A CNN reporter interviewing me a couple weeks ago about Barack Obama's opposition as state senator to the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act groaned more than once that this topic was "complicated."
She was referring to Obama's various explanations through the years for blocking Born Alive and lately his outright denial that obstructing legislation declaring live aborted babies legal persons had anything to do with endorsing their death.
I finally emailed her, "It is clear: Obama strongly opposed legislation to protect abortion survivors. This is horrible, so of course he will try to make it 'complicated,' but it is not."
Obama has recently been ratcheting up the obfuscations....
Obama may have set a new record in a July 1 Relevant magazine interview, rattling four excuses in one soundbite, all previously outlined in my January 2008 column, "Obama's 10 reasons for supporting infanticide" - Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 10!...
Continue reading my column today, ""Botch an abortion? Obama would let baby die," on WorldNetDaily.com.
Why even bring this stuff up? Obama is going to win. McCain suffers from the same thing John Kerry did in 04. McCain inspires NO ONE. The candidate that wins will be the one that can get part-time voters off the couch to vote. The one that can get folks to stand in the rain to vote...McCain does that for a few but not many.....Posted by: PeachPit at July 9, 2008 9:43 AM
SOMG, for the last time stop using this blog to post your propaganda. I've warned you before. Consider this your last warning.Posted by: Jill Stanek at July 9, 2008 10:02 AM
Aside from all the obfuscations he made, is it reasonable to even suggest that abortions are performed primarily in hospitals?
The impression I get is that the majority of abortions are done in abortion clinics, and from the ample descriptions of such places, no one in their right mind could possibly call them hospitals.
Nevertheless, Obama's statement ridiculing the idea that a "hospital" would not take life-saving steps is ridiculous.
If you include the actual experience most people have had when they've gone to a hospital for a specific problem, and you find people who have died in the emergency room just waiting to be checked in, I would say he has been out of touch with what a hospital visit entails.
In every aspect of his public life that has been challenged, Mr. Obama has always sidestepped and avoided an answer. Nothing he has done during this election cycle could be classified as real and honest.
The most dangerous aspect of this upcoming election is there seems to be more people who care nothing for truth and honor than I have ever seen before, even during the infamous days of the Clintons.Posted by: John M. at July 9, 2008 10:05 AM
Jill, how is the information that Jesse Ventura is planning a third-party run for the Senate "propaganda"?
Explain, please.Posted by: SoMG at July 9, 2008 10:12 AM
In the privacy of a voting booth, the image stuff goes away and people think; does Obama reallly have what it takes to be President when we've got the Israel/Iran thing racheting up, gas prices at all time highs, a loon candidate that opposes domestic oil exploration, and do we really want to give up in Iraq when we're so close to a proper resolution of that conflict, etc.
And tell me this. Why is it that you Liberals aren't raising a protest over Obama's recent shift to the center? Don't you guys have any principles or, is lying to the American people OK just for the sake of attaining power? You Libs are vey hard to understand and you make a huge mistake thinking the the average Joe voter can't figure this out. Let's see a guy who will say anything compared to a known principled leader and war hero.....it's a no brainer choice.
My bet is that most sane people will vote for McCain despite your wishful thinking. Remember that Kerry was running against Bush, not a clown.
Further, I've got it on good sources that there are videos that are going to shock people regarding Obama's Muslim ties.
Put in a ALL together, McCain wins with 53% of the vote.
Jesse Ventura? Now there's a real brain, a self-contradictory, false platitude spewing former wrestler......I can see he's got Libs convinced he's the real thing just like his fixed wrestling matches.Posted by: HisMan at July 9, 2008 10:14 AM
"former wrestler......I can see he's got Libs convinced he's the real thing just like his fixed wrestling matches."
Nothing wrong with being a former pro wrestler ... :)Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 9, 2008 10:18 AM
HisMan, you wrote: "Why is it that you Liberals aren't raising a protest over Obama's recent shift to the center? "
You are so out-of-touch you could have served on the OJ Jury.Posted by: SoMG at July 9, 2008 10:19 AM
I'm not supposed to be insulting you back so, I'll just take it on the cheek.
First of all, I never do jury duty. Second, you mean Obama isn't changing his tune? Perhaps soon he'll be saying he wants to repeal Roe v. Wade if the finger he sticks in the air gets cold enough. I mean, perhaps the guy will get some divine revelation and a change of heart. Will you still support him then, SoMG? I mean if Roe v. Wade is overturned, you'll have to get a job as a dental assistant aborting rotted teeth or perhaps you could shave poodles instead of women.
So SoMG, how much did you pay for gas today? 29 cents a gallon? Was it subsidized by the USSR - the United States Socialized Republic you so wistfully dream about?
How far is Iran from Israel? Let's see, having war games that demononstrate that they can hit Israel with a 1 ton conventionl warhead is irrelevant, I guess. And, of course, threatening to shut down the Straight of Hormuz - an act of war? Now you think a neighbohood activist, former law professor, that thinks babies are punishments from God, that Pennsylvanians are rednecks, and was mentored for twenty years by a nut job religious freak as a pastor (that he of course disowned), supported by a white priest who thinks he's black, with ties to Islam and Louis Farrakan and, to top if off, supports infanticide. And you say who's out of touch? Excuse me, but I'm wearing a spot on my office flooring writhing in laughter.
SoMG: Do you see those three fingers pointing back at you?Posted by: HisMan at July 9, 2008 10:45 AM
HisMan, Obama has always been a bit of centralist. Don't buy the "most liberal Senator" spin they tried to pull on him. He's a compromiser, like most politicians. I can disagree with him in FISA and not lose respect for him. I don't agree with anyone on everything. I'm very excited for our country as Obama gets closer to the White House.
Why don't you do jury duty?Posted by: Hal at July 9, 2008 11:29 AM
HisMan, you wrote: "First of all, I never do jury duty."
Really? How do you avoid it? I served last year and slept in the waiting room the whole time except for once they called me in for consideration but the defense lawyer rejected me because I admitted I had been the victim of a violent crime.
You wrote: "Second, you mean Obama isn't changing his tune?"
No, I mean that Liberals ARE protesting, and that if you weren't out of touch you'd know that.
You wrote: "... if Roe v. Wade is overturned, you'll have to get a job as a dental assistant aborting rotted teeth or perhaps you could shave poodles instead of women."
Nope. In my state the State Constitution guarantees abortion rights.
By the way, HisMan, I am still very curious to know which NY high school you went to.Posted by: SoMG at July 9, 2008 11:30 AM
You can talk policies all you want. You can talk flip flopping all you want. The fact of the matter is 75% of the voting public don't watch news channels, read blogs and stay as close to it as the ones that bring all this stuff up. It comes down to who is going to motivate the non-voting public to get out and vote that day.
There were 7 million new voters registered during the primary season. Do you think those were McCain supporters?Posted by: PeachPit at July 9, 2008 11:45 AM
Why didn't WorldNetDaily put quotations around the Relevant article? I got confused thinking these were your words, Jill.Posted by: Cranky Catholic at July 9, 2008 11:56 AM
The one that can get folks to stand in the rain to vote...
Ironically, PeachPit, Mr. Obama does that as well for his opponents!Posted by: KC at July 9, 2008 12:40 PM
"Don't buy the "most liberal Senator" spin they tried to pull on him."
I seem to remember "the most Pro-Abortion politician" label...Posted by: RSD at July 9, 2008 12:48 PM
RSD, that might be true. If by "pro-abortion" you mean "pro-choice."Posted by: Hal at July 9, 2008 1:00 PM
It's soooo crazy that all anti-choice types love the idea of saving fetus lives, but totally disrespect whole womens lives,...-loathing the idea of preventing pregnancies that create this drama mess to begin with... - how about a bit of ounce of prevention = a pound of curettage?
God places choice directly w/ WOMEN.. Not you jerks.Posted by: Free American at July 9, 2008 5:07 PM
"loathing the idea of preventing pregnancies that create this drama mess to begin with... - how about a bit of ounce of prevention = a pound of curettage?"
I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. Almost all pro-lifers believe that sex should only take place inside a marriage which is open to the possibility of children. We discourage any type of sexual activity outside of marriage, whence we are preaching extremely preventative methods. If everyone controlled themselves as indicated above, this would be the perfect type of "prevention."
"God places choice directly w/ WOMEN.. Not you jerks."
No more ad hominem attacks, please.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 9, 2008 5:17 PM
Bobby Bambino, you wrote: "We (RTLs) discourage any type of sexual activity outside of marriage, whence we are preaching extremely preventative methods. "
Is that why you discourage sex outside of marriage--in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy? The fictional characters you call "God" and "Jesus" have nothing to do with it?Posted by: SoMG at July 9, 2008 5:49 PM
Well, on its own, I'd say that's a good enough reason, so sure.
And SoMG, you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay in the minority of scholarship if you don't even believe Jesus was an historical figure. Even the ultra-left wing wacky fringe group The Jesus Seminar believes he existed.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 9, 2008 6:30 PM
Well, on its own, I'd say that's a good enough reason, so sure.
And SoMG, you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay in the minority of scholarship if you don't even believe Jesus was an historical figure. Even the ultra-left wing wacky fringe group The Jesus Seminar believes he existed.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 9, 2008 6:30 PM
Scholars of what discipline Bobby? Do you have some evidence of scholars of every discipline believing Jesus to be a historical figure? And would that be a belief that a person called Jesus actually lived as well as did and said all that is attributed to him? Or would that be a belief that the myth of someone named Jesus has been historically believed to have actually existed by some?
Being a mathematician, I'm sure that the study you got such information from is quite exacting.
See "The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ" by Gary R. Habermas
Also,there is no other historical documents that are as well attested to in ancient antiquity as the 27 documents of the New Testament. See "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" by Frederick Fyvie Bruce.
"And would that be a belief that a person called Jesus actually lived as well as did and said all that is attributed to him?"
Right now, I'm just talking about an historical person named Jesus of Nazereth who said and did some of (I know, that's ambiguous) the things attributed to him in the bible. Like I mentioned above, the deconstructionalist Jesus Seminar says that only about 5% of what Jesus is recorded to have said in the gospels he actually said. Although I don't believe that, I'm not arguing that right now.
Another great read is "The Son Rises" by William Lane Craig.
Finally, you may have heard of the skeptical historian Sir William Ramsey. He set out to prove that Luke was unreliable, and upon all his archological investigations, he became a believer.
He was written the book "St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen." One of his famous quotes is "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians."
There really is no question as to whether or not Jesus existed. Who he was, what exactly he did, sure there is some controversy there.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 9, 2008 7:59 PM
There really is no question as to whether or not Jesus existed. Who he was, what exactly he did, sure there is some controversy there.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 9, 2008 7:59 PM
Really Bobby! Books written by authors interested in Christian mythology are not representative of scholars in general. If you were limiting scholarship to those studying the Bible, you should have said so. Of course not all, and certainly not every scholar of every discipline believes in a historical Jesus. I dare say that a great many are not in the least interested in the possibility.Posted by: Sally at July 9, 2008 8:25 PM
The bible is most scrutinized book in the history of the earth.Posted by: Jasper at July 9, 2008 8:35 PM
"Of course not all, and certainly not every scholar of every discipline believes in a historical Jesus."
This is true. Some theologians do not. Historians, however, have no problem with the historical Jesus. If one applies the historical method to the gospels like one would any other document of ancient antiquity, there is no question of the historical fact of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. If one questions his existence, one must also question the existence of Augusts Ceaser, Socrates, or any other historical character. Like I said, one may not believe some of the details are accurate, but we have over 5500 New Testament manuscripts, some dating as early as the second century.
And what other fields are you interested in knowing scholarly opinion? Does it really matter what a physicist or a botanist thinks about this issue? I offered a Cambridge trained biblical historian PhD who holds a position at the University of Manchester in England. One could also cite the work of Bruce Metzger, a Princeton professor while he was still alive. Craig did his doctoral work on the historicity resurrection. I'm unsure of what qualifications you're looking for.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 9, 2008 8:37 PM
"I dare say that a great many are not in the least interested in the possibility."
Why would anyone care what someone who "isn't the least bit interested" in a question thinks about the question? Obviously if they aren't the least bit interested, they haven't studied the issues.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 9, 2008 8:38 PM
Bobby B, I don't claim to know whether or not there was an historical Jesus. But I'm quite sure Jesus as you imagine Him is a fictional character. The one who rose from the dead--that one is fictional.Posted by: SoMG at July 9, 2008 9:02 PM
"The one who rose from the dead--that one is fictional."
Well SoMG, that's only if you have an anti-supernatural bias where you a priori rule out the possibility of God existing. Because if God exists, then a miracle is certainly possible.
I highly recommend "The Son Rises" by William Lane Craig for an historical and rational look at the evidence. If you look at the evidence objectively, the most plausible explanation is that God raised the historical person Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.
If you have never studied this, it is worth looking into, SoMG. If it turns out to be crap, fine, you're the more well read for it. But if it is true and you miss out on it, well, you know how the rest goes...Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 9, 2008 9:08 PM
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Sandy Murry (Madeleine L'Engle)
"Truth has nothing to do with the number of people it convinces." - Paul Claudel
"A comprehended God is no God at all." - Gerhard TersteegenPosted by: Janet at July 9, 2008 11:25 PM
Janet, I liked A WRINKLE IN TIME but I couldn't get into any of L'Engle's other books.Posted by: SoMG at July 10, 2008 4:52 PM
"A comprehended God is no God at all."
Janet, I think that speaks to the frequent human desire to believe, just period, I guess.
Amazing how different we can be.Posted by: Doug at July 10, 2008 5:24 PM
You are so right about differences, Doug. I never thought much about those differences until college. A girl (a native of the tiny island of Dominica) in one of my classes who I didn't know very well said to me (out of the blue) "I wish I had the faith you have".
I was really floored. I don't even recall a conversation we may have had about faith.
Brilliant!Posted by: WeekcerlyViesk at August 2, 2008 7:28 PM