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?

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...

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.

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.