Opinion Thoughts, Opinion Expressed

New Book: Causative Fators of the Third Party Movement

2019-04-10T10:07:00.000-05:00

What do they want?

2017-03-22T22:25:00.001-05:00

If you died tonight

2016-06-22T16:30:00.001-05:00

Appreciation of America by Christians...

2016-06-22T16:24:00.002-05:00

Guns

2016-06-22T16:19:00.002-05:00

In the hands of a tyrannical organization what starts as good and humanitarian often devolves into something that is restrictive, repressive, cruel, and dangerous. Perhaps a person does not need to take an "assault" weapon into a bar. That seems logical to help prevent incidents that would end in death for some. The problem is not carrying an assault weapon in a bar, however. The problem is finding a solution to prevent some people with personalities and temperaments from having a weapon in the first place. Most solutions that seem to place restrictions on the Second Amendment seem to be applied to all persons because it is too difficult to operate on an individualized basis.

I wonder if our Founders knew when they wrote into the Constitution the freedom to own a weapon there were people right in their own communities they personally wished would never own a gun? When the Second Amendment was ratified with the other nine of the first ten on December 15, 1791, became known as the "Bill of Rights," the young nation was still wobbling from the Revolutionary experience. It was an agricultural society where each family hunted for their food each day and raised a garden to sustain the family during the year. When tyrants threatened the people, they banded together to form a Militia to fight off the tyrant. For a century after the ratification men carried guns, especially as the West was being settled. It was essential for self-protection, and the protection of one's family. The dual purpose of having a gun was for sustenance to secure food and for protection. Consequently, the gun was in demand, it was part of the Bill of Rights, secured by the Nation's Constitution, and everyone understood it was a right for everyone. It became a part of America's DNA that caused people to rise up to protect those rights when challenged by any who wanted to take those rights away.

At the same time, there were gun manufactures who perfected the weapon. Muzzle loaders fell by the wayside to the repeaters. Winchester, Colt, and others revolutionized the stability and accuracy of the weapon. That research and development produced highly functional weapons that were affordable and prolific. Mass production flooded the society with a product they wanted and needed. The military had the Gatling gun, developed in 1861. At 350 to 400 rounds per minute the Gatling gun became an "assault weapon" that was far advanced from the single shot muzzle loader. Politicians has to start thinking about the issue of citizens owning "guns" and what level of gun they could own.

Suppose by July 4, 2076, 300 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a gun manufacturer has invented for the military a pistol about the size of a .38 cal. special, or a 9mm semi-automatic, a gun that would load a magazine of 10 cartridges, each with an atomic payload that would be equal to the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Would such a gun, that could be carried in a holster under one's arm, fall under the Rights of the Second Amendment for any citizen to own? At some point we need to make the decision that just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean we should do it. Even though we have the right to have something, doesn't mean we should have it. Having a gun is a right, but we all know that in the hands of a killer gun becomes an instrument of destruction that gives men like the one in Orlando, Florida a power he should not have.

Congress just played a game of silliness yesterday by playing with gun control bills they knew would never pass. The politicians are not taking it seriously enough; they are putting up legislation they know will not have a fighting chance. They must get serious and find ways to make it difficult for a person who owns a gun to use it for murder or any other criminal activity. They need to quit allowing the lawyers and the judicial system to "make deals" that nullify the deterrent effect of the punishment.

If a person kills another person with a gun, and is convicted of murder through evidence and judicial process, that person should never again be in a position to use a gun to kill another human being. If that means life in prison with no chance of ever getting out, then the price becomes a deterrent for others to observe and place a restraint on their own personal behavior. Gangs in the big cities, little cities, towns, and villages should be arrested for using guns, unauthorized possession of guns, and should be given long, non-plea bargain sentences that keep them off the streets without any possibility of using a gun again.

Personal responsibility must be brought back to the families, schools, churches, universities, and all places in society where civility can be practiced without the consequences of killings. Morality must be revered again, sensibility must be brought back to the judicial system to consequate gun violence with swift justice that prevents the person from going through a system for years and then getting off on some technicality of a finer point of some obscure law. The rights of victims and their families should be as strongly held in the justice system as the person who is charged with the crime.

Jim Killebrew

Happy Father's Day

2016-06-18T17:54:00.000-05:00

I had the good fortune to have my Dad around me throughout my entire young life and even into adulthood. When he passed away all of my kids had already been born, so he was able to see and know his grand children. That was also true with my brother and sisters; they had all grown up and had children of their own and Dad was able to see and know them all.

I write that because I believe that is a blessing that many people are not given. It was a blessing for him to live long enough to see his family flourish; it was a blessing for us because we were able to learn valuable lessons of life just from being around him. His was a generation that seems decidedly different from the upcoming generation. There was glitziness in his generation, of course, but I am not so sure it was as magnified and self-centered as much as it seems to be today.

Having lived through the "great depression" identified with the crash of the stock market in 1929, Dad knew what it meant to "live by the sweat of his brow" and work long, hard hours to provide for himself and his family. His generation had been dealt a hand that really held no personal, individual power that would result in vast winnings. His world was changing fast through the industrial revolution, horseless buggy, flight through the air, electricity, automation, explosion of energy through oil and the beginning of modernization. Radio had come into its own, communication had shrunk the world in a way that gave him more information more quickly than his Dad had enjoyed. But just as he and millions of other Dads across the country had managed to stand ready to take a toddling step, tragedy struck at Pearl Harbor.

Uncle Sam made the call and tens of thousands of men just like my Dad ran to get the job done that needed to be done. Later in our history, this generation was to be called, "The Greatest Generation." I think those "knock-out" years that leathered the skins of those men having survived the depression and the World War created within them a sense of responsibility that had its foundation firmly planted on honor, character, morality, solidarity of trust and a sense of passing those values on to their children. That is what I witnessed growing up under his tutelage.

We were poor, but my Dad worked every day. His consistency was rock-solid, always working, doing the job he had been trained to do and sticking with it to complete a "career." From my earliest age I can remember being taught the value of work. His advice: "Do not do just what is expected by your boss, do much more than that and exceed your boss's expectation." He thought that was the code to live and work by and it would always make things better than what you expected. I believe it was good advice.

Values that focused on family, spiritual matters, hard work, telling the truth, holding fast to the principle of your word being your bond, trusting in others to keep their word and helping others who had needs were presented every day. I remember going with my brother and sisters door-to-door collecting small bits of change from people for the "Milk and Ice" fund. We would turn the money into those in charge to buy those commodities for poor people. Dad and Mom always led the way to worship on Sunday morning (and in those days Sunday and Wednesday nights too), never just sending us kids to Sunday School by dropping us off at the door.

My Dad was an average guy, worked all his life, lived through the depression of the 1930's, fought in the World War II, raised a family, took care of his elderly parents when the time came, and lived to see his grandchildren. He never received any awards that I know of, he was never on television, he never wrote a book, he was never elected to a high office, he never made enough money to be termed as "wealthy" and he is not now mentioned in any history books. All in all however, his was a life that showed humility, character, a sense of justice, a positive regard for his neighbors, and a quiet determination to make things better for his family and his fellow men. I believe his is a life deserving of honor, and I do.

Jim Killebrew

Presidential strategy

2016-06-17T18:17:00.002-05:00

Political correctness

2016-06-17T18:14:00.002-05:00

Nine/Eleven

2016-06-17T18:11:00.003-05:00

Nine/Eleven

When we hear the words 9/11 mentioned it brings memories of horror and death. Most of us can remember exactly where we were and what we were doing that frightful morning of 9/11 when those two airplanes crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City, another into the Pentagon, and yet another that crashed in Pennsylvania having been thwarted by brave people who overtook the hijackers who intended to crash into another target. Even to this day we remember with saddened hearts those whose lives were lost and the families, friends and co-workers they left behind. What continues the tragedy was verifying what we knew about the motivation behind the attack that rocked the nation: that as a people we are hated by some people groups in the world to such a degree that they want see us suffer and die.

Through the intense hatred and malice toward the people of the United States from some radical groups we must continue to protect ourselves against their wrath. Some people look out across the fields and see nothing but turmoil and bitterness against their fellow human beings. Some are even taught from an early age to hate, and even destroy others who may not believe the same way, or who practice different customs as they do.

While reading through the letter to the Hebrews in the Holy Bible one finds the total antithesis to the motivational hatred that caused 9/11. Hebrews 9:11 states:

“But now Christ has come as the high priest of the good things to come. He passed through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation,” (Hebrews 9:11)

Hebrews 9:11 is the beginning of the balm of healing for America’s 9/11. Yes, Christ has come, and when He came He came as the High Priest who would provide blessings upon all those who accept Him for all time to come. He is not part of tents or buildings or structures that are made by architects and builders and did not provide healing through substitute means as others must do.

But Hebrews 9:11 intensifies the next part of the sentence at Hebrews 9:12 when it says,

“…and he entered once for all into the most holy place not by the blood of goats and calves but by his own blood, and so he himself secured eternal redemption.” (Hebrews 9:12)

Jesus the Christ alone, no other person beyond Him, secured eternal redemption. His accomplishment is all we need to satisfy our thirst for Him. It is only through Him and His accomplishment that we can have any power to conquer the hatred, bitterness, sin and death we face from those seeking death and destruction. When they see that His Grace extends to all who will accept Him as Lord and Savior, even to salvation, then peace will come.

America’s 9/11 was born through hatred and destruction; Hebrews 9:11 was created through love and redemption.

Jim Killebrew

Confiscating guns

2016-06-16T18:56:00.003-05:00

Good means high quality

2016-06-15T16:00:00.001-05:00

High-Ranking government official

2016-06-13T18:43:00.005-05:00

Gospel made simple

2016-06-13T18:41:00.006-05:00

Command decisions

2016-06-13T18:37:00.000-05:00

It has been two years since I first posted this. In that ensuing time from then until now, has there been any indication this policy and strategy has worked to our advantage? We have a war being waged on our people in America. A war being waged by jihadist terrorists who hold allegiance to ISIS because our Administration has telegraphed to those jihadist terrorists our unwillingness to protect our own. Could the terrorism we are experiencing today in some small measure a statement of resolve from our enemies that they believe they have gained much strength in our demonstration of weakness? Is this new policy of demonstrating weakness and lack of response placing us in a better or worse position in the world; are we better off today than we were prior to this Administration's adopting a position of timidity and weakness? Remember, what we are experiencing today is being promised as a continuation of policy by the democrat nominee Hillary Clinton. She has promised to follow the lead of the current Administration and continue in it's policies.

-------------------------
Suppose we could sit down in a nice comfortable room in the Pentagon and actually engage in an interview process with the guy who was seeking the job Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The guy is a highly decorated man whose service extends thirty years covering highly distinguished service from the war in Southeast Asia all the way through the current war efforts. In his interview we asked him the question about the best way to keep America safe and win wars against our common enemies. As you sit back to listen to his response the following is what you hear.

So in a war we telegraph to our enemy the date on which we are going to stop fighting; we begin to withdraw our troops long before the enemy stops fighting; we empty out our enemy combatant prisoners for the high-ranking enemy leaders to return to the war effort; we turn away from our allies for them to protect themselves even before they are prepared to do so; we cut our military budget and downsize the personnel and equipment to weaken our defenses; we announce to all our enemies of the world we are no longer willing to engage in any war effort; and, finally, we turn our back on our long-time allies to the extent they can no longer trust us to have their backs if attacked by a common enemy.

Would we hire that general for the job of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? If we wouldn't, then why would we want to hire a Commander-in-Chief who actually practices that policy?

Jim Killebrew

Presidential endorsement

2016-06-13T18:34:00.003-05:00

Bureaucracies

2016-06-13T18:31:00.004-05:00

Child and lying

2016-06-13T18:29:00.003-05:00

Congressional spending contingencies

2016-06-13T18:27:00.002-05:00

When I listen to the politicians talking about issues making their way throughout the cycle of the media such as the scandals we have heard about from seemingly a never-ending list, I wonder just what the process is in Congress for actually making laws rather than just talking about them. We are a country that presumably is based on a free-market system that responds to supply and demand for services and products. Yet, we are exceeding 17 Trillion dollars of debt. We are taxing people on just about everything that moves, even though the Department of Labor now reports the jobs that were lost in the recession in 2009 have now been brought back, people everywhere seem to be worse off than they were before the recession.

The American people seemingly have finally figured out that something Ronald Reagan said two decades ago about the lack of money not being the problem, but the problem is the amount of government taking more of the taxpayer's money is the problem. We have career politicians churning out the laws and bills in Congress at a rate that is staggering in proportion to what used to happen. Remember when Nancy Pelosi told her colleagues in the House, as well as the American people, that we needed to pass the Obama Affordable Care Act so we could read it to find out what was in it? It never occurred to her cognitively that perhaps she had it backwards; maybe she and her fellow democrats should have read it first and then considered if it was worthy of passing. But, alas, a document of over 20 thousand pages cannot be read and understood in such a short time as allowed to read such a document. That has become the norm for pushing through a bill to pass a law, so long and cumbersome with legal jargon as to not be understood by most people other than attorneys.

Perhaps we should look at the virtue of brevity regarding the laws of our land. There are only 482 words in the entire Bill of Rights which consist of the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution. In those 482 words American citizens are granted the rights of no government religion, freely practicing religion, right to bear arms, prohibiting military from taking over personal citizens' homes, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures without warrants, protects from false indictments, lays out rules for eminent domain, grants due process, right to fair and speedy trial by jury, trial by jury in civil cases, prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail and unusual punishment, protects rights not enumerated in the Constitution and limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution. Some time ago I saw a picture that contained some thoughts regarding what a bill should be before it is passed by Congress to make its way toward becoming a law.

The bill Congress considers should focus on only one issue at a time rather than an all-encompassing array of bills contained in one document. No bill should exceed ten pages of focused material. When bills contain thousands of pages there is a scramble for the Congressmen and Congresswomen to try to read it. More likely than not they rely on their Congressional aides to read the material and then provide summaries of the more important parts of the bill. The problem encountered with that method is that multiple perceptions of party politics play a big part in the interpretation of the bill which results in nothing more than a free-for-all debate that never really focuses on the true content of the bill.

Another requisite of the bill should be a reference made from the Constitution that authorizes that particular bill. That clearly states up front what the bill is about and how it is to be interpreted from specific references to the Constitution. It establishes the intent of the bill and helps in future arguments regarding challenges that may occur, even from the Supreme Court's perspective as they make the final decision regarding the Constitutionality of the law.

A further consideration for the bill should be the content and focus of the bill to be directly correlated with the title of the bill. The content should reflect the purpose of the bill, again with no more than 10 pages, and relate directly to the title. That would keep the bill focused and prevent the tributaries of legalese from tainting the real meaning.

The language of the bill should be written in diction that is in layman's terms and is easy for any citizen with a modicum of education to understand. It is sort of like reading the Bill of Rights written in language easily understood so the meaning of the words convey the actual content and is not hidden within a mountain of legalities referring to numerous other documents with extensive footnotes and references. The legal terms tend to distract to the actual intent of the law and deflects most from reading it from a point of understanding. If a person needs an example of the impossibility of understanding, pick up any set of laws published in the Congressional Record and read them for content and understanding.
Another component of any bill passed by Congress should contain the total cost of the implementation of the bill and the process needed to pay for the implementation of the bill. Those costs should be identified and the process by which the funding is to be secured to pay for the components of the bill. The United States has not become so indebted to the tune of over 17 Trillion dollars by not borrowing funds to implement the laws of the land. Any bill coming out of Congress should have a price tag attached to it and how it should be paid for and by whom.

Not only should the cost of the bill be forthright, and who will be footing the cost of the bill for the implemented law, but it should also contain an accompanying list of who will benefit from the implementation of the law. Not just the recipients of the specific program of what the bill covers, but the sponsor of the bill and the direct benefit to that particular person, if any.
Finally, if there is an appropriation needed for the bill to be enacted, the bill must contain a date when the bill expires. There should be time limits placed on any appropriation process other than just a perpetual annualized cost. If the bill has established an excise tax of any kind it should be time-limited or have full justification regarding why it would not be. Provisions should accompany the bill to establish the conditions under which the expenditures may be made and the guidelines for accountability for the agency spending the funds appropriated for the implementation of the bill.

Spending must be brought under control since the over-budget spending cannot continue indefinitely without a significant breakdown of our economic system.

Jim Killebrew

Two candidates

2016-06-13T18:23:00.000-05:00

Societal progressivism

2016-06-06T21:43:00.000-05:00

Eight years of Obama

2016-06-06T15:07:00.003-05:00

Debate or shrill

2016-06-03T18:10:00.000-05:00

Protesters turned criminal

2016-06-03T16:20:00.001-05:00

Unearned delegates

2016-06-02T17:23:00.003-05:00

Hillary attack on The Donald

2016-06-02T16:25:00.001-05:00