Last week, I attended the Prince Caspian movie along with most of the families who are part of the church I serve. A few observations.

1) What’s with the collagen treatment on the lips of Anna Popplewell (the actress who played Susan)? When you compare Anna’s lips from the last Narnia movie with this one you can clearly see that Anna’s lips went through a growth spurt that Wilt Chamberlin could’ve only envied. When she laid a kiss on Prince Caspian at the end of the movie I was afraid that the guy was going to disappear in those lips, never to be found again.

2) The writers of the script turned Lewis’s Susan character from being a soft-spoken but wise queen to a horny warrior princess. She went from being the Queen of Sheba in Lewis’s book to being Annie Oakley with a bow in the movie. On her transformation from being a Queen of Sheba type in Lewis’ book to being Annie Oakley with a bow in the movie the Director of Caspian, Andrew Adamson, made his views known:

“I know C.S. Lewis didn’t think women should fight, but I have a different view about how strong or assertive women should be. That was something I discussed and said there was no way I was making a film that says that.”

You know if Adamson wants to make a movie about his different views about “how strong and assertive women should be,” why doesn’t he first write a series of books called The Chronicles Of Adamsonia, have them become treasured volumes and bestsellers to generations of Christians, and then make them into a movie instead of defecating on The Chronicles of Narnia by injecting his modernistic worldview onto a book that wasn’t pocked with modernity?

3) What gives with the kissing scene? This was another example of Adamson injecting his modernistic worldview onto a book that was essentially medieval in its setting and flavor. I seriously doubt that most Christians thought about that scene as the kind of thing that isn’t the norm among our 15-year-old girls today, but it really isn’t a role model we should want most of our 15-year-olds emulating.

4) The character development was awful! You never got a sense of the refusal of “doubting Trumpkin” to believe in Aslan. The film created no wonderment at Trumpkin’s loyalty in spite of his disbelief. The Nikabrik character was completely flat and barely revealed the nature of his treachery. Peter comes across as a tyrant who will brook no counsel and who never repents of his boorish behavior. Reepicheep was the character that was perhaps most true to the novel. He was my favorite character in the movie.

5) The character development could’ve been pursued somewhat if the scriptwriters hadn’t decided to invent, whole cloth, a scene that is not in the book. The whole invasion of the castle was yet another example of Hollywood trying to improve a book instead of just telling the story of the book. This scene contributed nothing to the plot of the movie (though it had its due sense of daring and excitement), and it was used to despoil the Susan character by turning her into an assassin. You know, as I think about it, I think Susan had more kills in the movie than Caspian, Peter, and Edmund combined.

6.) Nikabrik, who in Lewis’s book was the villainous “Black dwarf,” was played by a white guy while the heroic centaurs and minotaurs were played by black guys. Coincidence?

7) The invented scene ended with the entrapment of a large battalion of Old Narnians trapped behind the castle gate, whom you knew were being slaughtered by Miraz’s army. It was a bit intense for children.

All in all, if you could view it as a movie that had nothing to do with the book it was okay. The thing that gripes me is that these movies make their money by attaching themselves to the books. If they want to make stand-alone movies that have nothing to do with the books, then let them have at it. But if they are going to make movies and suggest that they have anything to do with the books besides a few character names, then it would be nice if they actually had something to do with the books.

Another Memorial day has passed in America. The parading bands were out. Red, White and Blue bunting festooned houses. Little American flags flew promiscuously in yards all across a thousand communities. Family graves were visited and spruced up. In the Midwest, this is a weekend when people will plant their family gardens. Here in Charlotte, we had the Vietnam Wall memorial visit us and many people made pilgrimage to the wall. Also, in Charlotte the Methodist Church held her annual luncheon barbecue where the community gathered to hob-knob and talk about the Pistons and the Red Wings.

Just another Memorial Day in small town America with cherished customs and traditions that have been pursued for years and years.

On this Memorial Day though I couldn’t help but think about the purpose for which Memorial Day started over 100 years ago and that is to remember our war dead. And then when I started thinking about the necessity of remembering the war dead and the sacrifice they made I began to wonder if those who died for their country at Saratoga and at Cowpens died for the same country as those who died for their country at Fallujah and Rumaylah? I wondered if those Brave Americans who died on the beaches of Normandy or at sites across the South Pacific would still want to risk dying for the country we have become? Would my Father still have jumped with the Airborne troops in Korea and would my Grandfather still have wanted to drive for the Big Red One in the Battle of the Bulge if they could see what the country for which they risked all has become? Would the American Dough boys who did not return from Marne or Belleau Wood recognize the country for which they died?

On this Memorial Day I couldn’t help but ask myself, as I remembered the sacrifice of American Brave, what the sacrifice has accomplished. Did our Fathers fight and die in the jungles of Vietnam to stop the falling dominoes of Statist Communism so that the falling dominoes of Statist Globalism could be achieved? Did our Fathers land and die at Inchon and crush the Reds so that America could be landed on and crushed by the environmentalist Greens? Did our Father’s in WWI stop the Hun from covering Europe in order that ‘political correctness’ could cover the world? Did our Father’s in WWII stop the holocaust of the Jews so that the Americans would have the right to bring a generational holocaust upon the unborn in our country?

On this Memorial Day I wondered if America’s Dead could speak what they would say? What would they say about America being invaded and conquered by illegal immigrants? Would they notice the ghastly irony in their dying to protect America from foreign influence only to see later generations invite foreign influence? Would the brave American dead, if they could speak, lecture that they did indeed die to protect the rights of Homosexuals to get married? Would they say that they charged that machine gun nest or jumped on that grenade in order to protect the disintegration of the American family? Would they wax eloquent that their great sacrifice was accomplished to protect the right of no fault divorce, 30% illegitimacy rates, and 1.3 million abortions annually? Would they use close and carefully reasoned arguments to prove that they died in order to protect the right of their progeny to kill the America they died for through cultural hari-kari and demographic winter? Would they explain that they died in defeating Empires in order that their sons and grandsons could die building an Empire? Would they lead the rhetorical charge in explaining that they died so that their daughters and grand-daughters could die in a military uniform? Would they explain that they made the supreme sacrifice in order that the ideological sons of their enemies would rule their descendants?

Yesterday, during Memorial Day, I was patriotic with the best of them, but my patriotism was flowing in different channels. I pray God that He might once again raise up a brave warrior class that are willing to live and die for the America for which our Father’s died – an America very different from the one in which we are living.

“… limiting the designation of marriage to a union ‘between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute.”

California Chief Justice Ron George
Written Opinion Allowing The Legalizing Of Inverted Unlawful Carnal Knowledge

In other California Supreme Court cases the Court has also ruled,

1) “that limiting the designation of water to a union between two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute.”

2) “that limiting the designation of boy as a child who has a penis is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute.”

3) “that limiting the designation of a solar day to 24 hours is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute.”

4)”that limiting the designation of island as a body of land surrounded by water is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute.”

And finally,

5) “that limiting the designation of Justices as those having a tinker’s damn worth of intelligence is unconstitutional and must be stricken from statute.”

At this web site you can see William Ayers, a former 60s radical, in a photo-op to promote his recently released book. Ayers has once again entered the American limelight due to his well known friendship with B. Hussein Obama. Doug Wilson over at his Mablog site gets all hot and bothered over Ayers standing on the U.S. flag. Wilson splashes his testosterone all over his post as he professes that if he had been present at the photo-op he would have knocked Ayers off the U.S. flag he was standing on. Wilson thinks it is dishonoring to the King for Ayers to show that kind of disrespect–-never mind that the King is seeking to exterminate the Christian faith.

Now, I agree with Wilson that Ayers’s action is disrespectful, but I am more concerned about the disrespect that Ayers has for noble and well-intentioned men who died believing that they were fighting for noble causes than about the disrespect for the Emperor.The real problem with Ayers standing on the flag is he stands on the flag for the wrong reasons. If Ayers had the same reasons for standing on the flag that the Confederate soldier gave for saying he ‘wouldn’t wipe himself with the American flag’ when required to take a pledge of loyalty to the flag, Ayers at would at least be understandable. Ayers’s problem is that America isn’t anti-Christ enough and for Ayers the flag represents what is wrong with the limited remains of the Christian influence on America.

As mentioned earlier, Ayers has connections with Obama. It is interesting that while one stands on the American flag the other goes out of his way to not wear the American lapel pin until the past couple of days. Does this mean that B. Hussein Obama has the same kind of contempt for America that his buddy William Ayers does? Ayers and Obama together provide a kind of poster child for the winning coalition that the apparent Democratic presidential nominee is trying to cobble together. Ayers is an academic and B. Hussein continues to garner about 93% of the black vote. What Ayers and B. Hussein together symbolize is the “egghead and black coalition” that Paul Begala recently noted the Democrats can’t rely on in order to win the 2008 election.

Now, in a normal universe one would think that friendship with a guy who takes photo-ops standing on the U.S. flag (William Ayers), and marriage with a woman who wasn’t proud of being American until her husband began to win primaries (Michelle Obama), and close ties to a black national pastor racist (Jeremiah Wright), and financial involvement with a slum lord (Tony Rezko) would torpedo the candidacy of most Presidential hopefuls. Not this year. This year Obama has the advantage of running against a Republican candidate who is running away from his base. As such Obama, if he gets the nomination, still has a chance to not lose. I say “not lose” because the guy who is elected in this election will not be the guy who wins but will be the guy who doesn’t lose.

For voting Christians, this presidential election cycle is another example of “not having a dog in this fight.” Christians with a Biblical world view simply cannot support the liberal cadaver from Arizona or the Marxist poster child for affirmative action  from Illinois. For Christians, our dog is either Bob Barr of Chuck Baldwin.

I’ve been saying for some time that even though White Marxists have won the Presidency in America a Black Marxist can’t win the Presidency in America. Now, I don’t want any Marxist winning the Presidency, and though I shouldn’t need to say it I am happy to report I would be glad to pull a lever for a Walter Williams or a Thomas Sowell if they were running against a White Marxist. The article below confirms on some level what I have instinctively known and have been saying for quite some time, which is a Black Marxist with a Muslim name can’t win the Presidency in America. I link it here because I haven’t read any place else the kind of analysis that agrees with observations that I’ve been giving for some time.

Now, in order to cover myself I personally think it odd that a person who would vote for a White Marxist wouldn’t likewise vote for a Black Marxist but it is what it is. Perhaps the reason is a sense of ethnic homogeneity? Perhaps people will vote for a White Marxist and not a Black Marxist with a Muslim name because the White Marxist still is wearing their face with their features.

Here are a couple quotes from the article that supports that observation,

“One Pittsburgh union organizer told her he would not vote for Obama because he is black, and a white voter, she said, offered this frank reason for not backing Obama: “White people look out for white people, and black people look out for black people.

And again,

Karen Seifert, an Obama volunteer from New York, was outside of the largest polling location in Lackawanna County, Pa., on primary day when she was pressed by a Clinton volunteer to explain her backing of Obama. “I trust him,” Seifert replied. According to Seifert, the woman pointed to Obama’s face on Seifert’s T-shirt and said: “He’s a half-breed and he’s a Muslim. How can you trust that?”

Again, I am not condoning the response that the article reveals. I’m just saying it is the way things are, and I’m saying that somebody is confirming what I’ve been saying for some time. It is interesting also that Hillary knows the same thing. This is seen in her quote this past week relating an AP article,

“that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” said Hillary. “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.”

Also earlier Hillary took time to talk about having a broader base to win on. She argued that her coalition is broader and stronger against McCain that B. Hussein’s. One of her chief lieutenants, Paul Begala, even went so far as to contrast Hillary’s coalition (the one that includes the white people) with the ‘Egghead and Black coalition’ that B. Hussein was building. It is clear that Hillary likewise realizes what this Washington Post article reports on.

Still, as I’ve likewise said before, B. Hussein Obama, even though he is black could still not lose this election due to the very weak candidacy of his Republican opponent. In other words, all that is working against Obama as reported in that article still might not be enough to keep him out of the White House since McCain is running away from his base and since McCain looks like he will wage his candidacy according to the PC rules that will not allow him to criticize the black guy for fear of being labeled a racist by the major media outlets.

For those who will get some satisfaction on me being wrong-–remember I didn’t think Hillary would lose the nomination, and while I’m still not convinced she will lose it is becoming more and more difficult to see how she wins.

As I view the culture of our particular time and place
I see the lurking gods that give it its particular face
As one who sees the trick behind a convincing flim-flam
I raise my voice to warn of the gods who engage in cultural scam

They offer us a heavenly vision of all distinction erased
Where women become men and where genitalia is completely displaced
They offer us cultural blurring where all colors bleed into one
They offer their paradisaical vision where all religion is finally done

We fell for their elaborate con. Their vision we gladly embraced.
Our men started wearing earrings. Our women were militarily placed.
As we watched SNL we giggled at a hermaphrodite named ‘Pat’
But the humor was only found because that was precisely where we were at

Then they erased the borders. What need for a particular homeland?
The Utopia they are after erases lines in the sand
How dare we recognize distinctions between this nation or that
That a Mexican is an American is a Chinaman, is an indisputable fact

Then into the egalitarian blender went the religions of man
The clergy of the respective religions assured us they had a plan
Where Jesus, Buddha, Allah, and Confucius were all ways to the one
With the promise that religious conflict would forever completely be done

In promoting this particular scam the cultus promised fuller lives
Which included having more fairness which resulted in swapping our wives
fairness meant that no man should claim a woman as his monogamous own
so fuller lives meant brokenness for children from blended polygamous homes

In this egalitarian distinction-less epoch we’ve all become the same
a-sexual, and pan-sexual creatures who’ve forgotten what it means to know shame
a-religious, and pan-religious, embracing the culture of all
fleeing the God of distinctions we’re tasting the fruit of the fall

Soon the scam will be widely seen for introducing a culture of death
When the children are no longer present and the old are gasping for breath
When the snap back of reality finally begins to injure the sheep
We will once again affirm that the people who sew are the people who reap

* * * * *

As it stands now, so it has ever been for man
Only a few things are certain since egalitarianism began
First, that since Adam and Eve were God’s blueprint design
Copulating faggots cannot yield grapes on the vine
And since God ordained marriage to be bone of the bone
It is perfectly acceptable to have love for your own
And that since there is only one God that is eternally real
He won’t be called Allah, Buddah or Baal
And finally should man try to live in defiance of God
The consequence will be the scourge, the fire, the rod.