Evidently his pay grade has gone up.  That was the astute observation of Keith Riler when he analyzed President Barack Obama's recent remarks at MTV's hour long campaign commercial for Democrats called, "A Conversation With President Obama." 

As an aside, imagine for a second MTV hosting such a conversation with former President George W. Bush.  Perhaps they could have booked Kanye West to emcee.  After slurring together a collection of incoherent ideas in his trademark fashion, West could have worked his infamous "George Bush doesn't care about black people" accusation into the presidential introduction.  It would have been far more entertaining than the Obama love-a-thon turned out to be.

But I digress.

Taking a question on sexuality (this is MTV after all), President Obama enlightened listeners with his dazzling grasp of prenatal development.  He was asked, "Dear President Obama, do you think being gay or trans[gender] is a choice?"  The President responded, "I don't think it's a choice. I think that people are born with a certain makeup, and that we're all children of God. We don't make determinations about who we love. And that's why I think that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong."

Given that such an answer is totally vacuous, dim, and void of anything even resembling rationality, it played well on MTV.  But for the rest of us, consider the implications of this foolish answer.

Even ignoring the meaningless platitude that "we're all children of God" (do those with moral objections to homosexuality not believe this also?), the stunningly ignorant remark that we don't determine who we love (don't you bet Michelle loved hearing that?), and the impossibly relativistic condemnation of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (does Obama really want to defend the idea of sexual anarchy?), there is an appalling inconsistency in the President's position.

After decades of research and repeated attempts to attribute same-sex attraction to biological and genetic causes, the American Psychological Association (no bastion of right-wing conservative thought) was forced - for the sake of their credibility - to amend their literature on the issue.  Under the heading "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?" the APA writes,

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. (emphasis added)

Put another way, "despite our best efforts to help facilitate the homosexual agenda, we can't find a way to tie homosexuality to inborn, genetic characteristics...sorry."

Not that we needed the APA to tell us what is common sense.  The mere presence of thousands of ex-homosexuals disproves any notion that the behavior of homosexuality is something that cannot be changed or overcome.

But as he made clear on MTV, our President knows better than all that silly science stuff.  Or at least he does when it suits his ideological agenda.  When it doesn't, that's a different story.

Remember the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency hosted by Rick Warren during the 2008 campaign?  Asked there when a baby gets human rights, Mr. Obama demurred, stating, "Well, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."

The cowardice of such a statement is breathtaking.  Here is a man who is so opposed to human rights that he voted against a law that gave life-saving treatment to babies who were born alive after surviving an abortion.  His entire public policy career is built around the supposition that what is conceived in the womb is not human.  But because he realized what an asinine argument that would be to make on national television, he ran away, claiming it was beyond his understanding.

So, for a demonstration of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of this man's leadership, merely juxtapose that response to the one he gave MTV.  If the irony doesn't beat you over the head, allow me to assist it: the same guy who claims he isn't enlightened enough to determine the humanity of what is conceived in the womb (something science unquestionably proves) simultaneously claims that he can determine the sexuality of what is conceived in the womb (something that science, to this point, disproves).

This begs the obvious question that Riler posed in his analysis, "Might science simply be a tool in service of the President's ideology?"

Yes it might.  In his inaugural address, President Obama proclaimed he would, "restore science to its rightful place."  It has become apparent that by "rightful place" he meant the toilet.