Oh, He's Good
Not two weeks after I had written about the oil companies' interest in the medical industry, Darth Bama held a press conference to announce that he was abolishing the off-shore drilling ban, and allowing the oil companies to have at it. I bet the greenies are frothing at the mouth. But hey, he just put a major hurt on one of their profit making avenues with his health care law, and he needed to make up for it.
I just hope they don't take the bait. Instead, they should press him for more compensation. Make him really upset his green allies. If he can alienate one of the major groups that put him in office, maybe he won't stay in office. Besides, if the oil industry can get ramped up domestically, maybe we can minimize our dependence on foreign energy. Not to mention the jobs and economy stimulation that would result.
Now that is the kind of stimulus that doesn't cost taxpayer dollars, and has the potential to put people to work for something other than the government. Why wasn't this in the stimulus package? Because it was never a consideration until it was now needed to win over his medical spending plan.
He's good. His power of the dark side of manipulation is not to be underestimated. Don't be weak-minded, Exxon, Conoco-Philips, and all you other enterprises. Resist his mental games. See it for what it really is--a major cog in the wheel of government control. Push back, demand more, and break his hold.
I'm Been Franklin
What For?
If I were to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize today, I would throw it away with all the other rubbish. A prize which used to symbolize ingenuity, resourcefulness, innovative results, and a reduction or abolition of conflict between differing parties is now nothing more than a popularity contest among like-minded individuals. If you get one today it means you have an eloquent way of delivering ideas & wishes, from an authoritative position, that conforms to "politically correct" established ideologies. It should be called the "Nobel Appease Prize."
This article, of course, has been sparked by the recent Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Obama. For what?! Near as I can tell, it is for making a lot of promises and an effort not to offend anyone. It most surely is NOT for his absence of accomplishments, or his devastating toll on the value of the dollar, or his (so far) unsuccessful attempts at Federal socialistic control. My neighbor down the road has accomplished more good for humanity just in the last year than President Obama has in his entire political career. My neighbor raises Angus bulls, stimulates the economy by spending his earnings, fights recession by hiring help, feeds countless numbers of people, and takes ownership of his mistakes as well as his victories, not blaming others which diverts conflict. He blows away President Obama's efforts at peaceful greatness.
This award is not an isolated incident, either. A few years ago Al Gore was given a Nobel Peace Prize for showing a slide show on global warming. The next morning he woke to discover 14 inches of out-of-season snow had fallen during the night. How did that promote the reduction of conflict? Other Nobel Peace Prize awards over the past few years include:
- Mohamed ElBaradei (2005) -- This is the guy who has made a concerted effort to bring nuclear capability within everyone's grasp, especially terrorists.
- Jimmy Carter (2002) -- The man who paid Panama to take ownership of a canal that cost millions of American dollars, long hazardous labor, and hundreds of American lives to build. That didn't cause any hard feelings.
- Muhammad Yunus (2006) -- this is the guy who decided to loan money to poor women in India and now brings in an average of $1.92 billion per year. I don't know how that brings peace to the masses, but it did help the poor in India, and make him one of the richest in the world.
- Ronald Reagan (??) -- bringing down the Iron Curtain, and halting the threat of thermonuclear war -- no wait!! He wasn't even nominated.
At this rate the Nobel Peace Prize will soon be a peer to other notable awards such as the coveted Darwin Awards—where people die to obtain them, and the Bonehead Awards given to unthinkables, or rather, people who don't think.
For now we apologize to Alfred Nobel. We apologize for minimizing and mocking the importance of the accomplishments and advancements by giving out this award today like it was Halloween candy.
I'm Been Franklin
Let me tell you a story
In the late 19th century a young, law college dropout was encouraged by Herman Melville to take his well-read knowledge and his natural gift of expression to a level of creativity that had yet to be seen in the literary world. Over the course of the next two decades Jules Verne penned some of the most well-known literary works like "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and "Around the World in 80 Days." Of the 90+ novels and short stories that he wrote, over 80% of his scientific predictions came true. Even down to the details, in one book, of a German tyrant rising to power bent on world conquest, genocide, and eugenics.
Over the next century and a half, other science fiction authors (Asimov, Heinlein, Herbert) have addressed more than technology in their work, predicting cultural and political tendencies that prove to be fairly accurate. More recently, science fiction screen writers and producers have stepped up to the challenge of the tradition of Verne, to put forth their future society ideas. One of the first, Gene Roddenberry, openly admitted that his intention was to do exactly that--to bring to the screen in a creative way, a series of tales dealing with issues that did or would plague society. The popularity and longevity of his legacy is evidence of his success in telling stories that relate to people.
Then came George Lucas. The story I am about to tell, is an application of his Star Wars saga. The saga written over 30 years ago, has exquisite symbolism to today's world.
Two and a half centuries ago, in a land once not known to exist... a Republic was born. Out of the world's traditions of tyranny, imperialism, and monarchy, a nation was conceived, purchased, and implemented by men and women who craved freedom from these types of oppression, and sought the guidance of a supreme being, who transcended the tendencies and wisdom of mankind. So that no single individual could rule them again, they put into place a form of government which would police itself, and have the power to protect the people from other nations that would threaten their way of life. The government had a leader who could not make law, a legislature that could not implement law, and a court that could not make or implement law, but made sure no laws were designed or made that superseded the original expectations of the government charter: the Constitution. The three were given the ability to correct each other and make sure they stayed true to their calling.
To protect against outside control, the military was formed. Although there have been several branches formed over the years, there has always been just two parts--1) the main force by which a large or overpowering threat could be repelled, and 2) a highly skilled and trained elite group that could work in covert and surgical ways to keep the security of the nation's people intact. Both of these elements have been trained to love God, cherish honor, love country, and to protect, at all costs, the principles of the constitution. They are led and guided by a council known as the Chiefs of Staff.
The founders, however, were not infallible and left loop-holes in the constitution that could be used to undermine its very existence. Nor did they anticipate that a dark, and sinister force would lay in wait, scheming over the decades to use the system against itself to bring about the Republic's downfall and a new kind of power and control.
Using the power of hate, anger, and self-interest, this sinister, or dark-sided, force put in to action its destructive plan. The first objective was to disassociate the people from a dependence on the Creator and absolute standards, and look to mankind, specifically those the dark side controlled, to dictate what was moral or acceptable. Using the power of self-interest they accomplished this by feeding egos and self-esteem, pointing to feelings within as a basis for moral judgment. Their more blatant efforts accomplished the devaluing of human life, the elevation of all other life, and the doctrine of tolerance. This doctrine, widely accepted now, teaches that whatever you believe is acceptable, and others should honor that. Of course the exception to this is Christianity. The dark side claims that this cannot and will not be tolerated. They use the powers of hate to counter any attempt at bringing the Christian moral absolutes back into the lime light, and they use the power of anger, stirring up conflict where they can, masking it with words like racism and "personal rights."
The second objective was to render the Constitution powerless. Again, relying on the same dark powers, they sought to take advantage of the loop-hole that Thomas Jefferson warned us about: That the Supreme Court could usurp the authority of both the legislative and executive branches by making law with no accountability under the guise of "policy decisions", or redefining what the Constitution actually says. This they accomplished by the second half of the 20th century and the Supreme Court as been making law and subtly changing the constitution since then with no consequences. In practice, the nation went from a republic to an oligarchy. The dark side has made great efforts to put at least five sympathetic members on this board of rulers over the years, whispering and influencing the nation's executive to nominate one every time an opening appears. When this becomes imperative, they buy into office an apprentice who will do their bidding.
The third and final objective is to remove any threat which could arise from within the nation that might put it back on track. In Lucas's story, it was a slaughter of all the Jedi. In this story, it is an iron clamp on weapons in the hands of citizens, and the discredit, or threat-labeling, of our veterans, especially the ones who once served in the elite group that has covertly protected us over the years. It does not stop there. The creation of a realistic and powerful threat from without is empowered, marring the image of a leader who is not drawn to the dark side. With the outside threat instilling terror in the hearts and minds of the people, a new leader emerges with promises of protection, prosperity, and purpose, and under the control of their newly appointed apprentice, they rise to temporarily save the day. Then the dark force puts forth an effort to undermine the authority of the constitution with socialistic and nationalistic ideals. The promises are conveniently not kept, and once the people look to these promises for security, a new threat is revealed, and marshal law can set in, with the nation turning from an oligarchy to a dictatorship. A dictatorship authored and engineered by these dark-sided forces. With a people mostly disarmed, and the veterans, who could rally them to rebellion, disgraced, the empire is complete, and the dark side triumphs.
It is a dark and depressing story, but not without hope. For the third objective has not yet been met. The people are still armed, the veterans still walk tall amongst us, and most importantly, we still have the right to vote!! The dark side considers us weak, unable to put up enough of a resistance to counteract their long and thought out plan. Their over-confidence will be their down-fall. We can win back our country. Fill the Washington offices with those who still believe that our inalienable rights come from the Creator, that there are absolute morals and lines we should never cross, and that the Constitution should stand as is, and back in control of government. This takes not just a replaced executive branch, but a legislature that will exercise their power to impeach Supreme Court Judges when they step out of line, and determine law instead of submit to the original ideas and goals of the Constitution. It is a lot of work, not only in the campaign department, but in the searching out of strong moral leadership with sound character and integrity. Are we the people of this nation up to the task?
There is an unanswered underlying question to this story. One I'm sure that any Star Wars fan is asking. Who is the Sith master? For those of you who are not fans, the question can be worded: Who represents the schemer, the one behind the scenes authoring the bidding, the dark force master? I have my ideas, but I would rather leave you with this thought--who says the master has to be human?
I'm Been Franklin
People are Fed-up!
The pun is intended. Mr. President, the people of this nation are not as stupid as you hoped they would be. They have seen through your schemes, your political lies, your lame promises, and your numerous failures. They realize that your ideas and desires are not in our best interest. The tide is about to change, unless you do. This election year, all those up for re-election who support your socialistic plans and back your big-government agenda will be voted out of office in November. The American people want nothing to do with National Health care, they want their security back, and they want to believe that the interests of Washington are the same as the majority, not the minority. One of the most traditionally left-wing states has just voted in a constitutionalist--an unheard-of right-wing senator from Massachusetts. This is a clear message, Mr. President. Shrug off the hold that power-hungry socialists and humanist have on you, and start really listening to the vast majority of the American people, not the loud irrational few that think of only themselves.
I'm Been Franklin
Green Tainted Yellow - Part 4: Imperialism
By now you should have a pretty good idea of the logic showing that the global warming and environmental scare tactics are false, and only exist to line the pockets of the proponents. There is one other issue that needs to be addressed in the area of environmental control: Imperialism.
In order for there to be any hope to curb or control the minuscule influence mankind has on our planet, there has to be absolute, marshal, and social control of the societies that matter. Any freedom to think, innovate, produce, and pursue ideas and dreams, has to be scaled back, if not eliminated, in order for the ruling body to make sure none of the thousands of ordinances, regulations, and restrictions are violated. You can already see the lunacy of this thinking when a government tries to regulate the flatulence of cattle! This type of control is invasive--on an individual level, an industrial level, and a national level. The magnitude needed to make this whole thing work is global, which also strips a nation of its individuality. For the United States to become a part of the global effort, assimilates us into the world-collective. For the United States to throw itself totally into this issue as a nation, changes us from the United States, to the Imperial States of America. Didn't we leave this behind in 1776 when we declared independence of this type of control and mentality? If I were you, I would fight this environmental control effort with all I had, now, or you might find that you have nothing with which to fight.
I'm Been Franklin
Green Tainted Yellow - Part 3: The Motive
In this part of the "green" series, I want to look at motive for all this push for "going green", and environmental stigmas. What is the reason, the drive for these various research facilities and politicians to push and preach the "green gospel"? Has all this talk, demonstrations, industrial restrictions, taxes, and regulations made a dent in anything? This has been going on for over 30 years. If you listen to all the hype and warnings of global environmental calamity, it is obvious to any logical thinker that the situation has worsened as the effort to curb it has increased. This says one or two things-1) the problem is beyond our control and/or 2) the problem is a hoax perpetuated by its own need to exist.
I have been trying for several weeks now to obtain a figure that represents the amount of money that has been spent on this issue in the last 30 years. It has thus far eluded me. I can find individual grants, awards, and expenditures sporadically over time and industry, but the information which would give a grand total of what has been spent, and the grand total of what has been brought in from fund raising and taxes is unavailable. Now why would that be? Just from the data I have found the amount of expenditures has numbered in the billions of dollars, and the amount of tax-generated income close to a trillion. I also just focused on money spent towards efforts to preserve the environment, find cleaner energy sources, and reverse global warming (I did not included animal rights, and conservation efforts). During this 30-odd years, the "green-gospel" evangelists have preached doom and gloom on the populace, claiming that every year brings us closer to calamity. If they are correct, then all this money that has been dumped down the green hole has not produced anything more than more preachers. And because it costs so much to keep these individuals in the pulpit, more funding is needed to actually develop something. More funding? More individual pockets? No significant results? Critical thinking from this evidence would conclude that the whole "green" effort is motivated by the green that rests in wallets. It's all about money, not the environment. This is a gold mine for those that have a loud voice, no scruples, and a place to publish or an audience to hear.
True science, however, is producing more and more evidence that debunks the global warming agenda. Unfortunately, the dilemma of environmentalists have them locked into this system of beliefs all the way to their grave, unless they are mature enough to admit error and change their public image. But the money is too abundant and attainable; the glory and self-importance too enticing; and the lie is so prolific that these "green gospel" preachers will stay in their pulpits through the next ice age.
I'm Been Franklin
Contemporary History
The philosophy of Darwinian evolution has infiltrated almost every aspect of our society today. The idea that anything gets better or improves over time, taints the outlook or interpretation of just about everything. Take history, for example. Historians, at least the ones that write our text books, believe that we can better the facts of history by retelling it with "modern" ways of thinking and belief. In other words, what was actually recorded in history at the time of its event cannot be as accurate as when we look at it with hind-sight and new, improved thinking.
What nonsense!! Since when has "not being there" been a more accurate record than that of eye witnesses? The changes of recorded history over the last decades is inexcusable and just out-right ludicrous. Yet, this is the stance of modern-day educators: "We know more about what our forefathers and founders meant than they did."
Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and others have gone from respected, moral men of common sense, integrity, and visionaries, to demented, social intolerant individuals who never put a coherent word together on their own in their life. Where does this stuff come from? The targets of this rewritten history campaign seem to be anyone who makes a socialist of today look immoral, self-serving, and just plain foolish. It seems that if our political leadership can discredit the founders of this nation, then they feel they have the "duty" to redefine it. And if those individuals of our society want to justify their behavior as acceptable today, then they need to pick apart and destroy the very foundation of our country so they can feel better about themselves.
It is not old-fashioned to leave history intact! To teach history in an accurate and unmodified form is called honesty. But, of course, this is one of the very virtues of history that is being squashed. Lying, or bending the truth, is a much more acceptable behavior today.
I have a set of volumes in my library called "The Annals of America." These books contain copies of the original speeches, letters, diaries, correspondence, and logs of noted individuals throughout the history of this nation. The content of these documents often contradict what is being taught in the classroom. When my children have brought this to the attention of the instructor, instead of correcting the historical teaching, my kids are labeled "intolerant", and old-fashion in their thinking. So let me get this straight--if the recorded record disagrees with modern ways of thinking, then it is intolerant and old-fashioned, and should be changed. No wonder our nation is disintegrating into chaos. We are aiming at absolutely nothing and hitting it everytime.
Recently, there is group of educators in Texas that are trying to set the record back to the eye-witness facts. These individuals are being blasted with claims that they are "trying to rewrite history!!" The accusers have been doing that very thing for decades, and now they want to pin it on those who are trying to set the record straight. Maybe we should look into their claim. We might find even more material needing to be fixed by historical standards. Perhaps the lament of this Darwinian group will have just the opposite affect they wish and open the eyes of the people to the flaw in what has been taught as history for the last 40 years.
I'm Been Franklin
I have a bone to pick with the mainstream media about the use of two words that have lost their original meanings—Liberal and Conservative.
Come on guys! Quit hiding behind words that nobody really understands anymore. Why don't you say what you really mean?
Aside from the abuse, liberal means basically two things:
- to apply or supply generous portions or amounts
- to desire or act on a course of change from the status quo
However, the media tends to make it mean something entirely different—socialism. What's wrong with calling a shoe a shoe. Why do we have to use the label liberal when what we really mean is socialist? Yes, based on this nation's constitution, that is liberal thinking (wanting to change the status quo). But what is going to happen to this label if they succeed? Being liberal will no longer apply because it is the status quo. Our fore-fathers were liberals in that they wanted to change from a monarchist rule, to a republic. They weren't socialist, but they were liberal!
The other word, conservative, means:
to maintain the status quo with minimal change.
This is probably the most abused word. Instead of it's true definition, conservative has become the word used when referring to those who hold to the principles and standards of the Christian founders of our nation. The amount of change that is going to be necessary to get back to the ideals and principles of the original constitution is staggering. It is anything but conservative! Say what you are really indicating about those you so carelessly call conservative—moral, those with standards, absolute ones, that are given by the Creator.
The media needs to be more factual with it's labeling. There are only a few reasons I can see that they would be using such ambiguous and meaningless lingo when they talk about political and social issues.
- They are stupid. They really don't have a very good education or vocabulary that supports an informative, meaningful report.
- They are deceivers. They do not want, you as the public, to really understand the nature or character of the individuals they so carelessly label.
- They are lazy. They do not want to put forth the effort it takes to verbalize the essence of what is going on, so they use the politically correct references of obscurity by throwing out terms that don't really mean anything.
Wake up media! The American people are smarter than you think, and there are some of us that are getting tired of your double-speak and personal agendas wading into your “unbiased” reports.
I'm Been Franklin
Memorial Day weekend is typically spent as a primary 3-day recreational family and friends event. Sometime during those 3 days, we make a trip out to the cemetary to put flowers on a grave of a lost loved-one or a soldier. The holiday was originally planned as a day to honor those who died in defense of this country.
Today, we have made a mockery of the honor and memory of these fallen heroes. They initially fought to give us this nation, and then throughout the years have fought to keep it, and the principles it was founded on as a strong example and image of what we represent. So what was this thing, this driving motivation that put countless men and women in harms way? What was so dear that they would give their lives to preserve? As the Declaration of Independence states, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In a word freedom. So why, as a nation, do we spit on their graves? Why as a nation do we dishonor these heroes of before by casting aside those very things? They fought for the right to be a Christian without fear of the government telling them they are potential terrorists and hate mongers; to practice their faith in their lifestyle and all they do, not just in the privacy of their home or church building. They fought for the right to decide whether to be successful, or poor, without government intervention. They fought for the right to buy whatever car one wishes, regardless of what some misinformed environmentalist believes, or what emmission regulations are put in place, and regardless of whether it gets good gas mileage or not. The USSR dictated who and what kind of auto could be purchased--we're not like that, are we? They fought for a pursuit of happiness that was not mandated, regulated, and provided by a governing body, a body which thinks they know what is best for us. They fought for the right to eat whatever we wanted, irregardless of what the FDA or any other regulation deems "good food" or not. They fought for the right to own firearms and ammunition without being micromanaged and accountable for every round and primer used. Firearms that could be used for livelyhood, recreation, protection, and most importantly (per the 2nd Ammendment) the ability to rise up against an oppressing government that over-taxes, over-dictates, and over-controls.
If you want to really honor memorial day, then tell this government that stands against everything that was fought for that you won't tollerate their control, their manipulation, and their oppression. We have sold ourselves back into slavery to a select few who think they know how to run our lives better then we do. While we still have the right to vote (that could be taken away as well, people), remove these socialist from their lofty perches, and make the government start working for us again, instead of us working to maintain this monstrous beast they have raised.
I'm Been Franklin.
Repentance: Penance or Hope?
(corrected)
This is the first of three discussions on words that have been passed down since the first English translations. In 1611, the protestants requested that King James I print an English version of the Bible for the masses so that others could read it for themselves. He had no direct ties at that time with the Roman Catholic Church, so using previous English and German translations (The Darby Bible, the Rheims Catholic Bible, Tyndale, and others) with periodic references to the Greek and Latin Vulgate, the "authorized" King James Bible was birthed. There were a few words that would have caused the Roman Catholic church some consternation had they been translated, so instead, they were transliterated (made up a new word with transposed Latin/Greek letters to English letters), or new definitions were created for others, to reduce controversy and garner wide-spread acceptance from the Vatican.
One of these resulting words was repentance, or repent. Through the ages repentance has come to be an acceptable synonym for penance, or remorse. A condition or action of feeling sorry for wrong doing, and seeking absolution for these wrong actions. There was such a teaching in the New Testament, but it was not from Jesus or the apostles. It was from John, the cousin of Jesus. John's mission was to "prepare the way of the Lord," to get the hearts ready to accept the Christ that God was sending to bring anyone who was willing back to him. John preached penance, remorse, humility, and hope. He immersed individuals in water to signify their willingness to admit their needy state, and to prepare their hearts for the Savior. John knew that the Lord would be seeking contrite hearts to add to His kingdom, so he passionately urged people to come to this level of awareness. All of this, however, did not bring salvation to anyone. It was a preparatory exercise to bring seekers to hear Jesus' life-saving message.
When Peter stood in the Temple on the day of Pentecost, after Jesus had ascended into heaven, he proclaimed the good news of Christ. When the crowd asked him what they should do, his first action word was Repent. Not repent of your sins, not feel bad about who and what they were, not promise to be better, or not sin anymore; just repent. Repent of what? In order to answer that question, we must first translate it properly. The Greek word Peter used was metanoeo which means: to think differently, reconsider. So where does remorse or penance come in to play? It doesn't. So what was Peter telling them to do? It was to start thinking differently about their life, Jewish laws and customs, and most importantly, the whole concept of the Christ.
Peter's plea was not for people to focus on their sins, but rather to look at a Christ who could free them from the bondage of the Law, and give them a new hope and reconciliation with a God who had once seemed so far away. It was a different way of thinking. Peter demanded that they reconsider all that they had thought before about kingdoms, worship, deliverance, and the Christ. He called them to adopt a whole new way of thinking, which would produce a brand new way of living. They were primed for the decision. They had been convicted by the Spirit to realize they had been wrong all along. That is why 3000 men changed their minds that day.
I do not want you to believe that remorse does not have any part in the salvation process. It most definitely does, it is just not "metanoeo". The heart has to be broken and contrite. It is in this state that the mind can begin to be moved, changed, and convinced of the need to reconsider life, its master, and direction.
Everybody knows that sin is wrong. The people at Pentecost were already remorseful when they ask what to do. There was no need to change their thought processes about that. That's why Peter said, "Change your Mind!"
What do you think about Jesus? What do you really believe about who he is, and what his kingdom is all about? That's the real metanoeo question. That's what starts you down the road of Christianity. It's not about being good enough, or sorry enough, it's about being wise enough.
I'm Been Franklin
