HT: Christian Striver – he says in the title of his post on this, “Barack will stand up for your family… unless you don’t want them.”
Shane Vander Hart
Editor & Founder at Caffeinated Thoughts
Shane Vander Hart is the founder and editor-in-chief of Caffeinated Thoughts. He is also the President of 4:15 Communications, LLC, a social media & communications consulting/management firm. Prior to this Shane spent 20 years in youth ministry serving in church, parachurch, and school settings. He has also served as an interim pastor and is a sought-after speaker and pulpit fill-in. Shane has been married to his wife Cheryl since 1993 and they have three kids. Shane and his family reside near Des Moines, IA.
Latest posts by Shane Vander Hart (see all)
- GOP Poll: Iowa 1st Congressional District Sees Close Race - October 16, 2018
- The Only Two Metrics That Matter in Iowa’s 4th Congressional District - October 16, 2018
- Republicans Lead Generic Polling in Battleground House Districts - October 15, 2018
James, I’m glad you can come by and call me a liar.
Here is a link that gives the exact bill from the 92nd General Assembly in Illinois (not sure what year):
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1095LV.html
The 1993 version of the bill offered by his committee – the SAME language that he said he supported – he still voted against it.
So basically you are saying that I’m wrong because Obama said so. Rhetoric… not record. I don’t care what he says – I care what his record says.
BTW, Matthew 25 Network is nothing but a political action committee set up to support Barack Obama.
Also, throughout the years he kept changing the reason why he voted against it.
So who’s being the liar?
James, I’m glad you can come by and call me a liar.
Here is a link that gives the exact bill from the 92nd General Assembly in Illinois (not sure what year):
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1095LV.html
The 1993 version of the bill offered by his committee – the SAME language that he said he supported – he still voted against it.
So basically you are saying that I’m wrong because Obama said so. Rhetoric… not record. I don’t care what he says – I care what his record says.
BTW, Matthew 25 Network is nothing but a political action committee set up to support Barack Obama.
Also, throughout the years he kept changing the reason why he voted against it.
So who’s being the liar?
James, I’m glad you can come by and call me a liar.
Here is a link that gives the exact bill from the 92nd General Assembly in Illinois (not sure what year):
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1095LV.html
The 1993 version of the bill offered by his committee – the SAME language that he said he supported – he still voted against it.
So basically you are saying that I’m wrong because Obama said so. Rhetoric… not record. I don’t care what he says – I care what his record says.
BTW, Matthew 25 Network is nothing but a political action committee set up to support Barack Obama.
Also, throughout the years he kept changing the reason why he voted against it.
So who’s being the liar?
James, I’m glad you can come by and call me a liar.
Here is a link that gives the exact bill from the 92nd General Assembly in Illinois (not sure what year):
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1095LV.html
The 1993 version of the bill offered by his committee – the SAME language that he said he supported – he still voted against it.
So basically you are saying that I’m wrong because Obama said so. Rhetoric… not record. I don’t care what he says – I care what his record says.
BTW, Matthew 25 Network is nothing but a political action committee set up to support Barack Obama.
Also, throughout the years he kept changing the reason why he voted against it.
So who’s being the liar?
Dear James,
I’m afraid you have been deceived by the personality cult that is the Obama campaign. I don’t like McCain and I think he lies as much as Obama does.
However, my civic duty is to vote so I have to decide to vote McCain (which I probably will do) because I agree with him MORE than I do with a socialist like Obama or vote for a libertarian or constitution party candidate. We’ll see.
Obama was less than truthful about the Illinois vote. He was afraid it would lead to a challenge of Roe v. Wade and he has made it clear he believes the Supreme Court didn’t make a mistake in legalizing the murder of millions of babies. Why aren’t you more concerned about the affects of supporting an abortion rights supporter on your Christian witness than McCain’s military philosophy? Interesting.
I digress…the legislation introduced in Illinois was because there was the opinion amongst conservatives and some Democrats that clarification needed to be made in the law. The legal terminology of birth is sometimes hazy as is the terminology surrounding the definition of abortion to save a life vs. pre-planned abortion. Obama resisted because he supports all types of abortions. Not because it was duplicative as he suggests. He was crafty in his verbiage when he said he supports life-saving measures! Of course he does! But he also supports the right to abort at that late stage. Even if it was duplicative, he could have supported it as a clarification as it was intended. It’s a weak argument made for people like yourself who, understandably, don’t understand how laws are made.
Dear James,
I’m afraid you have been deceived by the personality cult that is the Obama campaign. I don’t like McCain and I think he lies as much as Obama does.
However, my civic duty is to vote so I have to decide to vote McCain (which I probably will do) because I agree with him MORE than I do with a socialist like Obama or vote for a libertarian or constitution party candidate. We’ll see.
Obama was less than truthful about the Illinois vote. He was afraid it would lead to a challenge of Roe v. Wade and he has made it clear he believes the Supreme Court didn’t make a mistake in legalizing the murder of millions of babies. Why aren’t you more concerned about the affects of supporting an abortion rights supporter on your Christian witness than McCain’s military philosophy? Interesting.
I digress…the legislation introduced in Illinois was because there was the opinion amongst conservatives and some Democrats that clarification needed to be made in the law. The legal terminology of birth is sometimes hazy as is the terminology surrounding the definition of abortion to save a life vs. pre-planned abortion. Obama resisted because he supports all types of abortions. Not because it was duplicative as he suggests. He was crafty in his verbiage when he said he supports life-saving measures! Of course he does! But he also supports the right to abort at that late stage. Even if it was duplicative, he could have supported it as a clarification as it was intended. It’s a weak argument made for people like yourself who, understandably, don’t understand how laws are made.
Dear James,
I’m afraid you have been deceived by the personality cult that is the Obama campaign. I don’t like McCain and I think he lies as much as Obama does.
However, my civic duty is to vote so I have to decide to vote McCain (which I probably will do) because I agree with him MORE than I do with a socialist like Obama or vote for a libertarian or constitution party candidate. We’ll see.
Obama was less than truthful about the Illinois vote. He was afraid it would lead to a challenge of Roe v. Wade and he has made it clear he believes the Supreme Court didn’t make a mistake in legalizing the murder of millions of babies. Why aren’t you more concerned about the affects of supporting an abortion rights supporter on your Christian witness than McCain’s military philosophy? Interesting.
I digress…the legislation introduced in Illinois was because there was the opinion amongst conservatives and some Democrats that clarification needed to be made in the law. The legal terminology of birth is sometimes hazy as is the terminology surrounding the definition of abortion to save a life vs. pre-planned abortion. Obama resisted because he supports all types of abortions. Not because it was duplicative as he suggests. He was crafty in his verbiage when he said he supports life-saving measures! Of course he does! But he also supports the right to abort at that late stage. Even if it was duplicative, he could have supported it as a clarification as it was intended. It’s a weak argument made for people like yourself who, understandably, don’t understand how laws are made.
Dear James,
I’m afraid you have been deceived by the personality cult that is the Obama campaign. I don’t like McCain and I think he lies as much as Obama does.
However, my civic duty is to vote so I have to decide to vote McCain (which I probably will do) because I agree with him MORE than I do with a socialist like Obama or vote for a libertarian or constitution party candidate. We’ll see.
Obama was less than truthful about the Illinois vote. He was afraid it would lead to a challenge of Roe v. Wade and he has made it clear he believes the Supreme Court didn’t make a mistake in legalizing the murder of millions of babies. Why aren’t you more concerned about the affects of supporting an abortion rights supporter on your Christian witness than McCain’s military philosophy? Interesting.
I digress…the legislation introduced in Illinois was because there was the opinion amongst conservatives and some Democrats that clarification needed to be made in the law. The legal terminology of birth is sometimes hazy as is the terminology surrounding the definition of abortion to save a life vs. pre-planned abortion. Obama resisted because he supports all types of abortions. Not because it was duplicative as he suggests. He was crafty in his verbiage when he said he supports life-saving measures! Of course he does! But he also supports the right to abort at that late stage. Even if it was duplicative, he could have supported it as a clarification as it was intended. It’s a weak argument made for people like yourself who, understandably, don’t understand how laws are made.