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.”

28 comments
  1. I simply cannot understand, regardless which way one leans politically, how someone could give Obama a pass on his disturbing and growing list of what can only be described as, at best, inconsistencies, and, at worst, outright deception. Shouldn’t we demand more from our leaders? Hatred for Bush has blinded so many to the truth about who Obama really is.

    Steve Randalls last blog post..Ultrachrist?

  2. I simply cannot understand, regardless which way one leans politically, how someone could give Obama a pass on his disturbing and growing list of what can only be described as, at best, inconsistencies, and, at worst, outright deception. Shouldn’t we demand more from our leaders? Hatred for Bush has blinded so many to the truth about who Obama really is.

    Steve Randalls last blog post..Ultrachrist?

  3. I simply cannot understand, regardless which way one leans politically, how someone could give Obama a pass on his disturbing and growing list of what can only be described as, at best, inconsistencies, and, at worst, outright deception. Shouldn’t we demand more from our leaders? Hatred for Bush has blinded so many to the truth about who Obama really is.

    Steve Randalls last blog post..Ultrachrist?

  4. I simply cannot understand, regardless which way one leans politically, how someone could give Obama a pass on his disturbing and growing list of what can only be described as, at best, inconsistencies, and, at worst, outright deception. Shouldn’t we demand more from our leaders? Hatred for Bush has blinded so many to the truth about who Obama really is.

    Steve Randalls last blog post..Ultrachrist?

  5. I agree with Steve about how Bush has caused many of us to re-evaluate our voting decisions. I wonder if McCain will get elected the same way that Bush got elected four years ago as the lesser of two evils?

    Does it seem odd to you that some of us will be voting for evil.. all be it the lesser evil 🙂

    Kansas Bobs last blog post..An Angelic Warning

  6. I agree with Steve about how Bush has caused many of us to re-evaluate our voting decisions. I wonder if McCain will get elected the same way that Bush got elected four years ago as the lesser of two evils?

    Does it seem odd to you that some of us will be voting for evil.. all be it the lesser evil 🙂

    Kansas Bobs last blog post..An Angelic Warning

  7. I agree with Steve about how Bush has caused many of us to re-evaluate our voting decisions. I wonder if McCain will get elected the same way that Bush got elected four years ago as the lesser of two evils?

    Does it seem odd to you that some of us will be voting for evil.. all be it the lesser evil 🙂

    Kansas Bobs last blog post..An Angelic Warning

  8. I agree with Steve about how Bush has caused many of us to re-evaluate our voting decisions. I wonder if McCain will get elected the same way that Bush got elected four years ago as the lesser of two evils?

    Does it seem odd to you that some of us will be voting for evil.. all be it the lesser evil 🙂

    Kansas Bobs last blog post..An Angelic Warning

  9. If you’d have taken even thirty seconds to poke around the Matthew 25 Network’s website, you would have run across their site Put Away Falsehood, which explicitly addresses the infanticide lie.

    As a Christian, you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading lies about Barack Obama – not for any political reason, as you’re free to support whoever you want (though I would question the conscience of anyone who can support a candidate who approves of torture and endless war), but because when you spread lies, you hurt our Christian witness. If the world knows Christians as people who are willing to lie in order to get a political candidate elected, how likely are they to believe us when we try to spread the Good News? Christians cannot and must not be liars – because hurting the message of Christ is a deep blasphemy.

    From putawayfalsehood.com:

    The Falsehood – “Sen. Obama supports infanticide.”

    The Facts – Sen. Obama addresses this claims in a recent interview with Relevant magazine:

    “The email rumor thats been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill.

    “The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.

    “Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization, and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn’t provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.”[1]

    Senator Obama has stated repeatedly that he supported the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which passed Congress and addressed this same issue. Senator Obama opposed a state version of this legislation in Illinois because there was an existing state law that had been on the books for 20 years that already required such medical care, it was drafted in a way that would have rendered it unconstitutional, and it was even opposed by the Illinois State Medical Society. [2]

    [1] – Relevant Magazine, July 1, 2008
    [2] – Chicago Tribune, August 17, 2004

  10. If you’d have taken even thirty seconds to poke around the Matthew 25 Network’s website, you would have run across their site Put Away Falsehood, which explicitly addresses the infanticide lie.

    As a Christian, you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading lies about Barack Obama – not for any political reason, as you’re free to support whoever you want (though I would question the conscience of anyone who can support a candidate who approves of torture and endless war), but because when you spread lies, you hurt our Christian witness. If the world knows Christians as people who are willing to lie in order to get a political candidate elected, how likely are they to believe us when we try to spread the Good News? Christians cannot and must not be liars – because hurting the message of Christ is a deep blasphemy.

    From putawayfalsehood.com:

    The Falsehood – “Sen. Obama supports infanticide.”

    The Facts – Sen. Obama addresses this claims in a recent interview with Relevant magazine:

    “The email rumor thats been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill.

    “The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.

    “Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization, and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn’t provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.”[1]

    Senator Obama has stated repeatedly that he supported the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which passed Congress and addressed this same issue. Senator Obama opposed a state version of this legislation in Illinois because there was an existing state law that had been on the books for 20 years that already required such medical care, it was drafted in a way that would have rendered it unconstitutional, and it was even opposed by the Illinois State Medical Society. [2]

    [1] – Relevant Magazine, July 1, 2008
    [2] – Chicago Tribune, August 17, 2004

  11. If you’d have taken even thirty seconds to poke around the Matthew 25 Network’s website, you would have run across their site Put Away Falsehood, which explicitly addresses the infanticide lie.

    As a Christian, you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading lies about Barack Obama – not for any political reason, as you’re free to support whoever you want (though I would question the conscience of anyone who can support a candidate who approves of torture and endless war), but because when you spread lies, you hurt our Christian witness. If the world knows Christians as people who are willing to lie in order to get a political candidate elected, how likely are they to believe us when we try to spread the Good News? Christians cannot and must not be liars – because hurting the message of Christ is a deep blasphemy.

    From putawayfalsehood.com:

    The Falsehood – “Sen. Obama supports infanticide.”

    The Facts – Sen. Obama addresses this claims in a recent interview with Relevant magazine:

    “The email rumor thats been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill.

    “The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.

    “Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization, and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn’t provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.”[1]

    Senator Obama has stated repeatedly that he supported the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which passed Congress and addressed this same issue. Senator Obama opposed a state version of this legislation in Illinois because there was an existing state law that had been on the books for 20 years that already required such medical care, it was drafted in a way that would have rendered it unconstitutional, and it was even opposed by the Illinois State Medical Society. [2]

    [1] – Relevant Magazine, July 1, 2008
    [2] – Chicago Tribune, August 17, 2004

  12. If you’d have taken even thirty seconds to poke around the Matthew 25 Network’s website, you would have run across their site Put Away Falsehood, which explicitly addresses the infanticide lie.

    As a Christian, you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading lies about Barack Obama – not for any political reason, as you’re free to support whoever you want (though I would question the conscience of anyone who can support a candidate who approves of torture and endless war), but because when you spread lies, you hurt our Christian witness. If the world knows Christians as people who are willing to lie in order to get a political candidate elected, how likely are they to believe us when we try to spread the Good News? Christians cannot and must not be liars – because hurting the message of Christ is a deep blasphemy.

    From putawayfalsehood.com:

    The Falsehood – “Sen. Obama supports infanticide.”

    The Facts – Sen. Obama addresses this claims in a recent interview with Relevant magazine:

    “The email rumor thats been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill.

    “The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.

    “Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization, and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn’t provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.”[1]

    Senator Obama has stated repeatedly that he supported the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which passed Congress and addressed this same issue. Senator Obama opposed a state version of this legislation in Illinois because there was an existing state law that had been on the books for 20 years that already required such medical care, it was drafted in a way that would have rendered it unconstitutional, and it was even opposed by the Illinois State Medical Society. [2]

    [1] – Relevant Magazine, July 1, 2008
    [2] – Chicago Tribune, August 17, 2004

  13. 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?

  14. 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?

  15. 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?

  16. 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?

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Beware of Initial Suspicions

As with the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Giffords shooting, & now with the Boston Marathon bombings; beware of our initial suspicions as they are often wrong.

On Determining Palin’s Political Future

Everybody has an opinion, and 2012 is still three years away.  Oh…

Parental Rights Amendment: Why Is It Taking So Long?

By Michael Farris On January 4, 2011, we were hopeful and excited.…

Brownback Backing Sebelius for HHS Post (Update: In his defense, 2nd Update: Linked, 3rd Update – Fireworks Fly)

I was pretty shocked when I learned that Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas)…