Follow Me On Twitter!

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Why Does The Left Love Islam And Hate Christianity?

I noticed something in the last week. The Huffington Post (a joke of a news organization) ran at least two anti-Christian articles. To avoid click-bait I won't link the urls to those articles but they included:

- Because a "Christian woman" cheered the death of Ted Kennedy, then ALL Christians are bad

- All modern Christians are unlike Christ because the author could cite a few anecdotal instances of  "Christians" acting non-Christ-like

However hard the left tries to cast dispersion on a all Christians due to the bad behavior of a few, the same people will rush to Islam's defense when a Muslim acts horrifically. Let's contrast and compare:

- All Christians are bad because one cheers the death of an enemy, but all Muslims are not bad even though one murders 49 people

- All Christians are un-Christ-like because of the non-violent actions of a few, but all Muslims are not bad despite many committing horrific acts of violence

- All Christians are bad because there is teaching in Christianity about the roles of men and women, but all Muslims are not bad despite Islam not allowing women to drive, vote, or be educated

- All Christians are bad because they teach, according to scripture, that homosexuals are living in sin and in need of salvation, but all Muslims are not bad despite Islam teaching that homosexuals are worthy of death

I could go on, but you get the point. The question is why are liberals so hateful towards Christianity but at the same time so defensive of Islam? It doesn't add up. Islam, on every point, is opposed to the very tenets of modern liberalism, but liberals will defend it voraciously at every turn. At the same time they will attack Christianity no matter what, and in any way they can.

Sunday, January 03, 2016

Why CNN Is Irrelvant

CNN used to be THE cable news network. Not just by name but in practicality. I can remember being in my early twenties and watching the start of the Persian Gulf War on CNN. As a young conservative I didn't realize just how far left CNN leaned. Years later when Fox News was starting out, I would hear conservatives praise Fox News on Rush Limbaugh's radio program.

When I first tuned into Fox News it was during the Hannity and Colmes program. I realized that the program was a combination of a liberal and a conservative. (I remember thinking, please don't let this Alan Colmes guy be the conservative!) What a fair and balanced way of doing a news program, I thought.

By 2000 I had left CNN behind. I had always been more of a CNN Headline News guy anyway, but even that fell by the wayside. I tuned exclusively into Fox News. The secret to Fox News was trying to remain down the middle. I used to laugh when my liberal friends would accuse Fox News of being "right-wing". I quickly realized that these liberals were so used to hearing news with a left-wing slant, that they thought non-biased news was too far right.

I still have this argument with liberals. I point out to them all of the liberals that I hear from while watching Fox News. I explain how I regularly yell at my TV having to hear Juan Williams spouting his left-wing garbage on Fox. Obama could commit murder and Williams would try to find a way to rationalize it. The liberals that watch CNN (or worse MSNBC) hardly ever hear a conservative viewpoint. That don't understand that which is why they think Fox is so far right.

So why is CNN so irrelevant in the world of cable news today? Simple, they do not connect with real Americans. CNN no longer appeals to the early twenties conservative that wants to see the start of the first war in his consciousness. They no longer appeal to the farmer.and his family, that is struggling to survive. CNN now has an audience of east and west coasters that don't understand the struggles of middle America.

CNN no longer connects with real, everyday Americans, but it has a loyal following of uber rich, Hollywood types. They still love CNN. And they hate Fox because, again, they can't stand balanced news broadcasting. They want to hear their news through the liberal, left-wing filter. They want their preconceived, left-wing biased opinions to be reinforced, not challenged. They'd rather hear non-news, than balanced news.

For example, tonight Fox News ran a special on Benghazi, a story that real Americans are deeply concerned about. CNN? They ran a documentary on Steve Jobs.

There is the juxtaposition. One cable news network is running a hard hitting news program about how the Obama administration, including a potential candidate for the 2016 presidential election (Hillary Clinton), allowed 6 Americans to be killed in our Libyan embassy, and then blamed a Youtube video for the attack. The other was running a tabloid fluff piece about a Silicon Valley CEO that has been dead for over 4 years.

Friday, June 26, 2015

The United States of Sodom

As the SCOTUS continues to push us closer to Civil War II, I have to wonder if the liberal justices on the court even consider the ramifications of their decisions.

Allowing gays to marry is a direct violation of the 1st amendment! Every religion (that hasn't been liberalized itself) is against homosexuality. Christian, Muslim, Orthodox Jew, and Hindu for sure (which covers about 90% of the world's religious population) are anti-homosexual. How do we as Americans now freely practice our religion if forced to accept gay marriage?

And that is the next question. As a minister that conducts real marriages (1 man and 1 woman) am I going to be forced to perform gay marriages as well? Am I going to be sued by a gay couple that I refuse to marry?

The justices apparently are not considering the constitution in these cases. And they certainly aren't thinking about the domino effect and long-term consequences.

It really is a morally sad day in America. We should change our name to the United States of Sodom. We now are on our way to Sodom and Gomorrah. I pray the Lord returns to end this madness. And soon.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Supreme Court Lost Now Too

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781

Government is run amok. We are currently in a period here in the United States that Jefferson and James Madison, among others, feared the most. That is a period of an oppressive government bent on taking from some and giving to others.

The Socialist in Chief is already a lost cause. The Republicans aren't far behind him in their spineless bowing to the executive branch. And now the Supreme Court, the last bastion of hope for preserving the United States of America that was founded in 1776, is also lost. And so close to July 4th.

Upholding the Obamacare subsidies is beyond the pale. Decisions like this are the kind of decisions that cause the unity of the union to be called into doubt. States secede. Lines are drawn. Arms are taken up. Welcome to the 2015 edition of 1861.

The words of Thomas Jefferson ring in my ears:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Tyranny is here. And our only option might be to resort to the last option we have, especially since there are renewed efforts to to remove our right to keep and bear the arms. The very arms that we may need to take up.

When all hope is lost, the only hope we have is to restore hope ourselves...............

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Baptism Doth Also Now Save Us!

I Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

No passage of scripture puts it more eloquently than that. That right-minded people can read that passage of scripture and still claim that baptism is not essential for salvation is beyond me.

The reason this topic is top of mind is because my daughter just obeyed the Gospel and was baptized into Christ. I haven't been this happy since I was baptized myself nearly 34 years ago.

I implore everyone that reads this to make sure you are truly saved. While we are saved by grace through faith, the fruition of that is through water baptism as demonstrated over and over again in the book of Acts.

If you merely accepted Christ, and were baptized as formality, please examine that and consider being baptized for the remission of your sins. There is a lot of snake oil in the religious world, and faith only is nothing but snake oil. Don't let Satan cause you to be lost forever.

If you would like more information on this, please comment below and I will be glad to help you in anyway I can.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

The Shining Vs. The Shining

I recently came across a documentary entitled Room 237. The film is about Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece from 1980, The Shining. At the heart of this documentary are various narrators giving their opinions on hidden meanings in Kubrick's film.

The documentary is slickly done as you never see the narrators, but instead you watch clips from The Shining, as well as other Kubrick films. There is even a couple of brief glimpses from the 1997 miniseries, The Shining. (Which was a complete piece of garbage I might add.) When these narrators point out various specifics from the movie, the corresponding clips are shown, sometimes with the pertinent item or feature highlighted with arrows.

The opinions on hidden meanings range from the film being about the holocaust, to the film being about the genocide of the American Indian, to the film being an homage to Kubrick's alleged (by that particular narrator) role in the faking of the Apollo moon landings. All the opinions come off as pretty paltry, though The Shining does contain some interesting allusions to the Apollo space program. (Maybe Kubrick was not involved but rather skeptical of the moon landings himself?)

Watching the documentary renewed my interest in not only the movie, but Stephen King's book by the same name which the movie was loosely based on. A couple of the narrators commented on not really liking the movie at first because it went so far askew of the book. And they even talked about Stephen King himself disliking Kubrick's treatment of his source material.

For full disclosure I saw the movie when I was a kid, on TV long before I read the book. In fact, I saw the movie at least a half dozen times prior to finally reading the novel in my mid-twenties. While I found the book entertaining, I found Kubrick's film to be much more scary.

I've probably watched the move in its entirety at least 20 times. I've caught bits and pieces of it many more times than that. I've read King's book one time. Not sure that matters or not, but while the novel is good, the movie is great. While the novel is entertaining, the movie pulls you in and doesn't loosen its grip on you until well after the closing credits.

The book only really had one scary part to me. Near the end of the book, the hotel's cook, Dick Hallorann, who is a hero in the book, has to fight the hotel's attempt to creep into his mind the way it did into Jack Torrance's mind. I got goose bumps when I read that. It was eery to think that this hotel could have that kind of power over a man of normally sound mind.

The film has lots of scares and chills. I will never forget the first time Danny (Jack's son) is riding his big wheel in the halls of the hotel, and turns down one hallway only to see the ghosts of the two little girls who had been murdered by their father, himself a former caretaker of the hotel.

"Come play with us Danny. Come play with us forever, and ever, and ever."

I am getting the chills just writing about this. And remembering the interspersed shots of the girls laying bloody with an ax near their bodies.

Dick Hallorann in the movie is not much of a hero. Played brilliantly by the now deceased Scatman Crothers, He walks into the hotel and is killed about 1 minute later by Jack Torrance via ax to the chest. That scene was startling and scary in its own right.

But the movie achieves an eeriness in atmosphere, and setting, and ambiance that the book just never approaches. While reading about Jack Torrance's spiral (thanks to the hotel) into a dark insanity was interesting, it was much more scary seeing it. And the tone the film strikes does this perfectly. The long sequences of no dialogue. The brilliant score. The magnificence and awe-striking enormity of the hotel itself. All of this blend perfectly into a chilling tone and atmosphere that the book can't compete with.

Even the changes Kubrick makes from the novel make sense. In the book, topiary animals (animal shaped bushes for the layman) play a major role in the film. In 1980 the special effects just didn't exist to properly bring animal-shaped shrubbery to life in a believable manner. Kubrick, brilliantly, substitutes the hedge maze, which becomes the focal point of the climax of the film.

Another aspect from the book that Kubrick uses onlymildly in the film is the mental communication between those that "shine". Most of the time Kubrick does this to great effect through imagery. As in the "shining" recipient sees something (and we get to see it too!). In the book, this mental communication in dialogue was much more pronounced, almost overused, by King. Doing that in film would have been cheesy. Since it was used so infrequently in the film, it comes across as much more subtle and effective.

I recently read that King hated most what Kubrick did with the character of Wendy Torrance, Jack's wife. He called her the most misogynistic character ever. That she was only there to scream. I think that is harsh. After all, Wendy uses the bat to club Jack, and then lock him in the pantry. While she isn't the strongest heroine film has ever seen, she isn't exactly doing nothing but screaming.

All of this might sound a little more harsh then I intend it to be. I don't dislike Kings' novel at all. I just don't understand why the film can't be viewed and enjoyed on its own merits. In hindsight, I wish Kubrick had called it The Hotel, or something else. Using the same title meant that King and his fans expected a line by line translation into a film.

If I could only choose one, see the film or read the book, I would choose the film. Kubrick was a genius, ahead of his time. King is an above average writer who is very prolific. I'll take the genius over the okay writer any day of the week.

Tuesday, May 07, 2013

Obama Supporter And Voter Lauryn Hill Sentenced To Prison For Tax Evasion

In what can only be described as the ultimate in irony, Lauryn Hill, who supported and voted for the most pro-tax president in the history of our country, didn't pay her own taxes!

Here is the story:

And in case you aren't sure she voted for and supported Obama, here is this:

Hypocrites? Yeah I think so.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Boomer Esaison Is A Moron

Tim Tebow was cut today by the New York Jets. I've gone on record to say that I am a Tim Tebow fan, and that I think he is a winner. He's won every where he has gone, and that would have included New York if the Jets had given him a fair shot. I hope and pray that another team gives him a chance.

But what the Tebow news today really did was remind me of a post I have been wanting to put up for a while. And that is to comment on one of the worst NFL commentators in the business today: Boomer Esiason.

The connection between Boomer and Tebow is obvious. Last off-season Boomer spent a lot of time slandering Tebow. "He isn't worthy of a roster spot." "He shouldn't even be a back-up quarterback." "The Jets should cut him."

Those were just a sampling of the things Boomer had to say about Tebow last off-season. But you can go back to the previous off-season to read even more. "Tebow can't play, can't throw." That was said prior to the 2011 season.

Then after the Broncos made Tebow their starter, Boomer upped the rhetoric. After his second start Boomer called for the Broncos to "end the Tim Tebow experiement".

So for the better part of two years Boomer Esiason has spent the majority of his NFL commentary ripping a fellow NFL quarterback. Boomer never gave Tebow credit when he played well. He never missed a chance to point out when Tebow played poorly.

What Boomer never did was acknowledge that Tebow was a first year starter in 2011 for the Broncos and as such made his share of "rookie" mistakes. Now if I felt Boomer was worth the time I would go back and compare his first 12 starts in his NFL career to Tebow's first 12 starts in 2011. Something tells me that Boomer wouldn't like the results of that comparison.

What I can do is look at the facts. Tebow took over a 1-4 Bronco team and led them to a playoff berth. He then led the Broncos to an opening round playoff victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers. At times Tebow played like a first year starter in the NFL. At other times he played like a seasoned veteran. One thing he proved was that the Broncos were NEVER out of a game with him at the helm.

After the Broncos signed Peyton Manning following the 2011 NFL season, they traded Tebow to the NY Jets. Rex Ryan never gave Tebow a chance in New York, even jumping him on the depth chart to start the 3rd string QB when Mark Sanchez got benched. Typical Rex Ryan stubbornness refused to give a proven winner the chance to turn around the Jets' season. The result? The Jets continued to lose.

And Boomer continued to attack Tebow. I am sure Boomer would try to argue that the Broncos defense was the reason for the Broncos run in 2011. Which would be typical Esiason NFL analysis. In other words, not very good. Considering it was the same Broncos defense that started 1-4. What was different after that start? Oh the starting QB, but no Boomer, let's give the defense the credit.

Oh and how did the Broncos do with Peyton at the helm last year? While they did win their division, they failed to win a single playoff game. That's right, after 1 season as starter in the Denver, Peyton Manning couldn't win a playoff game, something Tebow did in his first season as starter.

As for Boomer's own performance? As I said as far as NFL commentators go I can't think of anyone worse. Boomer even does these little CBS sports minutes on CBS radio. One morning I got to hear Boomer creating a Hollywood movie cast for some made-up sports movie. I don't even remember who the movie was supposed to be about, but I couldn't believe the waste of 60 seconds of radio time for that hard-hitting sports analysis. Boomer is a joke.

What makes Boomer's attacks on Tebow so bad is there is no professional basis for them. That means that they could only be personal. It isn't apparanete what he has against Tebow, but personal attacks for two years are just a mean-spirited action, and not the actions of a true professional sports commentator. It begs the question, "Why does Boomer hate Tim Tebow?"

But even without the Tim Tebow rants, Boomer is a horrible commentator. In fact, to sum up this entire blog post, I just have to say: CBS should fire Boomer Esiason. Boomer isn't worthy of radio and TV airtime. He can't commentate, he can't analyze.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Obama to Planned Parenthood: "God bless you."

Sickening. Absolutely sickening.

To evoke God's name in relation to the pro-abortion fight is the worst taking of God's name in vain in the history of mankind.

Thank you America for four more years of this blasphemer.

Friday, April 19, 2013

Boston Bombers, Ready For This?, Are Muslims


By now you've heard about the Boston Marathon bombings, and that two suspects were identified. One was killed, or killed himself, last night. The other remains on the loose.

You've probably also heard by now that they are Chechnya and are Muslims.

Since that last part was discovered I have witnessed those on the left falling all over themselves to make sure that "we do not indict Islam as a whole"! To quote another leftist since all this was revealed: "All religions have their share of losers."

Of course they leave out the fact that the other religions' loser rarely, if ever, go out and bomb and kill people in the name of that religion. Nor are they promised dozens of virgins in paradise for doing so.

But what is really funny is the song liberals were singing prior to it being revealed, inevitably, that  Muslim terrorists were to blame. You see Chris Matthews and his ilk had spent the better part of 3 days surmising that this was probably  "homegrown terrorists upset about gun control". You can't make this stuff up.

And, of course, they began to run with this and to indict all people that owned guns and are unhappy with Obama's presidency as being potential home-grown terrorists bent on blowing up innocent fellow Americans.


Then as soon as  the truth, which we all knew in our gut, that these were Muslim radicals bent on terrorizing innocent women and children in the name of their religion, the left begins to make sure that not all Muslims are indicted as potential terrorist bombers.

Do you think Chris Matthews will issue an apology for indicting "gun nuts"? Do you think any of those on the left that have spent 2-3 days hoping beyond hope that a) it wasn't a Muslim and b) that it was an Obama hating gun owner, will apologize? Do you think any of them will have the guts to come forward and say that they should have known all along that Islamic radicalism was behind the bombings?

Of course not.

So enjoy the spin for the next few days. It will come fast and furious. The left-wing, MSM can't help themselves. And neither can those home-grown America haters known as the political left.