Roland S. Martin - The power of any pastor over his or her parishioners is derived from their "calling" to minister the Gospel from God, or as some call it, the anointing by the Holy Spirit. But the role of a pastor -- the Bible speaks to being a shepherd of a flock -- also comes from the belief that it is their moral standing as the earthly representative of God to lead their congregations spiritually.
If you read the writings of Paul in 1 Timothy 3 (New International Version), he offers the following instructions: "Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church)...He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap."
As we witness the salacious and troubling sex allegations leveled this week against Atlanta megachurch pastor Bishop Eddie L. Long, it is clear that many are confused to hear four young men come forward and allege that the man of the cloth, the husband and father, sexually coerced them and used the power of his prophetic position to engage in sex with them.
It is even more shocking considering Long has preached with conviction against homosexuality and gay marriage.
The details outlined in three lawsuits -- a fourth man stepped forward on Friday -- have rocked the Christian community. Bishop Long isn't just a preacher with a storefront church. He oversees a massive 240-acre complex in Lithonia, Georgia, just outside of Atlanta, a congregation of 25,000 members, schools, and an international ministry that is seen on TBN, Daystar, The Word Network and online. He is widely respected as a strong man of God who ministers annually to fellow pastors, men, youth and a mega women's conference.
His influence is tremendous and far reaching, even in the areas of education and politics in Georgia.
With all that said, and I fully understand that he has vigorously denied the allegations, there is no doubt in my mind that for the sake of the church, Long and his family, he needs to remove himself from the pulpit as the leader of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in order for the issue to be resolved to its conclusion.
In an interview with me on Thursday on the Tom Joyner Morning Show, Long's attorney, Craig Gillen, said his client would speak for the first time on Sunday at 11 a.m. and address the issue before his congregation.
While I disagree with waiting five days since the allegations were revealed -- if someone accused me of doing this and I know in my heart I didn't do it, I would be screaming from the top of Georgia's Stone Mountain -- Long first and foremost owes an explanation to his personal family, and then his church family.
If he does indeed stand before the New Birth family, Long should be honest and forthright, not mince words or engage in double talk. And after whatever he says, he should take it upon himself to "sit himself down."
In the Christian church, when a pastor is accused of wrongdoing, going through a divorce or violating the biblical call to be above "reproach," the senior pastor orders them to be "sat down." That means they don't carry out their ministerial duties. The point is to protect the integrity of the Word of God, as well as to allow that pastor to get his or her affairs in order.
As the leader of New Birth, there is no human authority above Long. But he has a heavenly father that he has to answer to, and he must not allow his personal travails to interfere with the good and expansive works of the church. Souls still need to be saved, people still need to be healed, the sick still must be cared for, and the naked clothed.
Yet I also hope that when Long speaks, he does one of two things: If in his mind and heart he has done no wrong, he will launch a vigorous defense of his name and integrity and vow with every fiber in his body to fight the charges, even if that means spending every dime he has and not settle the lawsuits.
But if he is guilty of what is alleged, I pray that Long doesn't stand before his church as its spiritual father and continue the charade of saying "I didn't do it" and tear into his accusers. God, Long and those young men know what took place, and as someone who has listened to many of his sermons and read his books, Long has often talked about the need for Christians, especially men, to be accountable for their actions and confess their sins.
If guilty, and if he truly cares about his enormous flock, he will stand before them and admit to the error of his ways, and not put them through more pain and heartache. He is a charismatic pastor who has always been known to preach an uncompromising Word, unwilling to say what folks want to hear, but instead, what they need to hear.
Bishop Long, your congregation and the world don't want to hear excuses. They don't want ambiguity.
Your motto at New Birth for years has been "Taking Authority." This is the time for you to live that credo out before your flock, no matter what the outcome will be.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
"Obama Team Uses FlimFlammery To Inflate Job Numbers"
Protein Wisdom - Good news: that stimulus money that went to create “green jobs”? It worked!
– That is, if by “green jobs” you mean “jobs that administration officials have decided retroactively to designate as green, regardless of whether or not they have a lick to do with combating ‘global climate disruption.’”
So, win-win.
Which reminds me: after a year of hard work, I finally hit 500lb on the bench press this morning. It took a lot of protein and, frankly, a degree of mental toughness I never knew I had in me.
That, and the strategic decision to go ahead and call 175lbs “500″.
– That is, if by “green jobs” you mean “jobs that administration officials have decided retroactively to designate as green, regardless of whether or not they have a lick to do with combating ‘global climate disruption.’”
So, win-win.
Which reminds me: after a year of hard work, I finally hit 500lb on the bench press this morning. It took a lot of protein and, frankly, a degree of mental toughness I never knew I had in me.
That, and the strategic decision to go ahead and call 175lbs “500″.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Obama's World: State Unemployment Gets Worse In 27 States
The national unemployment rate may have only ticked up slightly in August, but on a state-by-state basis, the jobs picture continues to look a lot more grim in places like Nevada, Michigan and California.
A total of 27 states reported higher unemployment rates in August, nearly double the 14 that saw increases in July, the Labor Department said in its monthly report on state unemployment Tuesday.
While the rate remained at 9.6% for the country as a whole, Nevada, Michigan and California have consistently racked up rates above 12%.
Nevada had the worst rate for the fourth month in a row, at a record high of 14.4%, up from 14.3% in July. Michigan followed with 13.1% unemployment, unchanged from the prior rate, and California was third with a 12.4% rate, an increase from 12.3% in July.
After Kentucky and Georgia joined the list, 13 states had unemployment rates above 10% in August, as opposed to 11 the previous month.
The jobless rates fell in 13 states, as opposed to 18 that saw decreases in July. Ten states and the District of Columbia had no rate change.
North Dakota remained the state with the lowest unemployment, posting a 3.7% rate, followed by South Dakota with 4.5% and Nebraska with 4.6%.
A total of 27 states reported higher unemployment rates in August, nearly double the 14 that saw increases in July, the Labor Department said in its monthly report on state unemployment Tuesday.
While the rate remained at 9.6% for the country as a whole, Nevada, Michigan and California have consistently racked up rates above 12%.
Nevada had the worst rate for the fourth month in a row, at a record high of 14.4%, up from 14.3% in July. Michigan followed with 13.1% unemployment, unchanged from the prior rate, and California was third with a 12.4% rate, an increase from 12.3% in July.
After Kentucky and Georgia joined the list, 13 states had unemployment rates above 10% in August, as opposed to 11 the previous month.
The jobless rates fell in 13 states, as opposed to 18 that saw decreases in July. Ten states and the District of Columbia had no rate change.
North Dakota remained the state with the lowest unemployment, posting a 3.7% rate, followed by South Dakota with 4.5% and Nebraska with 4.6%.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Paladino Within 6 points of the Unbeatable Cuomo In NY
Ed Morrissey - Could the Tea Party wave crash as far into Democratic strongholds as the governor’s mansion in New York? Until now, businessman Carl Paladino has been more of a human-interest story than a threat to Andrew Cuomo in his quest for his father’s old position as Governor. The New York Daily News reports that a new Quinnipiac poll shows that Paladino has transformed from a sideshow to a contender (via Jammie Wearing Fool):
Flame-throwing Republican Carl Paladino is within striking distance of overtaking longtime gubernatorial frontrunner Andrew Cuomo, a shocking new poll finds.
Among likely voters, the Democrat Cuomo has a paltry 49% to 43% lead over Paladino, the blowhard Buffalo businessman who won a shocking and decisive victory last week in the GOP primary, the Quinnipiac University poll finds.
Quinnipiac’s findings are in stark contrast to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Monday that showed Cuomo with a more robust 54% to 38% lead.
Cuomo “might be a victim of his own excess,” Quinnipiac pollster Maurice Carroll said. “Politicians and polls have depicted him so relentlessly as a sure thing that he might be a victim of the ‘throw the bums out’ attitude that hits incumbents in this angry year.”
Paladino famously says that the way to clean up Albany is with a baseball bat and not a broom. He may be hitting a home run with New York voters, whom most analysts had more or less written out of the big conservative wave that appears to be breaking across the US. Cuomo was too impressive a candidate, and Republicans too disorganized and with unknowns on the ballot, to make a dent in the Empire State this year. At least with Quinnipiac, those voters may have other ideas after all.
It’s still an uphill climb. Paladino will need a much bigger split among independents than his current 49/43 lead in order to overcome the Democratic registration advantage. He could help matters by getting the 13% of Republicans who are moving to Cuomo; Paladino gets 8% of Democrats, but he’s not likely to get much more than that. Republican Rick Lazio is still on the ballot in the Conservative Party slot as well, which complicates matters — but since neither Quinnipiac nor Rasmussen polled with Lazio as an option, it’s hard to say how much. The real question for Democrats will be turnout, and whether the likely-voter models used by the two pollsters will accurately predict the enthusiasm building on the Right.
This could have an effect on down-ticket races as well. Until now, New York Republicans and conservatives may have been forgiven for having somewhat less enthusiasm in this election as is seen in other states with less daunting odds. If Republicans get excited about Paladino, they may not quite carry him to victory, but the force of that enthusiasm will reverberate in close Congressional races throughout the state.
Flame-throwing Republican Carl Paladino is within striking distance of overtaking longtime gubernatorial frontrunner Andrew Cuomo, a shocking new poll finds.
Among likely voters, the Democrat Cuomo has a paltry 49% to 43% lead over Paladino, the blowhard Buffalo businessman who won a shocking and decisive victory last week in the GOP primary, the Quinnipiac University poll finds.
Quinnipiac’s findings are in stark contrast to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Monday that showed Cuomo with a more robust 54% to 38% lead.
Cuomo “might be a victim of his own excess,” Quinnipiac pollster Maurice Carroll said. “Politicians and polls have depicted him so relentlessly as a sure thing that he might be a victim of the ‘throw the bums out’ attitude that hits incumbents in this angry year.”
Paladino famously says that the way to clean up Albany is with a baseball bat and not a broom. He may be hitting a home run with New York voters, whom most analysts had more or less written out of the big conservative wave that appears to be breaking across the US. Cuomo was too impressive a candidate, and Republicans too disorganized and with unknowns on the ballot, to make a dent in the Empire State this year. At least with Quinnipiac, those voters may have other ideas after all.
It’s still an uphill climb. Paladino will need a much bigger split among independents than his current 49/43 lead in order to overcome the Democratic registration advantage. He could help matters by getting the 13% of Republicans who are moving to Cuomo; Paladino gets 8% of Democrats, but he’s not likely to get much more than that. Republican Rick Lazio is still on the ballot in the Conservative Party slot as well, which complicates matters — but since neither Quinnipiac nor Rasmussen polled with Lazio as an option, it’s hard to say how much. The real question for Democrats will be turnout, and whether the likely-voter models used by the two pollsters will accurately predict the enthusiasm building on the Right.
This could have an effect on down-ticket races as well. Until now, New York Republicans and conservatives may have been forgiven for having somewhat less enthusiasm in this election as is seen in other states with less daunting odds. If Republicans get excited about Paladino, they may not quite carry him to victory, but the force of that enthusiasm will reverberate in close Congressional races throughout the state.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Congratulations, Barry: Obamacare Means No Insurance For Kids
Patterico - The book that helped me understand economics was “Basic Economics” by Thomas Sowell. One of his main points is that government intervention almost always has unintended consequences. Take rent control, for example. It sounds great (from the standpoint of renters) to have the government control prices so that they will be affordable. Problem is, it’s not so great for the landlords, and due to the law of supply and demand, housing shortages result. What was intended as a boon for renters often turns out to be a burden on people seeking housing.
So what do you think might happen if you sought to make health insurance more widely available for children — by simply mandating that companies with child-only policies make those policies available to children with pre-existing conditions?
You cheated and looked at the headline, didn’t you?
Some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.
Welcome to the Law of Unintended Consequences, Barry.
Well. Unintended, by the chuckleheads who wrote the law? Sure. Unexpected by those of us who warned against such a law? No.
[S]upporters of the new health-care law complain that the change amounts to an end run around one of the most prized consumer protections.
“We’re just days away from a new era when insurance companies must stop denying coverage to kids just because they are sick, and now some of the biggest changed their minds,” Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, an advocacy group, said in a statement. “[It] is immoral, and to blame their appalling behavior on the new law is patently dishonest.”
No, Ethan, what is patently dishonest — or simply stupid, if there must be an alternative — is to ignore the fact that the new law caused this. They were told they couldn’t raise rates. What did you expect them to do? Lose money to comply with your sense of right and wrong?
Remedial economics all around!
It would be laughable if it didn’t exact an actual human toll.
So what do you think might happen if you sought to make health insurance more widely available for children — by simply mandating that companies with child-only policies make those policies available to children with pre-existing conditions?
You cheated and looked at the headline, didn’t you?
Some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.
Welcome to the Law of Unintended Consequences, Barry.
Well. Unintended, by the chuckleheads who wrote the law? Sure. Unexpected by those of us who warned against such a law? No.
[S]upporters of the new health-care law complain that the change amounts to an end run around one of the most prized consumer protections.
“We’re just days away from a new era when insurance companies must stop denying coverage to kids just because they are sick, and now some of the biggest changed their minds,” Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, an advocacy group, said in a statement. “[It] is immoral, and to blame their appalling behavior on the new law is patently dishonest.”
No, Ethan, what is patently dishonest — or simply stupid, if there must be an alternative — is to ignore the fact that the new law caused this. They were told they couldn’t raise rates. What did you expect them to do? Lose money to comply with your sense of right and wrong?
Remedial economics all around!
It would be laughable if it didn’t exact an actual human toll.
Monday, September 20, 2010
52% Of Voters Says Their Views Are More Like Palin's Than Obama's
Ian Lazaran - With the exception of Fox News, nobody in the media will cite this poll because it's Rasmussen. The Democrat Party and the media take a selective approach with Rasmussen. They'll cite him when they like what he shows while ignoring him when they don't like what he shows. They won't cite this Rasmussen poll because they won't like what it shows:
Fifty-two percent (52%) of Likely U.S. Voters say their own views are closer to Sarah Palin’s than they are to President Obama’s, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Just 40% say their views are closer to the president’s than to those of the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate.
Eighty-four percent (84%) of Republicans and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party say their views are more like Palin’s. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats say they think more like the president.
Voters are fairly evenly divided in their views of Palin. Forty-eight percent (48%) view her favorably, while 49% hold an unfavorable opinion of her. This includes 21% with a Very Favorable view and 31% with a Very Unfavorable one. This marks little change from last November when Palin was on a national tour to promote her book, “Going Rogue.”
However, 76% of Republicans and 52% of unaffiliated voters now hold a favorable opinion of Palin....
Palin’s endorsement has been seen as critical in upset Republican Senate Primary wins in Alaska, Delaware and South Carolina, helping to mobilize Tea Party voters in those states and other races this election cycle.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of Republicans think Palin is good for their party, but 60% if Democrats disagree. Unaffiliated voters by a 41% to 36% margin see Palin as good for the GOP.
Among all voters, 40% say Palin is good for Republicans, while 39% say she’s bad for the party. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.
In case you were wondering whether Rasmussen had a pro-Palin bias in the past, the answer to that question is no. The Alaska poll it conducted in October of 2008 found her favorable rating in the state at 63%. The 2008 Alaska exit poll of actual voters found her approval rating at 73%.
In any event, here are the crosstabs:
Whose views are closer to your own? Palin/Obama
Overall: 52/40
Male: 55/37
Female: 48/43
White: 58/35
Black: 5/87
GOP: 84/9
DEM: 14/81
INDY: 59/27
Conservative: 80/12
Moderate: 28/61
Liberal: 14/85
Update by Doug: (h/t RefudiateObama2012) Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen, co-authors of the recently released Mad as Hell, sat down for an interview with Jamie Weinstein of the The Daily Caller. One of the questions asked was who they thought would be the most formidable Republican candidate to challenge Obama in 2012:
6. Who do you think would be the best Republican candidate to challenge Obama in 2012?
I do not know now who the best candidate to challenge President Obama is. I can tell you that just based on this year’s primary season, the strongest candidate in the Republican primaries will almost certainly be Sarah Palin.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of Likely U.S. Voters say their own views are closer to Sarah Palin’s than they are to President Obama’s, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Just 40% say their views are closer to the president’s than to those of the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate.
Eighty-four percent (84%) of Republicans and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party say their views are more like Palin’s. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats say they think more like the president.
Voters are fairly evenly divided in their views of Palin. Forty-eight percent (48%) view her favorably, while 49% hold an unfavorable opinion of her. This includes 21% with a Very Favorable view and 31% with a Very Unfavorable one. This marks little change from last November when Palin was on a national tour to promote her book, “Going Rogue.”
However, 76% of Republicans and 52% of unaffiliated voters now hold a favorable opinion of Palin....
Palin’s endorsement has been seen as critical in upset Republican Senate Primary wins in Alaska, Delaware and South Carolina, helping to mobilize Tea Party voters in those states and other races this election cycle.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of Republicans think Palin is good for their party, but 60% if Democrats disagree. Unaffiliated voters by a 41% to 36% margin see Palin as good for the GOP.
Among all voters, 40% say Palin is good for Republicans, while 39% say she’s bad for the party. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.
In case you were wondering whether Rasmussen had a pro-Palin bias in the past, the answer to that question is no. The Alaska poll it conducted in October of 2008 found her favorable rating in the state at 63%. The 2008 Alaska exit poll of actual voters found her approval rating at 73%.
In any event, here are the crosstabs:
Whose views are closer to your own? Palin/Obama
Overall: 52/40
Male: 55/37
Female: 48/43
White: 58/35
Black: 5/87
GOP: 84/9
DEM: 14/81
INDY: 59/27
Conservative: 80/12
Moderate: 28/61
Liberal: 14/85
Update by Doug: (h/t RefudiateObama2012) Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen, co-authors of the recently released Mad as Hell, sat down for an interview with Jamie Weinstein of the The Daily Caller. One of the questions asked was who they thought would be the most formidable Republican candidate to challenge Obama in 2012:
6. Who do you think would be the best Republican candidate to challenge Obama in 2012?
I do not know now who the best candidate to challenge President Obama is. I can tell you that just based on this year’s primary season, the strongest candidate in the Republican primaries will almost certainly be Sarah Palin.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Christine O' Donnell's Sunday Cancellations Could Be A Palin Inspired Move
Riehl World View - Sarah Palin made an interesting comment in her recent Iowa speech. It leaves me wondering if she's had more than a brief congratulatory phone call with Christine O'Donnell. We all know how Palin's early national television exposure turned out.
Palin gave no hint of her plans beyond this fall. Asked after her speech when she planned on returning to Iowa, which holds the nation's first presidential caucus in 2012, she said soon. She quickly added, however, that she wants to get to Delaware very soon and start knocking on doors.
Without knowing more, or what's really in Christine O'Donnell's mind, or behind her fall strategy, it's possible to see a scenario in which O'Donnell's cancellation of two Sunday news shows was actually the right and a smart political move.
WASHINGTON – Tea party favorite Christine O'Donnell, whose Republican primary upset in Delaware's Senate race shocked the GOP, canceled appearances Sunday on two national news shows. O'Donnell had been set to appear on "Face the Nation" on CBS and "Fox News Sunday."
Christine O'Donnell has raised well over 1 million dollars since her primary win over Mike Castle. Her current stated goal on her website is 2 million dollars. Her opponent, Leftist Chris Coons, has been reported to have raised about $125 k. Exposure on the Sunday talk show circuit is good exposure for raising money nationally. O'Donnell already has that. She's not running for Vice President, as Palin was, and the people she needs to convince she'd make a good Senator all live in one small state, Delaware.
For her to win, her race has to focus on Leftist Chris Coons and Obama's Leftist policies that have not been working, while leaving a majority of the country dissatisfied with both Obama and the Democrats.
Given that Bill Maher is already doing his own personal and rather hypocritical oppo research dump on her, using his own show's decade old archives to do it, it's unlikely that the Sunday shows were going to want to focus on the topcis that work to O'Donnell's advantage.
While understanding how critics might justifiably point to the cancenllations as bad news, or a bad move for O'Donnell, when one stops to look at the overall dynamics, it's also possible to see a scenario in which they represent a very smart move. We're going to have to wait and see what happens next to actually know which scenario proves true in the end.
Palin gave no hint of her plans beyond this fall. Asked after her speech when she planned on returning to Iowa, which holds the nation's first presidential caucus in 2012, she said soon. She quickly added, however, that she wants to get to Delaware very soon and start knocking on doors.
Without knowing more, or what's really in Christine O'Donnell's mind, or behind her fall strategy, it's possible to see a scenario in which O'Donnell's cancellation of two Sunday news shows was actually the right and a smart political move.
WASHINGTON – Tea party favorite Christine O'Donnell, whose Republican primary upset in Delaware's Senate race shocked the GOP, canceled appearances Sunday on two national news shows. O'Donnell had been set to appear on "Face the Nation" on CBS and "Fox News Sunday."
Christine O'Donnell has raised well over 1 million dollars since her primary win over Mike Castle. Her current stated goal on her website is 2 million dollars. Her opponent, Leftist Chris Coons, has been reported to have raised about $125 k. Exposure on the Sunday talk show circuit is good exposure for raising money nationally. O'Donnell already has that. She's not running for Vice President, as Palin was, and the people she needs to convince she'd make a good Senator all live in one small state, Delaware.
For her to win, her race has to focus on Leftist Chris Coons and Obama's Leftist policies that have not been working, while leaving a majority of the country dissatisfied with both Obama and the Democrats.
Given that Bill Maher is already doing his own personal and rather hypocritical oppo research dump on her, using his own show's decade old archives to do it, it's unlikely that the Sunday shows were going to want to focus on the topcis that work to O'Donnell's advantage.
While understanding how critics might justifiably point to the cancenllations as bad news, or a bad move for O'Donnell, when one stops to look at the overall dynamics, it's also possible to see a scenario in which they represent a very smart move. We're going to have to wait and see what happens next to actually know which scenario proves true in the end.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)