I have a big problem with Mr Hansen, because of his inability before the election to properly correct the interviewer for Fox news when she said that Obama was pro-life. He just sat there and nodded his head in approval when he knew that Obama was not pro life. He knew because of an article he wrote in January of 2008, titled, Obama's Social Contract. In the article he points out Obama's pro-choice stance. He even takes Obama's so-called exception for the mother rule to task.
As the editor of Christianity Today, and the author of the article I referenced to, you would think Mr. Hansen would want to make sure that the interviewer did not mislead any evangelical Christians listening with the intent of getting properly informed about Obama and the truth. After all, the specific purpose of his being interviewed was to help clarify the issues that evangelical Christians were not sure of about between the two Presidential candidates.
Instead, Mr. Nansen allowed the lie that Obama was pro-life to be shared with Evangelicals who may have eventually voted for Obama because of their pro-life stance. Can you imagine their shock when they found out after Obama was sworn in that not only is Obama pro-choice, but he actually supports laws that would allow infanticide.
This has been flagged as spam show
I have a big problem with Mr Hansen, because of his inability before the election to properly correct the interviewer for Fox news when she said that Obama was pro-life. He just sat there and nodded his head in approval when he knew that Obama was not pro life. He knew because of an article he wrote in January of 2008, titled, Obama's Social Contract. In the article he points out Obama's pro-choice stance. He even takes Obama's so-called exception for the mother rule to task.
onevike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As the editor of Christianity Today, and the author of the article I referenced to, you would think Mr. Hansen would want to make sure that the interviewer did not mislead any evangelical Christians listening with the intent of getting properly informed about Obama and the truth. After all, the specific purpose of his being interviewed was to help clarify the issues that evangelical Christians were not sure of about between the two Presidential candidates.
onevike 1 year ago
Instead, Mr. Nansen allowed the lie that Obama was pro-life to be shared with Evangelicals who may have eventually voted for Obama because of their pro-life stance. Can you imagine their shock when they found out after Obama was sworn in that not only is Obama pro-choice, but he actually supports laws that would allow infanticide.
onevike 1 year ago
Comment removed
onevike 1 year ago
Comment removed
onevike 1 year ago