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!

“300: Rise of an Empire”: Sequel is Absurd, Laughable; Make-Out Scene w Severed Head

By Debbie Schlussel
*** SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE ***
If your idea of a great movie is a silly, made-up feminist story from the ages when feminism (thankfully) never existed, then “300: Rise of an Empire“–in theaters today, is for you. (I did not see “Mr. Peabody & Sherman,” as it was screened on the Jewish Sabbath, so I could not attend.)

The problem with the sequel to the far inferior sequel to the original “300″ movie (read my review) is that it tries sooooo hard to be avant garde and disgustingly shocking, that little time was spent on an actual story. And, so, it results in an unintentionally laughable, very dumb movie full of gratuitous gore, blood, and dismemberments for little purpose. The female villain, “Artemisia” (the pro-Muslim VaJINO [my word for female Jews in Name Only] Eva Green), beheads a guy and then makes out with his dismembered head. Yeah, that must be cool because it’s so avante garde and macabre. There are scenes of birds plucking out the eyes from dead human bodies and eating those eyes. And Artemisia wears a head and cuff arm bracelets made of human hair. *** UPDATE: And don’t forget the ludicrous dialogue with lines like, “You fight harder than you f—;” and, “You’re thinking with your c-ck.” Yay, let’s hear it for modern civilization and Western culture!END UPDATE< ***/strong>
Then, there’s the graphic, semi-porn sex scene between Artemisia and the protagonist Themistokles (Sullivan Stapleton) that tries so hard to be shocking and depraved that it just made me laugh out loud instead. It was unintentionally funny, as is most of this ridiculous movie. I’m sure the fanboy morons will hate on me for admitting this obvious fact because anything based on a “graphic novel”–which is fancy, faux-intellectual speak for comic book–is the gospel for these cerebral slacker boys.

I’m a fan of Stapleton, the Aussie star who plays Themistokles. He’s a good actor and does a great American accent as a counterterrorism agent in the Brit TV series “Strike Back.” But this movie is just stupid, whether or not it is the vehicle that launches him into more Hollywood roles, which I’m sure he’s hoping.
The story: Themistokles, a Greek general, fires the arrow that kills the Persian king so that his son, Xerxes, takes over. The movie is confusing, as part of it takes place during the original “300′s” Battle of Thermopylae, then later battles. But, instead of fighting Xerxes, per se, Themistokles battles Artemisia, who was the dead king’s naval advisor and is his son Xerxes’ military chief. Um, when in ancient times was there a feminist, female general of the Persians? I’d love to know. But–newsflash–Gloria Steinem’s and Betty Friedan’s crap didn’t fly in those days.
Artemisia, who is Greek but hates Greeks, is evil and highly sexual. She vows to beat Themistokles and his fewer men and ships and brings him to her in the middle of the sea for negotiations. The “negotiations” turn out to be the weird, laughable sex scene which ain’t worth your ten-plus dollars. Then, when he won’t join forces with her, he returns to battle and loses a whole lot more men, until finally defeating her in a later battle. The end.
Like I said, there isn’t much story here. Just a lot of fighting and gore meant to shock. No thanks. Just garbage.
Oh, and one other thing: macabre and disgusting for shock purposes does not equal cool and interesting. Just the opposite, actually.
ONE MARX PLUS TWO BETTY FRIEDANS

Israel Must Strike Iran’s Nuclear Sites

A very interesting post from www.badeagle.com about Iran's nuclear plant! This follows this post about the church that won't be built at Ground Zero and this article about the recent news about the ban offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more posts like this click here.


Israel Must Strike Iran’s Nuclear Sites
by David Yeagley · August 19, 2010 ·

Former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, has recently announced, repeatedly, that Israel has only a few days to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, or it will be too late. Once the nuclear sites are fueled (by Russian resources), the fall-out from any such Israeli strike would spread dangerous radiation in the area. Strikes on Iran would involve serious consequences, indeed.


Former US envoy to the UN, John Bolton.

This is the story. Iran has for years defied the international “community,” the United Nations, and all attempts at disuasion. Sanctions are meaningless. Iranian mullahs are determined to have nuclear facilities and, obviously, neclear weapons. Barry “Obama” Soetoro, the joke of the Muslim world, has only increased Islamic aggression everywhere. So, it becomes a question of stopping a cancer with radical surgery, or letting it slowly develop, taking its own course, and suffering the consequences. A high risk surgery now, or sure death later.

In the past, BadEagle.com has noted the fact that other ‘rogue’ or unstable governments possess the nuclear bomb, such as North Korea, India, and Pakistan. China and Russia of course have the bomb. No one but the United States has ever used nuclear weapons against another country. Those atom bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended WWII, in 1945. Since that time, different countries have tested nuclear bombs. North Korea continues to terrorize the world with childish and foolish tests. But, the likelihood of any country actually using a nuclear bomb on another country is negligent. Why? Self-preservation, or, the instinct life.

Until, of course, Islam wields nuclear power. Islam has demonstrated before the world, repeatedly, that it has no respect for life, and, with religious zeal would delight to evelop the world in a nuclear holocaust. Iran’s mullahs would most definitely use a nuclear bomb on another country. Any country. Especially Israel. Self-preservation is not a motivation in Islam. Death is the motivation. Islam is a death cult. Therefore, a nuclear weapon in the hands of Muslims, particularly ambitious Iranian muslims, is a sure catastrophy.

This appears to be the case, based on everything said and done to this point. Whether Israel will strike the nuclear facility at Beshehr or not remains to be seen.


Israel struck an Iraqi nuclear site in 1981: “Operation Mitzvah.”

What would be the consequences? WWIII? I say, WWIII with conventional weapons would be more tolerable than an Iranian-initiated nuclear holocaust. Iranian Islamicists don’t care about life. Israelis do. True Muslims desire to end the world in violence and blood. This, in their minds, brings forth the Mehdi, the Savior of the world, or, the new world. Something like that. Islam functions as a martyr’s role. Death is the object of the “religion.” Islam is truly hideous and repulsive to anyone who cherishes life. While many Muslims do not believe Islam is a death cult at all, but a better way of life, these Muslims do not shape the image of modern Islam. And even they themselves tend towards coercion, or the imposition of Sharia law on the West. This is what Islam is all about–coercion. Conquering. That was its nature from the day Mohammad began his politico-military career.

While it would be extremely risky and costly for Israel to strike Iran now, though the consequences on the world, particularly the United States, would be significant, the alternative is only to delay until a worse set of consequences develop.

I would have to say, to Israel, strike now. It is not a declaration of war. It is not war against Iran. It is a technical, surgical removal of a deadly threat, the kind of thing Israel has done twice in the past, a facility in Iraq (1981), and North Korean interests in Syria (2007). This would be simply another such action. Again, it is not a declaration of war against Iran, nor is it an attack on the people of Iran. This would be the anti-Zionist headline the world over, of course, but it would be a lie, as most anti-Zionist headlines are. Israel would not be attacking Iran. Israel would be disabling a nuclear weapons facility. That’s all. The world was strangely quiet in 1981, and in 2007. Most people don’t even know about the 2007 strike against the nuclear weapons program in Syria.


Israel bombed a nuclear facility in Syria, in 2007.

Of course, Syria is not Iran. Nevertheless, Iran is not the leader of the Islamic world–much as the Iranian mullahs would like to think they are. The Islamic world, which is Arabic in nature, would probably be grateful for the Israeli strike. Islam is an Arabic religion, in style, in content, and in spirit. (It is cruel, vain, and aggressive.) Iranians are Persian by heritage. They will never, ever be accepted as the leader of the Islamic world. This is a profound reality that must figure into the equation of what to do presently with the nuclear program in Beshehr.

Posted by David Yeagley

Victory and the Celebration of Purim

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/brp to read if you are interested in the biblical Purim story. This follows another holiday analysis here and subscribe to this blog for more stories like this here.


Victory and the Celebration of Purim (Esther 9–10)
The day decreed for the attack on the Jews, and subsequently for the Jews to strike out against their enemies in self-defense—even preemptively if deemed necessary—finally arrives (9:1). The 13th day of the 12th month, Adar, corresponds to March of 473 B.C. This day had been determined by Haman's superstitious casting of lots, but it seems likely that God had interfered in the process—causing the date to be sufficiently late enough for the Jews to both determine who their enemies were and to make preparations against them. On this fateful day that the enemies of the Jews had hoped to prevail, the opposite happened.
Besides the general fear that had come on the people of the empire because of the Jews' apparent divine favor and help, we are told that the officials of the land helped the Jews on this occasion because of their particular fear of Mordecai's growing influence in the empire (verses 2-4). They may have been trying to garner political favor with the new prime minister, and at the very least were trying to secure themselves against any possible reprisal.
In verses 7-14 we see a return to the conflict with Haman in the killing of his 10 sons. "The patterns of reprisal and vengeance were so deeply ingrained in the cultures of the ancient Middle East that the survival of even one of these sons might mean trouble for the next generation of Jewish people. By listing each of the vanquished sons of their mortal enemy, the Jewish people celebrated the fact that the victory was complete" (Nelson Study Bible, note on verses 7-10). It could also be that these sons had taken or threatened action against the Jews at some point. Moreover, we may perhaps see in this a continuation of the carrying out of the ancient divine edict of destroying the Amalekites. King Ahasuerus granted Esther's request that the bodies of Haman's sons be publicly displayed on the gallows (verses 11-14). This was to serve as a deterrent against anyone contemplating harm against the Jews.
Having overcome their enemies on Haman's determined day, the Jews set aside the next day, the 14th of Adar, as a holiday for celebration. The Jews at Shushan, however, were granted permission to continue fighting through the 14th. So they set aside the 15th as the day to celebrate (verses 13-19). Mordecai sent a letter directing the Jews to observe both days annually from then on and this became an accepted custom (verses 20-25, 27). The days were referred to as Purim, named after the word pur, meaning "lot" (verse 26; see verse 24; 3:7). Purim is the plural.
At some point Esther sent out a second letter with Mordecai confirming the tradition of observing Purim (9:29-32). Though God had not established this feast in the law, it was appropriate for the Jews to commemorate God's intervention on their behalf in this annual celebration. Purim is similar in this respect to Hanukkah, which was instituted three centuries later to commemorate God's help and deliverance in the days of the Maccabees. Jesus Christ apparently went to Jerusalem for the observance of Hanukkah (see John 10:22-23). And as a Jew it is likely that He also observed Purim, especially as its institution is recorded in Scripture. Yet as Purim and Hanukkah are national celebrations not commanded in the law, it is not required that Christians observe them. Indeed, non-Jewish Christians would not be expected to, just as non-Americans are not expected to observe the American holidays of Thanksgiving and Independence Day.
What about the "fasting" in verse 31? "No date is assigned for this fast. Jews traditionally observe the 13th of Adar, Haman's propitious day (see 3:7, 13), as a fast ("the fast of Esther") before the celebration of Purim. These three days of victory celebration on the 13th-15th days of Adar rhetorically balance the three days of Esther's fasting prior to interceding with the king (4:16)" (NIV Study Bible, note on verse 31).
In the three verses that make up the short chapter of Esther 10, we see a final mention of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) and Mordecai. Xerxes reigned eight years beyond the events of chapter 9—dying by assassination in 465 B.C. We know nothing of what became of Esther and Mordecai. But they left an amazing legacy, having cooperated with Almighty God in His grand design to save His people.

<-- Previous Day
Month At A Glance
Next Day -->

Purim with Commentaries on Esther

I know a lot of people like to read the book of Esther at this time of the year. These links describe some interesting commentaries on this book (H/t http://www.ucg.org/ )


1
Ezra 4:6Esther 1
Opposition to Jews of Judea in the reign of Ahasuerus (Xerxes); Queen Vashti deposed
2
Esther 2
Esther made queen; Mordecai reports a plot against the king
3
Esther 3
Haman’s plot against the Jews
4
Esther 3
Haman’s plot against the Jews
5
Esther 4
Esther learns of Haman’s plot and agrees to tell the king
6
Esther 4
Esther learns of Haman’s plot and agrees to tell the king
7
Esther 5
Esther’s first banquet
8
Esther 6
The honoring of Mordecai
9
Esther 7
Haman exposed and hanged
10
Esther 8
Edict to save the Jews
11
Esther 8
Edict to save the Jews
12
Esther 9–10
The Jews destroy their enemies; Institution of Purim; The greatness of Mordecai
13
Esther 9–10
The Jews destroy their enemies; Institution of Purim; The greatness of Mordecai
14

Supplement: “Esther: A Woman of Faith and Courage”
15

Supplement: “Esther: A Woman Willing to Save Others”