Caroline Jansen
sophomore
Cavanaugh Hall
Oct. 30
16 comments
Anonymous
"If you are Catholic... shame on you. If you are not than I'll pay attention to your views on infringement against religion when you are on the SCOTUS. Catholic Doctrine is solid on the point of contraception and abortion. Paying for your birth control should not be any different than driving you to Planned Parenthood for an Abortion. The "not all employees are Catholic" defense does not work when you aide someone in a sin in the Church."Catholic doctrine is actually not that certain contraception. Abortion is more certain. When bishops and cardinals doubt the doctrine then you know it is strange. In any case, the "not all employees are Catholic" does work before the Supreme Court. The rights of all religions in the US do follow the norms for the common good. Current ND insurance policies cover drugs like Viagra. How do you know that the men who use this drug use it for good rather than evil? Can you guarantee no sin occurs and that ND is not complicit in sin?"And jumping to the hyperbole that she believes Obama is not Christian or American shows your lack of sincerity in forming an actual well thought out and reasoned argument against the author. "Um, she said Obama has no morality...... now that's a giant conclusion, a fanciful hyperbole. The fact that you don't mention that part of her lie only shows how much you lack sincerity. Simply saying "I don't agree" isn't a well reasoned argument against the author.
Michael Nokes
No morality? Lord, talk about rhetoric.
selkirks
@Anonymous Sat Nov 3 2012 17:51Here's the thing. Single-issue voting is simply irresponsible. And if Obama wins on five of the seven themes of Catholic Social Teaching, he's got my vote. Sorry that you can't see past one issue.Oh, and just one more thing: if President Obama is a socialist, then Jesus Christ is Karl Marx.
Anonymous
selkirksYou have obviously drank the kool-aid. Your score card is so full of liberal hyperbole and misrepresentation. As Catholics our vote should focus on intrinsic evils. Does your memory fail you? Obama "I don't want by daughters to be punished with a baby"
BABIES ARE NOT PUNISHMENT!!!!!! There will be no convincing you otherwise.Good luck on judgement day. I will have to answer for myself... but so will you.
BABIES ARE NOT PUNISHMENT!!!!!! There will be no convincing you otherwise.Good luck on judgement day. I will have to answer for myself... but so will you.
selkirks
@Anonymous (Fri, Nov 2, 2012 @ 11:28):If you think that I'm picking and choosing which doctrine to follow--or that anyone else is--then you're sorely mistaken. Surely you cannot be making an honorable choice, either!After all, neither candidate supports 100% of Catholic Social Teaching. Let's do a scorecard for Governor Romney and President Obama on the seven themes of CST.Life and Dignity of the Human Person: 1 Point Romney for supporting restrictions on abortion.
-1 Point Romney for supporting war over peaceful means in Iran.
-1 Point Romney for supporting the death penalty.
-1 Point Romney for supporting torture.
-1 Point Romney for not taking an opinion on other problems.
------
-3 Points Romney 1 Point Obama for supporting reduction of instances of abortion.
1 Point Obama for supporting peaceful resolutions in the Middle East.
1 Point Obama for ending the War in Iraq and ending Afghanistan by 2014.
1 Point Obama for ending torture.
-1 Point Obama for not favoring restrictions on abortion.
-1 Point Obama for supporting embryonic stem cell research.
------
2 Points ObamaCall to Family, Community, and Participation 1 Point Romney for not supporting gay marriage.
-1 Point Romney for not supporting "community"/"collectiveness".
------
0 Points Romney 1 Point Obama for supporting expanding the institutions of marriage and family.
1 Point Obama for supporting a collectivist view.
1 Point Obama for supporting civil discourse.
-1 Point Obama for supporting gay marriage.
------
3 Points ObamaRights and Responsibilities 1 Point Romney for supporting a right to life.
-1 Point Romney for supporting torture.
------
0 Points Romney 1 Point Obama for supporting a right to life.
1 Point Obama for supporting human rights and nondiscrimination.
1 Point Obama for ending torture.
-1 Point Obama for supporting abortion.
------
2 Points ObamaOption for the Poor and Vulnerable 1 Point Romney for donating money to charity.
-1 Point Romney for his budget plan, which would cut aid to the poor.
-1 Point Romney for a lack of empathy ("I'm not concerned about the very poor").
-1 Point Romney for a lack of causing poverty in areas where Bain laid workers off.
-1 Point Romney for comparing social justice to socialism.
------
-3 Points Romney 1 Point Obama for donating money to charity.
1 Point Obama for his budget plan, which would continue aid to the poor.
1 Point Obama for genuinely caring about the poor.
1 Point Obama for supporting social justice.
------
4 Points ObamaDignity of Work and the Rights of Workers 1 Point Romney for supporting private property rights.
-1 Point Romney for supporting stripping the rights of unions.
-1 Point Romney for improperly and unethically laying off workers for his benefit.
-1 Point Romney for opposing "living wage."
------
-2 Points Romney 1 Point Obama for supporting private property rights.
1 Point Obama for supporting the rights of unions.
1 Point for supporting "living wage."
1 Point for adding 5.2 million private-sector jobs.
------
4 Points ObamaSolidarity -1 Point Romney for not supporting "social justice."
------
-1 Point Romney 1 Point Obama for supporting social justice.
1 Point Obama for taking care to suggest that our nation's choices have global consequences.
------
2 Points ObamaCare for God's Creation -1 Point Romney for supporting increased oil drilling.
-1 Point Romney for supporting tax subsidies for oil companies.
-1 Point Romney for thinking that climate change does not exist.
-1 Point Romney for citing North Dakota's and Canada's energy booms as "models."
------
-4 Points Romney 1 Point Obama for opposing tax subsidies for oil companies.
1 Point Obama for citing the necessity of fighting climate change.
1 Point Obama for opposing the Keystone XL pipeline.
1 Point Obama for not expanding oil drilling permits.
-1 Point Obama for expanding domestic oil drilling.
------
3 Points ObamaGRAND TOTAL:
Mitt Romney: -12
Barack Obama: 20TELL ME AGAIN THAT MY CATHOLIC VOTE IS INCORRECT. I think I'm making the morally-correct choice here.
-1 Point Romney for supporting war over peaceful means in Iran.
-1 Point Romney for supporting the death penalty.
-1 Point Romney for supporting torture.
-1 Point Romney for not taking an opinion on other problems.
------
-3 Points Romney 1 Point Obama for supporting reduction of instances of abortion.
1 Point Obama for supporting peaceful resolutions in the Middle East.
1 Point Obama for ending the War in Iraq and ending Afghanistan by 2014.
1 Point Obama for ending torture.
-1 Point Obama for not favoring restrictions on abortion.
-1 Point Obama for supporting embryonic stem cell research.
------
2 Points ObamaCall to Family, Community, and Participation 1 Point Romney for not supporting gay marriage.
-1 Point Romney for not supporting "community"/"collectiveness".
------
0 Points Romney 1 Point Obama for supporting expanding the institutions of marriage and family.
1 Point Obama for supporting a collectivist view.
1 Point Obama for supporting civil discourse.
-1 Point Obama for supporting gay marriage.
------
3 Points ObamaRights and Responsibilities 1 Point Romney for supporting a right to life.
-1 Point Romney for supporting torture.
------
0 Points Romney 1 Point Obama for supporting a right to life.
1 Point Obama for supporting human rights and nondiscrimination.
1 Point Obama for ending torture.
-1 Point Obama for supporting abortion.
------
2 Points ObamaOption for the Poor and Vulnerable 1 Point Romney for donating money to charity.
-1 Point Romney for his budget plan, which would cut aid to the poor.
-1 Point Romney for a lack of empathy ("I'm not concerned about the very poor").
-1 Point Romney for a lack of causing poverty in areas where Bain laid workers off.
-1 Point Romney for comparing social justice to socialism.
------
-3 Points Romney 1 Point Obama for donating money to charity.
1 Point Obama for his budget plan, which would continue aid to the poor.
1 Point Obama for genuinely caring about the poor.
1 Point Obama for supporting social justice.
------
4 Points ObamaDignity of Work and the Rights of Workers 1 Point Romney for supporting private property rights.
-1 Point Romney for supporting stripping the rights of unions.
-1 Point Romney for improperly and unethically laying off workers for his benefit.
-1 Point Romney for opposing "living wage."
------
-2 Points Romney 1 Point Obama for supporting private property rights.
1 Point Obama for supporting the rights of unions.
1 Point for supporting "living wage."
1 Point for adding 5.2 million private-sector jobs.
------
4 Points ObamaSolidarity -1 Point Romney for not supporting "social justice."
------
-1 Point Romney 1 Point Obama for supporting social justice.
1 Point Obama for taking care to suggest that our nation's choices have global consequences.
------
2 Points ObamaCare for God's Creation -1 Point Romney for supporting increased oil drilling.
-1 Point Romney for supporting tax subsidies for oil companies.
-1 Point Romney for thinking that climate change does not exist.
-1 Point Romney for citing North Dakota's and Canada's energy booms as "models."
------
-4 Points Romney 1 Point Obama for opposing tax subsidies for oil companies.
1 Point Obama for citing the necessity of fighting climate change.
1 Point Obama for opposing the Keystone XL pipeline.
1 Point Obama for not expanding oil drilling permits.
-1 Point Obama for expanding domestic oil drilling.
------
3 Points ObamaGRAND TOTAL:
Mitt Romney: -12
Barack Obama: 20TELL ME AGAIN THAT MY CATHOLIC VOTE IS INCORRECT. I think I'm making the morally-correct choice here.
Anonymous
Since when did Catholics start picking and choosing their own doctrine to follow?
Outrageous
Outrageous
selkirks
Since when did Catholics join forces with the Moral Majority and the Religious Right?Disgusting.
Anonymous
Julie H.
The President does have control over who he hires in his Administration, including how many women are placed in top (higher paying) positions. And if the compromise was adequate then why are Catholic organizations (including ND) suing the Administration?AND... when the president brags about the Lily Ledbetter act as an accomplishment, he should insure that it truly is a priority to him... thus the hypocrasy!
The President does have control over who he hires in his Administration, including how many women are placed in top (higher paying) positions. And if the compromise was adequate then why are Catholic organizations (including ND) suing the Administration?AND... when the president brags about the Lily Ledbetter act as an accomplishment, he should insure that it truly is a priority to him... thus the hypocrasy!
Julie H
"President Obama declares that he tolerates the beliefs of all people. Yet President Obama is forcing religious institutions to violate their consciences by paying for contraceptives and abortifacient drugs."This is actually incorrect. Back in February he delivered his compromise. Religious institutions do not have to provide coverage for contraceptives, but the individual's insurance providers will have to cover for it. That's just one statement of yours that I know is wrong. So I can only imagine what else you've skewed. And also, not sure how much jurisdiction Obama has over how much each person in the White House gets paid. I'm pretty sure he doesn't set his own salary either. Don't think he has control over everything just cause he's the president, but it's cute that you feel that way.
Catholic and living it
Anonymous #5"It sounds like you listen to FOX News just a little too much and then believe it is really the news..... grow up and research before you spout nonsense."What part does she need to research better? You claim to know better because the author is "young" but you offer no evidence that you are mentally superior and have better facts to her "nonsense".Anonymous #1"On contraception, I still do not see any legal problem or infringement against religion. " If you are Catholic... shame on you. If you are not than I'll pay attention to your views on infringement against religion when you are on the SCOTUS. Catholic Doctrine is solid on the point of contraception and abortion. Paying for your birth control should not be any different than driving you to Planned Parenthood for an Abortion. The "not all employees are Catholic" defense does not work when you aide someone in a sin in the Church.And jumping to the hyperbole that she believes Obama is not Christian or American shows your lack of sincerity in forming an actual well thought out and reasoned argument against the author. Morality of another is a difficult thing to argue for or against. The original author of The Morality of Mitt failed to link "poor morality" of Romney to anything other than his bank account and how she "perceived" what was in his heart because he is in business. At least this author actually has facts on her side for President Obama's perceived hypocrisy.
Anonymous
It sounds like you listen to FOX News just a little too much and then believe it is really the news..... grow up and research before you spout nonsense.
Anonymous
worth considering:from an article entitled "Pssst. You Already Pay for Birth Control" by Jonathan Cohn:"At the same time, the administration indicated that it would make an exception for policies provided to the employees of religious institutions-if, and only if, most of the employees were of the same faith as the institution. Catholic leaders, in particular, thought that exemption wasn't sufficient. They wanted the administration to exempt plans from any Catholic institution, even massive ones like universities and health care systems that employ many non-Catholics. The administration said no and that's what has everybody so upset. Critics feel like it's asking religious institutions to spend money in ways that violate their faiths.I can see their point of view. But, strictly from a policy wonk's perspective, that characterization isn't quite right. In a single-payer system, you pay for your insurance through taxes. In an employer-based system, like the one the Affordable Care Act reinforces, you pay for your insurance through wages that your employers withholds and dumps into a health insurance fund on your behalf. Either way, though, it's really your money that's paying for your health insurance, not your company's. The only objection that ought to matter is yours.More generally, as Kevin Drum points out, one price for engaging with secular society is living by the rules of secular society. We expect religious institutions to abide by worker safety and health regulations. We also expect them to carry out standard employer obligations, like withholding income taxes or depositing money into unemployment insurance funds. For practical and political reasons, those obligations now include providing health insurance. If these institutions operate as secular employers, hiring people from other faiths, then they should be subject to the same rules as secular employers.Again, reasonable people can disagree about this controversy: It's a case of powerful, but competing, claims of religious freedom and the public good. But critics should realize that the injustice they perceive is already part of our health care landscape. Medicaid, the joint state-federal insurance program for low-income Americans, covers family planning. So do the majority of employer-sponsored plans, which benefit from huge taxpayer subsidies. That means your tax dollars already pay for birth control, directly and indirectly, even if you're among that small minority of Americans who object to its use.Is that wrong? The critics may think so. On balance, I do not.P.S. You'll notice I've said nothing about the politics of this decision. That's because I really don't know what those politics are. Most people, including most Catholics, support the use of birth control. But do some of these people perceive the administration's decision as an assault on the Catholic Church? Does it make them more likely to believe Obama is "anti-religious"? The pollsters, and eventually the voters, will have to answer that.Update: Igor Volsky points out that many Catholic institutions already offer health insurance that covers birth control, sometimes in accordance with existing state laws requiring it. Also, just to be very clear about something, employers "withhold" wages for health insurance in the sense that the money they pay directly for employee benefits is, according to the economics literature, money that would otherwise go into employee wages. In addition, many people (myself included) think of health benefits as employee compensation, no different in principle than salary. But the dollars for health insurance really do come out of company funds, which is why critics argue the institutions ought have more say over where the money goes. "
Anonymous
more like strike 1, strike 2...etc.
Anonymous
BAM!
Anonymous
This is a very disappointing letter. It is worthy of Ann Coulter, but it is not worthy of Notre Dame.Your charges rest on logical fallacies and the failure to investigate matters more closely. Case in point, Obama says he's against poverty but poverty is up. Post hoc propter hoc. This ignores Bush's financial meltdown and an obstructionist Congress. This is like saying George W. Bush was pro-choice and responsible for the abortion rate that climbed during his administration.
On salaries in the White House, that statistic only shows that there are more men with senior, higher paying positions than women. It does not show that women are paid less for equal work. That more women are needed in senior level positions is a long term issue in every administration. Romney never answered the original question in the debate.The Pre-Natal Nondiscrimination Act did not even garner enough support among Republicans. It was a symbolic law about an almost non-existent problem that would have almost certainly been deemed unconstitutional. It gave too much power to others to claim that a woman was choosing an abortion based on selection. The law was flawed and essentially useless. Opposition to a bad law does not mean support for sex selection abortion. This is like claiming that the Republican opposition to the end of tax credits for companies that export jobs overseas means they favor outsourcing. Of course, if you are a die-hard, anti-Catholic pro-business person, what matters first is corporate profits rather than people at home with families to feed.On contraception, I still do not see any legal problem or infringement against religion. Salary and benefits are two sides of the same coin. And not all employees are Catholic. Should we start to investigate what people do with their money? If this was meant to be a mockery of the previous letter--that somewhat bad reasoning can lead to somewhat bad or overstated conclusions--that's fine.But the conclusion is unacceptable. Obama has no moral foundations? Obama is not a Christian? Perhaps not even an American? You'd be better off grounding Romney's positions in what you think are his moral foundations. To be honest that might be difficult since he's changed his views on so many things in the last few years and especially the last few months. Your strongest criticism is on Guantanamo Bay. The President did sign an order about this during his first month in office. Republicans have gone out of their way to block his efforts. On this point I think we can safely say that candidates deal with cold hard reality once they're in office. They aren't kings with divine right but often have to deal with very smart (and very dumb) opponents in Congress. Obama did end torture though. If you ever have the time read Evangelium Vitae. Torture is listed, along with abortion, in a list of crimes against humanity. Of course, we all know how pro-life George W. Bush and his Republican torture supporters were.
On salaries in the White House, that statistic only shows that there are more men with senior, higher paying positions than women. It does not show that women are paid less for equal work. That more women are needed in senior level positions is a long term issue in every administration. Romney never answered the original question in the debate.The Pre-Natal Nondiscrimination Act did not even garner enough support among Republicans. It was a symbolic law about an almost non-existent problem that would have almost certainly been deemed unconstitutional. It gave too much power to others to claim that a woman was choosing an abortion based on selection. The law was flawed and essentially useless. Opposition to a bad law does not mean support for sex selection abortion. This is like claiming that the Republican opposition to the end of tax credits for companies that export jobs overseas means they favor outsourcing. Of course, if you are a die-hard, anti-Catholic pro-business person, what matters first is corporate profits rather than people at home with families to feed.On contraception, I still do not see any legal problem or infringement against religion. Salary and benefits are two sides of the same coin. And not all employees are Catholic. Should we start to investigate what people do with their money? If this was meant to be a mockery of the previous letter--that somewhat bad reasoning can lead to somewhat bad or overstated conclusions--that's fine.But the conclusion is unacceptable. Obama has no moral foundations? Obama is not a Christian? Perhaps not even an American? You'd be better off grounding Romney's positions in what you think are his moral foundations. To be honest that might be difficult since he's changed his views on so many things in the last few years and especially the last few months. Your strongest criticism is on Guantanamo Bay. The President did sign an order about this during his first month in office. Republicans have gone out of their way to block his efforts. On this point I think we can safely say that candidates deal with cold hard reality once they're in office. They aren't kings with divine right but often have to deal with very smart (and very dumb) opponents in Congress. Obama did end torture though. If you ever have the time read Evangelium Vitae. Torture is listed, along with abortion, in a list of crimes against humanity. Of course, we all know how pro-life George W. Bush and his Republican torture supporters were.
Johnny Whichard
This was brilliantly written! You are intelligent and coherent! NObama!
is a member of the 
