Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Leave No Man Behind - Benghazi, anyone?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Benghazi, Libya. This follows this post about the Supreme Court. This follows this post about Great Britain. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632. 

MP3 Audio (7.73 MB)
The Marine Corps’ motto to leave no man behind on the battlefield packs a powerful lesson in brotherhood, loyalty and courage. For a Christian this thought was first laid down in the question: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The answer is yes, we are. We do have an obligation toward each other. That obligation presents challenges that will test our character and can determine a lot about who we are.
Two recent movies treat this theme with two different outcomes. I recently had opportunity to watch both. I can highly recommend them.
We are our brother’s keeper. We cannot, under any circumstances, leave anyone behind.
The first was the movie  The Martian.  This is a science fiction story set in the year 2035. A manned mission to Mars is interrupted by a severe dust storm forcing the crew to an emergency evacuation on the planet. One astronaut is downed by flying debris, knocked unconscious and presumed to be dead when no life signs can be monitored, as telemetry for his life signs was knocked out. The remaining crew enter their ship and leave him behind and depart for earth. But he is not dead, only wounded and knocked unconscious. He recovers and returns to the base station and determines through several ingenious methods how he can stay alive until the next planned mission to Mars occurs—at least two years. Meanwhile his fellow astronauts are on their home ship returning to earth and unaware that he lives. NASA has made contact but decides not to tell the returning crew they left behind a live comrade. [If you haven’t seen the movie, skip the next paragraph as it contains some plot spoilers.]
The story turns into a rescue mission when the crew learns that their mate lives and they are faced with the decision of whether they will return to Mars and attempt to save the abandoned astronaut’s life. This moment is really the best in the movie. The group of four, safe and on their way home after a long stay in space, unanimously decide to return and make the effort to save their friend. They decide to “leave no man behind.” Here the movie speaks to perhaps the highest and noblest qualities of courage and loyalty. To turn from safety and risk one’s life for another comes the closest on our level to what Christ did when He came in the flesh to rescue man from sin and give the opportunity for eternal life.
The second movie I saw is more controversial. It, too, tells a real life story of courage. But since it deals with real events in the real world, the lines of truth are not as clearly defined. It is also a story still debated in the headlines as Congressional committees, journalists and victims of the dead still seek to understand what happened and who is responsible. It is the story of the September 2012 massacre of United Sates Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three CIA operatives in Benghazi, Libya. The tragedy has now been made into a movie just released a few days ago called 13 Hours.  The film’s director claims to have made careful effort to tell the truth of what happened when Islamic terrorists stormed the ambassador’s compound on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. The screenplay is based on a book written by surviving CIA soldiers who were members of the Global Response Staff (GRS) working at a secret CIA installation one mile from the Ambassador’s poorly secured compound.
This story was investigated and gone over in countless news reports and Congressional inquiries. Hillary Clinton, who was then Secretary of State and now a contender for the presidency, was called to answer questions about what she knew and did or did not do during the attack. The movie makes clear that officials at the highest level, including the president, were briefed and made aware of the unfolding events that fateful night in Libya. It also makes clear that additional backup support from the GRS soldiers a mile away was delayed in arriving to help the ambassador’s ill-prepared team. The CIA station chief would not give the order for backup. The additional soldiers had to defy orders to make a run to the compound to save two State Department staff. The ambassador and one staff member were killed in the attack. The CIA soldiers would not leave anyone behind. They went toward the danger, seeking to save their fellow Americans.
The courage of those real life soldiers who ran toward the fire in Benghazi and the science fiction tale of rescue in space are two standout stories. We live in a sterile world where risk is minimized, failure is insured and accountability and responsibility are not always taught in the public arena. We need to be reminded that when things go wrong, when danger rises and when our brother is in trouble, something has to be done. Someone has to step up.
We are our brother’s keeper. We cannot, under any circumstances, leave anyone behind.

You might also be interested in...

Clinton Removes The Mask—Goes Full Merkel On Immigration

An interesting article from http://www.vdare.com about Hillary Clinton's immigration position. This follows this post about the H-2B Visas in the Appropriations Budget. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2011.German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2011.

Clinton Removes The Mask—Goes Full Merkel On Immigration

VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow recently gave a talk entitled It Will Only Take One Election”—The Trump Tsunami vs. Clinton’s Coming Merkel-Style Immigration Surge. That Hillary Clinton is indeed planning a Merkel-type surge has just been confirmed by her latest op-ed on the topic “Immigration needs reform, not Trump’s bigotry [Arizona Republic, June 24, 2016]. Here, Clinton has removed the mask, not even pretending to care about the interests of Americans.  Even for Democrats, this is a, an ominous, new development.
Until recently, most Democratic politicians at least feigned interest in border security and the interests of Americans when discussing immigration.  Thus just three years ago, Barack Obama’s principles on immigration principles included “Continue to Strengthen Our Borders” and “Crackdown on Employers who Hire Undocumented Workers.”  Obama even described Amnesty with euphemisms, claiming it meant “that everyone play by the same rules, including passing a background check, and paying taxes and a penalty”. [Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Organizing for America]
And that was nothing compared to Hillary Clinton a decade ago. The she said “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants” and “[p]eople have to stop employing illegal immigrants…I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.” [Hillary goes conservative on immigration, Washington Times, December 13, 2004].
Clinton and Obama obviously were never serious about border security or cracking down on employers. But it’s significant that they felt it was politically expedient to pretend they were.
Much of Clinton’s latest op-ed is open borders boilerplate.  It opens with an anecdote about a seemingly sympathetic illegal alien family with an Anchor Baby afraid of her mother being deported.  It uses cliches like “instead of building walls, we ought to be breaking down barriers” and “we have always been a nation of immigrants.” It accuses of Donald Trump of “scapegoat[ing],” “bigotry,” and “fear mongering.”
However, what is remarkable is what Clinton does not include.  Beyond a short paragraph claiming that “immigration reform” a.k.a. Amnesty would help the economy, she does not make any claim about immigration even remotely benefiting Americans.  Nor does she mention border security or enforcement once—not even to say that the border is already secure or that amnesty will enable the ICE to focus on the gang members and terrorists.
Typical Democratic platforms call for increased enforcement and border security tied to conditional amnesty and vague legal immigration reform. But Hillary Clinton’s three steps are–all of which she plans to do unilaterally—are:
  • Let’s focus on families.” Clinton makes clear this means reducing enforcement, specifically “ending large-scale raids, ending the practice of family detention and shutting down private detention facilities.”
  • “Increase our focus on integration.” This, of course, does not mean ending bilingualism and cutting immigration to give those here a chance to assimilate.  Rather she vows to create an “Office of Immigrant Affairs,” which she will no doubt staff with La Raza ethnic activists.
  • Help the 9 million people in our country who are currently eligible for naturalization become full citizens. This means granting fee waivers and outreach to ensure the permanent residents who have not filed for citizenship, because “no one should miss out on the chance to be a citizen.”
Of course, anyone who is “currently eligible” for naturalization already has “the chance to be a citizen.”  It’s just that these supposedly patriotic immigrants have no interest in becoming Americans: permanent residency status already gives them access to welfare and/or legal employment.  It costs just $585-680 to apply for citizenship. Furthermore, there are (unfortunately) already fee waivers for those on welfare or 150% below the poverty line). Anyone who is too poor to afford this will be a further drain on our resources. Anyone who is unwilling to pay it does not value citizenship.
In addition, Clinton calls for “a path to full and equal citizenship.”  Of particular note, she does not stipulate that criminals or terrorists should not get citizenship.  (Serious crimes are a bar to citizenship, and terrorists can’t even be admitted to the US. )
Perhaps because she focused on her unilateral actions, Clinton did not mention legal immigration. (Some immigration attorneys suggested Obama could increase legal immigration through Executive Order, and the Obama administration hinted at this idea, but this proved to be even a political and/or legal bridge too far for the creative minds in the Obama Administration.  [See Why We Can’t Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen, by Gary Endelman and Cyrus Mehta, Immigration Daily, 2012; and  W.H. meets big biz on immigration, by Anna Palmer, Politico, August 19, 2014]).  However, Clinton has a long record of supporting massive increases in legal immigration.
Clinton’s Arizona Republic Op-ed is largely consistent with her campaign platform, which highlights that she will
  • “Enact comprehensive immigration reform to create a pathway to citizenship, keep families together, and enable millions of workers to come out of the shadows.”
  • “Defend President Obama’s executive actions to provide deportation relief for DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful residents, and extend those actions to additional persons with sympathetic cases if Congress refuses to act.”
  • “Promote naturalization and support immigrant integration.”
  • “End family detention and close private immigrant detention centers.”
But Clinton’s platform at least gives brief lip service to an Amnesty that “upholds the rule of law, protects our borders and national security” [Immigration reform, Hillary for America]
When Hillary Clinton began preparing for her first presidential run, the New York Times noted her conservative posturing on immigration led “Republicans to predict that she would position herself to the right of even President Bush on illegal immigration. The conservative commentator Tony Blankley called her remarks ‘Pat Buchanan-esque’” [The Evolution of Hillary Clinton, by Raymond Hernandez & Patrick Healy, July 13, 2005]
What a difference a decade makes.  With Donald Trump’s hardline on immigration and Bernie defeated, Clinton could easily take relatively restrictionist positions on immigration without worrying about losing the La Raza crowd.
But what this op-ed reinforces is that Clinton is either ideologically dedicated to open borders and/or has written off ordinary white Americans and is doubling down on turning out Hispanics.
One thing is certain: the American people will finally get to choose between two competing visions on immigration this November.
Washington Watcher [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.

Monday, June 27, 2016

Editorial: Brexit - Overreaction and Guilt Manipulation


Ever since the British decided to vote for their sovereignty, the elites of the world have tried to guilt them into regretting their decision. The elites have crashed the markets and have done other things to encourage this guilt manipulation.

As in the U.S., a main reason for the Brexit was the frustration about immigration. As in the U.S., many immigrants don't even make the pretense of assimilation. Frequently in the U.S., immigrants and their citizen co-ethnics, will speak among themselves in non-English languages and then act as if you are the one with the problem for not knowing their language. This is unlike the Ellis Island era of immigration, where assimilation and Americanization was encouraged, and, if someone was around that didn't understand the immigrant's language, the immigrant would speak English out of courtesy.

This is the frustration in both the U.S. and the U.K.

21 Abortion Clinics Have Closed in Texas in Three Years Under Key Pro-Life Law

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about abortion clinics in Texas. This follows this post about taxpayer funded abortions. This follows this post about the pro-life policies of Donald Trump. For two very interesting books click HERE.
Please follow me here.

Everyone who has an interest in the abortion debate is waiting anxiously for the U.S. Supreme Court to hand down an important decision on a Texas abortion law this Monday.

Texas’ law is arguably responsible for saving the lives of tens of thousands of unborn babies by closing abortion clinics that are unable to protect women’s health. The laws protects women’s health and welfare by requiring abortion clinics to meet the kinds of medical and safety standards that legitimate medical centers meet.
At the center of the case is the question of whether the Texas regulations impose an “undue burden” on women’s access to abortion. Abortion advocates challenged the law, the abortion facility regulations and hospital admitting requirements for abortionists, arguing that their abortion clinics should not be held to the same health standards as other outpatient ambulatory facilities.
Since a portion of the law went into effect, 21 abortion clinics closed in Texas because they could not or would not meet the required basic health and safety regulations. The Texas Tribune reported in March that there are 19 abortion facilities currently operating in Texas, down from 40 in 2012. If the Supreme Court upholds the Texas regulations, 10 more possibly could close, according to the report.
The state also has seen a huge drop in the number of abortions, with 9,000 fewer between 2013 and 2014, according to the news outlet.
Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller argued the case before the high court in March, and he was immediately met with skepticism from the pro-abortion members of the high court.
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and the latest pro-life news.
“According to you, the slightest health improvement is enough to burden the lives of a million women,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told him.
Justice Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote on almost any abortion case and he appeared sympathetic to the argument that abortion clinics should be expected to comply with sensible medical standards if given enough time, according to the Washington Examiner:
“Regulations sometimes take years to adopt,” Kennedy said. At another point, he suggested the lower district court could delay a final decision for a few more years, until it becomes clear whether clinics remain closed, as opponents of the law predict, or whether they manage to reopen.
Kennedy has supported some abortion limits in the past, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. But how far he’s willing to let states go in tamping down on abortion is not clear.
Roger Severino, director of the Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, watched the oral arguments and said he thought they went as expected. He is hopeful that Justice Kennedy will side with Texas in upholding the law.
“We had the liberal/conservative breakdown in the Court that you would expect among the justices, but Justice Kennedy, in the few questions he asked, showed some hesitation about courts second-guessing the state’s ability to regulate abortion clinics,” Severino said. “Even Justice Breyer acknowledged the state’s intent in regulating abortion clinics was a legitimate desire to help further women’s health and not for some nefarious purpose.”
The pro-life group Texas Right to Life outlined what the court will consider when it decides the case:
Today, the Supreme Court will be considering two explicit questions in the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstadt case over the Texas law:
(1) Whether, when applying the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a court errs by refusing to consider whether and to what extent laws that restrict abortion for the stated purpose of promoting health actually serve the government’s interest in promoting health; and
(2) whether the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit erred in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State’s interest in promoting health – or any other valid interest.
Both of these questions deal with the “undue burden” standard from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which has been used to challenge every type of Pro-Life legislation across the country since 1992.  Whether the abortion industry is challenging informed consent laws (like Texas’ Sonogram Bill in 2011), prohibitions on late abortions (as in Arizona in 2014), or higher medical standards (as in the current challenge to House Bill 2), the plaintiffs use the vague and undefined “undue burden” standard in all cases.
The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue of abortion since 2007, when the Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in Gonzales v. Carhart.

Wknd Box Office: Independence Day: Resurgence, Free State of Jones, The Shallows, Neon Demon

Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post about some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to choosing good movies to watch yourself!

Wknd Box Office: Independence Day: Resurgence, Free State of Jones, The Shallows, Neon Demon

By Debbie Schlussel


Nothing great and/or worth seeing new in movie theaters today. Sorry. You can’t put lipstick on a silver screen pig. The biggest movie wasn’t screened for critics ‘cuz it’s a bomb (and a Hillary Clinton infomercial). And then, there’s that Black Lives Matter incitement movie. Yup, we’re smack dab in the middle of what used to be the height of the summer blockbuster movie season, and the movies suck.
* Independence Day: Resurgence – PG-13: This wasn’t screened for critics, which usually means that even the studio knows it stinks. And that’s the case for this one. I went to see it last night, and it was so bad, I thought Scientology made this movie. It’s a long, slow bore, plus it’s a campaign commercial for Hillary Rodham Cankles and propaganda for the “One World”/no sovereignty crap. When I was watching it, a lot of the other moviegoers left to buy refreshments. I was very thirsty and thought, you know, if I leave to get a Coke, I won’t miss anything. I didn’t listen to my internal voice, but I should’ve. I literally would have missed nothing. This movie reminds me of a show I watched on TV a couple of decades ago, “L.A. Doctors.” The show was mildly entertaining, but it was canceled after a single season. After two decades, would I want to see a few of the actors in their old, crotchety state make a comeback with a bad script and a bunch of irrelevant newcomers? Not really. And the same goes here, with what should’ve been called, “Independence Day: Regurgence.” The original “Independence Day” came out 20 years ago. Absolutely no reason to revisit it, other than to make Hollywood’s elitism junkies even more rich.
The story: It’s 20 years later, and a chick, Sela Ward, is the Prez of the U.S. But that doesn’t really matter because the countries of the world have set aside their “petty differences,” and they are all “one people.” It’s nauseating to see the U.S. Capitol without the American flag flying overhead, but instead many countries’ flags flying in unison and equality down the walls of the Capitol building. Oh, and the “tough” chick Prez (designed to make you think positively of Hillary, complete with “mom hair”) has to take a vote from the “council” of international leaders before she can make a decision. Plus, the jet fighter pilots fly for all different countries, including the Chi-Coms. Buh-bye, U.S. Air Force. The only good part of this is when the chick Prez and her supporters are killed and an alpha male general becomes Prez (with no qualms about making commands independent of others).
So, now, the aliens from two decades ago have returned to destroy Earth after harvesting its core for energy and technology upgrades. The aliens are now stronger and tougher and wreak havoc, death and destruction throughout the globe. They have a spaceship that is 3,000 miles in diameter that overshadows Earth and sucks everything upward. But that’s after the U.S. first shoots down a smaller spaceship that has nothing to do with the enemy aliens. The chick Prez, her cabinet, and other world leaders think it’s the enemy. Despite Jeff Goldblum’s and former Prez Bill Pullman’s warnings not to shoot it, the Prez gets the pilots to shoot it down. After she’s killed (aliens attack the underground bunker where she and the entire cabinet are being sheltered), the aforementioned general takes over as Commander-in-Chief. Even though the aliens seem to have total control and are much more powerful than the humans and their planes and bombs, somehow–miraculously–the human pilots and others on the ground manage to kill the queen alien, who is a giant. It doesn’t make sense and is stupid, but by that time, you just don’t care.
Oh, and did I mention that in a couple of obligatory “Muslim savages are people, too” scenes, we see the angst and worry of a bunch of ISIS Muslims in a tent in the desert when the aliens invade. Then, we see them–complete with keffiyehs and hijabs–cheering when mostly American pilots defeat the aliens. Uh-huh, like that would ever happen. And, I’m sure, as the movie tells us, ISIS Muslims put down their beheading swords and burn-them-alive cages because we are all now “one people.” Yup, that would definitely happen.
There’s nothing “Independent” about “Indepence Day” other than its independence from story, plot, and entertainment of any sort.
Watch the trailer . . .

* Free State of Jones – R: This is this summer’s Black Lives Matter/Twelve Years a Slave” (read my review) movie, designed to incite and provide an excuse for Black Americans to hate on da Crackaz. In this case, Matthew McConaghey is an honorary BLM member, playing real-life figure Newton Knight. But the filmmakers take liberties with Knight’s story in order to fit Hollywood’s narrative. A lot of liberties. Moreover, the movie has a Bernie Sanders/Occupy vibe to it. So your Hillary-votin’ neighbor will just love it . . . and love to slop in the White guilt or the Black lording and feelings of entitlement.
To say this movie is incredibly heavy-handed is the understatement of the year. It’s chock full of N-words and evil, racist, violent, murderous White people. I guess someone forgot to tell them that slavery ended 1.5 centuries ago and the prevalent racism in this country is Blacks against Whites. But you won’t ever see a Hollywood movie about that. Nor will you see one about the places where slavery of and racism (and mass murder) against Blacks is still prevalent today: the Muslim Mid-East and Muslim-dominated sections of Africa.
The story in this movie: Knight, a Southern farmer from the Mississippi County of Jones is a nurse on the Civil War battlefield. He sees a lot of death and dismemberment, and the screen doesn’t spare the viewer from the most grotesque examples of that, including dismembered leg joints, shot-up faces, and pigs eating the dead. One day, the Confederates are told that owners of at least 20 slaves get to go home from the war and no longer have to fight. Knight and the others sitting around the fire next to the battlefield are upset. They don’t own slaves, and they don’t grow cotton. So they wonder what they’re fighting for and are upset that they are “fighting a rich man’s war.” On top of that, Knight’s young nephew comes to find him, telling him that that Confederate Army is seizing all of the family’s crops, livestock, and property, leaving them with nothing to eat and live on. Right after that, the young nephew is killed on the battlefield, further angering Knight.
So, Knight deserts and returns home to Jones County, where he trains the people to resist the Confederates. Then, the Confederates get mad and try to capture Knight as a deserter. They use the dogs that are usually used to track down escaped slaves to try to find Knight. He gets bitten by the dogs, but escapes to a swamp, where he is tended to and befriended by escaped slaves and Rachel (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), the beautiful slave of a neighboring rich man who owns a plantation. Soon, Knight organizes the entire Country of Jones–Whites and escaped slaves–into a militia to fight the Confederate Army. And after that, he organizes three counties to do the same. Knight has essentially abandoned his White wife and son and begins a romance with the female Black slave, who was raped by her wealthy master. After the war, Knight and the slave settle down on their own homestead farm and have a child. His White wife and son join him and live there, too. And they all live happily ever after.
Stitched in and out of the movie are scenes of a court case in the late 1940s against a descendant of Knight, Davis Knight. Davis Knight is married to a White woman and appears to be White. But he is apparently one-eighth Black because he is a descendant of Knight and the Black slave, Rachel. Because of this, Mississippi prosecutes him for violating its anti-miscegenation laws. Again, I’m not sure what the point of all this is, since interracial couples are all over the place now, and many TV commercials and store fliers and catalogs pimp us on interracial relationships regularly. Also, the press regularly cheers on the “browning of America.” The movie seems like more piling on and justification for those media cheers of the extinction of White America.
As noted above, the movie takes quite a bit of liberties and makes up a lot of stuff to make the story more palatable and in line with liberal Hollywood’s agenda and narrative. There was never a Knight nephew who died on the battlefield. That whole vignette never happened. Yup, completely fabricated. And Knight never deserted. He was given a furlough to leave to visit a sick relative. You can learn more about what’s true and isn’t in this movie from a great site, History vs. Hollywood.
The movie also shields us from Knight’s weird unconventional cult-like life afterward. He and his wife Serena had nine children, not just the one depicted in the movie. He and the former slave Rachel had five children. And Rachel was not the slave of a local plantation owner. She was Knight’s grandfather’s slave. She also brought with her the four children she had with her former slave owner, presumably Knight’s grandfather. After she died, Knight had sex with and fathered at least two kids with Rachel’s daughter (and maybe his aunt) Georgeanne. Now, all of these kids, including the ones Knight had with Rachel and Serena and Georgeanne and those Rachel had with Knight’s grandfather, married each other and had kids. Weird, gross, and definitely incestuous. Of course, none of that is shown in the movie because then we’d know the real Knight was a multi-babydaddy and incestuous weirdo, which would sully Hollywood’s glorification of the guy in this propaganda flick.
On top of all that, while McConaghey’s acting is good, the movie is a long, slow slog that seems like it will never end. When it finally does, after two hours and 19 minutes, you’re thankful . . . and wonder when the next Black Lives Matter movie is coming down the pike to punch you in the face.
By the way, this is produced and financed by Huayi Brothers Media Corp. a/k/a “H. Brothers,” a Chi-Com company, which some American studios enlist to finance their films. When is the movie about Chinese slavery (which exists to date) going to come out?
Watch the trailer . . .

* The Shallows – PG-13: This stars the beautiful Blake Lively. And although she clearly does a lot of work, physically and emotionally, on the acting front in the movie, it’s just not a middle of summer big movie. It’s more like a made-for-TV, Lifetime-esque, damsel-in-distress movie. Or, at least, a January or August pet-cemetery-of-movie movie. For guys, there are a plenty of close-up shots of the toned Lively’s body in a tiny bikini. But the movie, while entertaining for sure, just isn’t anything extraordinary or very suspenseful, especially for a “man (or in this case, woman) versus the elements” flick. For instance, last year’s “The Revenant” is far more exciting and worthwhile, even if you loathe Leonardo DiCrapio’s politics, as I do.
The story: Lively is the daughter of an American woman who passed away from an illness, apparently cancer of some sort. She has a photo of her mother at a younger age, surfing at a secluded, secret, hidden Mexican beach. And so she goes to Mexico with a girlfriend and convinces a local to drive her to the secret beach, while her friend is with some guy. Nobody will tell her the name of the secret beach, and yet she tells the driver that she will summon an Uber driver to get back to her hotel at the end of the day. Um, how do you get an Uber guy to pick you up at “you know, that secret beach no one will tell me the name of”? Also, who goes alone, driven by a total stranger, to the middle of a jungle, to a secluded beach, all alone, in a foreign country? Incredibly stupid. Even more stupid: going surfing alone there, when the only others nearby are two 20-something males who could easily rape, torture, and kill you without a single witness. But Lively’s character does all this, because paying silly tribute to her late mother is so much more important than safety and common sense. This is the kind of movie where you tell your daughter, niece, or granddaughter (if you have one of these), “Don’t do what she did.”
Lively goes surfing off the beach and has a great time. She rides high waves and sees dolphins jumping over her. But then the two guys nearby leave, and she sees a sick whale that has come close to shore. Suddenly, a shark is nearby and bites her leg, injuring her and causing a lot of blood to emerge. She realizes that the shark thinks she is disturbing his “meal”–the sick whale. For the rest of the movie, Lively–who plays a medical student–treats her wound and struggles to stay alive. In the meantime, the shark has his violent, bloody way with the only visitors to the secluded beach. And Lively is, all the while, stuck in the water, trying to live by taking shelter on a rock and then a buoy and hanging out with a seagull who is a character in his/her own right.
This isn’t Jaws, even though the shark somewhat resembles the movies’ most famous underwater danger. And while fighting off and trying to outsmart a shark is exciting, the shark in this movie strains credulity. It’s very vindictive and way too smart, figuring out even how to destroy a buoy and its anchor system. Come on . . . .
But, like I said, this is entertaining and suspenseful in a campy kind of way. Not a great movie, but fun escapism nonetheless. And not the worst I’ve seen.
Watch the trailer . . .

* The Neon Demon – R: The feel-good cannibal, necrophilia, lesbian model movie of the year! I absolutely hate-hate-hated this movie written and directed by Nicolas Winding Refn (who also directed the openly anti-Semitic and extremely violent and grisly 2011 movie, “Drive” (read my review)). There’s a reason his last name rhymes with effin’. This movie is effin’ terrible. High on style, low on story, and absolutely stupid and disgusting. Two wasted hours of my life I’ll never get back.
The story: Elle Fanning plays a young, new model who has just arrived in Los Angeles and wants to make it big. Quickly, she does. And two other established models are jealous. All three of the women are blonde and gorgeous. A makeup artist who meets Fanning and is nice to her has a secret lesbian crush on her, but when she reveals her feelings to Fanning (and tries to rape her), Fanning rejects the makeup artist. So the makeup artist, who also works on cadavers at a funeral home, has sex with a dead body and fantasizes about Fanning. Soon enough, she and the two jealous models end up killing Fanning, and then, it turns out, the two models eat Fanning’s body. We learn this because one of them has Fanning’s eyeball pop out of her mouth at a photo shoot, then she vomits, and then, she kills herself by cutting out her stomach with a knife. Oh, and by the way, the blood-covered models have a lesbian shower scene to wash it all off (that’s before the aforementioned eyeball regurgitation and stomach-ectomy, or whatever you call it).
Yup, I sit through sick, warped crap like this so you don’t have to. And on top of the absolutely disgusting “story,” this movie is a total bore. It’s long, slow, and incredibly uninteresting. It’s also very disjointed and focuses way too much on becoming the next, next, big thing in pretentious, artsy-fartsy movies. The women are perfectly beautiful. The makeup is very cool and stark. And the clothes and scenes are very fancy and bright. And everybody poses for the camera with pouts and poses so stupid they are comical.
If only the movie were just as comical. But it isn’t. It’s just a warped, depraved bore made by a warped depraved bore whose goal is to shock you, steal your ten bucks, and then have you tell him how great and smart he is. He’s the primary demon here and it’s time to exorcise him from the movie biz. Long past time.
It’s trite but true–the old adage that a sucker is born every minute. That’s what the makers and distributors of this crap are banking on. And laughing at all the way to the bank.
Watch the trailer . . .

Friday, June 24, 2016

Self-Evident Truths & the Supreme Court

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the Supreme Court. This follows this post about Great Britain. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632. 

MP4 Video - 1080p (175.47 MB)
MP4 Video - 720p (38.98 MB)
MP3 Audio (1.83 MB)
Video of BT Daily: Self Evident Truths

The Declaration of Independence gives us a thought about the same-sex marriage issue.


[Darris McNeely] It’s the Fourth of July. Every year on the Fourth of July I like to read the Declaration of Independence - originally penned by Thomas Jefferson with a few edits by some of his friends. One of the key phrases in the Declaration of Independence - Jefferson wrote from a political point of view he said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.” Now when Jefferson wrote that, he was thinking from a purely political point of view - in terms of the situation with the beginnings of the American Revolution and desire for the colonies to separate from Great Britain. Self-evident he said. He was writing from a political point of view - a great document that has lived in American history. As I said, I like to read it every year on the Fourth of July. And, this year I think I will read it with a little bit different meaning; because, the Supreme Court of the United States just a few days ago made a ruling in regard to same-sex marriage - as we all know. And in that ruling they basically said that the United States Constitution does provide for and guarantee the right of same-sex marriage for Americans across all fifty states. Now that’s going to be debated and discussed in many, many different ways. But this thought struck me as I was thinking about the Fourth of July and that Declaration of Independence and what has happened here. There are certain truths that we have that are found in the Bible, God’s word, that are self-evident.
You know Pilot asked Christ when He was standing before him at the point of His trial, he said “What is truth?” (John 18:38). And that question continues to echo down to our day. “What is truth”? Men look for truth. Well the truth is anchored firmly in the revealed word of God the Holy Bible. And there is one truth there that is very, very clear. That is God created man and woman - male and female - created He them. And He brought them together to form one flesh, in what is the biblical definition of marriage. And He said be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:27-28; Genesis 2:21-25). That is the beginning, that is the origin, that is the teaching about marriage at the human level between a man and a woman. That is the biblical definition of marriage. That is a self-evident truth - that the Bible, that nature and that biology teach us.
Now the Supreme Court has entered into this realm, this political body of judges and lawyers, and have made a ruling based on a political document - the document of the United States Constitution and to rule in this area of larger spiritual truths and to impose its idea and its will. It’s a very dangerous step for many different reasons far beyond what I can talk about here today.
But on this Fourth of July in America, the United States of America, as we think about what the day pictures and means in the political beginnings that surround this day and that document called the Declaration of Independence that said “we hold these truths to be self-evident”. I think about that as we kind of get our minds wrapped around what has happened in our culture in recent days. What’s taking place in these cultural wars and battles that are ranging around us - with the same-sex marriage in particular and the Supreme Court ruling. They have stepped into an area that has very interesting consequences. It is a very important matter to think about. What is most important is that we hold ourselves fast to the truth of God as revealed in His word.
That’s BT Daily , join us next time.