I would of gotten to this earlier but I’m on day one of a three day training cycle, better late then never I suppose.
Obama has been making a few mistakes recently, enough to make you think the Messiah is indeed beatable seeing as how he hasn’t even had to face a Republican yet in this race.
First mistake, bring up faith as a reason to justify something which is obviously against ones faith:
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him “less Christian.””I don’t think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state,” said Obama. “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.” St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful.
Any man who votes as such:
When he was in the Illinois Senate, for example, he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined as a “person” a baby who had survived an induced-labor abortion and was born alive.
Shouldn’t be using religion to justify anything he does.
Laer from Cheat Seeking Missiles takes him to task a bit more forcibly:
To us there is no such thing as “an obscure passage in Romans.” Paul’s letter to the Romans is the foundation of the application of our faith, and if you check a Bible-reading Christian’s Bible, you will find those pages to be very well worn, with lots of underlining and highlighting.
They may not be red-letter passages, but they illuminate the teachings of Christ and make them applicable to our day to day faith.
I’m guessing Obama is thinking of Romans 1:27 as his “obscure verse:”
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Does he also consider obscure these admonitions from Paul, just a few verses later?
They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God‑haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Reject the one, and you reject the others, saying in effect that all matter of evil, wickedness, God-hating, slandering,disobedience, faithlessness, heartlessness and ruthlessness are OK because, after all, they are just mentioned in some obscure passage from Romans.
Such ignorance of the faith he purports to hold is astonishing
Then we have the town hall meeting yesterday in Kansas City. Jay Rockefeller gave him a glowing introduction which must of made Obama glow because he threw out some zingers that were not well advised:
Obama criticized Clinton expressly for failing to read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons capabilities, a report available at the time of her October 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war. “She didn’t give diplomacy a chance. And to this day, she won’t even admit that her vote was a mistake – or even that it was a vote for war,” Obama said.
“When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation the decision to invade Iraq Senator Clinton got it wrong,” Obama said.
He said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow Democrat from neighboring West Virginia, had read the intelligence estimate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. However, Rockefeller wound up voting for the war resolution.
Well, Jay did read the NIE and voted FOR the war after seeing the intelligence. As Hillary did. (Obama tries to explain it all away by saying that hey, he was talking about someone else and even if he was talking about Jay no one in the audience cared so its not big deal…..yeah) Which goes along with the next story that Sister Toldjah posted on.
During the last debate Hillary pointed out that Obama should be applauded for making a anti-Iraq war speech in 2002 during a anti-Iraq war rally, but he had neither the responsibility for the intelligence or to vote one way or another. When he came into the Senate and did have responsibility, they both voted the same way. Obama answered:
SEN. OBAMA: Let me just follow up. My objections to the war in Iraq were simply — not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why.
Sister points out:
Bzzzt. Wrong. Senator Obama gave his speech in October of 2002. He didn’t announce his candidacy for the US Senate until 2003, and it wasn’t considered “high stakes” once his two toughest opponents were bumped out of the race due to marital scandals.
Sister also goes off on his latest ad in which he said he had real “courage” to be against the war at the time.
I’m sorry, but can someone explain to me how it took “courage” for then-state Senator Obama to make a speech against the Iraq war, at a time when he wasn’t in the US Senate, and wasn’t privy to the intelligence others in the Senate had at their disposal? In fact, the speech he made in October 2002 was made at an anti-Iraq war rally. This is “courage”? Yeah, it’s about as courageous as it is to wade in a kiddie pool wearing a life jacket.
Add to all this the latest Canadian kerfuffle, which Mike posts on below, and you can that shiny armor Obama has been wearing lately may indeed have a few weak spots to exploit.
Indeed, there are more then a few….but so far the MSM has done a great job in hiding them.
UPDATE
From Instapundit:
And reader Matt Szekely observes: “If Obama can’t handle a goody two shoes country like Canada how the heck is he going to deal with Iran, Syria, China, Russia, France and other countries that have a somewhat higher level of difficulty? . . . This is like watching someone get bucked off one of the coin op kiddies horses they have at the supermarket.”
Ouch…
See author page
Where’s that jackass Johnny No War now? Obama is an empty suit — plain and simple.
Questioning Hillary’s judgement and embracing Jay Rockefeller?
Obama really doesn’t have his head screwed on.
Here’s an excerpt of Jay Rockefeller’s speech on the Senate floor where he declares his intention to vote FOR the Iraq Armed Force resolution:
And before some bedwetting leftie suggests that Bush LIED to Rockefeller with the Iraq Intell, let’s not forget that Bill Clinton said much the same thing in 1998.
Johnny No War’s daily schedule:
Tuesday: 7am-9am :swing by moorewatch.com to tell them what a bunch of pathetic losers they are.
9am-2pm Parks in front of marine recruiting station in berkely with a large code pink sign atop car.
2pm-2:30 pm drop check in the mail to stockboro baptist church to support the next military funeral protest.
2:30pm- 5:30 pm go to airport to spit on arriving soldiers.
5:30pm – 7:30 pm plans vacation trip to cuba via canada
7:pm to 10 pm watches inconvenient truth while commiting lude acts on self
You guys arent back on his schedule for another week……
hahahahaha, that was hilarious fester — well done 🙂
There’s one problem with applying faith to political office; it can’t be done without corrupting one’s faith. One cannot simply pick and choose Scripture to support this issue or that; we are to take all of Scripture into consideration. This means, for instance, that those who suggest that we should be governed under the Ten Commandments (or hang them in our courtrooms, teach them in our schools, etc.) have to then answer questions such as “what should the government penalty for adultery be?” or “how should the government define and penalize idolatry?” These questions can’t be dismissed easily without cherry-picking Scripture – and corrupting the faith.
“…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
There’s a reason that the Founders–despite the personal faith espoused by many of their group–explicitly rejected religious tests for public office, and it’s ludicrous that either side would presume to score cheap points from their faith.
Why’s it gotta be about Chinks?
To add: Everything else is outsourced to China, why not his armor?
After the Democratic funding incidents in Buddist temples and “China Gate” one has to wonder…..