Friday, February 27, 2009

The Rights of You, My Fellow American

Did anyone call their senators about the firearms amendments? If so, you may have been told that the voting had already occured. I apparently was late to the game. The Ensign Amendment was passed (praise the Lord, I almost forgot what victory tasted like) but the Thune-Vitter Amendment did not. Argh....

Look at this email from PRO:

Briefly yesterday, we had national coverage on the parental rights issue. A story reported by Fox News essentially duplicated our Feb. 9 article about Sen. Boxer's push for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and featured quotes from President Michael Farris, among others.

Now we need your help to keep this momentum going. We want to carry the message to an even broader national audience through Fox News personality Glenn Beck. We believe we can get Michael Farris on his show if enough viewers email Mr. Beck and ask about the Parental Rights Amendment or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Even if you do not watch his show, you can email him and push to get the message heard.

Please, before you close this email or move on to something else, take just a moment to email Mr. Beck at Tell him you think he should cover the Parental Rights Amendment, or tell him he should look into the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, or both. Urge him to have Michael Farris from on the program to discuss this issue.

We truly believe that together we can win this fight, but we need you to contact this national news program and help us get Mike Farris on the air!

Thank you so much for helping make history by passing the Parental Rights Amendment.


Michael Ramey
Director of Communicatons & Research

With my current blog emphasis and my current political activities, I've started a new link list in my sidebar. Check it out, it's well worth your time!


Thursday, February 26, 2009

He Wants Your Guns!

Not on my our watch you won't!

Yer can have mah shootin' thang when you pries it from mah cold, dead hayunds. Thanks goes to Stephen for the original post.


P.S. Is anyone with me while I'm wondering why on earth we need an assault weapons ban in our country to "help" Mexico with their crime issues?

Two Great Pro-gun Amendments In The Senate

That's it.

I'm going to put my legislator's numbers in my phone...and they're going to be sooo sick of me. ;-) This whole politically-active thing is getting fun. Of course, it would be more fun if the issues weren't so...vitally important. I'm feeling a little bit...overwhelmed, perhaps.

So, please help me here. Again, if you care about your rights, true American beliefs, and dare I say it, biblical philosophy, you will care about this. They even have a nifty prewritten letter for you, and you can find your Senators' email web forms here with this nifty little ZIP code search thingy. Come on! It's easy.



That old, bloody rift...states' rights

You might be thinking: "States' rights?!?!!"

Well, so was I...I've been hearing a little about this and this is the best information yet. Read it. Seriously. NOW. It is apparently interconnected with 2nd Amendment and Parental Rights as well. Our country is in deep, deep trouble.

I think my blood just changed color. It's...gray....


olde_fashioned: Batman Icons

Booyah! Take a look at these purdy little babies my sister made.

So what did you all think about the Oscars? I watched little, and was mostly ticked, as I have been, that they snubbed TDK for Best Picture. It should have won that, without a doubt (remember the People's Choice Awards? Yeah...there ya go), as well as Best Original Soundtrack and for editing. At LEAST those three. (Heath's win is indisputable.)

And now I have a new proposition. The Oscars needs a new category. Not that I care a lick about the Oscars, but still...we need Best Combat Sequences. Not Best Fight Scenes, because that excludes large-scale battles, and not Best Battle Scenes, because that excludes small fights. Best Combat Sequences. TDK would have won that as well....

Maybe I'll do it, then. Okay. For '09 I nominate Taken * so far. Let's see what else comes out!


*By the way, I now am openly recommending Taken as I see it is truly a tool for us "sheepdogs." One of my best friends just saw it, as well as a coworker, and it provided me with great oppurtunities to discuss safety with them (they are both ladies). With the coworker, I didn't even have to bring it up myself, she did.... With all of its flaws and uncomfortable material for ladies, still have them watch Taken. Then sit them down and talk. More than likely it won't do much, I'll be honest (isn't that how most if not all of our attempts go?), but it.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Two Things

First up, the threat to parental rights is still an issue HSLDA is asking us to call our legislators on. It only takes a minute and they even have a search engine; type in your ZIP code and you have all the info you need! And if you feel too discouraged with your liberal Senators, etc. to even bother calling them, remember that today I got to deal with Boxer and Feinstein. ;-P Hey, they likely won't listen, but, 1) I won't shut up and 2) it's just plain old-fashioned fun to bug liberals.

Second, I recommend anyone that interested in Vision Forum's products sign up for their email newsletter now. Soon it will provide them with a little goody if they're interested in buying!

My feet are sore.

That's all.


Thursday, February 19, 2009

Movie Review: There Will Be Blood

I at first hadn't planned on writing reviews this time around, but have since decided on doing just that, as three films I watched recently made me think enough that it might provide some readable fodder. This will be the first of three reviews of films that deal with Evolutionist/atheist worldviews. There Will Be Blood is strongly atheistic, the other two films have ties to Evolutionary ideas. A little different I know, but still....

I'd heard hype about this film when it was released; apparently some Christians came out against it. As I was never sure why and also I prefer to formulate my own first-hand opinion (barring films with sex or sorcery), and also the fact that I was slightly interested to see the old-fashioned oil industry on film, I watched it (I didn't pick it out, however).

First of all, I admit that the oil drilling scenes were interesting (the movie takes place around the turn of the century). And as usual, Daniel Day-Lewis did a wonderful acting job. Now...there endeth all "good" in this movie!

I had been expecting some sort of conflict due to the title, but it wasn't until the end that the title is explained (more on that later). A very strange film with often ill-fitting and at times hideous music, watching the movie was quite...well, different. The scenes were strange, and for the beginning of the film we had next to no dialog, which left the viewer to guess about what was transpiring. Our protagonist, Daniel Plainview, is a self-professed "oil man", who, to give him due credit, knows what he is doing and has worked hard to get to where he is. But....

Plainview is no person to aspire to be like. He business practices are twisted, he dislikes religion, hates people (although I can see why someone might feel this way somewhat, but to a much lesser degree), and, that's not the worst of it. Twice in the film he murders men in cold blood, and that's not all. We see little to no good in Plainview; the only admirable thing he does is taking in an orphaned boy, son of a fellow worker who died in an accident many years ago--and then even this turns out to be fouled by Plainview's recurring evil. He proclaims him to be his own son, but later, after the boy begins to lose his mind after first losing his hearing in yet another accident, Plainview abandons him. He sends him far away to live somewhere...else. It is true, the reason Plainview sent him away was because the boy lit his house on fire as he and another man slept inside, but this was clearly still a cold act in my opinion.

Prior to this he had shown nothing but deep affection for his adopted boy, but not here. Later he repents of this act and sends for the boy to come home again. But, again, Plainview, in his old age, disowns the now-grown boy for what appear to be numerous reasons (none justified, of course).

Worse than all of this, was when the viewer meets another character: Rev. Eli Sunday. A young, very creepy-looking preacher and healer, Sunday is, to today's strong believer, a clear charlatan. He leads a small, radical flock, his church of "the Third Revelation", conducts an exorcism (The scene is intense, but apparently the "demon" was the old woman's arthritis!), and all-around carries himself as some sort of holy man. Eli beats his own father on one occasion to mention just one more thing, and in fact he reminded me of a cult leader. Eli and Plainview come into conflict over and over as Eli "leads" his flock, and Plainview drills for his oil. In one scene, Eli comes demanding the money that Plainview promised to the Church of the Third Revelation, Eli's church, and the two get into a fight...or something of the sort. Plainview begins to strike Eli, and the coward crawls about and screams like a girl. It is true that Plainview broke his promise of funding, but Eli is also at fault, Plainview believes, as the supposed healer is powerless to heal his adopted son's deafness.

In one "big" scene, Plainview, years later, runs into this adversary of his, and he ends up faking his own conversion. At the altar of that same little church again, in front of the whole congregation, Plainview calls on God and is told to "beg for the blood" in what is nothing more than a high-stakes game of charades for him--Plainview is only doing this in order to broker an oil pipe deal on one of the parishioners' land. Especially humiliating for Plainview is Eli's repeated mentioning of the abandonment of his son, apparently an intentional pot-shot of Eli's. (Plainview's "salvation" is clearly a show, as is the crazed, cult-esque rantings of Eli and his not-all-there parishioners. A blasphemous scene.)

The film paints Eli in a horrible light, and that may seem justifiable, yes. But...there's a little bit more to all of this, I think. I wouldn't necessarily say that all of Plainview's actions were presented as just, but I will say that all of Eli's actions were portrayed as detestable. Both men are guilty of horrible acts, I say, which is why I wonder the film's makers chose to give us Plainview as an almost hero, and Eli as the villain. The answer seems to me to be the same old textbook stuff: atheism, etc., again. Eli is the "Christian" character. He is a liar, an evil man, is a coward, is a false preacher, and can even be violent. We would see him as a blasphemous cultist, but no, Hollywood would have the world believe that he is Christian, perhaps that he is Christianity.

Plainview is "our" character yet his is devoid of any morality. He is a murderer, a thief, and a perfect atheist. He believes in nothing, and therefore has nothing to live for but self. He has nothing to stop him from doing wrong, for of course without a God there is simply no morality. Plainview is the perfect atheist. Perhaps this is why he is presented as the protagonist, hmm?

In the final scene, in the midst of the Depression, down-trodden Eli comes to visit the old and wealthy Plainview as if they are old friends. Underlying conflict is hidden by the loosely-worn garment of friendliness, but things soon become ugly. Eli is there for nothing more than money from Plainview. His attempts at making money have failed. He talks of God giving no answer to his cries for help, as if the viewer must see the impotence of God (or the malevolence). Then, as if he is about to agree to a new oil deal with Eli, Plainview gives one last stipulation. Eli must say, "I am a false prophet, God is a superstition!" Eli stops...and says he will not do it under the half-hearted excuse that it would be a lie. Yet at Plainview's repeated insistence, Eli finally does this. Over and over again. Plainview revels as he forces Eli to shout this out, over and over. He makes a grand production of finally beating down his rival and getting revenge for the humiliating "conversion" event so many years ago. Even the so-called Christian knows that God is a farce, apparently. Then, as Eli again scrambles about and squeals, this time for his life, Plainview beats him to death with a bowling pin.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then God is impotent. Is God able to prevent evil, but not willing? Then God is malevolent. Is God both willing and able to prevent evil? Then why is there any evil in the world?

David Hume

And the "blood"? It is a double-reference, seeming to refer to both the "blood" of Christ that must wash Plainview as he falsely converts, and the oil that is Plainview's lifeblood. They both have their blood. But it would seem that one's blood is powerless (Eli's blood of Christ), while the other's is strong and true (Plainview's oil). If Eli were a true Christian, "his" blood would be the most powerful thing of all time.


P.S. Next time we will review the famous film The Matrix, and then Reign of Fire, and we will examine each film and how the events that transpire in them would only be possible with Evolution/Uniformitarianism.

It's time for change

(No, you dummy not that kind!)

The results of my poll are clear. I am changing my username. My blog name will remain, but my username will likely change. This means that my blog URL address will change as well. (Anyone know if that effects your blog layout, perhaps to the point of losing all of your links, formatting, etc.?) So, now my question is, what should my new name be?

Two ideas I'm liking so far:


Again, remember I do want suggestions but I won't use my real name. Fire away!


Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Giving the State a Grasp on Your Kids

So, let's have an update. Has anyone been getting involved? How many of you at least signed the online petition? Has anyone blogged or mass emailed it all?

After some initial discouragement and opposition I have some signatures lined up, and it looks like I may actually get my ten. That may not sound like much, but living in the state that I do I was worried about not even getting that much....

Please read this article for some new information as well. It would seem that the enemy knows that the children is where it's at. They are the next generation, they are the future. Get to them young, and you've won another battle.

Are we gonna let that happen?


Saturday, February 14, 2009

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Justice Candidate a Threat to Parental Rights

Here's something you can do right now, and it won't cost you anything either.... It's late so I plan to call tommorrow, but I sent out emails tonight. Here's what I said (I take the approach that a quick, clear email is just as effective as a wordy, eloquent one and more importantly saves me time):


I am writing you in order to communicate my extreme concern over the nomination of David Ogden for deputy attorney general. The main issues that concern me are: his blatant pro-pornography stance, and the fact that he believes the UNCRC to already be binding (which is entirely false, and a man of his position should have the legal knowledge to know the difference). Please vote against his nomination; I will be most displeased should anything occur otherwise.


Tuesday, February 10, 2009

God bless Lizzy!

Now this is how you write a blog post!

Lizzy has now received my Intelligent Concerned American Blogging Award, as will anyone who blogs about this subject (hey, gotta be consistent). She has eloquently captured the real issue in fewer words than I did and she still says it better.

Read her words. She sees this war for what it really is.


Monday, February 09, 2009

I warned you

I said I wouldn't shut up about this. Many of you likely have seen my comment, posted en masse on many blogs:

Hello there!

I would like to take a quick moment to tell you about something that is very close to my heart. I was hoping that it might be possible for you to help me. Please read this recent post of mine:

If you care about America and our freedom, you will be very concerned.


P.S. And if you find that you agree with the concerns I expressed in my blog post, please blog this yourself, and let's spread the word!

If you found this annoying I must say that I do apologize for that, if you indeed should feel this way, but like I said, I won't be quiet.

And I'm not done yet, either! Now to send out mass texts, emails and begin what may turn out to be a long string of phone calls....


The battle gets desperate


Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says she wants a 60-day timeframe for the State Department to complete its review so the Senate can move toward ratification of the UNCRC.
Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the U.S. Constitution, ratified treaties preempt state law. Since virtually all laws in the U.S. regarding children are state laws, this treaty would negate nearly 100% of existing American family law. Moreover, it would grant the government authority to override parental decisions by applying even to good parents a standard now only used against those convicted of abuse or neglect.

Ladies and gentleman, we may have only 60 days. Are you sure you want to put this off? I noticed that my post has next to no comments, which fairly is unusual. Are we really going to sit by and watch this happen?

We have no time left. Act now, or suffer the devastating consequences.


Rihanna injured at hands of Chris Brown

Brown, it's time for you to "take a bow"!

Sunday, February 08, 2009

It's Finally 'Go' Time!

It has begun.

The time to fight the battle of our day is here. has finally launched their Parental Rights Amendment campaign and we need to be a part of it. The looming United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) must be defeated. (I hope I'm not the only one who finds the idea of international law being the law of the land in our own sovereign nation as one that is disgusting.)

As you have become aware, we are fighting a battle for the rights of parents in our country to direct the upbringing of their children. This foundational liberty of our American heritage has come under increasing attack from domestic courts and international law, forcing us to amend the Constitution, not to change the law, but to preserve fundamental parental rights as they have been honored in our courts since our nation’s inception.

From Introducing the 10-and-2 Campaign

The threat:

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.


What we have is nothing less than an open assault on the foundation of the family and thus a lightly-veiled attack on things such as homeschooling, Christianity, and not to mention our God-given, Constitution-recognized freedoms.

More information

The solution:

Parental rights in America are now in a precarious situation, facing possible destruction by federal court judges who deny the existence of parental rights, as well as by judges who refuse to recognize them because they are not explicitly protected in the Constitution. Added to these internal threats is the growing danger of international law which threatens to intrude upon the child-parent relationship.

The only way to shield this vital relationship from the onslaught of government control is by amending the Constitution to protect parental rights. It is the only way to ensure that parental rights are protected for this generation and the next.

From The Current Status of Parental Rights

More information as well as the text of the proposed amendment

How you can help:

Join the fight by donating and/or signing the petition.

Or, even better, you can become what is called a
"10-and-2 Representative." I just signed up myself, and after reading the material and looking into the matter, they ask very little of us.

Find ten (10) contacts to sign the petition and fill out some basic personal information,
Collect a few small donations and mail them in,
Enter the necessary data at our website in a few minutes,
Mail a few postcards to your Senator and Representatives (at a later date), and
Recruit just two (2) more people to serve as 10-and-2 PRO-Active Representatives.

From 10-and-2 Representative

So, in essence, what I now have to do since I signed up is get ten people to sign the petition, donate just one dollar (no joke), and get two more people to become 10-and-2 Representatives as well. That's the basics of our task. (For more information please download this file.) On their Resources page they provide us with easily downloadable and thus printable material to aid us with the signing, donations, and the cards to mail, etc. They even give us pamphlets and material to pass out if we need to. What else do we need? Be truthful to yourself; you can help. If you don't, you either don't want to or are in the tiniest percentile of those somehow unable to do anything at the current time. I suspect that if you are out and about on the internet and reading this you likely are able to become a Representative. So what are you waiting for?

This is not a "Christian" issue, nor is it merely a "homeschooling" one. This is an issue for every single American out there, including those who are not parents. I know I'm planning on raising children in the future; what about you? You want somewhere to raise them, don't you?

I implore you to help this cause now before it is too late. I call on every man, woman, and young person out there reading this right now. If you love America, if you love your freedom, if you wish to keep the strong foundation of our country and keep it such a beautiful nation, then please act now. If you don't want to be a representative, please at least sign and/or donate!

If you aren't sure and are just curious right now, that's okay too. Just tool around their website, take a look around, see what this is all about for yourself. I have been blogging about this for a very long time now. Now that the fight has started, expect to hear lots more from me. I refuse to remain silent!

If you make the right choice and act, I applaud you, my fellow friend and American! Please tell everyone you know about this--don't just stop with ten! You can feel free to link back to this post should you choose to blog about this topic. We need 4.5 million (yes, million) signatures. Please, spread the word!

Barring that we know our God is always in control and is sovereign, the outcome of this battle rests in our hands. Will we sit by and do nothing, for whatever reason, as we see the beautiful nation of America torn to pieces bit by bit?

I will not.

What will you do?

It's 'Go' Time!


P.S. Should anyone have any questions you can either ask in a comment, leave a comment with your email or other form of contact, which I assure you will be left unpublished to protect your information (For instance, if you'd even like to become one of my ten signers/donees, we could work something out), or, if you prefer more direct information and an undoubtedly more informed answer, please contact directly at

Monday, February 02, 2009

Movie Review: Taken

Less than an hour ago I got out of the theater after seeing Taken with Liam Neeson (playing Bryan Mills). Here are my thoughts.

The overall plot of the film deals with the kidnapping of Mill's daughter while she's on a trip in France. As a retired government agent, he is intent on getting her back. His task immediately becomes more grim and ominous when he learns he is dealing with sex traffickers.

The movie was well-made, convincing, and the plot, of course, draws you in. How could any feeling person not root for Neeson? Clearly such a film will contain fight scenes, and the martial arts are reality-based and thus gritty. Very, very well done. Engagements with guns, knives, and plenty of hand-to-hand combat is given screen time (including plenty of kill blows, might I add). On top of that we have the always-pleasing spy feel: Mills uses contacts, gadgets, and some experience-gained know-how to track down his foes and, hopefully, save his 17 year old daughter. And of course such a plot will be somewhat predictable, but nonetheless I thought this film had a fresh feel to it. (I also noticed that he is always wearing black)

I will give a warning, however. Due to the nature of the plot dealing with sex trafficking, this might not be an easy film for some, perhaps even many, to watch. I commend the filmmakers on their restraint and tasteful treatment of such a gruesome subject--no clear nude or sex scenes are to be seen, however, we still do have plenty of inferences and such. We see women in very revealing clothing, we see scores of girls in rooms waiting for the next buyer to come in (most of them incoherent with drugs), there is even a scene where the "best" girls are being sold at auction for large sums of cash, and more. This may disturb some viewers, and I caution especially any ladies who may be inclined to see this film.

But...on the other hand, I actually liked that they dealt with this subject. Check that, I loved that they dealt with this subject. As a old-fashioned guy who still takes chivalry very seriously (That's right, lefties, we ain't all dead yet!), I believe that the laid-back, laxadaisacal life of so many people today is very, very dangerous, especially for women. Thus, I seriously feel that this subject should have been dealt with and applaud the fact that it finally was shown with such straightforward frankness. We didn't need to see nudity or two people in sex positions, either. This film may be worth a viewing for just that reason. It shows the dangers that women everywhere are in, and the folly of ignoring the warning signs and living life unawares. Mills is security-minded--quite like me, I must say--and is very uncomfortable with his daughter's trip to Paris, and numerous warning signs pop up, but he finally consents to let her go (this makes more sense if you see the movie, one thing being that he clearly loves her more than anything, the whole first part of the film showing this time and time again). It is her companion that is the more naive of the two young girls, and after being unwittingly selected by a friendly, "cute" French guy at the airport who is really a spotter for the traffickers, their fate is sealed (they show him where they're staying---aaaaghh!!). This film shows the folly of the average teenage live-it-up life somewhat, and again, is a stark reminder that our women are not safe in this world. If you want an effective way to help show people the dangers that really lurk in our own world, then show them this film.

With all this, I was ready to love the film. In fact, I would have likely bought it. But...a few reservations. In my opinion, Mills was entirely justified in doing what he did. He uses old contacts to get information, flies to Paris, and begins his work. (Let's not even hear the stuff about "He should have called the police!" Human trafficiking is the second most profitable crime in this world, only drugs exceeding it. Now you think about that for a moment. What makes you think the police would be any more able to find her than they are able to find all the rest of them? And also, the film gives a timeframe of 96 hours for Mills to find her--red tape and police who would clearly be even less adept than he would be nothing but a hindrance, at best.) He fights and kills his way through the underworld, and you know what? In his place, I'd do the same thing, without a moment's hesitation. In fact, his word's to her captors sound like something I would say:

"I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you."

That's gonna be the best movie quote of the year!

But on with my reservations. He electrocutes one man to get information out of him. Okay, not too bad. But then after getting that information he leaves him to be electrocuted to death. Another man, again after getting information out of him, gets shot in the head by Mills. Not very heroic, is it? You could possibly get away with that by excusing him with the idea of him killing them so they won't rat on him, warn anyone, or make his job harder, but if you watch the movie, these are clearly revenge killings.

The one worst scene of the film, hands-down, is when Mills shoots a man's wife, again to acquire intel. It is only a flesh wound and he doesn't kill her, but still, this was waaay out of line and nothing like what a true warrior would do. True, he's enraged and sees nothing but his daughter, but still, I mean, come on! He seriously needed a touch of The Dark Knight's restraint in there.

If it hadn't been for these three things, this would have been one awesome movie.

So, if you want some good entertainment, with a great subject and good fight scenes, go ahead and see it if you like. Just remember that Neeson does not always play the hero in this film.