Wednesday, February 27, 2008

The Light Bulb.......

What is the world coming to?

It seems it is perfectly legal to kill unborn babies for any reason or no reason at all. But soon it will be strictly against federal law to buy, sell or traffic in incandescent light bulbs.

This is a problem.

Tens of millions of American children have been murdered since 1973 have been justified on the basis of choice. Activists for abortion say they don't really justify the moral decision to kill unwanted, unborn children, but they believe every mother has a right to make that choice. They say they are not for abortion, they say. They are for choice. Well then I should have the choice of shooting someone without going to jail because it was my choice. Women who don't want children should do everything in their power to avoid pregnancy including becoming abstinent.

In addition to raising auto fuel efficiency standards 40 percent, an energy bill passed by Congress in December that bans the incandescent light bulb by 2014.

President Bush signed the 822-page measure into law after it was sent up Pennsylvania Avenue in a Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle. The House passed the bill by a 314-100 vote after approval by the Senate.

The phase-out of incandescent light is to begin with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and end in 2014 with the 40-watt. All light bulbs must use 25 percent to 30 percent less 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70 percent more efficient than they are today. Australia was the first country to announce an outright ban by 2010. critics of Thomas Edison's invention argue it uses more energy to produce light than the compact fluorescent, or CFL, bulb. While standard light bulbs cost about 50 cents, the spiral CFL sells for about $3. Advocates argue, however, the CFL lasts five years longer and uses about 75 percent less energy.

But the presence of small amounts of highly toxic mercury in CFLs poses problems for consumers when breakage occurs and for disposal when bulbs eventually burn out. The potential environmental hazard created by the mass introduction of billions of CFLs with few disposal sites and a public unfamiliar with the risks is great and recycling experts say the solutions are at least five years away.

The Department of Energy, nevertheless, is encouraging citizens to pledge to replace at least one incandescent bulb with a CFL.

This issue is bigger than light bulbs. It's about freedom, It's about choice. It's about the Constitution. It's about America and everything that makes this country unique and special in the world.

I hope you see why this issue is important of this issue. If the federal government can take away your incandescent light bulbs, what else can the federal government take away from us?

Clinton, Obama clash over NAFTA, Iraq

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama clashed over trade, health care and the war in Iraq Tuesday night in a crackling debate at close quarters one week before a pivotal group of primaries.

Charges of negative campaign tactics were high on the program, too.

Clinton said Obama's campaign had recently sent out mass mailings with false information about her health care proposal, adding, "it is almost as though the health insurance companies and the Republicans wrote it."

When it was his turn to speak, Obama said Clinton's campaign has "constantly sent out negative attacks on us ... We haven't whined about it because I understand that's the nature of these campaigns."

The tone was polite yet pointed, increasingly so as the 90-minute session wore on, a reflection of the stakes in a race in which Obama has won 11 straight primaries and caucuses and Clinton is in desperate need of a comeback.

Clinton also said as far as she knew her campaign had nothing to do with circulating a photograph of Obama wearing a white turban and a wraparound white robe presented to him by elders in Wajir, in northeastern Kenya.

"I take Senator Clinton at her word that she knew nothing about the photo," Obama said.

In one curious moment, Clinton said, "In the last several debates I seem to get the first question all the time. I don't mind. I'll be happy to field it. I just find it curious if anybody saw "Saturday Night Live," maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow."

In its episode last Saturday, the comedy show ran a feature portraying the news media as going easy on Obama, and a questioner asking at one point if he was comfortable and needed another pillow.

The two rivals, the only survivors of a grueling primary season, sat about a foot apart at a table on stage at Cleveland State University. It was the 20th debate of the campaign, 10 months to the day after the first.

The race was far different in April 2007, Clinton the front-runner by far. Now Obama holds that place, both in terms of contests and delegates won. The two square off next Tuesday in primaries in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont, with 370 delegates at stake.

Both Obama and Clinton were on the receiving end of pointed questions from Tim Russert of NBC News, one of two moderators for the event.

Asked whether he was waffling on his pledge of agreeing to take federal funds for the fall campaign, Obama said he was still contesting the primaries.

"If I am the nominee I will sit down with John McCain and make sure we come up with a system that is fair to both sides," he said. Obama could presumably raise far more money than the federal system provides, but accepting government money precludes that.

The equivalent question to Clinton concerned the income tax returns that she and her husband, former President Clinton, file jointly.

"I will release my tax returns," Clinton said, if she becomes the Democratic nominee. She then added she might do so "even earlier," but not before Tuesday's primary.

The two rivals also debated NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico that is wildly unpopular with blue-collar workers whose votes are critical in any Democratic primary in Ohio.

Neither one said they were ready to withdraw from the agreement, although both said they would use the threat of withdrawal to pressure Mexico to make changes.

"I have said I would renegotiate NAFTA," said Clinton. "I will say to Mexico that we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it."

Obama said Clinton has tried to have it both ways, touting the trade deal in farm states where it's popular while finding fault with it in places like Ohio.

"This is something I have been consistent about," said Obama, who said he went to the American Farm Bureau Federation to tout his opposition and used it as an issue in his 2004 Senate campaign.

"That conversation I had with the Farm Bureau, I was not ambivalent at all," said Obama.

On the war, both candidates denounced President Bush's record on Iraq, then restated long-held disagreements over which of them was more opposed.

Clinton said she and Obama had virtually identical voting records on the war since he came to the Senate in 2005.

The former first lady voted in 2002 to authorize the war, at a time when Obama was not yet in Congress. Asked whether she'd like to have the vote back, she said, "Absolutely. I've said that many times."

Obama tried to use the issue to rebut charges that he is ill-prepared to become commander in chief.

"The fact is that Senator Clinton often says that she is ready on day one, but, in fact, she was ready to give in to George Bush on day one on this critical issue," Obama said.

Clinton also stumbled at one point as she tried to pronounce the name of Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's first deputy prime minister, who is expected to win an election to succeed President Vladimir Putin on Sunday. "Whatever," she said after several attempts to demonstrate she knew his name.

Obama also sought to distance himself from an endorsement from Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan, the controversial Chicago-based minister who has made numerous anti-Semitic comments in the past.

Obama said he hadn't sought the endorsement, and that he had denounced the remarks.

Clinton interjected at one point, saying that in her initial Senate campaign in New York in 2000, she was supported by a group with virulent anti-Semitic views.

"I rejected it, and said it would not be anything I would be comfortable with," she said. Clinton said rejecting support was different from denouncing it, an obvious jab at Obama.

He responded by saying he didn't see the difference, since Farrakhan hadn't done anything except declare his support. But given Clinton's comments, he said, "I happily concede the point and I would reject and denounce."

The audience applauded at that. - The Conservative Voice

I tuned into the this debate last night and I loved it! It is great to finally see the demise of Hillary Clinton who will do anything to get into the white house. I think she is in shock and dumb founded that a young, well spoken, nice black man is beating her to the pulp and wiping her with the floor in the primary's. Yes you may ask why are you wanting Obama to beat her when you have been slamming Obama in past posts? Its simple. I rather have a conservative in the white house but If a Dem. is going to win the white house I rather it be Obama over Clinton any day. Most liberals seem on the attack mode but Obama isn't. He is calm and nice in the debates and
over all I think he has better plans for the country than she does. If The Conservatives lose the election I will be upset but I will get over it. I will just have more to talk about on this blog lol! But If I were to chose a liberal president, I mean IF! I was going to choose one! Remember if! It would be Obama. As Rush Limbaugh says, "Vote her out! End all doubt!" It would be a nightmare getting up every morning knowing that another Clinton is the president of a free world.

Well I cant wait till the Ohio Primary's! I get to vote for the first time in a primary! And I will be voting for Huckabee. Yes I know he has a slim chance or none of winning. But what if! What if! He wins Ohio and Texas then you have a broken convention then its anyones game. If any of you live in Texas or Ohio and you like Huckabee but are thinking about voting for McCain because you think its over and that he has already won! Then I would say to you Vote for Huckabee. Lets show the drive by media and the country that Huckabee is not dead and that we want him for president not McCain. Don't get me wrong if McCain wins the nomination I will vote for him due to the fact that I stand behind most of his beliefs on the way this country should go, it's just I prefer Huckabee. We can at least send a message if Huckabee doesn't get the nomination a message that McCain should pick Huckabee to be VP!

I found this picture below on Rush Limbaugh's website

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

The Office

Spring Training Part: 2

This is what my brother has to say about Baseball.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Obama Shooting Himself in the Foot with Anti-Gun Stance

As she clawed for survival against Barack Obama in Wisconsin’s Democratic primary this past weekend, Hillary Clinton lamely asserted her Second Amendment bona fides over that of her rival by claiming that she once shot a duck in Arkansas.

As pathetic a pander as that tale was, it did serve to point out one gaping weakness in the armor of the Illinois senator, a man who must rely on blue-collar white voters if he hopes to prevail first in the Democratic primaries, and later in the general election.

The weakness? Barack Obama’s utter disdain of firearms (especially handguns) and a refusal to recognize the rights of law-abiding Americans to own the most common and relied-upon types of firearms.

In his answers to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Obama said he favored a ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”

By definition, this would include all pistols ever made, from .22 target pistols used in the Olympics to rarely-fired pistols kept in nightstands and sock drawers for the defense of families, and every pistol in between. Obama’s strident stand would also ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, whatever their previously legal purpose.

In 1999, Obama proposed to make it a felony for the gun owner if a firearm stolen from his residence and used in a crime was not “securely stored” — effectively negating the homeowner’s right to self-defense.

That same year, Obama bravely voted “present” on a law that would require teens 15 and older to be tried as adults for firing weapons on or near school grounds. Obama also proposed the idea of banning businesses that sell firearms from operating within five miles of a park or school — restrictions that would treat gun shops worse than “adult” businesses trafficking in pornography.

From 1998-2001, Obama sat on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, a left-wing group which today funds grants to anti-gun organizations such as the Violence Policy Center (which advocates total handgun prohibition, reinstatement of the Clinton-era “assault weapons” ban, and the ban of other firearms), the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence (which favors the registration of all handguns, seeks to overturn Ohio’s “concealed carry” law, ban standard capacity magazines, and ban economical handguns along with many semi-automatic firearms based upon their appearance), and Handgun Free America (which advocates a complete ban on civilian handgun ownership).

All of these organizations seek to disarm law-abiding Americans. This is the idea of “change” that they share with Barack Obama.

On the federal stage, Obama’s brief U.S. Senate career has already seen him vote against a bill (S.397) to protect the firearms industry from those who seek to sue manufacturers, distributors, and importers for the criminal misuse of firearms by criminals, an idea akin to suing car manufacturers for damages caused by drunk drivers.

Tellingly, Obama’s presidential campaign has sought to hide his history of trying to disarm law-abiding Americans.

Buried deep in the “Issues” section of Obama’s web site under “Additional Issues” is a PDF document that can only be described as an attempt to talk around Obama’s real position on firearm ownership. In a section where the campaign claims to “respect” the Second Amendment, the document states:

Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target, and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.

Tellingly, Obama’s campaign only addresses the gun rights of hunters and specific shotgun-only shooting sports, and only then in vague terms.

At no point does Obama recognize an individual right to own handguns, or explicitly recognize a right for Americans to use a firearm to defend themselves or others. The site explicitly states that Barack Obama recognizes civilian gun ownership for two just purposes, “hunting and target shooting.”

Hillary Clinton, almost as liberal as Obama on the issue of gun control, could not take advantage of Obama’s radical, out-of-the-mainstream position on firearm ownership because she, too, holds many of the same liberal ideas.

As America moves toward the general election, however, John McCain will have no such problems in discussing Obama’s distrust of his fellow Americans on this issue.

McCain is hardly the poster boy for the National Rifle Association, but McCain claims to strongly support gun rights, stating, “Neither justice nor domestic peace are served by holding the innocent responsible for the acts of the criminal,” a position diametrically opposed to the record of Obama, who favors outright prohibition of many common civilian firearms.

In August 2007, writing at the liberal blog Daily Kos, “BlueDotRedField” shared his lament on Obama’s gun control history coming back to haunt him in the diary entry “Obama gunning to lose in 2008”:

The clear implication of this statement is that Obama believes that Chicago’s violent crimes are to be solved at a national level — since Chicago & IL already have VERY tough gun control laws that have not stopped their crime problems, and to be solved by gun control legislation specifically mentioning the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban” and blaming Bush for that ban’s lack of renewal.

This statement is very important for those of us lifetime Democrats who not only are more libertarian leaning (especially after 8 years under the imperial presidency of George Bush), are more rural, and who own firearms or have family/friends who do. This statement is also the battle cry that figures on the right have been waiting for from Obama just in case he could actually beat out Hillary.


Common political wisdom has been that gun control legislation, and specifically the AWB, was [the] key handing the Congress to the right in 1994. Additionally, it played a strong part in the election and re-election of George Bush. Only recently, as we have run more centrist and rural understanding Democrats, were we able to retake Congress and have any chance at countering Bush & Co. in any way.

And we stand at a precipice where we can hand it all right back to them.

There seems little chance that Barack Obama can hide his real record and views of gun ownership from the American public though November’s presidential elections.

Once his prohibitive views of firearms ownership become known to America’s millions of gun owners, they may well decide that a gun-grabbing Barack Obama promises the kind of “change” that they can’t believe in. -

The only thing I have to say about this is, what ever happened to the Second Amendment? Apparently to many liberals forgot to keep a copy of the Constitution with wait hold on I found a copy right here on my desk, hmmm I should send a copy to Obama and have him fax it to some of his friends in Washington.

NY Times

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Spring Training

Yah!!!! Spring is around the corner and that means pitchers and catchers are reporting, and the whole Spring Training thing will be getting into high gear shortly. Go RED SOX! Sense I love the Red Sox will talk about some Red Sox Spring Training news.

New Red Sox shortstop Julio Lugo arrived to camp on Monday, a day ahead of schedule. The official reporting day for Sox position players was Tuesday (Collective Bargaining Agreement states the latest a player can arrive is March 1st).

When asked about Manny Ramirez arriving to camp on March 1st, Red Sox manager Terry Francona said he was not going to say anything. He hadn’t talked to Manny and wasn’t going to speculate on anything. Smart move Francona. It’s best to have the facts before making a comment.

The following pitchers threw in the bullpen on Monday: Manny Delcarmen, Julian Tavarez, Brendan Donnelly, Joel Piñiero, J.C. Romero, Runelvys Hernandez, Craig Breslow, Craig Hansen, and Javier Lopez. All but Timlin and Tavarez were heard popping the mitts of the catchers.

Kevin Youkilis and Mike Lowell arrived to camp on Monday as well. Youk was seen sporting a goatee with a bald head. It will be interesting to me how Lowell responds after being mentioned in the trade rumors with the Colorado Rockies about Todd Helton.

Covelli “Coco” Crisp, who was bald last season, showed up to camp on Monday sporting an afro. No word on whether he is using jerry curl. If you were ever wondering how Coco got his nickname, check out what he said.

My grandmother called me “Co” for short. My real name is Covelli, and then once my sister and my god brother got a whiff of the cereal Cocoa Krispies, they started calling me that and making fun of me. My nickname started as a big joke and I didn’t like it at first. But then it started catching on and everyone started calling me Coco so I got used to it. It resurfaced again in Double-A when they put it on the scoreboard and now I like it. I’ve just adopted it as my nickname. It helps me stick out in the crowd. When I go on the road people love to say the name. It’s also easier to pronounce than Covelli.

Francona said on Sunday that Mike Timlin would be included in the closer race and could be the closer when the team leaves Ft. Myers if the role hasn’t been decided. Only Jonathan Papelbon (35 saves) and the recently retired Keith Foulke (47 saves) have saved more games than in Timlin’s time (25 saves) with the Red Sox.

Theo Epstein was on the WEEI’s Dennis and Callahan show on Tuesday and talked about many things. One of the things he addressed was the Curt Schilling contract situation. This is what he had to say about it:

“I have little doubt in my mind that if Curt wants to pitch in ‘08 that he’s going to be a member of the Boston Red Sox.

As far as the timing of the deal, or the nature of the deal, that remains to be seen,” Epstein said. “He’s sort of at the point in his career where, as an organization, we’ve been slower to commit guaranteed money in the future. We tend to like guys to kind of prove it at that age but, you know, we’re talking and I’m sure there will be an amicable resolution one way or the other.”

Newly re-signed Wily Mo Peña arrived at camp on Tuesday a little late. The reason being he went to the stadium where they will play their games and not the minor league camp. I guess $1.875 million isn’t enough money to get the right information or directions to where your supposed to be.

Daisuke Matsuzaka threw another bullpen today in front of Red Sox principal owner, John Henry, chairman Tom Werner, and some folks from Roush-Fenway Racing including Jack Roush himself. This was the first time they have seen him pitch in person. No word on when Matsuzaka will be making NASCAR debut.

Papelbon, Tim Wakefield, Josh Beckett, Schilling, and Hideki Okajima also all threw in the bullpen on Tuesday. They all threw mostly off-speed pitches during their throwing sessions.

Henry and Werner met with the media on Tuesday as well.

Francona said that Crisp’s injured finger is still giving him trouble but Crisp says he is able to bat from both sides of the plate. I really hope that he stays healthy this season. With him batting second behind Lugo, we are gonna need a healthy Crisp.

Tavarez had this to say when he was asked about whether he wanted to be starting or pitching out the ‘pen.

“If you ask me, I’d rather be a starter but it’s not up to me,” he said. “If it happens, I’ll be happy. I’m not going to hope somebody gets hurt, so they will make the decision to make me a starter, or have somebody get hurt. I’m here to do whatever they want me to do.”

I like Tavarez’s attitude. In case he didn’t know, we have a pretty solid starting rotation (Schilling, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Papelbon and Wakefield, with Lester in there as well) right now. It’s exactly what the Sox need. Another team player.

Only Manny, J.D. Drew and David Ortiz are missing from spring training right now. Alex Cora was expected to arrive later Tuesday or Wednesday. Really nice Mr Drew. Way to make an impression on the fans of Red Sox Nation. Is this something we should expect of you all season?


Yah!!!!! I'm so ready for Baseball! Go Sox!

The Obama Movement

On Feb. 8 More than 20,000 people skipped school, work to attend the rally Barak Obama at Key Arena, the city's NBA basketball facility. Only 18,000 made it inside to hear the Illinois senator, the leftover crowd gathered around the building for some glimpse of the man who would bring change.

A dozen states had reported record turnout through Super Tuesday on Feb. 5, the largest numbers emerging from Democratic contests. The height of that trend centered on Obama, who drew unprecedented support for blowout victories in Western states like Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Utah. Four days later, decisive wins in Nebraska and Washington further cemented Obama's dominance out West.

In Nebraska, caucus workers reported massive overcrowding as almost 40,000 Democrats flooded voting locations in the state party's first ever presidential caucus. In Washington, the number of Democratic voters participating in the Feb. 9 caucus doubled the old record of 100,000 set in 2004.
It seems in this election it becomes more important on which candidate inspires you more rather than the real important issues that effect our nation and world as a whole. And on the inspirational meter, Obama blasts all other candidates on the Democratic and Republican sides. That reality, more than substantive policy positions, may help explain his success in states outside of the political beltway. Obama is a young, bright, gifted speaker and that is why Obama appeals to young voters and electoral newcomers. Its a combination that drives large waves of inexperienced voters to the polls or as I like to call them, "Stupid Voters, those who are voting because of there race or gender, or religion." The correlation between Obama victories and high turnout in formerly overlooked states is no coincidence.

Clinton has brought some measure of new voters into the process, too. Matters like style and gender play large roles in the decision making process for many Democrats, whose choice of candidates offer few polivy or philosophical differences. Both Clinton and Obama propose universal government run health care plans. Can you say Socialism?! Both candidates favor the pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq, in other words they both want American defeat. Both support amnesty for illegal immigrants. Which means they want the crime rate to go up and American jobs to be taken by the illegal immigrants. They both argue abortion (including partial-birth abortion) should be legal. Which means they want you to have the right to kill your unborn child. They both favor greenhouse-gas emissions. Which means they want to waste millions of dollars on the greatest hoax called global warming. They both believe that government should be in the business of guaranteeing equal opportunity. (and sometimes equal results) rather than simply protecting liberty.

Increasingly, that liberal/socialism platform resonates in some Western states once considered Republican strongholds. That Obama stands marginally to the left of Clinton helps his cause in such regions.

In Colorado, where polls suggested a close match heading into Super Tuesday, Obama emerged with a 2 to 1 blowout victory. Caucus sites throughout the state reported over flowing crowds and boundless energy. Jim Laurie, 65, commented on the participation levels. The precinct captain and Presbyterian minister admires Obama's willingness to speak of faith on the campaign trail, a strategy uncommon among Democrat's in past elections but one that has helped Obama gain help with some religious voters.

Obama's packaging of liberal politics in general platitudes and faith-based rhetoric endears him to independents and even some evangelicals weary of broken Republican promises. That broad appeal feeds perceptions of Obama as a unifier and his campaign as a national movement. It also helps explain how he has found such traction in Western stats not known for African American vote. Obama's message of hope and change transcends race. - Some Excerpts from WORLD

In my opinion Hilary Clinton should just give it up, throw in the towel. Yes you may say she has a chance in Ohio and in Texas. But let me tell you. I may go to school in Louisville but my parents do live in Ohio and I do visit them a lot and watch the local news and I believe Obama will win Ohio. He is on a role and not even Hillary's husband can save her or her crying on national television. I cant believe Obama is winning though because I have watched most of his speeches, and yes he is a great speaker but he dose not talk about the real matters that the people of America care about. He dose not talk about what he is going to do or how he is going to change things. Its a bunch of hoopla! His charm and character are charming to many people. He wants us to have hope in him even though we don't know how he is going to change things, or change Washington. Which I will tell you how to change Washington you get rid of 90 % of the whinny libs in the senate who do nothing but bicker rather than get things done. Its pathetic that there approval rating is lower than the presidents. Anyways I think when we get to the debates when McCain and Obama duke it out you will begin to see some of Obama's plans on changing America and you will see they are very Socialist and that is what will destroy America. Just look around at the Socialist country's. We are going that direction if Obama or Hillary becomes president. You dumb republicans out there who are pissed that Romney didnt get the nomination or someone not as conservative as you would like should suck it up and vote for McCain and stop you pointless bickering. Yes I myself am not a big fan of McCain but I love my country and I do not want to see it go the other way and I feel McCain is more than qualified to protect it.

Enough said. I didn't realize how long I have been typing. Peace!

Friday, February 22, 2008

"Abba, Father!"

Romans 8: 12-17

So then, brothers, we are not obligated to the flesh to live according to the flesh, you are going to die. But if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. All those led by God's Spirit are God's sons. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to full back into fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father!" The Spirit Himself testifies together with our spirit that we are God's children, and if children, also heir-heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ-seeing that we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

Galatians 3:27-29, 4: 1-7

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise. Now I say that as long as the heir is a child, he differs in no way from a slave, though he is the owner of everything. Instead, he is under guardians and stewards until the time set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were in slavery under the elemental forces of the world. But when the completion of the time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba, Father!" So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

You can clearly see through these amazing passages that we don't adopt Christ but Christ adopts us! Many Christians have the misconception that we adopt Christ, we are holding onto Christ. But the truth is Christ picks us. He adopts us and calls us as his children. We are not holding onto Christ but Christ is holding onto us.

Starbucks eliminates 600 jobs in restructuring

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Starbucks Corp (SBUX.O: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Thursday it would eliminate 600 jobs as it refocuses its business to reignite growth.

The coffee seller has been battered in recent months by slower consumer spending, higher milk and labor costs and concerns that it may have saturated its domestic market.

Seattle-based Starbucks has already announced plans to expand overseas and close underperforming U.S. stores.

Chief Executive Howard Schultz, who made the announcement in an e-mail to employees, is slated to share details of the company's strategy at a Starbucks shareholder meeting on March 19.

Shares in Starbucks, which were drifting lower prior to the announcement, were down 2.5 percent, or 45 cents, at $17.81 on the Nasdaq.

Schultz also said the company would double the number of its U.S. field organizations to four by March 24, in a bid to get closer to customers and employees -- which Starbucks refers to as partners.

Starbucks laid off 220 employees on Thursday. One-third of them worked in Seattle, spokeswoman Valerie O'Neil said.

Those employees performed a variety of duties from finance to design and marketing.

The company has also eliminated an additional 380 open positions, O'Neil said

None of those job cuts affect people working at Starbucks outlets, said O'Neil, adding that Starbucks has 170,000 employees.

McAdams Wright Ragen analyst Dan Geiman said the layoffs were expected.

"I don't think it's a surprise at this point," he said. - Drudge Report

LOL! This doesn't surprise me one bit. This is what happens when you put a Star bucks on every street corner. Don't get me wrong, I love Star bucks! I have a lot of friends that work there. Its just there are so many Star bucks coffee shops in the city. I go to school in Louisville and there is literally one on every corner. But it seems Star Bucks is starting to lose by mom and pop coffee shops. Thats what happens when you build up so many Star Bucks Coffee shops. I just hope none of my friends lose there jobs.

To bad Star bucks isn't doing to good right now because I have always thought about starting a Star bucks in my home town. Believe it or not the closes Star bucks to my family's house is 40 minutes away. I think I would make a lot of money if I build one here. It was a good Idea then But apparently that wouldn't be a good Idea now that Star bucks isn't doing to hot.

Poll Reveals That Nearly Half of Christian Voters Support Pro-Choice Presidential Candidates

What is being described as a stunning new poll from shows that 43.9% of Christian voters are throwing their support behind the two leading pro-choice Democratic candidates in the 2008 presidential race. polling results show Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton gaining strong support from the Christian community in the upcoming election, while conservative Republican Mike Huckabee slips in the online poll with only 34.8% support., the website which set the record as the #1 fastest growing website in the U.S. according to ComScore during its first official launch month, is now the leading source of nationwide Christian polling as it conducts an ongoing election poll for the 2008 presidential race. Since announced its online election poll (, more than 48,000 Christians in total have responded in support of their favored candidate.

The most surprising results have come in support of Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton holding a combined 43.9% of the votes -- as compared to Republican candidate Mike Huckabee who is drawing support from only 34.7% of the evangelical Christians participating in the poll.

"From our poll, it's clear the candidate's platforms and political issues are weighing heavily on Christian voters in this election," said Chris Wyatt CEO and founder of GodTube. "It appears the Christian vote is still up for grabs, which we've seen in the past can swing an election.

Barack Obama has received a 35% increase in the poll since January 27, 2008 giving him 24.3% of the votes. Hillary Clinton has received a huge 78% increase giving her 19.6% of the votes. is uniquely positioned to reach the Christian community with more than 2.5 million monthly visitors and over 250,000 registered Christian users, including 25,000 churches. Utilizing internet survey techniques to ensure fairness and only including the leading primary candidates, allows concerned Christians to have a voice on important issues, such as abortion, the war in Iraq, and the economy. continues to expand the online poll by adding key campaign issue questions and social networking pages for each major candidate, including video clips and content submitted by users and the candidates themselves. These candidate pages provide user and candidate feedback, and provide exclusive election material on an ongoing basis.

With religion at the forefront of this presidential election, is working to engineer a town hall debate comprised of uncommitted Christian voters, pastors and priests addressing a wide range of topics. The details of the town hall debate and a broadcast partner will be announced shortly.

This frustrates me so much! How could a Christian support a candidate who is not for the sanctity of life? How could a Christian ignore the murder of millions of innocent lives every year? As a Christian the sanctity of life should be the top issue! If you are a Christian that would vote for a candidate that is against the sanctity of life then shame on you! And if I sound to harsh than set down and get over it! I was born with a disability and my parents knew it when I was was in the whom! What if they decided to abort me in the early stages because they felt that I wouldn't want to live a life of a cripple. I tell you now, if my parents had even contemplated aborting me I would slap them in the face! God has used me in amazing ways to bring others to Him with my testimony. Imagine how many bright people we are killing off. People that God could use for his glory.

Think about it!

Liberal Patriotism

Michelle Obama struck a raw nerve earlier this week when she suggested she had never been proud of her country until now. "For the first time in my adult lifetime," the 44-year-old wife of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama told a Milwaukee crowd, "I'm really proud of my country."

Conservative pundits and bloggers were quick to criticize Mrs. Obama. And even Sen. John McCain's wife, Cindy, let it be known that she has never had any problem being proud of her country.

Most liberals, on the other hand, were willing to give Michelle Obama the benefit of the doubt. Of course, she's proud of the United States, they insisted. It's just that she's especially proud now because, as an Obama campaign spokeswoman explained, for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who've never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grass-roots movement for change. Her husband followed suit, saying that it wasn't our country that Michelle was not proud of, but politics as they've been practiced in recent years.

The flap might seem trivial, but it speaks to a much larger division between liberals and conservatives over the meaning of patriotism. Michelle Obama may consider herself a patriotic American. But her comments suggest that she sees the role of the patriot as critic: America needs perfecting, and until it conforms to her ideal, she won't be proud of it. She said her newfound pride in her country was "not just because Barack has done well, but because people are hungry for change." Mrs. Obama went on to say: "I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment."

It's a view her husband, Barack Obama, seems to share. Last fall, Sen. Obama stirred a similar controversy when he talked about his decision to quit wearing a flag lapel pin that he, like many members of Congress and others, had worn since the Sept. 11 attacks. He said that the pins had become "a substitute for … true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security." He added, "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

It is as if both Obamas are suggesting that America is somehow lacking, unless a President Obama can change it. It is a theme that seems to resonate with liberals: America could be a great nation -- if only liberals were in charge.

But most Americans already think their country is great -- no matter who occupies the White House. Patriotism isn't about loving your country when your party is in power. It isn't about liking its political leaders or even agreeing with all the nation's policies.

No matter how much we may have disliked Bill Clinton, conservatives didn't feel ashamed of our country or think it is any less great and noble a nation when he was in office. You can't imagine conservatives refusing to fly the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance because Clinton raised taxes or misbehaved in the Oval Office.

Patriotism is a lot like the unconditional love of a parent for a child. A parent doesn't demand a child be perfect in order to love him. Nor does that love mean that a parent does not recognize a child's faults.

Conservatives seem to understand this almost intuitively, but liberals seem to struggle with it. Liberals' patriotism often seems grudging -- as if they believe it's the country's duty to win their love rather than their duty to love their country.

Our elected officials don't make America great, nor do temporal policies. America is great because of its people, its defining institutions and its freedoms. You would think a woman hoping to be the country's next first lady could take pride in that. - www.Town

Honestly I myself Love America! There is no doubt in my mind that America is the greatest nation in the world and I have always been proud of it. Americas history is amazing. When you study American history you begin to see how much God has blessed this nation, yes America has its problems but when you look at surrounding nations you begin to see how great and amazing this nation is.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Barack the Vote!

It seems that Barack Obama is on a roll with no stop in site. But here are some videos that will slow down Obama's race to the white house.

Don't Barack The Vote to just might tip over.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

More on Obama! Obama mentor identified as Communist

The mysterious "Frank" cited as a friend and adviser by Democratic president contender Barack Obama while he was growing up in Hawaii has been identified as Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the old Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA.

The identification comes from Cliff Kincaid in his column, "Obama's Communist Mentor," which was made available on the Accuracy in Media website.

"Let's challenge the liberal media to report on this," he wrote in his column. "Will they have the honesty and integrity to do so?"

Kincaid, who earlier reported on Obama's pending plan to ship $845 billion overseas to battle "global poverty" as evidence of his socialist leanings, said the newly revealed connection is even more worrisome.

"Obama's communist connection adds to mounting public concern about a candidate who has come out of virtually nowhere, with a brief U.S. Senate legislative record, to become the Democratic Party frontrunner for the U.S. presidency," he wrote.

In Obama's book, "Dreams From My Father," he repeatedly refers to his friend and adviser as "Frank."

"The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What's more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several Communist front organizations," Kincaid said.

Kincaid noted Obama has admitted attending "social conferences" and seeing Marxist literature. "But he ridicules the charge of being a 'hard-core academic Marxist,' which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes."

He described the link as "ominous."

"Decades ago, the CPUSA had tens of thousands of members, some of them covert agents who had penetrated the U.S. government. It received secret subsidies from the old Soviet Union," Kincaid wrote.

He noted even Obama describes "Frank" has having "some modest notoriety once."

Kincaid notes that a history professor in Houston reported that Davis "befriended" a family whose son was named Barack Obama, "who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago."

"It was in Chicago that Obama became a 'community organizer' and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America…," Kincaid wrote. "The SDS laid siege to college campuses across America in the 1960s, mostly in order to protest the Vietnam War, and spawned the terrorist Weather Underground organization."

He also reported Kathryn Takara, a professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, confirmed that Davis is the "Frank" in Obama's book.

She did her dissertation on Davis, and wrote that he brought, "an acute sense of race relations and class struggle throughout America and the world" and that he openly discussed subjects such as American imperialism, colonialism and exploitation, according to AIM.

Obama's campaign also, for the third straight day, declined to respond to WND requests for comment on the report of a Minnesota man who alleges he shared cocaine with Obama when Obama was a state lawmaker in Illinois.

WND has reported on claims made by Larry Sinclair, who claims he took cocaine in 1999 with Obama, and participated in homosexual acts with him.

Sinclair said his story was ignored by the news media, so he made his case last month in a YouTube video, which has now been viewed about 350,000 times.

When it still was ignored, Sinclair said, he filled a lawsuit in Minnesota District Court, alleging threats and intimidation by Obama's staff.

-Word Net Daily

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Faith and Hope Triumphs!

Romans Chapter 5:1-11

Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by FAITH, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Also through Him, we have obtained access by FAITH into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the HOPE of the glory of God. And not only that, but we also rejoice in our afflictions, because we know that affliction produces endurance, endurance produces proven character, and proven character produces hope. This HOPE does not disappoint, because God's love has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

For while we were still helpless, at the appointed moment, Christ died for the ungodly. For rarely will someone die for a just person-though for a good person perhaps someone might even dare to die. But God proves His own love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us! Much more then, since we have now been declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from wrath. For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, then how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by His life! And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, Through whom we have now received reconciliation.

With todays on going election you hear political leaders preaching on how they will bring CHANGE and HOPE to our nation. But like many politicians tend to be shady one how they will bring CHANGE and HOPE to the people of our nation. But like most politicians it will be nothing more than broken promises. Christ is the only one who can bring real hope and change in our lives. Christ died for us, the ungodly as the verse above in Romans states. With this we were given access by Faith into grace. We should rejoice in the HOPE of the Glory of God! While we were dead to sin Christ gave us real HOPE! Christ died for us to have real CHANGE and HOPE in his Glory and that is not some empty promise like some politicians running for president preach on in the message of HOPE and CHANGE. Once America as a whole discovers this we will have true HOPE in CHANGE . I pray that Christ will change your life and give your real hope in his Glory today.

Sunday Funnies

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Five Ways for McCain to Beat Obama

On Tuesday night the magnitude of the Barack Obama wave became clear. The MSM pundits’ eyes lit up and they seized the moment to -- guess what -- predict doom for John McCain and the Republicans in the general election.

“How would McCain possibly compete against such an eloquent man?” “Look at the giant screaming crowds!” One even went so far as to agree that McCain was right that Obama’s rhetoric was fluff but that it “didn’t work to run against hope.” McCain currently trails Obama in the polls and the huge turnouts in the Democratic primaries suggest that McCain will have his work cut out for him.

But is it really so hard to beat the Senator ranked as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate? McCain can do five things that will substantially improve his chances.


First and foremost, McCain must make the argument clearly and emphatically: Obama’s view of the world is naïve and his qualifications and ability to navigate through dangerous times are entirely lacking. Obama contends that his unbending opposition to the Iraq war is a net plus. That might be true if the election were in 2006 but events on the ground and public opinion, despite Obama’s denials, have shifted dramatically. Rather than adjust with reality his view of Iraq remains frozen. The surge has reduced violence, the Iraq Parliament has voted in favor of a partial amnesty bill and new budget and American public opinion has recognized progress.

In an early February CNN poll in response to the question “In general, do you think the U.S. military is or is not making progress in improving conditions in Iraq and bringing an end to the violence in that country?" voters said “Yes” by a margin of 52-45%. If the war was managed badly, McCain certainly can contend that the policy he championed made things better while the policy of immediate retreat which Obama still favors would spell defeat and chaos for American and its allies.

Aside from Iraq, McCain can argue convincingly to conservatives and moderates that Obama is the captive of the liberal civil rights lobby and does not even represent the middle of the Democratic Party. His recent vote on the reauthorization for the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA) was telling. Obama voted against cloture on the issue of immunity for the telecommunications companies that assisted in terrorist surveillance. Not even liberal Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Mikulski agreed with that position.

In short, not since George McGovern has the difference between presidential candidates been so great. McCain, even his most dogged conservative critics would agree, is suited to point out that this is no time to hand the White House over to a man whose first travel plans will be to the living rooms of the world’s worst dictators. McCain can phrase the question simply: Who do Americans trust to go toe to toe with the world tyrants?


Barack Obama voted against confirmation of Justices Samuel Alito John Roberts. He took exception when the Supreme Court voted to uphold the partial birth abortion ban. He declined to sign the brief by 55 Senator and 250 members of Congress in favor of upholding the D.C. Circuit case invalidating the ban on handgun ownership. He called the Supreme Court decision last year invalidating assignment of children by race “a serious obstacle in the way of achieving the vision of America.”

In short, Obama looks at the courts through the lens of the liberal civil rights lobby: the courts are there to achieve “progress” on the liberal agenda that could never be enacted by the elected branches of government. Most Americans do not favor handgun bans, abortion on demand or race-based affirmative action. They do not think the courts are the proper vehicle for imposing that agenda on the country. McCain can make clear how radical Obama’s view of the courts is and how out of step he is with most Americans’ values.


His supporters are fond of comparing Obama to John Kennedy, but Kennedy had served in the military, the House of Representatives (1947-53) and the U.S. Senate (1953-1960) before entering the White House. Barack Obama has served approximately 3 years in the U.S. Senate. (Yes, he also was a state legislator for 8 years.) The paucity of accomplishment and the lack of executive experience is laughable.

While Democratic primary voters can hardly be blamed for preferring his inexperience to another Clinton regime, the choice in the general election will be between him and someone who actually has been tested in crisis and has a record of accomplishment. Focus group guru Frank Luntz reports that he can utterly stump his focus-group voters by asking to name a single Obama accomplishment.

While music videos and chants of “Yes We can” may amuse stadiums of college students and fixate the media, McCain’s best bet is to point to the stature gap and hope that after another 6 months the Obama-hoopla wears thin. We are, after all, electing a president.


McCain’s positions on topics such as campaign finance reform and the environment have little appeal for his own party’s base but have helped attracted Independent voters who, in many primaries, provided the margin of his victory. Some of them were voters who fled the Republican Party in the 2006 over earmarks and corruption.

The battle for the Independents is a key struggle in each presidential election and for once the Republican seems to have an inside track. For Independents who like “bipartisanship,” McCain (as conservative know all too well) has a long record of cooperating with the other party. For those who like “good government” few have done more than McCain to go after earmarks, corruption and pork barrel spending. Framing that issue for these voters is easy: which contender has the ability to fix Washington and which one is as far from the middle-of –the-road than any nominee in a generation?


The number of American who say we are on the “right track” grows smaller each month. (The latest AP poll put that number at 25%.) Which is why Obama’s change message has resonated, especially with disgruntled Democratic primary voters. McCain’s task is to explain what will change and why his will be better. Several things Obama will change for the worse: tax rates, the bipartisan commitment to free trade, secret ballots in union elections, and the private healthcare system.

Obama has made clear that he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts and lift the current cap on wages subject to social security tax. His website candidly declares: “Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security.”

He also would like to revisit NAFTA. (His website explains “NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people.”) While he declares his intention to “fix” NAFTA, the savvier will see that this is code language for placing requirements on other countries to match U.S. wages and working conditions, the very definition of protectionism.

Obama also thinks secret ballots for union elections are just a means for employers to thwart the will of workers. His website describes the Orwellian titled legislation that would do away with the system of secret ballots: “Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize.” In his world, union bosses will be able to look over the shoulders of workers deciding whether to organize.

His healthcare system will sweep millions of Americans into government run care. Aside from mandatory coverage for all minors (defined as those up to age 25 yrs old) he will construct an enormous government apparatus to determine insurance policies and pricing. (“The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status.”) It may have another name, but it bears a striking resemblance to HillaryCare.

If you need more evidence of his plans to remodel America, his website has all the details. And details are exactly what McCain should focus on. “Change” sounds lovely, even inevitable, but once the level of generalities is broken an underlying reality is made clear: Obama is running on a platform that is nothing more than a liberal wish list.

So if the election is about the best video or the most elegant speaker or “hope” then the Obama wave will likely sweep him into the White House. But if it is about the real world, the future of our courts, the best choice for conservatives and Independents, and the type of change we will have then McCain has a fighting chance. - Jennifer Rubin at

Honestly if I hear the word Hope and Change come out of Obama's mouth one more time I will puke!

Friday, February 15, 2008

Purported Al Qaeda Video Shows Prisoners Burned Alive

Al Qaeda's latest display of terror has made its way onto the Internet, showing horrifying images of what appear to be prisoners in Iraq being doused with an inflammatory liquid and then burned alive.

The video, which appears to have been posted first on Google last December in an alleged anti-Al Qaeda Web film, shows five insurgents standing behind three blindfolded prisoners kneeling at the edge of a burning pit.

"And now that we have captured these scums who committed this dreadful crime, we will burn them with this fire," the Al Qaeda leader says in Arabic. "The same fire which they committed their crime with.

"And I swear by God almighty that, I swear by God almighty that we will have no mercy on them," he continues. "Allahuakbar, Allahuakbar."

As he speaks, two of the insurgents pour liquid on the blindfolded prisoners. Then they push the bound men into the pit, where they are engulfed in flames.

According to the summary — in Arabic and German — included in the nearly 15-minute video posted on Google, many of the clips were found in Diyala, Iraq. The makers of the film say that the originals were "passed to us by others." - Fox News

Wow! This shows what kind of hate filled enemy America faces. A enemy that uses Gods name in a hate filled brutal way. God is a God of love, a forgiving God. These are the kind of people who want to watch the world burn and use God's name in a horrible way to justify there horrific actions.

Two Irreconcilable Worldviews

This is a very interesting article from Dr. Albert Mohlers blog. Something I thought I would share with you.Efforts to reconcile Christianity and evolutionary theory abound, even as evolutionists bemoan the fact that such a large percentage of Americans simply will not accept a naturalistic understanding of cosmic and human origins.

Writing in the New Scientist, Michael Zimmerman calls for a new public celebration of Darwinism. Zimmerman is one of the proponents of "Evolution Sunday," an attempt to encourage liberal churches to support the compatibility of evolution and Christianity, scheduled annually for the Sunday closest to Darwin's birthday.

In an interesting section of his article, Zimmerman cites me as an example of one who argues for the fundamental incompatibility of Darwinian evolution and biblical Christianity. Here is the section [available to New Scientist subscribers only]:

Fundamentalist religious leaders pushing a creationist agenda regularly assert that the faithful must choose between their religious beliefs and evolution. Evolution is regularly caricatured as being incompatible with belief in God; Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has stated that one can't be a Christian and believe in evolution. This is particularly dangerous because I believe that most people, if forced to choose between religion and evolution, will select religion.

First, a clarification. I have not said that one can't be a Christian and believe in evolution. It is entirely possible to be a confused Christian or a confused evolutionist . . . or both. Nevertheless, the dominant theory of evolution -- the theory as taught and defended by the world's leading evolutionary scientists -- explicitly rules out any supernatural design or interference at any point in the evolutionary continuum. That fact alone makes the theory incompatible with any legitimate affirmation of divine creation or of biblical theism.

That point is also affirmed, though almost surely not intentionally, in the current issue if The Christian Century. In "God in Evolution," Amy Frykholm would seem to reassure Zimmerman.

As she writes:

While controversies over evolution continue to arise in some sectors of American Christianity, most mainline Christians have made their peace with Darwin. We may not grasp all the nuances of the scientific debate, but we have concluded that evolutionary theory is good science and therefore must be compatible with good theology. Darwin's name doesn't send chills up our spines. We are theistic evolutionists: we believe that natural selection is evidently part of God's method of shaping the natural world.

According to Frykholm "most mainline Christians have made their peace with Darwin." But, even as Frykholm makes this claim, she slips and admits that the "peace" is rather "combustible." As she explains, "When theology faces off against the account of the world set forth by evolutionary biology, God's goodness and power and God's plans for the future seem to be called into question with new force." Needless to say, those are rather significant issues.

Consider this section of her article:

Still, evolutionary biology makes it hard to discern purpose or direction in creation. For some theologians, facing a universe that includes randomness and chance may require a shift in thinking about how God works. John Haught, Catholic theologian and professor of theology at Georgetown University, suggests that we think in terms of a God who offers "a wide range of possibilities that the world can realize, a universe of innumerable possibilities." Realization of any one possibility happens amid the play between God and creatures.

And then this passage:

The theological problem with going in this direction, of course, is that such a view leaves little sense of divine direction or action. Clayton [Philip Clayton, a theologian at Claremont School of Theology] argues that evolutionary biology severely limits what we can call divine action, though he believes that science does allow a small but significant space for interaction between creature and Creator. Nature can be "biologically constrained without being biologically determined," he says. He calls the divine-creature interaction "the divine lure." As evolution occurs, more complex structures emerge. And the more complex forms that emerge are not reducible to a mere compilation of the kinds that come before them. In the space between what is and what is becoming, God might be said to act.

Theologies that emphasize God as deeply involved in natural, open-ended processes seem better able to make sense of evolution than do the classical accounts of an omnipotent God. On the other hand, if Jenson is right, perhaps what is needed is a richer notion of the God in whom these processes occur. At the very least, substantial interaction between Christian theology and evolutionary biology is prompting new metaphors and new ways of thinking about God.

In other words, the theology that has declared a truce with Darwin is a theology that is required, for example, to see God allowing any number of possible outcomes to history -- a God who is "deeply involved" in creation, but not omnipotent. So I repeat my assertion: This is not biblical Christianity.

Tellingly, Michael Zimmerman sees the public status of evolutionary theory endangered by the fact that so many Christians resist the theory. As he admits, "I believe that most people, if forced to choose between religion and evolution, will select religion." He is right, of course -- and that is why there is such panic in the temple of Darwin.

This Blog post and more can be found at

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Pentagon Plans to Shoot Down Failing Satellite

WASHINGTON — U.S. officials say the Pentagon is planning to shoot down a broken spy satellite expected to hit the Earth in early March.

The Associated Press has learned that the option preferred by the Bush administration will be to fire a missile from a U.S. Navy cruiser, and shoot down the satellite before it enters Earth's atmosphere.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the options will not be publicly discussed until a Pentagon briefing later Thursday.

It is not known where on Earth the satellite will hit. But officials familiar with the situation said last week that about half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft is expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and will scatter debris — some of it potentially hazardous — over several hundred miles.

The satellite is outfitted with thrusters, small engines used to position it in space, that contain the toxic rocket fuel hydrazine. Hydrazine can cause harm to anyone who contacts it.

The satellite, known by its military designation US 193, was launched in December 2006. It lost power and its central computer failed almost immediately afterward, leaving it uncontrollable. It carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor.

U.S. officials do not want this equipment to fall into the wrong hands.

"The Chinese and the Russians spend an enormous amount of time trying to steal American technology," said John Pike, a defense and intelligence expert. "To have our most sophisticated radar intelligence satellite — have big pieces of it fall into their hands — would not be our preferred outcome."

Where it lands will be difficult to predict until the satellite descends to about 59 miles above the Earth and enters the atmosphere.

It will then begin to burn up, with flares visible from the ground, said Ted Molczan, a Canadian satellite tracker. From that point on, he said, it will take about 30 minutes to fall.

In the past 50 years, about 17,000 man-made objects have re-entered the Earth's atmosphere.

The largest uncontrolled re-entry by a NASA spacecraft was Skylab, the 78-ton abandoned space station that fell from orbit in 1979. Its debris dropped harmlessly into the Indian Ocean and across a remote section of western Australia.

In 2000, NASA engineers successfully directed a safe de-orbit of the 17-ton Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, using rockets aboard the satellite to bring it down in a remote part of the Pacific Ocean.

In 2002, officials believe debris from a 7,000-pound science satellite smacked into the Earth's atmosphere and rained down over the Persian Gulf, a few thousand miles from where they first predicted it would plummet.

Short-term exposure to hydrazine could cause coughing, irritated throat and lungs, convulsions, tremors or seizures, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Long-term exposure could damage the liver, kidney and reproductive organs. - AP

isn't that nice to know! Some satellite with toxic fuel about ready to crash into Earth and we don't know were its going to land.

New Yorkers Encouraged to Get Busy with Free Condoms

Health Department Unveils Ad Campaign, New Condom Design

The city wants New Yorkers to "get some" this Valentine's Day. The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene unveiled its 2008 safer sex awareness campaign with new posters, banners, and TV ads featuring a colorful and sexy message. The city also unveiled a new look for the wrapper of its free condom.

The slogan is -- wait for it -- "Get Some."

Street teams from the health department will meet commuters around the city Thursday to hand out the new NYC Condom for Valentine's Day, officials said.

Hand-out locations include Times Square, Wall Street and near City Hall.

Yves Behar, founder of the San Francisco-based design agency, fuseproject, designed the new condom package and its dispenser, which will be placed in 200 venues around the city.

"Good design can help bring condoms out of the closet," said Behar. "The brand's friendly design and the dispenser's approachable shape convey openness and acceptance. They say condoms are nothing to be embarrassed about."

The new video ads feature colorful images of city landmarks and are set to hip hop, jazz and Latin beats. They will air in English and Spanish on cable and broadcast TV as well as radio, according to health officials. Display ads are also appearing in more than 1,000 subway cars, as well as on phone kiosks and in check-cashing outlets.

"The NYC Condom has shown us what a sexy brand can do for safer sex," said Dr. Monica Sweeney, the Health Department's assistant commissioner for HIV prevention and control in a statement. "We gave out more than 36 million of them last year. I hope the fresh look will help even more New Yorkers protect themselves from infection and unintended pregnancy in 2008."

The city has distributed more than 36 million condoms since first introducing the NYC Condom on Valentine's Day in 2007. The new wrapper holds the same brand of condom inside, from Lifestyles.

Any New York City establishment -- whether it's a health club, coffee house, bar, barbershop or clothing store -- can order NYC Condoms in bulk by calling 311 or visiting

The Health Department will deliver free NYC Condoms as needed to meet demand. Telephone and online orders are for organizations only. But individual New Yorkers can call 311 or visit for updated information on where to find NYC Condoms. -

Hahahah! This is funny! I guaranty that if I were to start an abstinence program like that the ACLU would be all over me like white on rice. I don't understand what is so wrong with doing it the biblical way. Saving sex for marriage as God wants us to and has expressed in his word. But I do understand that we live in a fallen world, a world that can only be saved by Gods grace. I pray that God reveals his love and grace to you today and I pray more and more that God will open your eyes and my eyes to the truth of his word.

S . A .D.

Happy Singles - Awareness - Day ! For those of you who are single like me and hate Valentines day! I am right there with you and you will get through this day.

P.S. Don't forget that God is in control! I'm sure he has someone special out there for us.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Star Wars: The Clone Wars to Cartoon Network and Theaters has officially announced that the new animated series Star Wars: The Clone Wars will air on Cartoon Network beginning this fall, followed by reruns airing shortly after on TNT. Lucasfilm has produced The Clone Wars independently, and until now it was unknown what network would be showing the series.

The Clone Wars deal is part of a new partnership between Lucasfilm, Warner Bros. Pictures and Turner Broadcasting System Inc. Also announced as an important facet of this partnership was confirmation that The Clone Wars will first be seen by audiences as a theatrical film (reportedly collecting the first three episodes), which will be released by Warner Bros. in North American theaters on Friday, August 15th. News had broken recently of the series debuting in theaters in the UK and other international markets, but it wasn't clear if it would play in the U.S. until now. The press release says that international dates will be announced soon.

The announcement gives an overview of the series, saying "On the front lines of an intergalactic struggle between good and evil, fans young and old will join such favorite characters as Anakin Skywalker, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Padmé Amidala, along with brand-new heroes like Anakin's padawan learner, Ahsoka. Sinister villains -- led by Darth Sidious, Count Dooku and General Grievous -- are poised to rule the galaxy. Stakes are high, and the fate of the Star Wars universe rests in the hands of the daring Jedi Knights. Their exploits lead to the action-packed battles and astonishing new revelations that fill Star Wars: The Clone Wars."

George Lucas is quoted on as saying "I felt there were a lot more Star Wars stories left to tell. I was eager to start telling some of them through animation and, at the same time, push the art of animation forward." It's also stated in the announcement that "Star Wars: The Clone Wars showcases an entirely new look and feel to the galaxy far, far away -- combining the expansive scope of the Star Wars Saga with state-of-the-art computer-generated animation. Each week, viewers will see a thrilling, 30-minute 'mini-movie' created by the talented artists at Lucasfilm Animation." More than 30 episodes of the series have been completed so far.

The first in a planned series of special web-only documentaries that chronicle the development of Star Wars: The Clone Wars can now be found at


This is awesome. Its good to see that Star Wars is not dead.