Video: Proof Obama Distorts Bible

27 06 2008

Earlier this week, liberals went off their rocker defending Obama’s biblical worldview against Dr. James Dobson’s comments that he distorts the bible. Dobson was referring to an Obama speech two years ago, which had liberals scrambling to come up with a website defending Obama. The result was JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe. Today, we learned that an Obama campaign worker was instrumental in the launch of that website. 

Caldwell, who is affiliated with the website JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe.com, initially told OneNewsNow that the website was operated by Matthew 25, a political action committee working with Obama supporters. However, upon investigation, it was found that the site was actually registered to Alyssa Martin, an intern in the Obama campaign’s “religious affairs” department. The domain registration has since been changed to Pastor Caldwell’s name.

In an earlier interview, Caldwell told OneNewsNow he did not know Alyssa Martin, but on Thursday afternoon admitted the intern had been helping him set up the website. He also reported that to his knowledge, she is no longer with the Obama campaign.

It is not surprising to learn that an Obama staffer was involved in the setup of this website. It pairs Dobson statements with Obama statements that do not correspond. It gives the appearance that Obama is responding to Dobson, when in fact, the reverse is the truth. Just as Obama plucks scriptures out of context, he has his staff painting an a false image of other Christians in an attempt to hide his wolf’s clothing from the sheep. 

In addition, on Father’s Day, Barack Obama made a speech at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago, Illinois, in which he said that “We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.” I am thrilled that Sen. Obama believes in the responsibility of fathers, but his voting record contradicts his own statements. He consistently has voted to end life after conception. 

Tony Perkins of Family Research Council recorded a video response to this message in which he asks Senator Obama: if my responsibility as a father began at conception, isn’t that when the lives of my children began?

Of course, Obama’s answer will be that he personally disagrees with child-killing, but the choice should remain legal for women. This may pass as a convincing argument to a liberal, who has no absolutes, and creates values to mold to any given issue. But to a Christian, you cannot twist a moral issue into a political one without distorting the bible. The bible is very clear that murder is a sin. And since most of our Constitution was based on biblical values, the taking of innocent life is illegal. There is a biblical mandate for Christians to defend the defenseless. Obama’s distorted interpretation of the bible results in a personal view and political action that contradict one another. 

Advertisements

Actions

Information

4 responses

27 06 2008
Video: Proof Obama Distorts Bible : Stop The ACLU

[…] Crossposted at Truth and Reason […]

28 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

==Obama …said that “We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.”==

I am also glad that Obamarama recognizes that SOMETHING happens at conception. I had always thought that Libtards believe that nothing happens at conception, that everything happens at birth.

28 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

==Tony Perkins of Family Research Council recorded a video response to this message in which he asks Senator Obama: if my responsibility as a father began at conception, isn’t that when the lives of my children began?

Of course, Obama’s answer will be that he personally disagrees with child-killing, but the choice should remain legal for women.==

If the father’s responsibility begins at conception — that is, he has a due burden, a burden that is due — and a child is there to accept the father’s responsibility, then State pressure on the woman cannot be an undue burden, rather due, in the same way that State pressure on the father is a due burden, not undue.

You’d think that, with all that Libtard talk about intelligence and reasoning and the scientific and logic, they’d be able to see their inconsistencies. But no. Not ever, and I exist to pounce on every inconsistency I can find, and they’re not difficult to find. They hand them to us on a silver platter.

28 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

That’s a good question, if I do say so myself:

Why is “responsibility” on the woman an undue burden but, according to B Hussein O, “responsibility” on the father is a due burden???

If, from conception, the father has responsibility, why does the woman get to take that responsibility away, denying the father’s responsibility, by aborting the pregnancy?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: