Frank vs. God is a movie that we all should watch, especially if we avoid talking about god or watching or reading anything about god. There is a lot more to the story than a man whose house and dog were destroyed when a tornado took out his house, the only house on the block, and the insurance company wouldn't pay to rebuild the house because the house and dog were destroyed as an act of god. In plain business, insurance business, terms, David Frank was not covered because the insurance company had hedged their bets and cut their losses.
Do you realize that an act of god clause is so that insurance companies can limit their losses? Oh, you didn't realize that insurance companies are in the business of making money, that they are legalized corporate gamblers instituted for the sole purpose of making money? Too bad. David Frank didn't know that either and that is why he got screwed.
David Frank, determined to get restitution for his losses, decides to sue God since it was, according to the legal and binding contract he signed with the insurance company, God's fault his house was utterly destroyed and his dog, Brutus, killed. What the insurance company (and God) didn't count on is that David Frank is a corporate lawyer, a really good and successful corporate lawyer and he is serious about suing God.
And he does.
The judge, because of the advice his campaign manager gave him, decides against the usual way of dealing with what are termed frivolous lawsuits and throwing David Frank's lawsuit out the first day decides it would be good for his political career to hear the case. After all, the judge is certain David Frank will crash and burn and he will look good with the voters in the media. What does he have to lose?
That is the real point of this movie and this post. What does anyone have to lose when they sign a social contract and take on the evil opposition?
To the sign-carrying individuals outside the courtroom every day calling David Frank a heretic and a sinner blaspheming against God and begging God to strike David Frank down, they are righteous because they are defending God and anything they do to David Frank because he mocks God is justified. Everything is justified when standing up for God -- even killing David Frank and taking his life. Nothing is against the law and everything is justified under God to protect the sanctity of God.
That same righteous argument is used in defense of violence every time someone calls someone else a name, slanders and libels someone else, threatens to bomb someone's house or their car, sets someone's property on fire, pillages someone's store, steals or destroys someone's property, or guns someone down, or rapes and murders someone. Everything is justified when the other person is in the wrong and you are in the right -- even when what you believe is based on a lie.
Here in the United States of America were are at war. The right side is the side that protects women's rights, children, and the sanctity of human civil rights. The wrong side is the other side that has committed crimes from "...questionable business dealings to allegations of sexual assault." At least that is what The Atlantic Monthly claimed.
Trump will also leave people without health care as he destroys the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Well, he did say so when he was on the campaign trail and, unlike every other politician that promised Hope and Change and delivered nothing once they were sworn into office, the opposition believes Trump because he's not a politician and he doesn't understand how politics works or how to run a country like the USA.
How many people screaming for Trump's impeachment before he even took office bothered to look at what Trump actually said and did? Did they read Trump's position on the Affordable Care Act or health care?
First and foremost, did any of Trump's opposition stop to think about what happens when a bill passed by Congress is repealed? Trump cannot just say the Affordable Care Act is dead. He must first ask Congress to set in motion the actions necessary by law and spelled out in the U.S. Constitution to repeal the law. Trump may ask, but Congress must act. The President of the United States cannot repeal Obamacare -- or indeed any law. He must follow the process laid out in the U.S. Constitution.
The same process must be followed if the President of the United States decides to repeal Roe v. Wade. Though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Roe v. Wade is constitutional, Trump must ask Congress to initiate the action to repeal the law before Roe v. Wade can be repealed or erased from the books. The same is true of any laws on the books that have been legally enacted by Congress and ratified by the sitting President.
The same is not true of Executive Orders signed by the President. Executive Orders can be erased by the sitting President signing an Executive Order of his own that strikes down his predecessors' executive orders. In fact, a single Executive Order signed by the sitting President can invalidate all the executive orders signed into existence by any and all predecessors, such as the provisions to the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) that Obama signed into existence
with his own Executive Pen, including turning over control of the Internet to the United Nations that became effective October 1, 2016 and every other questionable part of the TPP Obama flourished his Executive Pen over, including handing over sovereignty of the United States to the U.N. because that will enhance US security. The point of all this is that what you think is right is not the only measure of what is actually right -- or righteous.
Trump has been vilified, ridiculed, denounced, and blamed for the direction the United States is pursuing. He has been denounced as a violator of women's rights and called on to answer for his assault on women because of a video where he claimed to be a stud in front of other men who could have any woman he wanted. How many men and boys have claimed the same from the time they hit puberty? How many men claimed to be a chick magnet, a stud, a real player in front of women they intended to seduce?
Men claim to be sensitive to women's rights and women's needs, but that is a more recent phenomenon especially in a culture where women are chattel to be bartered and sold like cattle. Women have feminists now who will knock a man down when he asserts his rights in modern times in the Western world, but there are plenty of cultures where women are still objects to be bought and sold in alleys and in broad daylight where they must hide their hair, their faces, and their bodies to keep men from being overcome by a woman's power and it has nothing to do with protecting women's chastity since in those same cultures, if a woman is raped she is judged to have incited the rape and is put to death or stoned or both. Where are the women's marches in those countries?
What we see in the mainstream media is little more than propaganda meant to inflame the people and enrage them by spouting half truths and outright lies in order to incite violence that will hopefully burst into civil war and then world war. Mob mentality rules.
Being moved to violence is the goal and the tactics strike at our emotions, often through graphic video and photos, most of which are Photoshopped, faked, and staged, in order to shut down common sense and rational thought. Why else would a protest for women's rights, the same rights that women have enjoyed in the United States and other civilized western nations, when no woman's right have been violated. Women are free to vote, free to choose abortion or adoption or having a child, free to protest, free to run for office, free to own and operate a business, a home, and a career, free to be police officers, soldier, and pilots, and free to serve as officers or enlisted soldiers. No one can take that away without the majority consent and votes of Congress and the president does not have the authority to take those rights away.
How many tens of thousands of women marched safely in protest? How many knew they were marching for the Democratic National Convention or the Democratic Party trying to de-legitimize Donald Trump's presidency? How many of those women knew they were marching for Hillary and Democrats and the loss of the November 2016 political races where the voters chose Republicans over Democrats at the polls? How many of those tens of thousands of women listening to incendiary speeches by female celebrities threatening to bomb the White House knew they had marched for threats of bombings the White House and harming President Trump, his wife, and his family? How many of those tens of thousands of women helped to set fires, impede emergency vehicles, or assaulted police officers? Is that what those women signed up for when they planned to march for women's rights? What about the rights of the people they harmed?
In the movie Frank vs. God, Corporate Attorney David Frank stated that God was omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient -- all powerful, present everywhere, and all knowing. The protesters outside the courthouse, and especially the man who shot David Frank in the name of God, evidently did not know that God had that much power. After all, why would an all power, all knowing God who is always everywhere need with a gun or a man filled with hate to do his dirty work? Maybe his believers don't believe in God's power any more than David Frank does. That is why they took it into their own hands.
The protesters don't believe in freedom or the U.S. Constitution, Congress, or the rule of law any more than God's messengers did. Beware your message of gets lost the moment you hammer your point across when you assault another person, take his life, his property, his voice, and his constitutional and legal rights in the name of peace. Your message of peace and love has been trumped by hate born of ego.
That is all. Disperse.
No comments:
Post a Comment