Cindy McCain- John is Pro-Roe

[Jefferson]

Cindy McCain- John is Pro-Roe

This is the show from Monday September 8th, 2008.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

Dr. Dobson, in this codependent relationship, can't help himself. He knows John McCain is a child killer. The things he said about John McCain just months ago will make your skin crawl comparing him to Bill Clinton and his unrepentant sexual immorality and adultery and on and on and on, his godlessness.

But the lust to be a kingmaker - Christians want a seat at the table. Do you know how God describes the table in the Old Testament? He said there's a table and it's all set with fine dinnerware except that the table is dripping with vomit. The table, God said, is dripping with vomit. And that's the table that Christians are wanting to get a seat at because they will dishonor God, violate their pledge to God, set aside "Do not murder" in order to lie to other Christians to support a child killer and say he's 100% prolife when he votes to fund surgical abortion and he rejects the God-given right to life of the unborn.

SUMMARY:

* Cindy McCain on John McCain being Pro-Roe: Listen to this BEL program to hear Cindy McCain say that the Republican presidential candidate, i.e., her husband, wants to keep Roe v. Wade legal. You can read the transcript below, hear it on this program, or watch this Freudian slip on CBSNews.com, and see that John McCain's wife believed that HE was AGAINST over-turning Roe v. Wade.

* McCain Lies to Christians, Kills Kids: From American Right To Life's Dobson press release: John McCain funds the killing of countless children for example by voting to allocate monies on Oct. 27, 2005 for tax-funded surgical abortion if the baby's father is a criminal, that is, a rapist. See McCain's Yea vote to authorized funding for surgical abortion to kill an unborn child whose father is a criminal, "if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest." McCain repeatedly gives millions to foreign and domestic abortion providers including Planned Parenthood. One week after pro-abortion Rudi Giuliani dropped out of the primary race, Republicans for Choice endorsed John McCain. McCain is as Jesus warned in Matthew 7:15, a wolf in sheep's clothing, manipulating Christians into voting for someone who continues to kill the innocent.

* BEL Telethon: Thank you to those who have already given to the annual BEL September telethon! So far we've reached $2,000 of $35,000 goal! Please call to keep Bob on the air, at 800-8Enyart or give online! Thank you!!

* Cindy McCain on John McCain being Pro-Roe: Jim from Denver told BEL about Katie Couric's interview at the RNC this week with Cindy McCain in which she stated honestly that her husband doesn't want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

THIS JUST IN... Cindy didn't get the memo! Cindy didn't get the latest campaign rhetoric that her husband now wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. Cindy was unaware of her husband's Saturday night conversion. The McCain household doesn't sit around and watch Rick Warren, apparently not even when John is on. Cindy McCain got her lies mixed up. Which of the lies do you believe?

Watch, listen, and read the transcript below, as you see that John McCain's wife believed that HE was AGAINST over-turning Roe v. Wade, and the McCain type Republicans like Cindy have been trained to say they are pro-life while even supporting Roe v. Wade:

Couric: The scuttlebutt, if you will, behind the scenes is that Sen. McCain really wanted Joe Lieberman to be his running mate, but social conservatives would have found him unacceptable because of his position on abortion.

McCain: My husband and Joe are very good friends. And, wouldn't it be nice to work with your best friend? Of course. But we had to consider other things as well. And reform being the, as you know, my husband's most important issue, and my husband felt that Gov. Palin was a better fit for that.

Couric: Some, even Republicans, seemed surprised that Sen. McCain picked a running mate who opposes abortion even in the cases of rape and incest... And I'm just curious, do you agree with that? ... Where do you stand on abortion?

McCain: I'm pro-life. I'm on the record as being pro-life, like my husband.

Couric: So do you oppose it even in cases of rape and incest?

McCain: No.

Couric: So that's where you [and Sarah Palin] differ in terms of your position on that.

McCain: Uh-huh

Couric: And do you believe Roe V. Wade should be overturned?

McCain: No. no.

Couric: No. Why not? Your husband does.

McCain: No. I don't think he does.

Couric: He believes it should be overturned. That's what he told me, and that it should go to the states.

McCain: Well, in that respect. Yes, yeah, I do. I understand what you're saying now. It's a states issue.

Couric: So, you believe it should be overturned or shouldn't be overturned.

McCain: I believe it's a states issue [BE: This intense wickedness and cover for pro abortion Republicans was pioneered by Christian libertarians including Ron Paul who like John McCain is pro-choice, state-by-state.] That I do believe.

Couric: After the interview we contacted the McCain campaign to clarify Cindy McCain's position on abortion. They told us that, like Laura Bush, Mrs. McCain does not advocate overturning Roe v. Wade, which guarantees the legal right to an abortion.

Enyart: Notice how 'pro-life' means NOTHING in leading Republican circles, since many claim to be pro-life AND to support Roe v. Wade. They are child-killers. And these Republicans are lying to Christians for their money and votes to gain power. And sadly, Dr. Dobson is a willing participant to the white-washing of a leading child killer, John McCain.

Today's Resource: The Plot is making its debut as a bound book! After a decade of sales of thousands of copies of Bob's unbound, best-selling manuscript, now as of December 1st, just in time for Christmas gifts, The Plot will be bound! If you get The Plot, and want the bound version, please just let us know when you call 800-8Enyart or in the Comments field when you order through the Literature Department of our online KGOVStore.com!

 

[drbrumley]

McCain: I believe it's a states issue [BE: This intense wickedness and cover for pro abortion Republicans was pioneered by Christian libertarians including Ron Paul who like John McCain is pro-choice, state-by-state.] That I do believe.

Ok Bob, pioneered? By Ron Paul? He pioneered nothing my friend. It is apolitical as to what government is followed in this union. There is no biblical mandate or teaching that says what government we are supposed to have is supposed to be nationalistic.

Your right, John doesn't want to overturn it. So, he doesn't say overturn it, he says I don't want to use my influence to oppose it.

I say, overturn it and give it back to the states since that is the way it should be.

 

[chrysostom]

So who should we vote for?

 

[Jefferson]

So who should we vote for?

Alan Keyes.

 

[elected4ever]

Mr Bob Enyart, I believe that you are advocating a lawless solution, along with others, of appointing judges that will overturn Roe v Wade.

It is not proper to disobey the law or tell others to do so. The Constitution does not at this time support our Pro Choice view. I look to change that but we do not do it by appointing lawless judges; which is what is being advocated now.

I know it makes you angry. It makes me angry also. Let's do this right and support a constitutional amendment. You and I agree that the constitution should not support the taking of innocent life as it now does.

You do good work and I am pleased with your efforts. Please do not stop. Lets not lose sight of the goal. To end the willful taking of innocent, defenseless life.

 

[The Graphite]

Mr Bob Enyart, I believe that you are advocateing a lawless solution, along with others, of apointing judges that will overturn Roe v Wade.

It is not proper to disobey the law or tell others to do so. The Constitution does not at this time support our Pro Choice view. I look to change that but you do not do it by appointing lawless judges; which is what is being advocated now.

I know it makes you angry. It makes me angry also. Let's do this right and support a constitutional amendment. You and I agree that the constitution should not support the taking of innocent life as it now does.

You do good work and I am pleased with your efforts. Please do not stop. Lets not lose sight of the goal. To end the willful taking of innocent, defenseless life.

The 5th and 14th amendments state that no person may be deprived of life without due process, ie. without being found guilty of a crime. How does that not cover the issue of abortion?

Do you believe the unborn are not persons?

If you do believe the unborn are persons, then how can you possibly say the Constitution doesn't protect their God-given right to life?

 

[elected4ever]

The 5th and 14th amendments state that no person may be deprived of life without due process, ie. without being found guilty of a crime. How does that not cover the issue of abortion?

Do you believe the unborn are not persons?

If you do believe the unborn are persons, then how can you possibly say the Constitution doesn't protect their God-given right to life?

The words, All persons BORN or naturalized, limits these rights to those who are BORN. The effect is to place the unborn at the mercy of the born. This ought not to be so. Lets start with a position of life with no option to take it unjustifiably.

 

[The Graphite]

The words, All persons BORN or naturalized, limits these rights to those who are BORN. The effect is to place the unborn at the mercy of the born. This ought not to be so. Lets start with a position of life with no option to take it unjustifiably.

You are adding to the Constitution.

Constitution - 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Nothing about being born.

And then...

Constitution - 14th Amendment:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It says all persons born, etc., are citizens. It goes on to say that no "person" shall be deprived of life without due process. That means whether they are citizen or not! Do you think that we can execute people who cross our borders on sight, simply because they are not citizens?

"Citizen" and "person" are not synonymous. This passage refers to citizens and says one thing. And then it extends an even greater protection to all "persons." Nowhere does it say that persons only include people who are born. You are very much mistaken.

The 5th and 14th amendments protect the right to life of all persons.

You didn't answer my question, and I have to wonder why...

Do you believe unborn children are persons?

 

[elected4ever]

You are adding to the Constitution.


Nothing about being born.

And then...

It says all persons born, etc., are citizens. It goes on to say that no "person" shall be deprived of life without due process. That means whether they are citizen or not! Do you think that we can execute people who cross our borders on sight, simply because they are not citizens?

"Citizen" and "person" are not synonymous. This passage refers to citizens and says one thing. And then it extends an even greater protection to all "persons." Nowhere does it say that persons only include people who are born. You are very much mistaken.

The 4th and 15th amendments protect the right to life of all persons.

You didn't answer my question, and I have to wonder why...

Do you believe unborn children are persons?

No, I wasn't even alive. I know I am old but not that old.

The 14th amendment changed that when it limited the rights of citizens to those born. It is the consequence of an ill conceived amendment.

 

[elected4ever]

You are adding to the Constitution.


Nothing about being born.

And then...

It says all persons born, etc., are citizens. It goes on to say that no "person" shall be deprived of life without due process. That means whether they are citizen or not! Do you think that we can execute people who cross our borders on sight, simply because they are not citizens?

"Citizen" and "person" are not synonymous. This passage refers to citizens and says one thing. And then it extends an even greater protection to all "persons." Nowhere does it say that persons only include people who are born. You are very much mistaken.

The 4th and 15th amendments protect the right to life of all persons.

You didn't answer my question, and I have to wonder why...

Do you believe unborn children are persons?

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.How is it you cannot understand English. Are you educated beyond your intelligence.

 

[elected4ever]

By the way Graphite, only person's born are entitled to citizen rights.

 

[The Graphite]

By the way Graphite, only person's born are entitled to citizen rights.

That's right. But you would do well to not confuse citizen's rights with persons' rights. Otherwise, you would have to admit that our government could tomorrow order the execution of every legal immigrant within our borders.

It cannot do that because, even though they are not citizens, they are protected under our Constitution because they are persons and therefore they cannot be deprived of life without due process of law.

The amendment describes what applies to citizens. And then it describes what applies to persons. And obviously it doesn't say that a human being is a person only if they're a citizen. So, stop confusing persons with citizens. I mean, c'mon...

I have been proven wrong about a great many things in life, and I know it's no picnic, but for goodness' sake, read the thing and ask yourself -- does the 14th amendment protect the right to life of only American citizens???

You are mistaken. It is not the end of the world; in fact, it is good news in this case. The 14th amendment (just like the 5th) protects the right to life of all PERSONS under American jurisdiction. Not just citizens but all persons within our borders.

Does it not?

 

[The Graphite]

I asked if you believe the unborn are persons. You replied:

No, I wasn't even alive. I know I am old but not that old.

Your answer is no? You don't believe the unborn are persons? Your reply is worded in a very bizarre way, and is practically a non sequitor.

If "no," then why would you advocate for a personhood amendment in the Constitution, for goodness' sake?

 

[elected4ever]

I asked if you believe the unborn are persons. You replied:

Your answer is no? You don't believe the unborn are persons? Your reply is worded in a very bizarre way, and is practically a non sequitor.

If "no," then why would you advocate for a personhood amendment in the Constitution, for goodness' sake?

Careful how you falsely accuse someone son. I see a lot of that in this debate. I am more pro life than you. You seem to take after Bob and others by falsely accusing just to prop up your lawless solution to a real problem.

 

[The Graphite]

Careful how you falsely accuse someone son. I see a lot of that in this debate. I am more pro life than you. You seem to take after Bob and others by falsely accusing just to prop up your lawless solution to a real problem.

I'm your brother, not your son. And I didn't accuse. I asked you a question. You said "no," along with some strange gibberish that seemed totally unrelated to anything we were talking about.

Did you misspell the word "yes?" The two words have almost the same number of letters...

A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice, you know. Do you acknowledge the personhood of the unborn? Here's your chance to go on the record, without any confusion or equivocation.

 

[chatmaggot]

Ok Bob, pioneered? By Ron Paul? He pioneered nothing my friend. It is apolitical as to what government is followed in this union. There is no biblical mandate or teaching that says what government we are supposed to have is supposed to be nationalistic.

Your right, John doesn't want to overturn it. So, he doesn't say overturn it, he says I don't want to use my influence to oppose it.

I say, overturn it and give it back to the states since that is the way it should be.

Would you defend the right of a state that decided they wanted to kill babies?

 

[drbrumley]

Would you defend the right of a state that decided they wanted to kill babies?

No. If the State of Florida decided to legalize abortion, I would fight against it. I would be as outspoken as Lysander Spooner was towards slavery.

 

[The Graphite]

I say, overturn it and give it back to the states since that is the way it should be.

So, you take the Stephen Douglas position, and oppose the Lincoln position? Interesting.

Shall we declare human slavery a "states rights issue," as Douglas said? I take it you opposed the constitutional amendment to bar slavery nationwide in America?

 

[elected4ever]

I asked if you believe the unborn are persons.

Sense you can't read with any sort of discernment then I will answer your question directly. To me, the unborn are persons but being a person does not qualify anyone to the rights of citizenship. To enjoy those rights the person must be born or naturalized. A fact that you turn a blind eye to. I make no such mistake and insist that the life of the unborn "PERSON" have the same protections that we as born persons do. I am not willing to leave that life in the hands of the government whether state or federal. What the government giveth by legislative action the government can take away. I had much rather have the obligation of the government protected by constitutional amendment instead of leaving it to the whelm of statutory law that can be changed as easily as the wind blows.

PS If you were my son I would wash you mouth out with soap.

 

[JoyfulRook]

It is not proper to disobey the law or tell others to do so.

Tell that to the Hebrew Midwives in Exodus, or Daniel who defied Darius, or Corrie Ten Boom.