Welcome to the board BuckeyeMike!

You'll have to tell us more about the Creation Museum as I haven't been there yet. I'm jealous :)

Welcome to the board GamblerNC!

Unfortunately there is a lot of truth to that post. We really are spoiled. We all have to have a bigger house than we need and new(er)cars than we really need and we go out to eat more than we need and so on and so on. We have everything we need in this country and so many still don't see it. We truly are blessed!

We still have to reach out to the lost but we have to be careful that we ourselves don't get ensnared into that which we are witnessing against. I was trying to find that verse talking about that but I ran out of time this morning.

We also need to put on the whole armor of God to survive all the attacks by the evil one. Ephesians 6:10-20

Have a great day!

God Bless!

Where do our Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates stand on abortion? Do we have to ask?

http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/comparison090908bw.pdf

The Big Bang
God’s Chosen Method of Creation?
by Dr. Jason Lisle
November 20, 2007


How did this universe come into existence? Was it designed by God, and if so, how did He do it? Did God use “natural” methods to create the universe, or did He create everything supernaturally? These questions are central to our understanding of the purpose of the universe and our significance within it. Fortunately, there are answers.

What Does the Bible Say. . .

The Record of the Creator
The Creator Himself has given a written record that summarizes His creative acts. Sadly, many people are inclined to ignore what God has said. Instead, they rely on secular philosophy to explain what happened in the past, and it contradicts recorded history and eyewitness testimony.

Can you imagine people applying such thinking to other fields of study? What if historians rejected recorded history and claimed that World War I never happened because their philosophy does not allow for the possibility of a world war? Would this be reasonable?

These days it is common for people to reject the possibility of a supernatural, biblical creation simply because they embrace the philosophy of naturalism— the belief that “nature is all that there is.”
The Big Bang Is Based on Naturalism

Since the philosophy of naturalism does not allow for anything beyond nature, a naturalist would insist that the universe was created by the kinds of processes currently operating within it. The big bang is based on this critical assumption; that is, the big bang model attempts to describe the formation of the entire universe by processes currently operating within the universe. Stars, planets, and galaxies are all said to have formed “naturalistically”—by the laws of nature currently in operation today.
Fast Facts

* Ironically, the one thing the big bang does not explain is the origin of the universe. It is only a story about what supposedly happened afterwards.
* The cosmic microwave background is much more uniform than was predicted by the big bang model.
* In the past decade, astronomers have discovered hundreds of planets orbiting other stars. They are large Jupiter-sized planets orbiting very close to their star—the opposite of what was predicted by secular models.

Is it rational or necessary to assume that the universe was created in the same way it operates? Not at all. We can see the absurdity of such thinking by applying it to other objects. A flashlight, for example, operates by converting electrical energy into light; would it be rational to assume that the flashlight was created by the conversion of electrical energy into light? No, it was created by an entirely different process. Most things are.

Logically, we can’t necessarily conclude that the universe was created by the kinds of processes operating within it. Naturalism is an assumption— nothing more.

Claims that God used naturalistic processes deny what the Creator Himself has said about the creation of the universe.

Nonetheless, some professing Christians accept the claim that God used naturalistic processes, including the big bang, to create the universe. They might agree with atheistic astronomers that the stars and planets formed by slow natural processes over billions of years—with only one exception, that God’s hand directed these processes. Unfortunately, such views deny what the Creator Himself has said about the creation of the universe, as we will explore in the rest of this article.
The Bible Teaches Supernatural Creation

The book of Genesis says that God gave human beings dominion over the earth. He said we are to be stewards of His creation. Today, God sustains the universe in a logical, orderly way so that we can understand and influence it as we fulfill our God-given “dominion mandate.”

In many cases, we can write equations to describe the consistent predictable behavior of the universe. These equations, or “laws of nature,” are descriptions of the way God upholds the universe in the present. However, these laws of nature cannot describe how God created the universe. Like the flashlight, the universe was not created by the same processes that operate within it today.

God makes clear in Genesis 2:2 that He changed His mode of operation by the seventh day, when He ended His work of creation. So God is no longer acting today in the same way He was during the Creation Week. He is no longer speaking new animals, plants, and stars into existence. Creation was a supernatural event, which cannot be described by today’s laws of nature.
So naturalism (the underlying philosophy of the big bang) cannot be harmonized with Genesis. The big bang is diametrically opposed to the supernatural creation described in the Bible. Furthermore, there are many other differences between the big bang and the biblical account of origins. For example,

1. The Bible tells us that God created heaven, earth, and everything within them in the span of six days (Exodus 20:11) and rested on the seventh day. This is the basis for our work week (Exodus 20:8). In contrast, the big bang model claims that the universe and earth formed over billions of years.
2. Genesis tells us that God created the stars on the fourth day—three days after the earth was created. In contrast, the big bang model claims that stars existed billions of years before the earth.
3. The Bible tells us that the earth was made from water (2 Peter 3:5; Genesis 1:2–9; Psalm 24:2), but the standard secular model teaches that the earth began as a molten blob.

A Story about the Past and the Future

The big bang model is really a story about the alleged past. But few people realize that it is also a story about the alleged future.

The big bang model (in the most-accepted variation) claims that our universe will expand forever. At some point, all usable energy will be converted to a useless form, and life will no longer be possible. It’s a bleak outlook and one that is vastly different from the Bible’s description of the future. Scripture teaches that there will be a resurrection, judgment, and then a restoration of paradise. Clearly, the Bible is not compatible with the big bang.
What Does Science Say . . .
What about the Scientific Evidence?

Most people don’t realize that the big bang is not only bad theology but also bad science. Is the big bang the same kind of science that put men on the moon or allows your computer to function? Not at all. The big bang isn’t testable, repeatable laboratory science. It doesn’t make specific predictions that are confirmed by observation and experimentation. In fact, the big bang is at odds with a number of principles of real operational science. Let’s explore some of these.
Missing Monopoles

Most people know something about magnets, like the kind found in a compass. These magnets have two “poles”—a north pole and a south pole. Poles that are alike repel each other, and opposites attract. A “monopole” is a hypothetical massive particle that is just like a magnet but with only one pole. So a monopole would have either a “north” pole or a “south” pole, but not both. Particle physicists claim that the high temperature conditions of the big bang should have created magnetic monopoles. Since monopoles are predicted to be stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable searching, monopoles have not been found. Where are the monopoles?

The fact that we don’t find any monopoles strongly suggests that the universe never was that hot. This indicates that there never was a big bang. But the lack of monopoles is perfectly consistent with the Bible’s account of creation because the universe did not start at extremely high temperatures.
Where Is the Antimatter?

Another challenge to the big bang is the “baryon number problem.” The big bang supposes that matter (hydrogen and helium gas) was created from energy as the universe expanded. However, experimental physics tells us that whenever matter is created from energy, such a reaction also produces antimatter.




Antimatter has similar properties to matter, except the charges of the particles are reversed. (So, whereas a proton has a positive charge, an antiproton has a negative charge). In any reaction where energy is transformed into matter, it produces an exactly equal amount of antimatter; there are no known exceptions.

The big bang (which has no matter to begin with—only energy) should have produced precisely equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Thus, if the big bang were true, there should be an exactly equal amount of matter and antimatter in the universe today. But there is not. The visible universe is comprised almost entirely of matter—with only trace amounts of antimatter.

This devastating problem for the big bang actually is a powerful confirmation of biblical creation; it is a design feature. God created the universe to be essentially matter only—and it’s a good thing He did. When matter and antimatter come together, they violently destroy each other. If the universe had equal amounts of matter and antimatter (as the big bang requires), life would not be possible.
Missing Population III Stars

The big bang model by itself can account for the existence of only the three lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium). This leaves nearly 90 of the other naturally occurring elements to be explained. Since the conditions in the supposed big bang are not right to form these heavier elements (as big bang supporters readily concede), secular astronomers believe that stars have produced the remaining elements by nuclear fusion in their cores. This is thought to occur in the final stages of massive stars, as the stars explode (supernovae). These explosions then distribute the heavier elements into space. Second- and third-generation stars are thus “contaminated” with small amounts of these heavier elements.

If this story were true, then the first stars would be comprised of only the three lightest elements (since these would have been the only elements in existence initially). Some such stars1 should still be around today since their lifespans are computed to exceed the time that has elapsed since the big bang. Such stars would be called “population III” stars.2 Amazingly (to those who believe in the big bang), population III stars have not been found anywhere. All known stars have at least trace amounts of heavy elements in them. It is amazing to think that our galaxy alone is estimated to have over 100 billion stars in it. Yet not one star has been discovered that is comprised of only the three lightest elements.



Conclusion
The big bang is not compatible with the Bible and is not good science. There simply isn’t any good reason to believe in the big bang. It is not compatible with the Bible, and it’s not good science. In the limited space of this article we have sampled just a few of the scientific difficulties with the big bang. Although secular astronomers have proposed potential solutions to such problems, I would suggest that such problems are symptomatic of the underlying incorrect worldview. The big bang erroneously assumes that the universe was not supernaturally created but that it came about by natural processes. However, reality does not comport with this notion. Science confirms the message of the Bible: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.”
Footnotes

1. Small stars (red main sequence) do not use up their fuel quickly. These stars theoretically have enough fuel to last significantly longer than the age of the universe, as estimated by big bang assumptions. Back
2. If a star has a very small amount of heavy elements, it is called a “population II” star. Population II stars exist primarily in the central bulge and halo of spiral galaxies, in globular star clusters, and in elliptical galaxies. If a star has a relatively large amount of heavy elements (like the sun), it is called “population I.” These stars exist primarily in the arms of spiral galaxies. The hypothetical pop III star would have no heavy elements at all.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/big-bang-gods-chosen-method

Feedback: What Do Christians Have to Say about Homosexual Behavior?
by Frost Smith, AiG–U.S.
September 12, 2008

Question:
Does God actually create GAY and LESBIAN since they were first born? will they be saved and go to eternity? because most of them say that they don't want to be like that, but they just couldn't deny it that they like the same gender.

—E.

Answer:
There are currently a lot of misconceptions about Christianity and homosexual behavior. The recent selection of Governor of Alaska, USA, Sarah Palin as Republican vice-presidential candidate (August 29, 2008) has put her beliefs, her church, and her pastor under much scrutiny, including on this topic. Common arguments against Christians having anything to say on this topic include: “People are born that way,” “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (a Bible quote, by the way, from Matthew 7:1), and any anti-homosexual comment is perceived as “hate speech.”

It is true that sometimes this topic is cherry-picked to be discussed regarding what is sinful, when, in all fairness, Christians should be equally vocal about any other sexual sin. A Christian’s stance really should be that any sex outside marriage is sin. There’s no reason to pick out any one in particular. And non-Christians see the hypocrisy when premarital sex and/or extramarital sex are practiced or winked at by Christians in comparison. This is certainly not pleasing to God (1 Corinthians 5) and has likely caused more and more sexual behavior (including everything from immodesty, pornography, unwed pregnancy, and abortion) to become more acceptable in society and, sadly, even within the Church.

Regarding the questions presented in this feedback, this article will answer them more generally than directly. Sexuality is a decision to engage in activities that humans do have a healthy, natural predisposition for, but God has put on a limit due to the sinful perversion of these originally perfect “inclinations” after the Fall. Simply put, God has indicated in His prescription for a healthy and rewarding life that we abstain from sex outside of a God-defined marriage (Leviticus 18; Deuteronomy 22; Ephesians 5; 1 Corinthians 7). Period.

While there are several specific places in Scripture that deal with homosexual behavior in particular in both Old and New Testament (some listed above), they are not necessary to further classify it as prohibited. It really boils down to one either abstains or marries and has a blessed union (Proverbs 5; Hebrews 13:4), or one chooses to disobey and defile his or her body.

Discussing inclination is a distraction tactic and is really beside the point: acting on the inclination physically or mentally outside of marriage is sin (Matthew 5:28). And while Christ’s blood is powerful enough to cover any sin, the Bible warns against willful sinning (Romans 6).
What’s it for, anyway, if we can’t just do what we want?

Sex was not only created by God for our pleasure (yes, God does bless us with this among many other pleasures), but also for a special revelation about Himself in the context of oneness in marriage (more details about this below). That is at least one reason why God jealously guards what is and what is not appropriate use of our bodies. And as our Creator, He knows what is best for us—He can set the rules. He owns us (1 Corinthians 6:19). That’s not what many people want to hear, and that’s the main reason people object to the Christian view that homosexual behavior is wrong. They, as we all, want to be owner and decision-maker for themselves, not realizing that their own sinful inclinations will lead to their ruin (Proverbs 7; Proverbs 13:15). God’s loving plan is much better, whether we claim Him as our Lord and Savior or not. Christians should understand this and happily comply with God’s written plan for our lives, knowing that He knows best as our Creator, that He always does what is right, and that He will work all things to our own good (Genesis 18:25; Romans 8:28).

Conversely, one need not look very far to see the damage and horror caused by using the gifts of sex and our and others’ bodies flippantly and disrespectfully. And when a Christian points out sin to another individual, it should indeed be done with the mindset of “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” A Christian approaching someone engaged in any sin should have the humble acknowledgement of their own sinful inclinations in mind, yet desire to let the individual know of the blessed aid of Christ’s power to overcome any sin and Christ’s ability to free us from sin and death’s bondage forever. Pointing out sin to point others to the cure is our duty. Pointing out sin to humiliate or to make ourselves look better is the type of judging that is sinful and has no place in the Christian life.
What’s so special about marriage? What about homosexual marriage?

God is love, and since He is, He has revealed Himself and His love to us in ways that we can understand. His dealings with us are often described as familial (e.g., He is our Father; Jesus is referred to as the “Son of God”). These terms are not wholly adequate, of course, to fully explain the perfect relationship that they point to. But did you know that Christ is also referred to as the Husband of the Church (the Bride)? Laying out the relationship and rules for the proper behavior of husbands and wives in Ephesians 5, including the ultimate exemplary display of Christ’s love (as the husband) giving himself (even his very life) for His wife, the Church. Song of Solomon also is a poetic example of a loving and happy marriage intended as a parallel of sorts with the marriage of Christ and His Church.

Combine this with the account of the first marriage in the Garden of Eden. The Almighty Creator God saw what Adam needed, and it wasn’t another man—and Eden was still perfect after the union of man and wife. There’s no room for homosexual marriage in the Bible. Whatever humans may call “marriage” does not mean that God will see it as such. Homosexuals may claim the rights of marriage, but they can never claim the God-ordained meaning of marriage. While we cannot force people to accept the biblical point of view and some will continue to live in sin, it is still our responsibility to show that while human definitions change, God’s standard does not.
What’s the bottom line?

Christians should be dogmatic about any sex outside marriage, not just homosexuality, because God is. Any sex outside marriage defiles the body of the committers and is prohibited by God according to His Word (1 Corinthians 6:18–20); therefore, if any want to argue about God’s rules for our bodies, they really need to be referred to the Source: God the Creator and His Word—not to Christians who try to simply believe, obey, and declare what He has written. It really is only our business as Christians to point others to the Word, not to judge for selfish motivation or involve ourselves in endless debate (Titus 3).

Further, if we present arguments against homosexuality or homosexual marriage as merely our “Christian” opinion, we have knocked our own legs out from under us. Our opinion about what is right and wrong ultimately doesn’t matter. In 20 years, culture will have changed, and we may find that things once considered taboo are now acceptable, even within the church. So, what does matter? God does not change, and neither does His Word. Let’s talk less about what we think and then read and share God’s Word for guidance in this and every matter of life.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/09/12/feedback-homosexual-behavior

Welcome NYBob! Let's make this a great place to share our faith...learn and grow!

Welcome Briboy! Make yourself at home!

Study: Media Covered Up Rev. Wright's Extremism

Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:58 PM

By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size

The three major network news outlets “censored and manipulated” Barack Obama’s longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright’s sound bites to cover up his extremism, a new study by the Media Research Center charges.

In a report scheduled for release Wednesday, the MRC states: “Rev. Wright’s noxious recorded sermons suggesting that America deserved 9/11 and that the federal government created AIDS as a tool of black genocide were widely viewed on YouTube and discussed on talk radio and cable TV. But what about the network news shows, the programs most watched by the least politically involved viewers?...

“A Media Research Center study of ABC, CBS, and NBC news broadcasts from the formal announcement of the Obama campaign on February 10, 2007 through July 15 reveals that a viewer watching only broadcast TV news would have received a much more limited (and even censored) version of Wright’s sermons.”

Among the key findings of the study:

# A Fox News Channel report on March 1, 2007, delved into the “black value system” of Rev. Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. But the name of Rev. Wright did not surface on the Big Three networks until a year later, on CBS on Feb. 28, 2008.

# The first story with excerpts from a Wright sermon did not air until two weeks later, on ABC on March 13. By that time, 42 states had already voted in the primaries.

# Snippets of Wright’s sermons drew only 72 seconds of evening news coverage in all of March, an average of 24 seconds per network.

# None of the Big Three aired any of Wright’s 2003 sermon accusing the federal government of hiding the truth about their “inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color,” and all three “mostly ignored” his remarks calling the 9/11 attacks “America’s chickens coming home to roost.”

# On March 18, the evening news shows carried nearly six minutes of highlights from Obama’s “race speech” that day, in which he discussed race in America and defended his relationship with Wright, saying: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother.” That was about five times the air time they devoted to Wright sound bites in the entire month of March.

# Wright’s April 28 comments at the National Press Club reiterating his claims about an AIDS conspiracy and America deserving 9/11 went virtually unreported, with the AIDS comments receiving no air time and the 9/11 charge just 23 seconds. The same Big Three aired nearly six minutes of clips of Wright’s “softball interview” with Bill Moyers on PBS, the MRC disclosed.

The report concludes: “In today’s rapid-fire political atmosphere of cable news, talk radio, and the Internet, media analysts can easily make the mistake of believing that the leading network news outlets were tough on a candidate because of the general perception of how the entire media — Old Media and New Media — brought a controversy to the public’s attention.

“But voters who sampled only a light menu of news from Big Three network TV could easily have missed the depths of Reverend Wright’s outrageous remarks. No one could find in these stories a scouring scrutiny of Obama’s decades of membership in his controversial church.”

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_coverup_wright/2008/08/12/121354.html

Just a small sampling of the type of guy Obama is. Check out the excellent NRA ad.

Obama Wants NRA Ads Banned

Saturday, September 27, 2008 8:10 PM

By: Newsmax staff

The Obama camp has been threatening television and radio stations to keep them from airing anti-Obama ads.

The latest target is the NRA and stations in Pennsylvania.

Earlier this week, the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama's longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama's real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.

They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF's ads.

The Obama camp is particularly angry with an NRA ad entitled "Hunter" which lays out Obama's record on gun control.

Other NRA ads include "Way of Life" and another focusing on Joe Biden's record, "Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama."

This week, Obama's campaign general counsel Bob Barr wrote to stations in Pennsylvania seeking to censor the ads.

"Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a 'right to command the use of broadcast facilities,'" Bauer writes. "Moreover, you have a duty 'to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.'"

"This advertising is false, misleading, and deceptive," Bauer continued. "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising."

The NRA says Obama's camp are sending out these "intimidating cease and desist letters" to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads.

The NRA charged that "Obama and the DNC have been using strong-arm tactics reminiscent of Chicago machine politics to try and cover up the truth and silence NRA by forcing the stations to assist them in hiding Obama's radical anti-gun record."

And now, Obama and the DNC have opened a new front in their assault on your First Amendment rights by calling on their followers to contact these station managers to demand that the stations not run NRA-PVF's ads.

NRA stands behind the accuracy of these ads, and NRA attorneys have responded to the Obama campaign's despicable and abusive attempt to trample on the First Amendment by sending a thorough rebuttal to station managers. This rebuttal clearly and conclusively refutes the Obama campaign's fallacious claims that the ads are inaccurate.

The NRA has set up a web site detailing its position on Obama at www.gunbanobama.com.

A copy of the NRA's letter to station, written by its counsel Cleta Mitchell, follows below:

MEMORANDUM

CLIENT-MATTER NUMBER

999100-0130

TO: Station Managers

FROM: Cleta Mitchell, Esq.

Counsel to National Rifle Association

DATE: September 25, 2008

RE: Documentation for Advertising by National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF")

This firm serves as counsel to the National Rifle Association (“NRA”) and the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF"), which is the federal political action committee of the NRA and the sponsor of certain advertising purchased and soon-to-be purchased on your station. It has come to my clients’ attention that the Obama for President campaign is engaging in an effort to prevent or stop the airing of certain ads by NRA-PVF, falsely alleging that the ads are ‘inaccurate’. The Obama presidential campaign apparently relies on an article appearing in the Washington Post on September 23, 2008 to support its contention hat the NRA-PVF ads should not be aired.

The Washington Post is hardly an objective news source on any subject related to the issues to which the NRA is dedicated, having spent decades attacking not only the NRA but also fighting against the legislation and policies NRA supports to protect the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as supporting every conceivable government proposal or policy any officeholder or candidate suggests to weaken and disrupt the guarantees of the Second Amendment. It is therefore no surprise that the Washington Post would now attack the NRA for advertisements which truthfully disclose the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment record of Barack Obama, the candidate supported by the Washington Post.

Attached please find the point-by-point refutation of the Washington Post’s article about the NRA-PVF ads regarding Obama’s record on the Second Amendment, as well as an article disclosing the bias of the decidedly not neutral “FactChecker” on which the Washington Post article is ostensibly based.

The NRA devotes 100% of its time and resources to protecting the Second Amendment and fighting for government policies and legislation furtherance of the rights of the American people to keep and bear arms.

The legislative and policy record of candidates and officeholders such as Barack Obama are well known and documented by the NRA on an ongoing basis. NRA-PVF’s advertising during the 2008 election cycle is based on that extensive research and documentation, which is being furnished to you with this Memorandum.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that your station disregard the shamefully false assertions from the Obama campaign and its attorneys regarding the NRA-PVF ads and that the ads run in accordance with the purchase(s) made by NRA-PVF in the media buy.

http://www.newsmax.com/politics/Obama_Wants_NRA_Ads_Banne/2008/09/27/135118.html

An awesome Classical Education school
http://www.logosschool.com/

Links on Classical Education Colleges and other helpful links
http://www.logosschool.com/links/default.asp

A preliminary article on The Flood and why it caused most of the erosion we see today. Can you imagine the chaos when the Earth was covered by water and then likely tectonic plate shifting...volcanoes and upheaval from below causing mountains to grow and huge flooding to occur as the water ran off and eventually the ground was visible again. Future articles I post will talk about different forms of dating that the secular society is using for dating rocks and what assumptions must be made.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/key-age-of-earth

An excellent article on Noah's Ark and what it might have looked like. Fascinating!!!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/thinking-outside-the-box

An excellent article on stem cell research. We of course support adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood which don't kill the unborn.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/stem-cells

Welcome to The Christian Conservative! Please review the board rules before posting. Thanks!

Same thoughts exactly. It never fails...

Oil prices fall on profit-taking after huge rally
Tuesday September 23, 12:39 pm ET
By Stevenson Jacobs, AP Business Writer
Oil prices down below $107 as investors take profits after previous day's huge rally

NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil prices swung lower Tuesday, falling below $107 a barrel as traders cashed in profits a day after crude rocketed to its biggest one-day gain ever -- an epic rally apparently triggered in part by a technical fluke.

It was crude's first down session in five days. A slightly stronger dollar also weighed on prices as investors who had bought the commodity as a hedge against inflation sold their contracts; the dollar took a steep dive Monday, helping to fuel oil's 16 percent rise that day.

Still, oil market watchers say crude is showing early signs that it may be poised for another big climb. They say tightening global supplies, weakness in the dollar and nervousness about the U.S. government's $700 billion financial rescue plan could soon prompt edgy investors to shift funds out of equities and send a burst of capital back into safe-haven commodities like oil -- potentially pushing prices back toward record levels and causing consumers more pain at the pump.

Oil prices are up about $15 in the past week, momentarily halting a precipitous two-month slide from the all-time high of $147.27 a barrel reached July 11.

"We could be back on the road toward $150 a barrel," said Stephen Schork, an analyst and oil trader in Villanova, Pa. "If we can't get any stability in the dollar and there's further weakening in the economy, my fear is that it's deja vu all over again. We're going to see a lot of money piled back into commodities as an inflation hedge."

Tuesday's trading, however, was driven by investors seeking profits after previous day's run-up and the stronger greenback.

Light, sweet crude for November delivery fell $2.73 to $106.64 in midday trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract jumped $6.62 to settle at $109.37 on Monday.

The October contract, which expired Monday, surged as much as $25.45 to $130 a barrel before falling back to settle at $120.92, up $16.37 -- the biggest one-day gain ever.

Oil traders said the hyperbolic move was likely the result of an unusually severe "short squeeze," a trading occurrence that happens when investors who bet that oil prices would fall rush to cover positions before the contract's expiration. Failure to do so would require them to take delivery of the physical crude; traders almost always cover their positions rather than take delivery, even if doing so means absorbing huge losses.

Speculation grew Tuesday that a big purchase of physical crude may have forced the short-selling rally. Analyst said it appears that a major energy firm faced with crude shortages after the passage of Hurricanes Ike and Gustav was forced to step in at the last minute and secure supplies before it ran out. That would have sharply limited the number of Nymex oil contracts available for short-sellers to buy, a sudden injection of scarcity that may have helped drive prices skyward.

"I think one of the majors went off long contracts because they needed the barrels. So all of the sudden there weren't as many players available to sell," Schork said.

Still, the extent of the rise stunned veteran oil market watchers and prompted the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to open an investigation into possible illegal manipulation.

Crude's climb over the past week comes amid greater uncertainty about the economy and a gradual shrinkage in global oil output. OPEC's decision earlier this month to cut production by 520,000 barrels a day and output shutdowns and damage to oil installations on the Gulf of Mexico coast caused by Ike and Gustav helped spark the jump in oil prices from $90 a barrel last week.

Because of the supply squeeze, oil pricing appears to have entered a trend known as "backwardization," analysts say, a trend whereby front-month oil contracts, or oil available for purchase in the near term, is being sold for more than contracts several months out, suggesting the market is reacting a coming supply crunch.

"The market is telling you that it's fearful about futures supplies, so it's starting to place a premium on current oil prices," Schork said.

A resurgence in crude prices would eventually lead to higher pump prices, which have steadily fallen since jumping to a record national average of $4.114 a gallon on July 17. A gallon of regular shed about a penny overnight to a new national average of $3.726, according to auto club AAA.

In other Nymex trading, heating oil futures fell 5.82 cents to $3.0052 a gallon, while gasoline prices dropped 11.94 cents to $2.5844 a gallon. Natural gas futures rose 20 cents to $8.143 per 1,000 cubic feet.

In London, November Brent crude fell $2.04 to $104 a barrel on the ICE Futures exchange.

Associated Press writer Alex Kennedy in Singapore and Louise Watt in London contributed to this report.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080923/oil_prices.html

Thankfully we still have some conservative republicans that believe in what this country was founded on. I have no doubt this ridiculous $700B socialistic bailout is going to happen but it's sad. The democrats what to add even more to this package. How about personal and corporate responsibility. We can't keep bailing out every homeowner or business that goes bankrupt because of poor choices and stupidity.

WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke bluntly warned reluctant lawmakers Tuesday they risk a recession with higher unemployment and increased home foreclosures if they fail to pass the Bush administration's $700 billion plan to bail out the financial industry.

Bernanke sketched a scenario in which neither businesses nor consumers could borrow money as President Bush and top lawmakers leaders in both parties voiced hope for agreement within days on a plan to ease the crisis.

"Nobody is happy" about the bailout request, said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., although he spoke of possible passage of legislation by the weekend.

"Nobody wants to have to do this," agreed Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader. He said he was hopeful of a quick agreement, despite withering criticism from conservative GOP lawmakers, some of whom likened the plan to socialism.

With the stock market headed lower in early afternoon, the stakes were unmistakable. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Congress must pass the legislation this week.

"I understand speed is important, but I'm far more interested in whether or not we get this right," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., presiding over a a hearing by the Senate Banking Committee banking panel where Bernanke joined Paulson in appealing for quick legislation.

"There is no second act to this. There is no alternative idea out there with resources available if this does not work," he added.

Bernanke's remarks about the risk of recession came in response to a question from Dodd, who seemed eager to hear a strong rationale for lawmakers to act swiftly on the administration's unprecedented request.

"The financial markets are in quite fragile condition and I think absent a plan they will get worse," Bernanke said.

Ominously, he added, "I believe if the credit markets are not functioning, that jobs will be lost, that our credit rate will rise, more houses will be foreclosed upon, GDP will contract, that the economy will just not be able to recover in a normal, healthy way."

GDP is a measure of growth, and a decline correlates with a recession.

Across the Capitol complex, Vice President Dick Cheney and Jim Nussle, the administration's budget director, met privately with restive House Republicans, some of whom emerged from the session unpersuaded.

"Just because God created the world in seven days doesn't mean we have to pass this bill in seven days," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.

Added Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., "I am emphatically against it."

Dodd and other key Democrats have been in private negotiations with the administration since the weekend on legislation designed to allow the government to buy bad debts held by banks and other financial institutions.

Despite expressions of unhappiness in both parties, the prospects for legislation seemed strong, with lawmakers eager to adjourn this week or next for the elections. The legislation that the administration is promoting would allow the government to buy bad mortgages and other troubled assets held by endangered banks and financial institutions. Getting those debts off their books should bolster their balance sheets, making them more inclined to lend and easing one of the biggest choke points in the credit crisis. If the plan works, it should help lift a major weight off the sputtering economy.

Differences remained, though, including a demand from many Democrats and some Republicans to strip executives at failing financial firms of lucrative "golden parachutes" on their way out the door.

The administration balked at another key Democratic demand: allowing judges to rewrite bankrupt homeowners' mortgages so they could avoid foreclosure.

Paulson, seated next to Bernanke at the committee hearing, objected strongly when Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., asked if $150 billion might be enough to get the program started, with a promise of more to come.

Paulson said that would be a "grave mistake," and would fail to give the markets the confidence they needed to rebound.

Paulson repeatedly fielded questions from committee members asking why taxpayers should accept the burdens of a bailout.

"You worry about taxpayers being on the hook?" he replied at one point. "Guess what — they're already on the hook." Paulson suggested that the fallout from the credit crisis was so dire it would hit people in their pocketbooks unless forceful action were taken. Moreover, the flawed and outdated regulatory system, which didn't catch abuses, needs to be overhauled, he said.

Despite the unresolved issues, President Bush predicted the Democratic-controlled Congress would soon pass a "a robust plan to deal with serious problems." He was speaking to the United Nations General assembly.

Stocks held steady in pre-noon trading on Wall Street as Paulson told senators that quick passage of the administration's plan is "the single most effective thing we can do to help homeowners, the American people and stimulate our economy."

But even before Paulson could speak, lawmakers expressed unhappiness, criticism of the plan and — in the case of some conservative Republicans — outright opposition.

Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the panel's senior Republican, was even more blunt. "I have long opposed government bailouts for individuals and corporate America alike," he said. Seated a few feet away from Paulson and Bernanke, he added, "We have been given no credible assurances that this plan will work. We could very well spend $700 billion, or a trillion, and not resolve the crisis."

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., added, "This massive bailout is not a solution. It is financial socialism and it's un-American."

But Bernanke said action by lawmakers "is urgently required to stabilize the situation and avert what otherwise could be very serious consequences for our financial markets and for our economy."

A third witness, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox, urged Congress to regulate a type of corporate debt insurance that figured prominently in the country's financial crisis.

"I urge you to provide in statute the authority to regulate these products to enhance investor protection and ensure the operation of fair and orderly markets," he said. The debt insurance is known as credit default swaps.

So far this year, a dozen federally insured banks and thrifts have failed, compared with three last year. The country's largest thrift, Washington Mutual Inc., is faltering.

The U.S. has taken extraordinary measures in recent weeks to prevent a financial calamity, which would have devastating implications for the broader economy. It has, among other things, taken control of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, provided an $85 billion emergency loan to insurance colossus American International Group Inc. and temporarily banned short selling of hundreds of financial stocks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown

These link also has pictures of the snow.

Roads have been closed in the Kwazulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape after heavy snowfalls, transport officials said on Saturday.

Spokeswoman for the Kwazulu-Natal transport department Nonkululeko Mbatha said many roads had been closed in the province as a result of snowfall.

She said there was absolutely no access to the Kokstad area.

"Roads are completely closed in Kokstad and people are advised not to go there especially those who go there to see the snow.

"If they go there they will be stuck for several hours."

The R612, Ixopo road, portions of Bulwer Road, the road from Underberg leading to Bulwer and Frankly road were all closed.

In the midlands, snow had fallen in Mooiriver and Hidcote. "A section of the N3 freeway is covered by snow and is being removed by graders.

"No accidents have been reported thus far, but there has been huge traffic congestion."

Several trucks had jacknifed as a result of the snowfall.

"The whole province's roads are completely wet we are urging motorists to be extra careful," said Mbatha.

Arrive Alive spokesman Tsepo Machaea told SABC news that the R56 between Kokstad and Matatiele and the N2 between Kokstad and Mt Ayliff through Brooks Nek were closed to traffic.

Roads between Kokstad and Port Shepstone were also blocked.

He said motorists travelling from Mthatha to the south coast should use the R91 via Port St Johns.

On Saturday, Beeld reported that it had snowed lightly on Table Mountain in Cape Town early on Friday morning.

Meanwhile, the South African Weather Service has issued a weather warning of possible heavy rainfall and snowfalls in southern, central and eastern KwaZulu-Natal and parts of Eastern Cape on Saturday.

"Snowfalls are expected over the eastern high ground of the Eastern Cape, as well as the southern and western high ground of KwaZulu-Natal," spokesman Mkhushulwa Msimang said.

Msimang said heavy snowfalls were expected to persist over the Drakensberg and southern interior of KwaZulu-Natal until sunrise on Sunday.

Sapa

http://news.iafrica.com/sa/1165497.htm
http://blog.ecr.co.za/newswatch/?p=2796

WOW! What a turnaround and a great trade on those QQQQs! Up 6% today including after hours!

As the market takes another hit on irrational fears today, when are we going to smarten up and just leave the free market to correct itself. We have to stop bailing out the financial industry every time they get themselves in a bind. It just creates the atmosphere of invincibility. Why worry about bad business practice? The government will come in and rescue us if we ever get in trouble. The same with the people who bought ridiculous interest only mortgage loans, or were enticed by low initial interest rates, etc. Where's the personal responsibility in all this? Stop bailing people and companies out! Enough is enough!

QQQQ's at $41. Looks like double bottom and extremely oversold. I'll take some for the long haul!

Check out the Bolivar Peninsula video. Total devastation except for those 5-6 hurricane proof homes.

By Patrik Jonsson Wed Sep 17, 4:00 AM ET

Galveston Island, Tex. - Wrecked sailboats and shrimpers litter Galveston Bridge. Pilings from 30 blown-away beach homes stick out of the water, the beach gone. The historic haunts where Frank Sinatra and the rest of the Rat Pack once congregated – disintegrated by hurricane Ike.

But safely ensconced behind a 10-mile long seawall built after a catastrophic 1900 hurricane, native Galvestonian Andrew Shelton took barely a lick from Ike. On either side of the seawall, however, a 12-foot storm surge claimed perhaps hundreds of recently built homes with beach access and million-dollar views.

The contrast, says Mr. Shelton, reveals the folly of an exuberant coastal policy that has allowed taxpayer-subsidized market forces to place some of the nation's most valuable real estate on the coast's most unpredictable perches.

"The irony of this storm is that rich people who built outside the seawall got wiped away and the lower economic classes who trust the seawall survived," says Shelton, whose great-great-grandfather, John Henry Hutchens, survived the 1900 hurricane, which killed more than 6,000 islanders.

As the unprotected West End neighborhoods of Galveston Island remained impassable, and news came that much of Bolivar Peninsula to the east, also unprotected, had borne the brunt of Ike's massive wall of water, questions are being raised about the storm's impact on coastal development.

"I think people are now going to weigh carefully their investments, whether it's in terms of industry, business, and government," says Heber Taylor, editor of the Galveston County Daily News, Texas' oldest continuously published newspaper.

With President Bush visit to the island Tuesday, it's a debate that's likely to focus on Galveston, where storm memories run deep in the island's colorful and multi-cultural heritage, and where recent decades have seen political and market shifts that seem to contradict the hurricane lessons learned, and still practiced, by many natives.

On the other side of the debate is the notion that coastal development is no riskier than building in wildfire-prone California hills or along Tornado Alley in Kansas, with few critics questioning the right of residents there to receive federal insurance and rebuilding aid.

Hurricane Katrina in 2005, with its $130 billion federal aid package, began shaping that debate in earnest, sparking deep reforms in required construction practices. In some beach towns in and around Galveston Island – including Bolivar, Rollover Pass, Crystal Beach, and Gilchrist – Ike may now define how Texas decides to draw both physical and philosophical lines on beach-building.

Even before the storm, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson proposed that new coastal construction be set back at 60 times the erosion rate – 60 feet for every foot of erosion, for example.

"We now have a graphic example of why you should build as far away from the dunes as possible," Mr. Patterson told the Houston Chronicle during a flyover.

Local officials blasted Patterson's proposal, claiming that communities couldn't survive without new construction. The late '90s real estate boom helped fill tax coffers at a time when local industries were declining – especially in old boom towns like Galveston.

So far, the federal government has largely sided with building boosters. In high-erosion corners of the Gulf like Dauphin Island, Ala., the Army Corps of Engineers has moved sand in order to replace home lots that washed out to sea. Generous infrastructure funds guaranteed by federal law allow the government to underwrite disaster recovery, and also tend to support rebuilding on vulnerable lots.

"It's a very positive sign for sensible management if the State of Texas does take a new look at how we rebuild extremely vulnerable shorelines," says Rob Young, director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, N.C. "But I'm also skeptical, because the people who are being shut out of rebuilding tend to be wealthy and politically influential. People say, 'Those people must be nuts to build on the West End of Galveston,' but it's actually the taxpayers who are nuts for subsidizing that development."

Alphonso Nickerson, who rode out Ike with his mother behind the seawall, says wealthier residents will certainly rebuild. "If you don't have to worry about money, it's no big thing," he says.

But Carlos Silliman, a laid-back outdoorsman, says city government has abandoned the lessons of the last half-dozen storms. He thinks the city should stop building infrastructure to the unprotected areas and pay more attention to storm-proofing the city's five electrical substations, all of which fizzled out.

"Yes, these kinds of storms become memorialized and they become part of that culture," says Anthony Oliver-Smith at the Institute for Environment and Human Security at United Nations University in Bonn, Germany. But he says, "Memories of [natural disasters] begin to diminish after 30 years, at which point development begins again to put people in harm's way."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080917/ts_csm/agalveston

I think in many ways the price of oil is irrelevant to our rapidly growing DPDW family. But if anything, I believe a lower price for oil is actually more favorable to DPDW strictly because of supply and demand. We will use more oil at a cheaper price and thus DPDW's family will see even more business. Either way, the rapid growth in DPDW will continue for the forseeable future. We just need to see a quarter or two of positive earnings again and the rest will take care of itself imo.

And while everyone was harping about oil going to $300 or even $500 a barrel, some of us were saying no way! And now look; oil is down around $90 a barrel off it's high of $147! Oil is a commodity and it was traded to ridiculous levels. We are not going to run out of oil. It is a renewable resource and we still have a plethora of untapped sources. I just hope we don't switch all our vehicles over to hydrogen or electric too soon. There's nothing like the sound of a good ol' V8 running on high octane gas! I'm sure at some point OPEC will look more seriously at cutting production but they are making more than enough at $90. They're not stupid. Higher prices mean more conservation and less profits. Lower prices means more oil being used and thus more profits. It wasn't long ago they were happy with $40 or so and now they're talking $100 or more is perfect. It's time to utilize all our resources and dump OPEC. We have more than enough oil to supply our needs. We just need to develop it. Time to throw out our liberal congress and restore "of the people, by the people, for the people".

Can you say historical buying opportunity in the market! The market is so oversold it's ridiculous. imo if McCain/Palin get in, the markets will recovery quickly as they will help lend stability and strong leadership. With Obama, the slide may accelerate with his plan of increased taxes, regulation and liberal belief that the government should do more not less. That's exactly why the Founding Fathers were so adamant that limited power should reside at the federal level. We've gotten so far away from that. Time to get some mavericks in there to cut waste and at least trend us back the way we should be.

If I hear one more poster complain about "big oil" ruining this country, I'm going to puke! A quick check of gas prices in Houston today (www.houstongasprices.com) shows prices varying from $3.33 to $3.79 a gallon. All below the national average. Anyone who has looked at the major oil companie's financials can see that their profit margins are in the single digits. Razor thin! The numbers are huge (revs/profit/taxes paid/etc) but I'm sorry to ruin everyone's story about the "evil" big oil but it's just not there. These are hard working folks who spend billions of dollars to find the oil that we use everyday. Give it a rest and do some research.

Do you know what XOM's net profit margin was last quarter?
It was 7.6%. And for the year? 7.7%. That's it. Hardly bilking the poor consumer. They had to pay almost half their profit in taxes the first 6 months of 2008. Their 5 year average profit margin is also single digits. McDonalds has a considerably higher net profit margin as does many if not most businesses. Can we put this to rest now. Good grief...

ABC out of Houston just had an interview with Richard Knabb from the NHC who has been doing the evening Ike forecasts the last several evenings and he also talked about the tightening/constricting eye and possible strengthening to Cat 3 before landfall. I'd say we may see that as early as the next advisory.

Latest radar: Even the satellite appears to be developing an eye finally.

http://radar.weather.gov/radar.php?rid=hgx&product=N0R&overlay=11101111&loop=no

And one gauge by Galveston Island was already up 9 feet as of 5 pm edt. Per the NHC bulletin.

Plus you have large waves on top of that!

That 40% number was mentioned for Galveston Island. Whatever the number it's too high. Nothing is worth risking your life for (at least not when it's something simple like leaving). The entire island is expected to be under water.

I've been watching coverage from here:

http://www.maroonspoon.com/wx/ike.html

I know parts of Galveston Island were spared in the great 1900 storm but the storm surge potential is higher with Ike. Ike has been a rather strange storm since it's interaction with Cuba and I just have a bad feeling. The size of Ike is impressive and the pressure is actually lower than a Cat 2 indicates. Latest video continues to show flooding increasing. And it's early...

I've been watching the local news. They've used that 40% number quite a bit.

And if Ike comes onshore left of Galveston Bay, the storm surge in the bay could be massive.

Latest reports indicate that 40% of the population of Galveston Island have stayed put and plan on riding out Ike. I believe the population of the Island is near 60,000. Ike is expected to produce a 15-25' storm surge with up to 50 foot waves on top of that. Unbelievable anyone would stay behind. The video coverage is already showing a significant increase in the water levels and everyone is amazed at the increase so far ahead of the hurricane. And the worst part is that it could hit at high tide for some of these areas.

It's simple supply and demand. LBWR has only made 50K net profit in the first 6 months of 2008. That's .00036 eps. But like I've said in the past, investors have been willing to give LBWR a premium because Dexter has followed through on his promises and no one has any reason to doubt where LBWR is heading. What will LBWR's net profit be for the entire year? Let's use 300K and 500K as examples. At 300K/140M (O/S) gives us a .002 eps at 30-1 that's 6 cents. At 500K/140M that gives us .005 eps or a dime at 30-1 pe. Of course, if the bottom line improves that much then investors may continue to give LBWR a premium looking well ahead into 2009 and the expected uplisting.

Supporting the bid and accumulating when you can is definitely the way to go. Smart all the way around imo!

Ike is regaining strength and he has a large circulation.

http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/gmex/vis-l.jpg

Here's the track of that 1900 storm:

http://www.stormpulse.com/hurricane-one-1900