Follow Me On Twitter!

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.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

The Truth About The Gun Show Loophole

I am so sick of hearing about the "gun show loophole". The belief by many anti-gun people is that you can go to a gun show and buy a rifle, shotgun or handgun, and are not subject to a federal background check that is mandatory in a gun dealer's store or shop. Now here is the truth:

If you buy a rifle, shotgun, or a handgun from a dealer that holds a Federal Firearm License (commonly referred to as a FFL), then you will be submitted to a federal background check (NICS, The National Instant Criminal Background Check System) regardless of the location. That means EVEN AT A GUN SHOW!!

That's right folks, buying guns at a gun show is no different than buying a gun at a gun shop or retailer. You will have to fill out the NICS form and have the background check run before you can have the weapon transferred to you. Period.

Just to be clear, let me repeat that: If you buy a gun from a FFL dealer, you will be subject to the NICS background check regardless of location! Doesn't matter if you buy it in their store, their home, their Prius, or even a gun show.

So what is the "gun show loophole"? First and foremost it is bad misnomer. Secondly, it is the right as private gun owner to transfer your firearm to another individual without the burden of having to figure out how to submit the person to the NICS background check.

So why does this "loophole" exist? Because not being a gun dealer, a private individual has no way of running a NICS background check against their husband, wife, son, daughter, dad, mom, uncle, aunt, cousin, friend, or person that answered a want ad. Without this loophole it would be extremely difficult for a family member or friend to be gifted a firearm, or to even inherit the firearm. It is ridiculous to contemplate the burden of trying to figure out how to subject individuals to such a process.

This would be analogous to telling a private seller of a vehicle that they have to run a DMV check on a potential buyer before they can sell a vehicle to another individual. What? How?

Now here is the real kicker: there are federal rules governing this "loophole", and most states have already closed the "loophole" already!

The federal law regarding transferring firearms to another individual clearly states that you cannot knowingly transfer (sell or give) any firearm to someone that is ineligible for buying a gun. IE, if you know the person couldn't pass the background check (they are a felon, mentally ill, have renounced their U.S. citizenship, are an illegal alien, have a restraining order against them, etc) then you cannot give or sell a firearm of any type to  said person. Doing so is a felony itself!

Further, most states have already closed this so-called "loophole" for all or some firearms. For instance, here in Michigan, any long gun can be gifted or sold to another individual without a background check. However, it is still subject to the federal restriction stated above. However, in Michigan, if you give or sell a handgun you do have to have a background check.

The Michigan system actually makes sense, the responsibility is all on the buyer. The buyer must go to their local police department, fill out a form. The police department runs a Michigan State Police background check on the buyer, and then gives them a 10 day (2 week) purchase permit if they are cleared. The buyer has 2 weeks to purchase the handgun, and then return one of the copies of the purchase permit back to the police station, filled out and signed by the seller.

Many other states have similar processes, and many even include long guns in that process, including every state where a high-profile shooting has taken place! In fact, none of the shootings (Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, VA Tech) were perpetrated with a gun received via the "gun show loophole".

So while the media and idiotic liberal politicians (like 0bama) make a big deal of the "gun show loophole", closing it on a federal level would have done NOTHING to prevent those shootings. It is smoke-and-mirrors, bait-and-switch by the media and idiotic liberal politicans (like 0bama) to suggest that this is a natural outcome of those shootings.

So in short, there IS no "gun show loophole" and in fact that should get the award for the worst name ever. It is lie. It is a grossly misleading name. Which is precisely why the media and idiotic liberal politicians (like 0bama) use it.