New Website!

My new website is www.americaneyebrow.com. Please visit!

Barack Obama = Jesus?

Watch the whole thing.

Anybody interested in hearing the kind of preaching that Barack Obama has been subjected to for over 20 years?



And, for those of you screaming, "Fox News lies!", let's take a look at an ABC piece that covers Reverend Wright to a greater extent:



Interesting how Reverend Wright claims that Barack Obama is not "rich", despite the fact that Obama is a millionaire...

He also claims that Obama wasn't "privileged", despite the fact that Obama had, arguably, one of the best educations known to mankind (Columbia and Harvard Law School). Aw, poor him..

And I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't black, unless the Bible that he has in front of him is incorrect, which says very clearly that Jesus was a Jew (an ethnoreligious group originating in the ancient Middle East).

Why is race even an issue? Why is Obama being lifted up as the second coming of Christ?

Anyone else apprehensive?

The Dark Knight Review

So, I went to see The Dark Knight on Friday, opening day. Now, mind you, I'm not a superhero movie fan by any means. I enjoyed Spider-man 1 and 2 (despised the third) and I really loved Iron Man, though I wouldn't call Iron Man a "superhero" film. The same can be said for Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, the predecessor to Dark Knight. So, on that note, let me begin by saying that I wouldn't really call The Dark Knight a "superhero" movie. I would feel more comfortable calling it a "crime saga" or "drama".

Christopher Nolan returns to direct the film, Christian Bale returns as Batman/Bruce Wayne, Michael Caine returns as Alfred, Gary Oldman returns as Commissioner Gordon, Morgan Freeman returns as Lucius Fox and Katie Holmes is replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal (an enormous improvement, by the way) to play the part of Rachel Dawes.

Newcomers include Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent and Heath Ledger as The Joker.

The film begins a full year after the end of Batman Begins. Crime in Gotham is at an all-time low, though now, all of the crime lords that once ruled Gotham independently have consolidated to become a single "mob" to protect themselves against "the Batman". In addition, we are now seeing Batman copycats pop up all over the city, which causes Bruce Wayne to question his validity as a crime fighter.

Within the opening 10 minutes, we are introduced to The Joker during an outstanding bank heist scene. We also learn early on just what kind of man The Joker is: a heartless and psychotic sociopath (more on Ledger's performance later).

A new DA, Harvey Dent, is now in charge of keeping Gotham safe, and most citizens consider him a knight in shining armor. This also causes Bruce Wayne to wonder about whether or not he should necessarily be fighting crime vigilante style. The Joker eventually convinces all of the mobsters that it was necessary to kill, not only Batman, but everyone involved in crime prevention, including judges, police officers and even fellow mobsters, and, of course, it is Batman's job to try and stop him.

Now, as I'm showering praise on the writing and acting in Dark Knight, please keep in mind that the film is far from perfect. It is absolutely too long, firstly. I'm not the kind of person that normally objects to length, but I do have a big problem with unnecessary length. Immediately, I can tell you that Nolan simply tried to fit too much into the movie, and, in so doing, gave a metaphorical finger to the character of Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (hopefully, that's not a spoiler to anyone at this point). Nolan tries valiantly to cram Two-Face's transformation, criminal doings and subsequent death into the final half hour of the film, which is painfully obvious. In addition, there are some storytelling issues throughout the film, with seemingly pivotal scenes ending abruptly with no real explanation. I also feel as though the film could have benefited from an R-rating. And, yes, I know that the production studio probably considered it and then realized that their profits may have been cut in half with a "Restricted" rating, but their efforts to keep it adolescent-friendly are also very obvious throughout the film, contrasting heavily with the portrayal of Joker as a murderous psychopath.

However, the positives far outweigh the negatives. Let me begin by saying that the dialogue is masterful, rivaling that of Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. Bruce Wayne comes off as a believably arrogant billionaire playboy with no problem, and every line that comes from the mouth of The Joker keeps you glued to the screen at all times (thanks, in part, to Ledger's brilliant delivery). The overall theme resembles that of films like L.A. Confidential, The Departed and the Godfather trilogy.

As for the acting, it is outstanding across the board. Christian Bale does very well as Bruce Wayne, though, I definitely feel like he should rethink the hideous, cringe-inducing growl he tries to pass as the voice of Batman. Gary Oldman portrays Commissioner Gordon's desperation perfectly, Michael Caine remains the wise voice in the back of Batman's head, Morgan Freeman provides occasional relief from the film's overwhelmingly dark themes, Aaron Eckhart does a brilliant job of portraying Dent as a white knight and then contrasting that with Two-Face's hatred of those that took away the things he loved, and Gyllenhaal does a wonderful job as Holmes' replacement.

I do, however, feel like I need to devote an entire paragraph to Ledger's portrayal as The Joker. Ledger's performance is absolutely masterful, to say the least. With all the hype surrounding his death, I went into the movie thinking that there was no way his character would live up to it. I was proven delightfully wrong in every way possible, and he even managed to surpass my expectations. The amazing thing about it is that at no point during the film's 2 hours and 40 minutes did I think to myself, "Hmm, Ledger really is doing a great job." He ceases to be Heath Ledger and becomes The Joker. His portrayal can really only be described with words like "eerie", "creepy", and "disturbing". As you watch him, you become completely convinced that he would torture and kill everyone he could, just because.

His reasoning becomes clear when he delivers the line: "I'm like a dog chasing a car. I wouldn't know what to do with it if I caught it." Every aspect of the character is chill-inducing, from his facial scars, his consistent licking of them, his asymmetrical movements and his self-applied face paint to the matter-of-fact delivery of lines like: "So, how many of your friends have I killed?" to a police officer and the follow-up question: "Would you like to know which of them were cowards?". Terrifying, absolutely terrifying.

On a final note, Dark Knight, overall, is excellent. While the film has its flaws, Ledger's performance is, alone, worth the price of admission. Believe the hype.

4.5 out of 5

OPEC, ANWR and Gas Prices

The question of whether or not we should be drilling for oil in Alaska has been a political controversy since the Carter administration. While liberals argue that we shouldn't touch the Alaskan oil reserves because we may endanger some of the wildlife in the area, conservatives argue that it is about time that the United States stop relying on its enemies for its primary energy source. According to Forbes, the US will be 75% reliant on foreign oil by about 2014. Now, some of you may not think this is a huge deal, and you may be right. However, some of you may not be familiar with OPEC, or the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. Let's take a look at the countries that OPEC consists of:


Now, this may not mean too much to the untrained eye, but let's take a moment to compare that map of OPEC to this next image:


Eerily similar, eh? This is a map of the countries that want to see America and Americans burn in the eternal fires of hell (though, Saudi Arabia claims to be a U.S. ally, which is laughable, at best). Do left-wing lunatics in the Senate and House of Representatives really think that it is wise to rely on these particular countries for 3/4 of our oil/petroleum imports?

You'll notice that one of the countries highlighted on this map is Iran. Does anyone else see the irony? The president of Iran is a man named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is notorious for his denial of the Jewish Holocaust, among other things. We are buying oil from a man who said that Israel, one of the strongest U.S. allies, should be "wiped off the map". He also openly admitted that Iran was seeking to acquire nuclear weaponry, despite a dozen UN resolutions forbidding them to do so. Iran is the second largest oil exporter in the world. So, in effect, the United States and its allies are paying for Iran's nuclear development program through their reliance on Middle Eastern oil.

Let's take a look at some of the other members of OPEC.

Angola
- Not familiar with Angola? It's a large country located on the southern half of Africa. They recently fell into the spotlight when a UN working group found documentation showing that they were guilty of not only torture, but of making hundreds, possibly thousands, of arbitrary arrests. For those of you that are unfamiliar with this term, it means that the arrests were made with little or no evidence suggesting that a crime had been committed. Angola is also one of the most corrupt countries in the world, according to Transparency International. In 2002, the International Monetary Fund found out that the Angolan government could not account for almost $1 Billion due to "extensive corruption".

Libya
- Ah, who could forget Libya? They'd only been on the State Department's state-sponsored terrorism list for almost 30 years. They also have one of the poorest human rights records in recent history. They are a perfect example of what most Americans take for granted. Not only are they guilty of arbitrary arrest and detention, but they've held political prisoners for many years without charge or trial. Oh, and "freedom of speech, assembly, press, association and religion"? They, along with the idea of a "fair trial", are effectively meaningless in Libya.

Nigeria
- Nigeria also has a terrible human rights record. According to a 2006 State Department report, the Nigerian government was guilty of politically motivated murders, beatings, torture, extortion of civilians, violence, discrimination, human trafficking, child labor, child prostitution and female genital cutting.

Saudi Arabia
- One of the worst human rights records in the world, specifically when it applies to women. Women are not allowed to drive or ride bikes on public roads, testify in court, pilot an aircraft or make eye contact with an unrelated man. In one particular case, a woman was gang raped, and when she reported the incident, she was sentenced in federal court to 200 lashes and six months in prison... because she was in an "unrelated man's car" at the time. Homosexuals, if discovered, can receive punishments up to and including, execution. Citizens are forbidden from bad-mouthing the federal government, and "freedom of religion" does not exist, according to the U.S. State Department. Jewish, Christian or Hindu "houses of prayer" are illegal, as well as owning any non-Muslim "paraphernalia", such as a Bible.

I would continue, but it would start to get a bit redundant, and hopefully, you get the point. Relying on these countries for 75%+ of our oil is like asking John Wayne Gacy to babysit your son while you're off on a weekend excursion.

So, that brings me to my next point...

We need to start being self-reliant and start drilling for our own oil. And this, of course, leads into the question of whether or not we should take advantage of the reserves found in ANWR or in other regions of the U.S. The biggest argument against drilling in Alaska is that it would negatively impact the lives of the native Inuit population by, get this, endangering the caribou (reindeer) population. This argument makes very little sense, as caribou are heavily migratory, but let's assume for a moment that installing a few oil wells on .002% of ANWR would obliterate the entire caribou population in a violent and PETA-unfriendly way (who knows how that could possibly happen?).

Which would you rather get rid of?

Option A.


Option B.


See the point here? Our quality of lives (as well as our bank accounts) are suffering because the liberals in the Senate are assuming that, by installing some oil wells on a microscopic amount of land in ANWR, we will consequently rape and pillage the entirety of the reserve.

Of course, the picture above of the innocent caribou was not taken in the prospective drilling zone in ANWR. This is the drilling zone in ANWR (thanks to Jonah Goldberg for the first one):


As you can see in the above pictures of the ANWR prospective drilling zone, herds of caribou, sweeping majestically, could potentially be wiped out as a result of the installation of oil wells. Oh wait, does that look like a wasteland to anyone else?

Is anyone else confused?

Onto the subject of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (which the communist Republic of China is currently doing, unopposed).

Here's what really enrages me:

Florida businessmen and politicians oppose drilling in the Gulf because... they believe that visible oil platforms will lower property value. Now, if that's not the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, then my memory must be sub-par. Has anybody living in coastal Florida ever taken time between vacationing and multiplying their fortunes to ponder the idea of "priorities"?

Now, some of you may be saying, "But Hunter, oil prices are high because evil oil companies want to price gouge as much as possible". This is a huge misconception.

The average American oil company makes a 7-8% profit. Most American business make closer to a 18-25% profit margin (especially in retail). Oil prices are up because we are buying 70% of our crude oil from OPEC, and they can literally charge as much as they want. The same oil companies that were buying oil for $16 USD per barrel in 1999 are now paying as much as $145 for the exact same amount. The gas prices, in that case, have to go up to compensate for the increased crude oil prices. And, yes, the prices do have to go up - because there would be no incentive for oil companies to be in the business if they were losing money.

Let this be a lesson: Don't believe everything you hear on TV. Network news shows are in the business of sensationalism.

Yes, oil companies are seeing record profits, but so are Wal-Mart, Toyota and ING Group. That's the nature of inflation, people.

In closing, my biggest point here is that we don't necessarily need to be spending as much on alternative energy. At the moment, I believe we should focus more on becoming completely self-dependent when it comes to the here and now.

Bottom line: We need to stop buying crude oil from and enriching people that hate us. If we don't, they will only tighten their grip on the U.S. economy, and our children and their children will suffer for it.

And, I finish with a cartoon:

Enough with the "Change" rhetoric...

I've been watching the Democratic primaries very closely since they began, and it's been pretty interesting thus far. I've been shocked on many different occasions to see the kinds of attacks that are flung from one side to the other, and have spoken with many of my peers about their thoughts on the candidates.

Obviously, most people simply blinked when I asked them their thoughts on John McCain's support of an amnesty bill in 2003 or whether or not they thought Barack Obama was experienced enough to run for the oval office.

On another note, I would say that the majority of people I asked about the election supported Obama on all fronts. This, on its own, doesn't bother me at all. I believe that every American has a right to his/her beliefs and that they have every right in the world to speak out and vote, according to those beliefs. However, if you support a candidate, I think it is your responsibility to know why you support that candidate.

Something troubles me that I haven't experienced in the past. Obama's popularity is soaring through the roof, and if you were to approach the average Obama supporter and ask them why they thought he was the best for the job, their answer will, more or less, be "we need a change".

The typical conversation I have with an Obama supporter goes something like this:

Me: "So, which of the candidates do you favor in the upcoming Presidential election?"

Obama supporter: "Oh, I absolutely love Barack Obama. I think he'll do great things for this country!"

Me: "Oh, really? What makes you think that way? Which of his proposals do you like the most?"

Obama supporter: "Well, he'll bring about change in this country, and everybody knows we need change."

Me: "Right, but what changes are you looking forward to the most? Fiscal changes? Foreign policy changes?"

Obama supporter: "Well, I just don't like the way the country is being run, and I think we just need a change."

Me: "Right, but what change are you referring to?"

Obama supporter: "....."

Me: "....."

Obama supporter: "Change!"

I feel like even Obama doesn't know what change he is referring to, since he rarely speaks of policy when he makes public appearances and his strongest supporters can't come up with a single reason to validate voting for him.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a crazy right-wing conspirator. I have no love for John McCain either, but when I approach someone who mentions their support for his campaign, they can, at least, give me one reason why they favor him over Senator Obama.

My point here, folks, is that, if you're going to show support for a candidate and cast a vote that could very well decide an election, please know what you're voting for.

Enough with "We need a change" and "Change we can believe in" (whatever that means).

I feel like we are entering into an election period where credentials and experience don't matter as much as being "well-spoken" and attractive.

On a final note, change isn't necessarily a good thing. So, when you applaud Senator Obama for sponsoring "change", please have some idea what he is talking about, even if he doesn't.