Global Warming: not settled science; possibly science fiction.

The BBC has posted an article on this subject here.  This is the first time I can recall citing a BBC article, but the fact that one of the most liberal news media outlets on the planet is questioning the merits of global warming - well that is news.

My thoughts: whatever your politics, it seems undeniable that we are in a period of "global cooling."  What that means, is up for debate.  To me, I find it to be clear evidence in support of my theory: God's plan dictates global climate trends.  Mans' actions may have some impact, but so rarely can man overcome the forces of nature.  We may want to believe we caused a period of global warming, but I don't really believe we were a major contributing factor for the same reason I refuse to believe mankind can stop a tornado: mother nature is far more powerful than we mere mortals give her credit.  God built the earth, and his enginnering skills are above par.  To suggest we can change the climate is like suggesting man can stop tsunamis: both sound like science fiction to me.

And the award ... means nothing? The death of the Nobel Prize.

Apparently the Nobel prize is no longer a noble prize.  Even the Associated Press is questioning the committee's motives.  Check out this article they published on Yahoo! news.

Now, I am not going to bash our president, regardless of my political views.  That is not the point I am after here.  My aim is to ask, like the author of that article, what has Obama done (not promised) to earn such a prestigious award? 

We have all heard the promises of a new world with free healthcare, no poverty, and no war, but has the President actually accomplished, past tense, any of this?  Whatever your political views, believers, none of us can claim he has delivered on those promises at this time.  Will he deliver?  That remains to be seen.  However, as it stands, he has accomplished nothing that would place him ahead of other contenders.  Even Bono (U2 lead singer) has done more, to date, to end hunger and poverty than President Obama.  Comparing their efforts, Bono probably comes out ahead of most presidents to date.

I say the prize has lost its nobility, because it is being awarded for political goals - not for rewarding actual accomplishments in achieving a better world for all.  What was once a prestigious award now is junk, at least in my eyes.  If they gave me the award (which they shouldn't - I don't deserve it no matter what I promise), it would adorn the bottom of my waste basket rather than the top of my mantle.  An award given purely for a political agenda is only truly an award to someone sharing that agenda.  Otherwise, it is just junk taking up space.

But that's just me.  Who knows - maybe they will resurrect it in the future by giving it out to someone based on his/her merits and achievements rather than political promises.

Be blessed.

White pride? Race & Politics revisited...

I recently was forwarded an email that made the point that only white people can be racists. That's right - whites have a monopoly on racism. The email, rather poorly, made a few points that have always seemed logical to me. Lets see if I cannot restate them coherently:


Point One

1. There are African Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Latin Americans, Pacific Islander Americans, Latin Americans, and so on, but there are no white Americans.
2. Instead, white Americans are just plain "Americans."
3. Is this because white people are not allowed to acknowledge that they are part of the same race?
4. Is it racist just to be white?

Point Two

1. Whites are not permitted to use racial slurs, but racial slurs used against whites are permitted.
2. For example, a white person may not use the following words: spic; chink; nigger; towel-head; porch-monkey; camel-jockey; gook; or black (I was once personally dressed down for referring to African Americans as "blacks").
3. On the other hand, the following words are used almost daily in reference to whites without any fear of reprisal or even a reaction: whigger; honkey; cracker; whitey; caveman.
4. In law we have a term called "equity" implying that different people should be treated by the law and society equally, regardless of race, nationality, or ethnicity. Is this difference in standards equitable?
5. Speaking in terms of Christianity, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28 NASB).
6. Yet how many Christians would berate a white person for using a racial slur? How many would be offended by a racial slur used against a white person?

Point Three

1. Black history month, Cesar Chavez day, and other holidays/days of national significance that focus on one or more people groups segregates those people groups from others and divides us.
2. Don't believe it? What would happen if a politician proposed a white history month?
3. Why is it we can't just teach history? You know - for all people groups.

Point Four

1. The National Association For the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Black Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and other such organizations focusing on one people group and excluding others (I call that "voluntary segregation") are permissible in our society, assuming you do not create such an organization to promote the white race or culture.
2. Consider that the plain, ordinary Chamber of Commerce takes all races.
3. Now, why would we need a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce?
4. Assuming you can find a good reason to have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, why then can whites not have a white chamber of commerce?
5. Did you read that and think it was a racist idea?
6. What about a national association for the advancement of white people?
7. Is that racist too?

Point Five

1. If blacks can give out scholarships only to blacks, then can whites do the same?
2. What about a United Caucasian Scholarship Fund?
3. Is that racist?
4. Is it right for any one people group to "earn" a scholarship, even in part, because of the colour of his/her skin?
5. How many "black only" universities and colleges are in the U.S.?
6. How about a "white only" university or college - is that racist?
7. Is it not racist, or at least discriminatory, to treat one people group differently from the other?

Point Six

1. The Miss America pageant accepts women of all races, and a black woman can be Miss America.
2. No white woman can participate in the Miss Black America pageant or be Miss Black America.
3. A "Miss White America" pageant would, logically, ensure that both black and white women receive the same opportunities, but we'd label that racist too.
4. Would getting rid of pageants targeting specific people groups be racist?

Point Seven

1. Black pride is okay.
2. White pride is racist.
3. People can be proud to be black, yellow, red, or any colour they like (so long as that colour isn't white).
4. So, white people should be ashamed of their colour and heritage?

I did not come up with these points. I just put them together in one place for discussion. I did, however, omit a few points that I thought showed the author's own racial bias. This is the problem: people who go to great lengths to attack others' racism often fail to see their own. I believe the author of that email made some great points, but s/he also demonstrated the very same racial bias of which s/he complained.

People want to know why America cannot move beyond race and colour? It is because we live in a voluntarily segregated society where whites are increasingly portrayed as oppressors and "minorities" as beggars. I, however, have met both oppressive and distressed people from every people group. Visit a big enough city and, sooner or later, you'll see homeless people of every background. You could also find wealthy people from every background.

At the inauguration of our nation's first black president, the Rev. Joseph Lowery delivered what was surely one of the most racist benedictions ever made, and it was endorsed by the White House. You can read more about that here. He spoke of a day when "black will not be asked to give back," when "brown can stick around," when "yellow will be mellow," when "the red man can get ahead, man," and when "white will embrace what is right."

President Obama's landmark presidency began with those words, and they represent to me a sign of the times we live in. Rather than Jim Crow laws, we voluntarily segregate ourselves into different people groups in our mind. Our society blames the white race for its many problems instead of looking for realistic solutions to them.

My black friends did not choose to be black, and my Asian friends did not choose to be Asian any more than I chose to be white. God made me white, and he made my friends as they are. We don't need to waste time discussing which race is "right." Instead, I hope we focus on treating each other equally and fairly as brothers and sisters in Christ, focusing on Gal 3:28, not on skin colour. Until we have the mind of Christ, that all men truly are equal in the eyes of the Lord, the Rev. Lowery's unique brand of racism will continue to dominate our society and politics.

NEWS: Barack Obama tries to silence God.

Check the news story out for yourself here.

" Georgetown University says it covered over the monogram 'IHS' --symbolizing the name of Jesus Christ—because it was inscribed on a pediment on the stage where President Obama spoke at the university on Tuesday and the White House had asked Georgetown to cover up all signs and symbols there. As of Wednesday afternoon, the “IHS” monogram that had previously adorned the stage at Georgetown’s Gaston Hall was still covered up--when the pediment where it had appeared was photographed by CNSNews.com."


So.... Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, asked Georgetown to cover up the name of God? He professes to be a Christian, so why would he do this?

Many good Christians voted for President Obama. Some did so because they believed, legitimately, that a black president was long overdue. Others voted for Mr. Obama because they believed his economic policies would end economic turmoil. Both were legitimate reasons to vote for a political leader. Also, this junior senator claimed to be a Christian.

Setting aside, for the moment, the issue of whether BHO truly qualifies as black and can, therefore, truly be our nation's first black president, setting aside the issue of whether BHO is even a true US citizen, and also setting aside whether the junior senator was qualified to accept the nation's most important office, what of his last promise? The one in which he claimed to believe in an all-powerful God that created all that exists?

How can a man, who claims to believe in God, be so bold as to actively conceal God from others? Why would a believer not want to be associated with God during a speech given at a university? Would his speech at Georgetown not provide a wonderful opportunity to affirm his association with Jesus Christ? Why did he feel this small reference to God was a threat to him? Even if he were an atheist, why would the mention of a deity he doesn't believe in be a threat?

As a believer, I fear angering God. I fear angering my Lord, because I know God is supreme and perfect. I am thankful that God is merciful, because I fear God's wrath. His power is unchallenged, both in this world and beyond. I cannot believe that anyone who really believes in God would seek to cover up God's name in a building. A true believer fears God, and this sort of active rebellion against the name of God should have been prevented by BHO's fear of the Lord.

President Obama does not fear God. He does not want to be affiliated with God. It is time that believers stopped and asked themselves, why is this? It is no secret that I am no fan of BHO's policies and political platform. However, I never dreamed he would make so public a contradiction of his own stated faith.

If our president does not believe in or fear God, then why has he lied about it? If he lied about this, then what else has he lied about? And, how many of you believers will excuse this lie as though it doesn't matter?

UPDATED NEWS: Ben Stein truly is expelled...

UPDATE:

The associated press differs with the Huffington Post. The AP claims Stein withdrew from the commencement, while the Huffington Post claims he was disinvited. Read the reports for yourself:

-Post article.
-AP article.

So, which is it? Was Stein dropped, or did he cancel? So much for accurate, unbiased reporting.


ORIGINAL NEWS POST:

See the report here.

It is amazing, but apparently the University of Vermont felt that it was necessary to literally expel Ben Stein from its commencement. Apparently, supporting intelligent design is not allowed at their institution. So much for open debate, the freedom of thought, and the First Amendment. Liberal colleges have decided that the "Theory" of Evolution is the only truth, and they will entertain no other theories nor tolerate others who disagree. For those who pride themselves on being open-minded, they have acted just like those who persecuted Galileo for his theories. It is a sad day in academia when politics and prejudice rule rather than open debate and scientific inquiry.

DEBATE: black history month vs. year-round unified history?

First, I suggest that you read this article, which encapsulates the pending debate.

The question that I am posing for discussion/debate, both on this blog and in your conversations with others is: "Should we abandon black history month in favor of actively incorporating black history into history courses year-round."

Now, a few ground rules are necessary to limit the scope. The first rule is: don't question whether the incorporation will actually happen; presume that if black history month is terminated, that black history will be incorporated into history classes every day, all year long.

Second rule: don't start a second debate about whether there is a need for "women's history" month or "white history month," etc.; this is a debate regarding, essentially, whether there should be one month set aside per year to study the history of one specific people group or whether there be a unified study of the history of all people groups, all year long.

Third rule: make logical arguments and points only; it is impossible, after all, to debate emotion or prejudice, which brings us to the last rule...

Fourth rule: do not accuse anyone in the discussion of being a racist or prejudiced, as that will bring a halt to any intelligent discussion; throwing out labels is rarely an effective way to be persuasive.

Consider this a challenge, from me to you.

NEWSFLASH: "The Urgency of Pork."

We're all about to get a lot poorer...

Iraqis Vote Peacefully: American President Silent

Iraqis voted again today. There is little fighting, and no reports of major violence as Iraqis go to the polls. We've won in Iraq. The people there now have the freedom to vote for politicians who will make their lives better; the voices of the people count.

The President of the United States ignored this important event in the lives of the Iraqi people in his weekly address. Instead he chose to talk solely about the economy and to extol the virtues of the tax cheat he has installed as Treasury Secretary, at the head of the IRS.

I want to be hopeful about this new administration, but it's hard to feel good about a man who could be so callous towards the fragile and important democracy he now has a great deal of responsibility for. Whatever his feelings about military action in Iraq, our President must do the right thing for them as well as for us: for their rights were bought at a great price to us, and we must support them.

NEWSFLASH: Republicans slap democrats in the face...

NEWS: The "Goracle" speaks - hilarious.

I highly recommend you read this hilarious prophesises of Al Gore, the "Goracle" in the report by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post here.

Feel free to comment below - this may be the funniest news article yet.

NEWSFLASH: Iran may have nuclear capacity this year.

NEWS: Obama v. Kennedy...

See the report here.

Now that President Obama has attacked Rush Limbaugh, an easy target for a hyper-liberal, it seems that he is aiming his guns at Sen. Ted Kennedy regarding the construction of an off-shore "wind farm," designed to provide a "clean" energy source.

"Kennedy has fought the Cape Wind project for eight years, arguing it would kill birds and endanger sea life while imperiling the scenic area's tourism and fishing industries. The turbines would stand 440 feet above sea level when the tallest blades are pointing straight up. The Kennedy family's oceanside Hyannis Port, Mass., compound would have a clear view of the project to be located 4.7 miles offshore, but Kennedy says it is not why he opposes the project. "

Two democrats entrenched in a political over the environmental impact of a wind farm. Our president wants clean, alternative energies. Senator Kennedy claims that the wind farm will damage sean and animal life and that it will cost tourism and jobs. At least one of these gentlemen remembered to check whether there would be an effect on people, even if it was an afterthought.

"Wind energy accounts for only 1 percent of the nation's electricity. A federal report last year said wind energy could generate 20 percent by 2030, with offshore sources accounting for nearly 20 percent of that. "

If the report is accurate, then we will spend barrels of federal tax dollars financing and subsidizing the construction of an energy source that, presenlty, accounts for a whopping 1% of our energy reserves. If we are lucky, then maybe we can get it up to 20% in a little over two decades. Of course, in that amount of time, our population will have likely grown enough to require 10-15% more electricity than we currently use (I am guessing - please provide reliable figures if you read this and have them).

So we have two democracts arguing over the environmental costs of building a wind farm that will likely do little to address the current energy demand, and we are supposed to ignore Rush Limbaugh (according to President Obama - see our earlier news post here)? I highly suspect that Rush would say something of the tune of, "Wind power is nice and clean, but what are you doing to create jobs and solve the existing energy demand? I mean, the current recession may be over in 20 years by the time wind power has an effect, if it has one at all."

And Rush would be right, hypothetically. Why are we arguing the environmental impact of a project that will cost plenty of tax dollars while providing very little benefit to the Americans who paid for it? Why are we not curtailing government spending on ventures that do not address our present economic crisis? I love animals and sea creatures, but they do not get priority status over people surely? At least Kennedy made a good point: jobs could be lost.

So, if I have to choose sides in this liberal debate, then I have to side with the senator. After all, it is his state. Were he not suffering from a brain tumor, I doubt President Obama would be crossing Senator Kennedy on a fight the man has been waging for nearly a decade. This proves something to me that I saw during the election season: Barack Hussein Obama is an opportunist. There's nothing especially wrong with being an opportunist, but when the opportunity you are seizing is precipitated by the possibly fatal illness of a long-time ally, surely you should at least consider the principles of loyalty and fair play? The logic I see being followed is this: Senator Kennedy's malignant brain tumor spells out a strong possibility that he will soon drop out of the political spotlight, so why should BHO care that he owes his present success, at least in part, to Kennedy's support?

Loyalty. It is a concept of which our president has no grasp. He abandons his allies when they are of no further use to him or when it will profit him to do so. Senator Ted Kennedy now joins the ranks of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. The message here is clear: President Obama will accept your support, but do not expect to get so much as a cookie for it.

NEWS: Obama v. Rush...

See President Obama's attack on Rush Limbaugh here. See Limbaugh's response here.

Apparently the new administration feels that Rush Limbaugh is a threat: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told top GOP leaders at the White House. Of course, the truth is that Republicans can't listen to Rush if they want to get Obama's agenda accomplished, but should that be there goal?

Minority parties have but one power in our country: to represent an opposing viewpoint and to force a deadlock on actions that strike a partisan tone. BHO's agenda, as our earlier posts elaborate, is a completely partisan one. He seeks special treatment for homosexuals, increased hate crime legislation, and the expansion of US taxpayer-funded abortions both at home and abroad. Why would any sound-minded Republican want to "get things done" when the things Obama wants to accomplish are so far from the GOP platform? If the GOP stopped listening to Rush and signed on with President Obama, then we would effectively have 1 party in this country rather than 2.

Most people I meet in my daily life would prefer that, if we change our political system, to have multiple, viable political parties - not fewer. Effectively, Obama is asking Republicans to admit defeat, tuck their tales, and join the victors. Well, certainly the DNP has won the battle for America this term, but there will be other elections, and the war is hardly over. I don't care what your party affiliations are: no man can honestly love the Lord and hate the unborn child. This isn't just an economic debate we are having. By prioritizing our pocket books, even with good cause, America has sold its soul for "economic stimulus." That has never been more apparent to me than when I read Obama's agenda at http://www.whitehouse.gov/. Unfortunately, what America will see is a taxation on employers that drives up the unemployment rate and increased government spending that will give away our future as a nation, weaken us, and leave us broken.

It is no wonder President Obama is condemning Rush. I don't love the big guy. He's rude and crass at times, but then, he is speaking the truths Obama does not want you to hear. Read his response to Obama's attack, and you will have the opportunity to see what this administration does not want you to know.

NEWS: New York Representative Proves Exactly How Practical Green Energy Can Be

Just read this story. It's incredible.

I'm all for efficient forms of energy. Personally I think the best solution is nuclear power coupled with hydrogen fuel cell cars, eliminating the vast majority of our need for fossil fuels. I could even get behind a meaningful government initiative about energy -- perhaps offering big tax breaks to corporations who can prove they spent money on the research. I could even be persuaded that government research dollars could be used to research the fundamental elements of some of these new energy sources for the good of all.

However all this holier-than-thou grandstanding gets us nowhere. Here's something I think we can recognize from this story: Electric-only cars are not practical for long distances. Not now and probably not ever.

I can listen to a person who honestly discusses our options. Al Gore doesn't have to be a hypocrite -- if he discussed possible solutions to energy problems and why he believes in them, instead of trying to guilt the free world into economic suicide while releasing epic amounts of hated carbon to do so, then maybe I would listen. If the environmentalist community hadn't insisted for 8 years that Bush was pure evil, instead of recognizing him for his conservationist achievements and criticizing him reasonably for actions they disagree with, I might be willing to listen.

IMPORTANT NEWS: Obama's agenda filled with social issues and priorities, NOT just economic.

See the full report here, courtesy of the American Family Association, who copied it straight from the White House website. Rather than focusing on the economy, our president's priorities include support of abortion, special treatment for homosexuals, and expanded hate crime legislation. Sure, the economy is in his revised agenda now, but it's a very small part.

What is it about the unborn that our president hates? Why is his first and highest priority in office to target a fetus rather than a terrorist or the national debt? Whatever his politics, is killing the unborn children of this nation really more important than national security or the economy?

Speaking of the economy, how will affording special rights and privileges to homosexuals, at the taxpayer's expense, improve the economy? This hardly seems the time for more government funded programs and legislation. I do not wish to see homosexuals persecuted. I disagree with their beliefs, but they have rights already. They CAN get married and enjoy the same financial benefits the law affords married couples. They have to marry someone of the opposite sex, however, just like the rest of us, as God intended. I don't want them to lose any rights, but the law already affords them the exact same treatment and rights as any heterosexual person. Legislation based on sexual orientation, like legislation based on race, can only serve to afford them greater or lesser rights under the law than heterosexuals. Either result is unacceptable, immoral, and completely wrong.

In this blogger's opinion, hate crime laws are racist by definition, and they discriminate not just against criminal defendants, but against their victims as well by segregating them into two categories: victims of crime and victim's of hate crimes (see a more detailed explanation here). The difference? One person is victimized because the perpetrator is, allegedly, a hateful racist or bigot. The other is victimized because the perpetrator is a hateful selfish person that apparently is neither a racist nor a bigot. So, different victims receive different amounts of "justice" depending on whether a judge/jury feel the perpetrator was hateful. I feel sorry for white victims, because they will never be the victims of "hate crimes." The Reverend Lowery's benediction, approved by our president, clearly shows that it is not racist or hateful to attack whites (see report here).

President Obama must hate whites: he failed to condemn the Rev. Lowery's racist benediction, and now he wants to segregate white victims from minority victims. I respect him as our president, because I believe we Christians must support our leaders (Rom 13:1) and because I believe as Americans we should respect the office of the president. However, I do not feel obligated to respect President Obama's agenda, his decisions, or his politics. I say that, having read his agenda, seen his preliminary decisions, and having heard his politics during the election, I respect none of them.

Mr. President: you claim that you want to reach across party lines like John McCain. Is that true, or is it merely a smokescreen? I cannot see that statement as anything but a bald-faced lie in light of the agenda you have adopted. How is death to the unborn, special treatment for homosexuals, or racist hate crime legislation reaching across the lines to the republicans who are sternly against all three? The answer is that you are either ignorant of what the GOP's positions are on these issue (doubtful), or you have lied to this nation and betrayed our trust after less than a week in office.

It is my prayer that our president decides to stand by his word, reconsider his partisan agenda, and unite this nation by first addressing universal issues like unemployment and the damaged economy. I hope that you will all join me in this praying for President Obama in this way.

NEWS: Rev. Lowery gives racist benediction.

*bumped*

Read the story here. Read an interesting blog post on-topic here.

"We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right," Rev. Lowery said (emphasis supplied).

**For a complete transcript, click here.

I am terribly disappointed by these words that, if taken literally, imply that we live in a time that my entire race is wrong, having failed "embrace what is right." I realize that many Americans have been judged solely based upon the colour of their skin. Now all Caucasians join those ranks. The deliverer of the benediction for President Obama, the Reverend Joseph Lowery, has asked our president to help this nation "work for that day when ... white will embrace what is right." Omitting the other clauses in his rhyme does not alter the meaning of the words quoted. In fact, they are just as awful.

I have felt judge exclusively by my skin colour before, but never by anyone whose opinions had any weight with me. Now, the man who gave the inaugural benediction has judged all white Americans wrong because they are white. I found that remark to be offensive, and I hope President Obama will condemn this man's bigoted statements publicly.

EDIT: It's odd how the native American population has not raised a ruckus over being referred to as "the red man." I am certain that, if a white person said anything that Rev. Lowery did, then he would be called a racist. As such, this story has become the basis for my new motto: "I am white (racist)." This is apparently the Rev. Lower's way of thinking, at least. I would get a T-shirt printed, but that might qualify as a hate crime?

NEWS: Obama's first day priorities include abortion.

See the report here.

"Among the possibilities for the first day was the naming of a Middle East envoy, critical at a time of renewed hostilities between Israelis and the Palestinians; an order closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a move that will take considerable time to execute and comes on the heels of a suspension of war crimes trials there pending a review; prohibiting - in most cases - the harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists that have damaged the U.S. image around the globe; overturning the so-called Mexico City policy that forbids U.S. funding for family planning programs that offer abortion; and lifting President George W. Bush's limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research" (emphasis supplied).

Well, it is clear that President Obama's priorities do not actually include compromise. To include abortion as a line item in his first day itinerary is a slap in the face to every conservative in the country. Not less than half of the people in this country consider themselves "pro-life." On his first day, our new president intends to offend 50% of the voter base, though I imagine he will try to minimize the attention this maneuver receives. Also, by engaging the abortion issue upfront, he is banking that people will forget about it four years from now. Good tactics, true, but his plan is immoral and evil.

We Christians may have to respect our president (Rom 13:1), but we do not have to refrain from criticizing his choices. I urge everyone to stay informed, because change is coming, but it doesn't appear to be for the better.

ROB: Some interesting context I found at another blog:

Tomorrow morning, President Obama’s first act will be what had also been Bill Clinton’s first act as president, to overturn the Mexico City Policy, thus allowing federal funds to be spent on abortions overseas.

Well, that does not give me much hope. This is interesting:

"President Reagan first put the Mexico City Policy in place and it is named for a population conference that took place in the Mexican capital in 1984 when he introduced it.

President George H.W. Bush continued the pro-life policy, President Clinton overturned it, and President George W. Bush kept it for eight years and threatened to veto any Congressional spending bill reversing it."

So, this policy keeps going back and forth - Republicans come in, they end funding for overseas abortions, Democrats come in, and the “first thing” they do is put the funding back.

It almost seems like the first thing they’re doing is making a token offering to Moloch - to the Culture of Death.

NEWS: Pray for Ted Kennedy.

Read the report here.

Excerpt:

"The Obamas then repaired to the Capitol's Statuary Hall for a traditional luncheon before this afternoon's inaugural parade.

"During the lunch, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) fell ill and was rushed away for treatment. Kennedy, 76, who was diagnosed last year with brain cancer, apparently suffered a violent seizure and was taken to a hospital in an ambulance, officials said."

"Obama paid tribute to Kennedy at the end of the luncheon. 'I would be lying to you if I did not say right now a part of me is with him,' the new president said."

Now, I am a conservative. I do not support Senator Kennedy's ideals. However, I believe he deserves our prayers. There is no such thing as a "good man," and we all fall short in different areas. Please, a Christian is only as good as his/her mercy: pray for Ted Kennedy.

NEWS: Pastor makes inaugural sci-fi blunder...

Read the report here.

"'Bishop T.D. Jakes, a senior pastor from Houston, used Scripture to offer the incoming president four lessons for his administration. "In time of crisis, good men must stand up," Jakes said. "God always sends the best men into the worst times." He also told the worshipers, "This is not a time for politeness or correctness; this is a time for people to confront issues and bring about change. . . . You cannot enjoy the light without enduring the heat.'
Looking directly at Obama, Jakes said, 'The problems are mighty and the solutions are not simple, and everywhere you turn there will be a critic waiting to attack every decision that you make. But you are all fired up, sir, and you are ready to go. And this nation goes with you. God goes with you.'
'I say to you as my son who is here today, my 14-year-old son -- he probably would not quote Scripture. He probably would use Star Trek instead. And so I say, 'May the force be with you.' "

Sigh. All nerds in this country feel betrayed at your lack of sci-fi knowledge sir. Star Trek is, "Live long and prosper." Star Wars is, "May the force be with you."

The nerve.

Clarification...

Regarding the political news posts today, I do want to make it clear that I am giving my respect and prayers to President Obama. Please see Romans 13:1 if you need a reason to join me in praying for our new president. I do not believe that Barack Obama would be president against God's will. That does not mean that he is right on every issue, but as Christians we should support and pray for our leaders.

For those of you who supported the president during the election, please do not be offended by our news posts. I am a self-professed right-winger, and I think Rob would say the same thing. All people are welcome here, however, regardless of their political views. Comments that disagree (politely) with a post on this blog are welcomed.

That said, if I believed in omens, then the news today would not call for optimism. The Obama presidency began with a flubbed oath (regardless of who is to blame), a bigoted benediction, and the most expensive inauguration in history. Fortunately, I put no faith in omens, only in the Lord, who never leaves us nor forsakes us.