Categories

Green Tainted Yellow - Part 1 Critical Thinking

Posted: Friday August 30 2013 @ 5:08pm

Category: Political

After raising three children through the public school system, I have acquired more evidence which suggests that the nation's powers-that-be want un-apposing, unconditional, and unquestioning puppets to serve and propagate their delusional power and authority.
One of the primary ways I have seen this objective pushed is through the practice of suppressing critical or logical thinking in the classroom. Playing on the natural tendency of most kids to be lazy (a tendency present for centuries), the education system doles out answers and paths of thought to life's questions smudging out any opposing ideas through sarcasm, lies, misdirection, or simple omission. They ridicule any student who might question them, and manage to eliminate time for any public discussion or dialog.
The problem with this one-track mindedness, is that it often is on the wrong track and headed for a catastrophic collision with truth. If our children were given the tool of logical thinking at an early age, as they grew and learned they would see through the double-talk, double standards, and double-minded agendas that are put before them.
Imagine how much work and effort would be needed to actually represent the people if they weren't programmed to think and act the way the official wanted them to. That elected person might have to be opposed to something they are personally for. But instead, the elected officials tend to take their office with an agenda in place which will further their own goals. They not only close their ears to the masses, but also indoctrinate them on what they should believe and want.
You see, by raising up a generation of non-critical thinkers, the government can easily convince the masses that it is government that can manage and guide your life better than you. One of the areas where this is happening is in the pseudo-science of environmentalism. In my next entry on this subject I'll deal with the "suppressed" facts of this political gold mine.

I'm Been Franklin.


Green Tainted Yellow - Part 2 The Facts

Posted: Friday August 30 2013 @ 5:08pm

Category: Political

In part one of this series, I discussed the concern I have for the suppression of critical thinking. This time I want to tell you some environmental facts that give quite the yellow tint to the whole "green gospel."


  1. Mt. St. Helens—There are still those around today who remember the day, and months afterward, that Mount St. Helens blew its top. The ash fell nation-wide, the ambient temperature dropped several degrees over the entire hemisphere, and the residual effects lasted for years. What is not commonly known is the amount of green-house gas emissions resulting from the eruption. In order for mankind to duplicate the amount of green-house production that this volcano spewed forth in 24 hours, we would have to run all of our oil refineries at maximum capacity, 7 days a week, 24 hours per day for the next 20,000 years.

  2. Water Level & ice—One of the evidences that is said to be proof of global warming is the measured rise in ocean levels. However, this overlooks a fundamental property of water. Run this experiment (yeah, I'm actually saying you can try this at home): Get an empty 20 ounce plastic bottle, and fill it roughly half full. Put the cap on and freeze it solid. After it has frozen, get a sharpie or equivalent and put a horizontal line on the outside of the bottle across the top of the ice block. Set it out on the counter and let it thaw completely. Now note the water level in relation to the mark you previously made. With this simple demonstration, the melting of the ice in our oceans should show a reduction in water level.

  3. Cycles of the earth—Greenland, a land-mass that is today laughed at because of its name. There is not much "green" about it. Rolling icy tundra, and stark winter wilderness. So why is this continent called Greenland? A short trip into history will find voyagers from northern Europe traveling across the Atlantic and finding this lush, green continent, unlike much of their own homeland of Finland, Sweden, and Norway. Erickson was so impressed with its lure of vegetation and life, that he dubbed it Greenland. Of course, over the next few centuries, the ambient temperature began to drop, and glaciers began to encroach upon this continent until we see the vast arctic wilderness of today. Archeology shows much evidence of this type of weather pattern fluctuation. And the same Archaeological studies show no evidence that mankind ever has anything to do with it.

  4. Suppose we were to grant that global-warming is an issue (and I'm not), and that we are rushing toward a "Greenhouse Effect."?

  5. Plant-life thrives in a greenhouse—When winter rolls around, nurseries and other landscape businesses just close up shop, and take a long vacation, right? Wrong!! They move their plants and produce into "greenhouses" because they will thrive and grow there. The humidity is easier to keep at a constant level, the natural solar energy that is filtered through the greenhouse canopy, enhances the photosynthesis, and the oxygen-carbon dioxide levels work at maximum efficiency. It is a vegetation paradise! So what's the hang-up? Why are we trying to stop this from happening? Doesn't this solve our "rain-forest problem?"

  6. Life, in general, is extended—It has also been documented through experiments, in Arizona, and other enclosed greenhouse laboratories world-wide, that life, in general, lasts longer, growth is enhanced, and fauna, not just flora, is stronger and more resilient. So, what's the hand-up? Why are we trying to stop this from happening? Is it because we would rapidly over-populate the planet, due to living a couple of hundred years?


  7. These last two items, of course, are sarcasm due to the idea that I do not believe there is an issue with "global warming". There are just too many evidences and explanations that point to natural earth cycles, or natural catastrophic occurrences (did I mention the massive underwater volcano the Norwegians discovered in Antarctica recently, which has melted a lot of that continent?) that explain some of the concerns. It is quite arrogant and self-focused to think that mankind can have anything to do with global degradation over time. Nature itself, has far superior methods of wreaking havoc with the environmental systems, and in a short amount of time. Can anyone of us claim to be master of nature and the elements? Anyone?....Anyone?...Gore?


    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


    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.


    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


    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:


    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.

    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


    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:


    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


    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


    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


    Cheap Grace

    I have a growing concern of a phenomena that is occuring across the churches in the United States today. It is what I call "cheap grace." A grace that is treated as a one-time gift that can be later forgotten or minimized for convenience, but still awarded at the end of time. I believe that it has been birthed and fostered with the deceptive promise of "just saying a prayer."

    No where in scripture will you ever find a reference to a "sinner's prayer." As a matter of fact, there is only one place that refers to calling out to God for a clear conscience and receiving Jesus as your Savior. It is found in 1 Peter 3:21 which states: "Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you. Baptism doesn't save by removing dirt from the body. Rather, baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience. It saves you through Jesus Christ, who came back from death to life. (God's Word Translation)" Salvation is not just an invitation for Jesus to come to you, but rather a response to His offer of grace by immersing yourself into His Lordship. Even though it is a free gift, it is not cheap!!

    Jesus says "If anyone wants to be one of my disciples, he must deny himself {get rid of your own desires} take up his cross {crucify who you are}, and follow him {become obedient to his will and direction}." (Commentary added by me.) Of course, you can't earn your way into salvation, that's the grace part--it gets you past that. But you do need to live and act like you appreciate it, and above all, do not disappoint the Holy Spirit in your life-style, for Jesus again says, "Everyone who says something against the Son of Man will be forgiven. But the person who dishonors the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." (Luke 12:10). Realize that the Holy Spirit is the seal of your salvation (Ephesians 4:30) given to you when you are baptized (Acts 2:38), and you do not want to send that seal away. Scripture is very reassuring that the Grace of God can not be taken from anyone who receives it. However, Scripture also states that it can be carelessly discarded or lost through neglect to keep hold of it (Hebrews 6-12).

    The Great Deceiver, Satan, has been running this "cheap" campaign for some time now, and has deceived many well-intentioned Christians into preaching this false doctrine. Not only does it give people false hope, but it minimizes the importance of the other part of Christ's commission: making disciples. Let's be more diligent in "teaching them to observe ALL that" Jesus commanded.

    I'm Been Franklin



Search

Other Links

RSS 2.0 Feed