About Me

My photo
Jim Killebrew has 40 years of clinical psychological work for people with intellectual disabilities, and experience teaching, administration, consulting, writing with multiple publications. Dr. Killebrew has attended four Universities and received advanced degrees. Southern Illinois University; Ph.D., Educational Psychology; University of Illinois at Springfield, Counseling Education; M.A., Human Development Counseling; Northeastern Oklahoma State University, B.A., Psychology and Sociology. Dr. Killebrew attended Lincoln Christian Seminary (Now Lincoln Christian University). Writing contributions have been accepted and published in several journals: Hospital & Community Psychiatry, The Lookout, and Christian Standard (multiple articles). He may be reached at Killebrewjb@aol.com.

Welcome to my Opinion Pages

Thanks for stopping by and reading some of my thoughts. I hope you will find an enjoyable adventure here on my pages.



The articles are only my opinion and are never meant to hurt anyone nor to downgrade any other person's ideas or opinions.



Scroll through the page and stop to read any of the articles you wish. If you like what you see leave a comment, then tell someone where they can find this site. If you don't like what you read then leave a comment reflecting your thoughts and I will read them when I visit the site from time to time.



Thanks again for stopping by.





Thursday, December 27, 2012

Games we play

 


The shooter in Newtown, CT was said to be a gamer; spending time with the electronic games where the hunter became the winner by having the highest number of hits.  I attended a school program the other night where young children performed with classmates in the Christmas program.  I sat behind parents who had a child in the program.  The man sat through the entire program with his phone playing a game.  At one point the woman took the phone from him and snapped a few pictures of the children on stage.  When the phone returned, he promptly restarted his game and continued to play until the kid's program was completed.

 

Electronic games are like that.  Even when it does not desensitize the person with its content, it does seem to grab the person's attention to an almost addictive state.  Children have been playing the games on the market that have evolved into content that must be labeled.  Content unfit for anyone, including a mature adult.  After many hours of play, during required times of placing the game aside, children have reported they continue to think about the game and their scores and how they could "reach the next level."  That thought rumination competes directly with the "down time" activities where cognitive attention is required; it does affect memory and retention of learned material.  It pre-empts attempted learning of new skills and tends to shorten attention span and concentration.

 

Of course there are millions of children who have excellent cognitive skills and can overcome the effects of the constant barrage of more graphic games that help shape values toward more violence.  On the other hand, there are some children who tend to perseverate the material learned in those games and are unable to overcompensate and over-learn incompatible, appropriate material to replace the effects of the material internalized through repeated exposure to those games.  At this point in the games-crazed learning curve in our society, we just don't have enough empirical information to determine what, if any, more appropriate societal information is supplanted in the mind of the child at the expense of learning the more inappropriate material found in most of the action games.  Nor do we have enough information to determine which children can differentiate with appropriate decisions with actions that would counteract the effects of the conditioning of the violent material learned from the games.

 

There is no question electronic games do have an effect on the child's learning, thinking and actions, but it continues to be uncertain about which children will act on those vicariously learned actions seen in the games and which ones know the difference between non-reality and reality.  As a parent, we may think we have provided a sound reasoning as to how the effects of hours of playing the games can be turned or blunted:  We may have provided a stable, Christian home with competing, more appropriate attitudes and values counteracting the content contained in the games themselves.  But are we sure the images inside our child's mind remain imaginary or are becoming real.    

 

It is not my intent to make a sweeping generalization, but what we allow our children to spend their time with, especially hours of electronic games, is "Springtime and Harvest" and a reality experienced by us as a natural cycle of life.  We "reap what we sew" and it is always a process that is painstakingly slow.  Not every parent who works diligently to raise their child in the ways of right will always have the same results.  We know that competing factors reside in the heart of a child and there is always a chance for rebellion. 

 

Mostly, however, when children are socialized within the context of a nurturing, loving family where right and wrong are taught, along with respect for others, the chances of rebellion are slightly possible, but are exponentially greater that the child will return when he is older and will not depart from his early nurturing and training.  Further, his departure will not be to the extent it takes him to the depths of evil, but just to the brink of a searing conscience that is undergirded with the loving principles of a sound, consistent family life.  At that point he will return to embrace his sense of right as his own instead of those borrowed from his parents.

 

Committees, councils, Commissions and study groups at the highest levels will re-hash this issue of evil acted out at Newtown, CT.  But if they only looked at thousands of testimonies from families that took the time to "train up their child in the way they should go" those Commission members would find the answer right in front of their faces.  Banning guns will not be the total answer.

 
Jim Killebrew   

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Worship at the manger

 
Being God manifested in the flesh at the Advent, Jesus is unique from all other creation.  He was there in the beginning, the instrument of Creation, the long-awaited Messiah, the dispenser of Grace, the Ultimate Blood Sacrifice, the founder and Head of the Church and at the end, the final Judge of all Creation.  Although He could have been born anywhere and under any circumstances, He chose to be born outside of the Inn since there was no room for Him there, wrapped in rags by his Mother and laid in a manger from which animals ate their food. 
 
His first visitors were the poorest of workers, Shepherds from the surrounding fields who were rarely invited to the King's Ball to mix with the societal elite.  He grew up in a modest economic home life where he learned the value of working for a living by using the craft learned from his Dad.  He learned responsibility for family, being the oldest, since apparently his earthly Dad died before he launched into His ministry.  Even His ministry was itinerate as He spread His Gospel to as many as He could reach.
 
For Someone who owned all of Creation He put little stock in riches.  His message was counter-culture focusing rather on "doing for the least of these" while being critical toward those of "religion" and wealth.  His compassion, empathy and love focused on meeting the needs of people rather than accumulating rank, power and wealth.
 
From our perspective, some two-thousand years hence from His appearing, we have become sophisticated in our complacency and rested in our assurance.  Scientists will nullify Him, atheists mock those who follow Him, doubters continue to disbelieve Him, ignorance of Him by the masses continue to prevail, many who believe themselves too educated to be bound by such dependency beliefs in Him continue to sneer at His very name and many in the world-at-large continue to try to kill Him by killing His followers. 
 
It seems, however, for those who have tried to obscure and diminish the name of Jesus over the centuries have simply failed.  A man born outside the Inn, laid in a manger, visited by shepherds, scorned by His own people during His lifetime, rejected by the religious hierarchy, nailed on a cross by the occupiers of his home country and laid in a borrowed grave, officially sealed by the government, He has caused quite a stir in our world.  From the first century until now He has had millions of followers, many of whom have given their own lives as martyrs rather than deny Him, millions more around the world who continue to follow Him and would also lay down their own lives rather than deny their strongly held belief in Him. 
 
Shepherds continue to visit Him and Wise Men still seek Him; for those of us who continue to place our faith in Him, we will once again gather around the manger to worship.
 
Jim Killebrew    

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

War on Christmas...Dragon's war

 
Perhaps among the most futile endeavors in which one can engage these days is the actions to make war on Christmas.  When you think about the efforts of Lucifer, the dragon, and the war he has perpetrated throughout history totally without avail, it seems almost a joke the weak efforts atheists and unbelievers are mounting in today's events.   
 
"Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born."   "Then war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But the dragon was not strong enough to prevail, so there was no longer any place left in heaven for him and his angels. So that huge dragon – the ancient serpent, the one called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world – was thrown down to the earth, and his angels along with him."  "...But they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony...."  Ultimately the dragon will be dealt with, "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet are too, and they will be tormented there day and night forever and ever."
 
So each time I hear of the "war on Christmas" I know it is only those who have decided to do the bidding of Satan who is making his last-ditch effort to win a battle he has already lost.  So Christians should not lose heart, the die has already been cast, the battle is already won and any small victory accorded to the followers of the dragon will be short-lived, their doom is already established and the Christian's victory is already assured!


Monday, November 5, 2012

New Presidential Doctrine

 

By the time this is being read the foreign policy debate between the President and his challenger is history.  The timing of the debate and the printing of this paper did not avail itself to meeting the publisher's deadline.  Nevertheless, since the United States is a world power, the foreign policy of this country is felt around the world.  Additionally, the way we implement foreign policy goes a long way toward keeping us safe.

 

In 1823 when the country was still healing from the wounds of the Revolutionary War that resulted in the breaking away from the tyranny of Great Britain, President James Monroe created what has been called the "Monroe Doctrine."  Simply stated, President Monroe said in his seventh State of the Union address that the United States would no longer allow European colonies to continue with the practice of colonizing in America.  Nor would any further European influences be allowed to interfere with various states in the United States.

 

In 1904 President Theodore Roosevelt used the Monroe Doctrine to define the natural consequence of that Doctrine to extend it to include Latin America.  From the premise of his statement, "Walk softly, but carry a big stick," Roosevelt said, "If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, ...it need fear no interference from the United States."  He further added, "Chronic wrongdoing...in the Western Hemisphere...may force the United States...to the exercise of an international police power."  Obviously, President Kennedy used elements of the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Doctrine to establish a blockade against the former Soviet Union from establishing nuclear weapons in Cuba.       

 

With the growth of communism after World War II and during the Korean War in 1947 President Harry Truman initiated the "Truman Doctrine" in his promise to help countries with economic stability, equipment and even military force for those who were threatened by the spread of communism.  If the country's citizens were resisting the attempts of subjugation by communist pressure, the Truman Doctrine established the containment policy to keep communism out of free countries.   

 

In 1980 President Carter saw attempts by the Soviet Union to consolidate strategic positions in the Middle East to capture the world oil market.  Because of the "vital interest of the United States," in the Persian Gulf region, President Carter vowed to use military force if necessary to protect American economic and national interests in the Persian Gulf.  Being a strong ally with Israel, it was President Carter's efforts that brought about the alliance between Egypt and Israel through the Camp David peace talks.

 

From the 1980s until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 the Reagan Doctrine that was created by President Ronald Reagan moved from simple containment of communism to actually providing military and financial support to guerilla forces to actually fight the threat of communist takeover of a government.  President Reagan believed in a strong national defense by ensuring a strong military and thought weaknesses perceived by enemies was motivation for them to be emboldened to attack the United States.

 

President George W. Bush developed a "Doctrine" as a result of the events on 9/11/2001 when terrorists slammed commercial jetliners into the Twin Towers, Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania.  The heart of his Doctrine consisted of his belief that those countries who harbored terrorists and trained terrorism to attack others around the world should be treated as actual terrorists themselves.  This added the component of "prevention" to the Doctrines that have survived past Presidential Administrations.  The "Bush Doctrine" consists of a series of policies meant to keep American citizens safe from terrorists.  

 

Now, with the advent of the current President's inauguration a new "Doctrine" was implemented.  It began with announcements to the enemies against whom we were waging war being told of the future date of withdrawal of American forces so the enemy could prepare their own combatants during their wait for the Americans to leave.  It then moved on to a world apology tour where the President went around the world apologizing for America to those who sought to destroy America.  To put the exclamation point on the new "Obama Doctrine", the President punctuated his meetings with Middle Eastern leaders with a waist-deep bow.  Not to be misunderstood by the leaders harboring those training in terrorist camps, the President began to move away from the only Democracy in the Middle East, Israel. 

 

With the new Obama Doctrine firmly in place the Iranians now have almost four more years advancement in building nuclear weapons and delivery systems of those weapons.  The so-called "Arab Spring" has resulted in a destabilization of the region with Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt and thousands of civilian citizens killed in Syria.  The relationship between Russia and the United States is at a low ebb while the Russian President waits for the US President to be re-elected so he can "have more flexibility" to work with the Russian government.  This new Presidential Doctrine represents a new chapter in past Presidential Doctrines.  Take a look at one outcome with the new Doctrine:

 

In my lifetime, especially when mass media came to the fore with television, if any attack on an American Consulate or Embassy occurred that resulted in American lives being lost, it would have been the number one discussion in the Administration and Congress. There would have been "measured" responses applied to responsible groups and a concerted voice of condemnation of the act. Instead, with this current terrorist attack in Libya resulting in a murdered Ambassador and three other Americans it was initially covered by the Administration by having the blame placed squarely on some short video aired on YouTube that began playing back in July.  The result of that "Doctrine" it only seemed to embolden others in the area to raise up riots against twenty-two other Consulates and Embassies in the region.

 

The President, instead of rushing back to the White House and meeting with his National Security team to discuss options and draw the curtain of protection around the other Embassies and Consulates in Northern Africa and the Middle East, flew off to Las Vegas for a fund raiser. Some of his subsequent discussion was presented to the American people via a late-night talk show and a discussion group on the daytime television program, "The View." Even a month later the Administration and the State Department seemed to be at odds in statements about the entire incident.

 

If this is a strategy the Administration is using to demonstrate to the rest of the world that America is changing its foreign policy from a position of strength with immediate consequences for terrorist attacks to a position of tolerance and quiet, apologetic humility resulting in covering up the attack with diversion, and apologizing for America's actions, it seems to be working. Not to America's advantage, but the emboldened positions of the radicals who are watching.

 

If the President is given another four-year term in office, I wonder how far this new strategy will take us regarding our position in the world community as we move "forward"?

 
Jim Killebrew

Friday, September 21, 2012

45 days

 


Okay, we are 45 days away from the election and many polls show the President ahead.  Since he has the power of incumbency and is, after all , the President one would expect by being in possession of the "bully pulpit" and the ability to enact directives that help a lot of voting blocks to sway the votes to his side.  But this year, during this election cycle, there are some exceptional situations in play that make it unusual to say the least.

 

Forget about the promises of transparency that were never kept when the first two years of the President's term was complimented with a majority of his party in both houses of Congress and his legislative preferences were passed most of the time without a single vote from the opposition party, the Republicans.  Often the legislation was passed by his party, the Democrats, behind closed doors without sharing information with anyone.

 

Forget about the healthcare bill that passed without a single Republican vote; he got what he wanted.  Forget about his promise to do something about the immigration issue, but didn't even mention it when he controlled the House and Senate.  Don't even think about the redistribution of wealth, or the Recovery Act (Stimulus bailout).  Don't consider the Cap and Trade or the energy issue with his moratorium on drilling.  Forget about the President's formative years with Kenyan heritage and socialization until his teen years in Indonesia. 

 

Let's not even consider the largest deficit ever and his drive for deficit spending bringing us to an unprecedented 16 Trillion dollars in debt.  Notwithstanding the fact he has not had a budget for the entirety of his term in office.  Never mind that in the first three and one-half years of the President's term his deficit spending amounted to more than all the American Presidents before him combined.  And while we are not counting, don't even consider his side-stepping the Congress with Executive Orders that negate laws already on the books.  Forget the unprecedented Czars he has appointed to by-pass the confirmation process of Congress for high-ranking officials, and try to put it out of your mind that each one of them have vast powers over cabinet-ranking positions and they all report directly to the President, no one else.

 

We can even set aside the facts of the economic morass in which we find ourselves.  We shouldn't even think about the tax increases proposed for the American people.  Income tax from 35% to 39.6%; Income/payroll from 37.4% to 52.2%; Capital Gains from 15% to 28%; Dividend tax from 15% to 39.6% and Estate tax from 0% in 2010 to 55%.  We will experience the largest tax increase in American history.

 

Perhaps all of those things could be winked at as we consider our votes during the next 45 days.  But there is one thing we must consider:  We have to look at the character and truthfulness of the President's words as he speaks to throngs of his followers bringing them to a mind-numbing state of belief in him that surpasses common sense or logic.  We should begin to fear the uncommon hold he seems to have over those solid, hard-core base of almost half the American population who seem to follow him blindly and believe everything he says or does even in the face of hard evidence to the contrary.

 

A friend sent me a picture of Barbra Streisand with a caption of her quote.  It read, "Obama has been more fiscally conservative than any other president in recent history, with the exception of President Bill Clinton."  Barbra Streisand

 

Now, for a person who lives in opulent luxury afforded only by multi-millionaires, Ms. Streisand may be deluded into thinking that the out-of-control spending that has left a 16 Trillion dollar debt is "fiscally conservative", but for most people in America who live on much, much less than she does, it means loss of jobs, lower pay, dependence on food stamps, welfare, unemployment and other types of charity from others.  The prices of groceries have gone sky-high, gasoline has doubled during the President's Administration, healthcare has increased significantly, inflation is rising, more people are "up-side-down" on their mortgages and even losing family businesses and farms due to inflated estate taxes.

 

The question we really need to answer is why do so many people worship a man who has fallen so far below the standards of performance of all other Presidents before him?  How are we going to lead a country back to relevance, credibility and solvency when so many people who follow the President believe everything he says even when it is not true?  More than that, like Ms. Streisand, many of his cronies, spokespersons and captains repeat those untrue statements further driving them into the minds of the significant group of people who follow him.  This creates a lot of robot-like followers who consistently seem unable to distinguish the truth from a lie.

 

For a group of people of that magnitude there has to be something at play to significantly influence people from every walk of life.  What is it that draws people to him like a moth to a flame?  Of course he is articulate in speech; rhetoric that sways through the stratosphere that sooths the mind like the melodious sounds of the ocean waves gently beating against the sands on the beach.  His promises sound authentic as listeners in crowds of thousand begin to sway so gently from one side to another, often with tears streaming down their face, quivering lips and hands reached high to the heavens in a stance of pure worship.  Those were the scenes of "Yes We Can" of yesteryear.  But as his Administration has played it out, "No We Can't."

 

His has been a phenomenon of almost cult-like worship that has even captured and captivated the national media.  People who went to college to study to become professional journalists have yielded themselves over to the President's persuasive moans of pure pitch and melodious lies.  They have carried his words across the airwaves and sang his praises all the while casting aside their own hard work after having earned degrees that normally should have stamped their work as being objective.  Instead they have fallen in line to the addiction of the sweetness of his words with changed meanings.  Captivated to a degree that they rarely even recognize what they are saying regarding the "thrill" they receive just being close to him.  Objectivity and journalism has given way to acceptance of anything he desires to say; and then to rush to the microphone or camera and spew out the false messages with such joy and enthusiasm as to think they have personally received the gift of life itself.

 

The real tragedy is that the President has succeeded in what he told us he was going to do:  He has brought a fundamental change to America.  From the Greek Column stage where he stood alone adulated by the throngs of thousands he told us that America would not look the same when he was finished.  That part is truth; he has done that and then some.  He has lost America's financial credit rating, reduced her standing in the world, led America closer to a Socialistic government with significant numbers of people without jobs and becoming generational dependent on government handouts, and changing the mindset of many Americans to believe they are "entitled" to dependency and it has become the "new norm."  Unfortunately, the new norm has been constructed on a foundation of lies and misrepresentations.

 

There is a new day coming when Americans can shake off those lies and misrepresentations and open their eyes to see the huge cracks in the foundation of the American Constitution due to the fundamental changes that have been made.  They can refute those people like Barbra Streisand and her Hollywood friends who have fed us a regurgitation of their leader's definition of "leadership" during the past almost four years.  Americans across the land, yes, 50 States, can rise up and shake the crust from their eyes and see the debt we are in; see the lack of leadership we have; see the lack of respect and confidence the rest of the world has in us; and see the world in turmoil due largely to the doctrine of submissiveness from the American Leadership that has bowed and apologized throughout the world.

 

There is a new day coming when Americans can open their ears and hear the new sounds of freedom singing its song once again; hear the sounds of strength in leadership; hear the sounds of economic growth; hear the sounds of world leaders calling for respect for America once again; and hear the sounds of truth being spoken from leadership who in turn respect "We The People."

 

On that day we will feel the winds of truth and freedom flowing through our land again.  We will feel the weight of heavy regulation being lifted from the backs of small businesses across the land; we will feel the weight of the federal government walking beside the state governments working in tandem to protect the citizens in regard to immigration, jobs and support to enforce the laws on the books.

 

Finally, on that day we can take a deep breath of exhilaration knowing that we are no longer under attack by forces of restriction to our prayers, worship, forced taxation for services in which we do not believe, freedom of speech, enhanced family values and the return of the American Dream.

 

Jim Killebrew

 

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Freedom of speech

 
As the riots in Libya and Egypt continued, and even expanded to other countries in the region, many were proclaiming the cause was a YouTube video someone had posted that denigrated Muhammad.  The ensuing argument has drifted into one tributary toward America's practice of ensuring its citizens can engage in free speech.  Some have taken the issue in the direction of restricting that speech, while others have forcefully voiced their opinion that freedom of speech should not be abridged.  My initial question was, "I wonder if we are witnessing firsthand the beginnings of the decimation of free speech in the United States?"
 
Perhaps some middle ground opinion on the subject was expressed by others.  Some people have stated they believe people have free speech, but should not say things that might inflame others or hurt their feelings.  That view maintains the individual has free speech but should self-restrict voicing hurtful, inflammatory words that are known to incite violent behavior.  I believe that too; a person may have freedom to say something but perhaps should not say it for a variety of reasons.
 
In America we have enjoyed a fairly well defined freedom of speech based on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:  " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
 
When I am talking about the American freedom of speech, it takes on a special meaning that has been rare in the history of the world; and is rare in many parts of today's world. What I think the American freedom of speech as afforded in our Constitution is "freedom to speak without fear of retribution from the government."  That is the reason the burning of the American flag, redacting portions of the Holy Bible, Crucifixes sealed in a jar of human urine are all repulsive and rejected by most reasonable people, but it is still considered free speech in America.  However, speaking out against the repulsiveness of the content of that free speech is also consider free speech in America.  Rather than people being punished for the content of their free speech, they should be persuaded by reasonable debate to consider alternatives.  Repression only allows the growth of totalitarianism.
 
Actually everybody in the world has the freedom to speak any words that come to mind, but if you had lived in Nazi Germany in the 1930's you might self-restrict that freedom to either speak against Gestapo brutality against Jewish people, or for the humane and equal treatment of the Jewish people because of the retribution of death for each position. In the 1700's in the Colonies you were free to speak your mind against the British King, but there was retribution for doing so; sometimes even death. Our experiment in democracy has changed from the rule of the king to the rule of for and by the people. The people decided we should have freedom of speech without the fear of the government coming after us for punishment.
 
Obviously, in other parts of the world, that freedom is curtailed by those who are in power and refuse to have anything spoken against them. We fought a Revolution and World Wars to maintain that freedom of speech without retribution from the government. We have grown to believe it is a fundamental right that has been granted by God through the gift of choice He has endowed through His Grace. Can we abuse that right?  Of course! But does it deserve the death penalty? My belief is, No! At least not in this world.
 
The only time free speech and choice will be justified in a death sentence is when an individual continues to say "No" to God's gift of forgiveness and salvation through Christ His Son.   Continual rejection of God is a sin.  As that choice is voiced throughout that person's life and he continues to voice it through his freedom to do so until he dies, he will face The God, who is a Sovereign God, and at that time a God of Judgment who has already warned us in advance, "The wages of sin is death." 
Jim Killebrew

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Second coming

 
I really don't want to be one of those guys with the long beard walking around with a long robe carrying a sign reading, "The End is Near!" But, another facet to the current unfolding of events of the attacks on the United States' Embassies in Egypt and Libya which resulted in the death of four American citizens bears a striking resemblance to what we read in Zachariah 12 and is confirmed in the Revelation that God is going to save Israel from total destruction.
"12:1 The revelation of the word of the Lord concerning Israel: The Lord – he who stretches out the heavens and lays the foundations of the earth, who forms the human spirit within a person – says, 12:2 “I am about to make Jerusalem a cup that brings dizziness to all the surrounding nations; indeed, Judah will also be included when Jerusalem is besieged. 12:3 Moreover, on that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy burden for all the nations, and all who try to carry it will be seriously injured; yet all the peoples of the earth will be assembled against it. 12:4 In that day,” says the Lord, “I will strike every horse with confusion and its rider with madness. I will pay close attention to the house of Judah, but will strike all the horses of the nations with blindness. 12:5 Then the leaders of Judah will say to themselves, ‘The inhabitants of Jerusalem are a means of strength to us through their God, the Lord who rules over all.’ 12:6 On that day I will make the leaders of Judah like an igniter among sticks and a burning torch among sheaves, and they will burn up all the surrounding nations right and left. Then the people of Jerusalem will settle once more in their place, the city of Jerusalem. 12:7 The Lord also will deliver the homes of Judah first, so that the splendor of the kingship of David and of the people of Jerusalem may not exceed that of Judah. 12:8 On that day the Lord himself will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the weakest among them will be like mighty David, and the dynasty of David will be like God, like the angel of the Lord before them. 12:9 So on that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.”
12:10 “I will pour out on the kingship of David and the population of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication so that they will look to me, the one they have pierced. They will lament for him as one laments for an only son, and there will be a bitter cry for him like the bitter cry for a firstborn. 12:11 On that day the lamentation in Jerusalem will be as great as the lamentation at Hadad-Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12:12 The land will mourn, clan by clan – the clan of the royal household of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the clan of the family of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves; 12:13 the clan of the descendants of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; and the clan of the Shimeites by itself and their wives by themselves – 12:14 all the clans that remain, each separately with their wives.”  (Zechariah 12:1-14)
Nations are going to surround Israel and the people groups of those nations will come against Israel with the intent to destroy them. Rather than a giant leap, the events happening right before our eyes is but a small step in believing the world is beginning its move against Israel.
 
We know the Palestinians have long since declared their intention to destroy Israel. The so-called "Arab Spring" has culminated in the toppling of leadership that either had peace with Israel (Egypt) or at least kept busy fighting each other to bother too much with Israel (Iraq and Iran). Now we see Egypt is governed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran is close to having nuclear capabilities, Syria is fighting for its independence but will likely remain tied to Muslim ideology, Libya has vowed to fight Israel, Iraq continues to be unstable with fighting factions of Muslims, Jordan and Lebanon want to see Israel destroyed and Saudi Arabia, as a Muslim nation, would join the forces of their neighbors and could not be trusted to stand for Israel.
 
Outside the immediate circle stands the army numbered in the millions from China; along with Russia who has supported Syria and Iran even now. Finally, even the United States has made overtures of backing away from support of Israel. The President most recently has rebuffed a meeting with Israel's Prime Minister in favor of his own campaigning for re-election. The President has also been heard to say from the audio portion of his book that if the tides turn against the Muslims he would have to join with them. Most recently too, was the attempt of the Democrat Party to exclude God from their Platform. Additionally, they wanted to omit the declaration of Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. Millions saw on television the three attempts to voice-vote God and Jerusalem's status as capital of Israel back into the platform with the Arab-Americans loudly voicing opposition. It was returned to the platform only because the Chair overrode the voice vote by declaring those in favor to be winners...the decision that was written on the teleprompter before even the first vote was taken!
So, if one wanted to speculate we might be living in the "last days" based on the movement of the world order against the nation of Israel, it might be difficult to refute.      
Jim Killebrew
 

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Abortion research

 
I want a scientific explanation.  You heard me, I want a scientific, totally rational, well reasoned and tightly researched medical explanation and definition of the life form that grows inside the uterus of a human, pregnant female she carries when her ovary is fertilized by a human male sperm.  I am not talking about euphemistic terms or made-up terms in the medical or scientific field like "mass" or "pre-delivered form" or "fetus" or "unborn vertebrate" or "zygote" or an "ovum that has been fertilized by a spermatozoon".
Terms like "Prenatal", "embryo", "Zygote", "Blastocyst" and "Fetus" tend to serve as a covert, undercover shell game to camouflage what the female carries from the period of conception to birth.  It dulls the mind into believing the life-form inside her is some strange, unknown entity that really has no place in our world.  Hence, it is generally believed by many to be only some "mass" that has started growing inside the body that is not really worth anything until after it is delivered, at which point it takes on a value and is afforded the rights of citizens of the United States.
Wouldn't it be refreshing if all the medical doctors in our great country, who have each taken an oath to " first, do no harm" be required to tell the truth about what the woman carries in her womb?  Planned Parenthood organizations, abortion specialist and physicians performing abortions should be required to use terms like child and baby with women who are contemplating such a decision as to take the life away from that life that lives within her body.  Actual pictures should be taken with modern equipment and shown to the prospective mother that can show the characteristics of the life form growing in the womb.
Now, given that may not happen everywhere in the United States since in 1973 the legality of abortion has been upheld by the Supreme Court, a definitive determination should be made regarding what actually grows within the womb of a pregnant female human being.  Therefore, strict medical research based on scientific, medical methods and procedures should be conducted to conclusively determine the results of an aborted pregnancy specifying what would have resulted at the birth if it had been allowed to continue to the end of the third trimester.
Let a prestigious Medical School step forward to oversee the research.  The Medical School could seek out a sufficiently randomized number of abortion clinics throughout the United States to ensure representation of each population group in the United States.  The number of each of the chosen abortion clinics should provide the number of abortions completed during the past year.  The Medical School should establish a population number of abortions needed from which to draw a random number of aborted living tissue to be tested that would satisfy conclusive proof of the quality of humanness to conclusively prove, or disprove, by determination from a professional, certified source the aborted tissue was human or not human.  This group would serve as the research group.
The same Medical School could seek out a sufficiently randomized number of hospitals with maternity wards throughout the United States to ensure representation of each population group in the United States.  The number of each of the chosen hospitals should provide the number of live births delivered during the past year.  The Medical School should establish a population number of live births needed from which to draw a random number of live children to be verified that would satisfy conclusive proof of the quality of humanness to conclusively prove by determination from a professional, certified source the living child was human or not human.  This group would serve as the control group.
Under the current laws abortions would continue without change.  The Medical School would begin the research by not interfering in any way with the abortion performed as prescribed by the woman's choice and her medical professionals.  For the chosen subject the Medical School will have a medical examiner available to compete an examination post abortion on the aborted tissue.  The medical examiner will determine if the aborted tissue would have been a human being if left to develop to full term.  This examination should include DNA testing to help determine the humanness of the tissue.
The Medical school would conduct the research on live-birth children concurrently with the research on aborted tissue.  The Medical School would not interfere in any way with the birthing process as per the woman's choice and her medical professionals.  For the chosen subject the Medical School will have an external  licensed physician, other than the physician performing the delivery,  complete an examination post delivery on the living, delivered child.  The physician from the Medical School will determine if the live delivered child was a human being or not.
If under both conditions, with result findings with conclusions, it is determined conclusively, without any reasonable doubt that the designation of human being can be ascribed as per the research findings, it should be deemed in the scientific and medical communities that human pregnancies always result in producing human offspring.  Henceforth, all medically-trained professionals in obstetrics and gynecology and all specialists in babies and women  should never refer to the pregnancy as anything other than a developing human being going through the development growth process until delivery.
Many people will think this is very silly to entertain such meaningless research to prove something that is so obvious to most people in the world living presently and to most people who have lived throughout history.  And those who think this is silly have already in their heart of hearts accepted the fact that life in the womb is actually human life in the womb. 
But the real silliness is the large group of people in the United States who seemingly have dulled their thinking by believing that the child growing inside the pregnant woman is not really human yet.  By using all the medical jargon and made-up words it sooths the conscience into accepting the idea the baby growing in the womb is "worthless" and should be destroyed at the simple exercise of a choice of the woman, no matter what the reason may be.
At the very least we should admit to ourselves we are talking about a human being that is being destroyed.  That death is based sometimes on such things as it being the wrong gender, or there are enough children in the family already, or just the correction of a stupid mistake made by the woman and man who started that developing child in the first place.
A child is a child whether inside the womb or outside the womb.  If most people will recognize that fact we will be able to come to agreements through compromise that address the real medical issues faced by women during pregnancy.  All human life should be sacred and protected.  Human rights should be extended to every human, not just some who demand choices over the lives of others.
Jim Killebrew