Is Barack Obama Lying?

Either Senator Barack Obama is lying about his record on abortion, or he has the worst memory of all time. In making this suggestion, I am not trying to be hyperbolic or unnecessarily caustic. It’s just hard to believe that his memory could be that bad.

In an interview with CBN after the Saddleback Presidential Forum, Senator Obama denied that he had ever opposed a law that would protect infants who survive botched abortions. Obama even went so far as to say that those who claim otherwise are “liars.”

“I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say –that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.”

I have looked at the Illinois bill in question, and Obama is not describing the bill nor his opposition to it accurately. It’s all a matter of public record, so don’t take my word for it. You can read the text for yourself. The Illinois law was written to protect babies who survive abortion procedures, and in 2003 Obama voted against it. He wouldn’t even let it out of the committee that he chaired. Obama claims that the Illinois state version was different than the bill that passed at the federal level. This is false. The wording of the 2003 Illinois bill (and amendment) was identical to that in the federal statute that he claims to have favored.

I can understand why Obama might be motivated to mislead voters about his record in the Illinois Senate. Babies who survived abortions were being left to die, and Obama made himself complicit in the nasty business. The law that Obama killed would have required doctors to treat those babies as persons whose rights are protected in law. Obama’s devotion to Roe v. Wade was so absolute and so radical, that he wouldn’t vote to protect these babies.

Obama is not telling the truth. And what’s worse, he’s doing so to cover up his abominable record. A person who is this radically committed to abortion rights should never be President of the United States.


Saddleback Forum: This Round Goes To McCain

If I had to rate this one, I would say that McCain came out on top at the Saddleback Presidential Forum. His answers were clear and were made more compelling by his allusions to his time in a Vietnamese prison camp.

Rick Warren did a lot better than I thought he would in his interviews. In a traditional debate, the candidates get asked different questions by the moderators, and oftentimes one candidate gets asked tougher questions than his opponent. In the Saddleback forum, each candidate got asked the same questions, so the viewer was able to compare apples to apples. I thought Warren’s format was brilliant on this point.

One final observation. I am often frustrated during presidential debates because the personhood of the unborn is rarely if ever a part of the discussion. But Warren’s formulation of the abortion question was ingenious. He asked both candidates when a baby gets human rights. McCain answered “at conception,” and Obama said “answering that question is above my pay-grade.” If that doesn’t sum up the difference between these two men on the abortion question, then I don’t know what does.

See Obama’s answer to the abortion question below.


Warren Doesn’t Know the Number of Aborted Babies

During the Presidential Forum, Warren twice said that 40 million babies have been killed since the 1973 decision Roe v. Wade. That number is wrong. It is currently over 50 million. Other than that, his questions were excellent (though he should not have accepted Obama’s non-answer to the question about when a baby gets human rights).


Live Blogging Saddleback Presidential Forum, pt. 2

Warren asked McCain what his faith means to him. McCain told a moving story from his days in a Vietnamese prison camp. A Vietnamese guard secretly reduced his torture and later drew a cross in the sand to tell him why he did. This story was so compelling that I’m sure it will be played and replayed many times.


Warren asked Senator McCain when a baby gets human rights. McCain responded clearly, “At the moment of conception.”


What current Supreme Court Justices would McCain not have nominated? His answer: Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens.


Live Blogging Saddleback Presidential Forum, pt. 1

Rick Warren is hosting a presidential forum with both presidential candidates in attendance. Warren just asked Senator Obama to name a time when he has ever taken a stand that went against his own political party. The only example that Obama could come up with is when he stood against Republicans during the initial invasion of Iraq.

This answer confirms the open secret that Obama is a consistent liberal on both domestic and foreign policy. So far, Obama has been able to conceal his liberalism underneath a veneer of charisma. We’ll see if it holds up.


Rick Warren just asked the question: “At what point does an unborn baby get human rights?”

Obama answered that, “The answer to that question is above my pay-grade.”

Obama then went on to say that he is pro-choice and that as a matter of public policy he would look for ways to reduce the number of abortions.


Obama says that he defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman but that he would not support a constitutional amendment defining marriage in that way.


Obama says that he would not have nominated Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.


Will McCain Pick a Pro-Choice VP?

Senator John McCain says that he will not rule out a pro-choice person as his vice-presidential candidate. The

“McCain’s comments Wednesday to the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge’s pro-abortion rights views wouldn’t necessarily rule him out quickly found their way into the in-boxes of Christian conservatives. For those who have been anxiously awaiting McCain’s pick as a signal of his ideological intentions, there was deep concern that their worst fears about the Arizona senator may be realized.”

McCain’s chances are pretty slim as it is. If he were to pick a pro-choice nominee, it would be a disaster for his candidacy. He would alienate social conservatives who are already not very excited about their nominee. As a result, he would likely lose crucial swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. A disaster indeed.


Blomberg Calls TNIV the Standard English Version

Dr. Craig Blomberg has recently rotated on to the NIV/TNIV Committee on Bible Translation. At a blog hosted by Zondervan Academic, Blomberg comments on the TNIV and its place among other English translations of the Bible. His remarks deserve a response, so I will give a brief one here. He writes:

‘What about the big debate over gender-inclusive language for humanity at its peak in the late 1990s? After over a decade since the NIVI Britain’s first stab at an evangelical, inclusive language translation) was produced, I am convinced more than ever that it is the right way to go. Continue Reading →


Is Egalitarianism a Heresy?

S. M. Hutchens is not known for pulling his punches when it comes to egalitarianism. He’s a strenuous opponent who charges egalitarianism with falling outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. In a recent post on the Touchstone blog, he writes the following:

‘To the best of my judgment, egalitarianism is as significant and seductive an error as Arianism; it is an anthropological heresy that infects theology proper through the attack on Christology it necessarily entails. I claim no special authority to make this judgment, but simply join mine, whatever it might be worth, to that of greater men, and submit it to the Church.’ Continue Reading →


Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes