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, January 31, 2013

President's oath

 
When the President takes the oath of Office, the oath is binding.  "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  (United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.)
 
When the President repeats the Oath of Office and is sworn in as President, the requirement is to tell the truth in all matters, and is held accountable in all statements, with the possible exception of national security matters.  The President's responsibility is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  The President of the United States is required as a "High Official" to speak the truth in all matters and is held accountable to do so throughout the length of that individual's term in the Office of President.
 
The use of the word "high crimes" does not necessarily mean a crime that is "more serious" than other crimes. It refers to those punishable offenses that can only be applied to persons in the highest of offices.  In the case of the President, because of the official status under which that person holds the office, the standard is meant for that person who holds special obligations that the ordinary person is not under.  Examples might be the action, or inaction, taken by the person in such high office. 
 
Some might argue if the President failed to warn people of the danger that existed when he knew of a terrorist attack that would take the lives of American citizens, it could be construed that he did not act in the best interest of the citizens and put them in danger and thereby failed to protect the citizens from the harm he knew would cause their death.  An ordinary citizen with no official responsibilities would not be under the same standard of "high crimes."
 
Some might argue that specific actions taken by the President might be seen as "high crimes" if those actions involved the President's actual knowledge of the dangers of the action and the likely consequences or outcomes of the action relative to the action being a direct threat to the welfare of the citizens of the United States.  For example, if the President had prior knowledge of how a subversive group would use various weapons or instruments of war, and that use constituted a direct attack on the sovereignty of the United States with the likely outcome being the death of American citizens, following through with providing such weapons or instruments of war to that subversive group could be construed as committing "high crimes."  
 
Under such circumstances the United States Congress through the House of Representatives are authorized under the Constitution to initiate impeachment proceedings.  "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."  (United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4.)
 
Americans need to remain vigilant to their watch of the highest officials in the federal government to ensure they abide by the oath or affirmation they have taken and hold them accountable when they fail in their responsibilities, this responsibility includes the President.
 
Jim Killebrew


Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Gun bans; focus on appropriate group

 


I have been reading reports of those who have been successful in their efforts of bagging deer and filling their freezers with meat to use during the winter. I have talked to others who have used their firearms for skeet shooting or target practice. I know some who belong to gun clubs and find pleasure in collecting guns from history and telling stories of parents and grandparents using some of those guns to feed the family of bygone years. I know others who simply say they feel protected by having a gun close by in case their house is penetrated by would-be robbers, or worse.

 

On the other hand I read in the paper or watch on the news the mayhem of murder and destruction at the hands of those wielding guns to take others' lives in movie theaters, public places, schools, drive-bys, back alleys and sometimes just for initiation to join some street gang. I read about five hundred murders in a city like Chicago where some of the toughest gun restriction laws in the nation exist. Yet, the discussions of what to do about it seem always to be centered around better background checks for people who buy the guns, more time in jail or greater fines for those who fail to report their guns being stolen, or a ban on the amount of rounds can be put into a magazine clip.

 

It seems to me like there are two kinds of people who own guns: One kind is that group who use the gun for hunting for food, or recreation of target practice; or simply feeling safer to have it available for protection against attack. This kind of person is willing to abide by the laws on the books regarding acquisition and concealment of their guns. The other kind of person is one who uses the gun to rob, kill people, intimidate others, belong to a gang and usually will not abide by any law governing the acquisition or concealment of that gun.

 

I wonder why the focus of the discussions of the problem of violence by firearms always seem to gyrate toward the group of people who use the gun for hunting, recreation or protection, and not toward the person who uses the gun to rob, kill people, intimidate others or belong to a gang?

 

In cities like Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and every other larger city in America, there are police forces with divisions that focus on murder, gangs, robbery, rape and kidnapping. Those police departments have detectives that are infused into the population with their informants and "inside" people in the gangs and cells of violence. Why not "militarize" those "special forces" within the police departments and focus on hitting hard those people who use guns for violence, those people who are members of street gangs that create violence and enforce the laws that are already on the books. Keep hitting them hard week after week until the gang's will is broken and they learn it is not to their advantage to continue with the intimidation and violence.


 

Legislators should focus on passing and insisting on the enforcement of laws that focus on stiff penalties for gang violence, armed robbery and murder. The legislators should focus on the appeal process and the loopholes, as well as the bargaining for "reduced" sentences and lesser charges that puts the violent gang member back on the street using the police front door as a revolving door. In time, a real "deterrent" would evolve and the person who uses the gun for violence would think twice before using it that way.

 

If we continue to focus on the law-abiding citizen who uses the gun for hunting, recreation and protection while neglecting the person who uses the gun for violence, the day will come when even the police will not be able to provide protection for themselves, let alone the citizens in the community.

Jim Killebrew

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Deficit sleight of hand

 


How does a politician increase revenue by decreasing taxes the way President Bush did, and how does one raise taxes and decrease revenue the way President Obama is doing? The current Administration's White House published data from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in tandem with the Administration's Department of the Treasury, that revenues for the federal government were the highest in history at approximately $2.57 trillion dollars. This was not in the current Administration's tenure, but back in fiscal year 2007 under the former President, George W. Bush. There has been no year since that year when federal revenues exceeded the $2.5 trillion mark.

 

For the current Administration the total federal receipts reported by the U.S. Treasury for fiscal year 2012 were $2.449093 trillion as measured in constant 2005 dollars. This was significantly less than the record revenue in constant 2005 dollars in the amount of $2.4131 trillion in fiscal 2007.

 

The OMB's estimate of federal was 24.3 percent of the GDP in fiscal year 2012; this was the fourth straight year in which federal spending exceeded 24 percent. In order to balance the federal budget with spending at or near 24 percent of the GDP the Administration would have to request taxes in a much higher percentage of the GDP than any time over the past 82 years. The current Administration in the White House has calculated that level of taxation is needed to begin paying down the debt.

 

What is the rationale for continuing to spend at the highest levels, increase taxes to a higher percentage of the GDP and still think we will be able to reduce the national deficit? If past Presidents like President Kennedy, President Reagan and President Bush were able to reduce taxes to grow the economy and produce greater amounts of revenue, why would the current Administration refute their own reports from OMB and Treasury and try to continually raise taxes to induce more spending of revenue that will simply raise, not lower, the national debt?

Jim Killebrew

Main stream media

 
The main stream liberal media is getting a lot of heat lately for their lack of news coverage surrounding hot-spot political issues and soft-ball questions they pose to the Administration.  It seems they have been charged with being an extension of the Administration.  Rather than practicing journalistic challenges to Administration policies, especially those of which a majority of Americans are not in favor, the media appears to have fallen in line with the policies no matter what. 
 
Could it be that liberal media anchors, graduating from liberal universities, taught by liberal professors, mingling with liberal friends, working at liberal networks and owned by liberal corporations have simply never gained any other perspective except the liberal perspective?  Or at the very least perhaps they have forgotten to formulate independent questions that seeks to discover a perspective other than their own.   And of course, perhaps the most egregious of all they have simply never been able to control their own bias in favor of liberalism, and simply don't care.
Jim Killebrew     

Monday, January 28, 2013

Gun control and Congressional logic




If Congress passes a gun control bill that exempts themselves from the restrictions imposed by the bill, what possible rationale would be appropriate for them to legally purchase assault weapons outlawed in the bill?  Why would the rationale used by the Congressional member not be just as valid for any citizen of the United States?  If it is simply because they are Congressional members, would that not be a law enacted only for the defined privileged?  That would be a blatant form of gross discrimination.  It seems that would finally be Congress defining themselves as Washington elitists.
Jim Killebrew      


Thursday, January 24, 2013

Forty years of abortion...are we better off now?

 
Forty years of abortion in America...
 
Aborting a child robs that child not only of his or her very life, it also robs that child of having a blood-line progeny. 
 

Disarming law abiding Americans


On the attempts of government to disarm law abiding Americans:  Listen closely, the drums are beating, the march is on.  An army of people are encircling the Constitution with the intent of removing all its relevance.  Ever so slowly, one drum-beat at a time, inching forward making the changes in such incremental fashion nobody notices.  Sophisticated military fighter planes to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, weapons they want to ban in the U.S. sent to the drug cartels in Mexico, U.S. citizens left behind in Benghazi, continued spending to unsustainable levels, inflation creeping upward, elitists making policy in Washington, military generals being dismissed by civilian power, military resources being slashed, middle east countries being established as Al Qaeda launch platforms, destruction of terms like "global terror", "war on terror", or "terrorist".  With the country reaching a majority of citizens dependently sustained on the public dole, the politicians are moving slowly, but surely, toward a European-type economy of collectivism to the destruction of the U.S. Constitution.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Gun control or people control



I have been reading reports of those who have been successful in their efforts of bagging deer and filling their freezers with meat to use during the winter.  I have talked to others who have used their firearms for skeet shooting or target practice.  I know some who belong to gun clubs and find pleasure in collecting guns from history and telling stories of parents and grandparents using some of those guns to feed the family of bygone years.  I know others who simply say they feel protected by having a gun close by in case their house is penetrated by would-be robbers, or worse.

 

On the other hand I read in the paper or watch on the news the mayhem of murder and destruction at the hands of those wielding guns to take others' lives in movie theaters, public places, schools, drive-bys, back alleys and sometimes just for initiation to join some street gang.  I read about five hundred murders in a city like Chicago where some of the toughest gun restriction laws in the nation exist.  Yet, the discussions of what to do about it seem always to be centered around better background checks for people who buy the guns, more time in jail or greater fines for those who fail to report their guns being stolen, or a ban on the amount of rounds can be put into a magazine clip.

 

It seems to me like there are two kinds of people who own guns:  One kind is that group who use the gun for hunting for food, or recreation of target practice; or simply feeling safer to have it available for protection against attack.  This kind of person is willing to abide by the laws on the books regarding acquisition and concealment of their guns.  The other kind of person is one who uses the gun to rob, kill people, intimidate others, belong to a gang and usually will not abide by any law governing the acquisition or concealment of that gun.

 

I wonder why the focus of the discussions of the problem of violence by firearms always seem to gyrate toward the group of people who use the gun for hunting, recreation or protection, and not toward the person who uses the gun to rob, kill people, intimidate others or belong to a gang? 

 

In cities like Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and every other larger city in America, there are police forces with divisions that focus on murder, gangs, robbery, rape and kidnapping.  Those police departments have detectives that are infused into the population with their informants and "inside" people in the gangs and cells of violence.  Why not "militarize" those "special forces" within the police departments and focus on hitting hard those people who use guns for violence, those people who are members of street gangs that create violence and enforce the laws that are already on the books.  Keep hitting them hard week after week until the gang's will is broken and they learn it is not to their advantage to continue with the intimidation and violence.

 

Legislators should focus on passing and insisting on the enforcement of laws that focus on stiff penalties for gang violence, armed robbery and murder.  The legislators should focus on the appeal process and the loopholes, as well as the bargaining for "reduced" sentences and lesser charges that puts the violent gang member back on the street using the police front door as a revolving door.  In time, a real "deterrent" would evolve and the person who uses the gun for violence would think twice before using it that way.

 

If we continue to focus on the law-abiding citizen who uses the gun for hunting, recreation and protection while neglecting the person who uses the gun for violence, the day will come when even the police will not be able to provide protection for themselves, let alone the citizens in the community.

 

Jim Killebrew      

Friday, January 11, 2013

Worship

Worship
Churches across the land seem to have one thing in common:  they are filled with people who sometimes become disgruntled about how Church is done.  The trouble is, they spend too much time complaining about insignificant things that have nothing to do with worship.
 
Often people complain about the order of the worship service, the type of music being used, the length of the sermon or who makes the announcements.  Sometimes it is even the environmental surroundings of the worship place.  The decision to use chairs instead of more expensive, pews, an arrangement of a stained glass window, a hanging cross out of its usual place is more often than not a topic of "concerned" conversation and perhaps even a "matter for prayer."
 
The root of most of these complaints may not be any negative impact on the edification of God, but rather, it may be a personal tradition that is being trampled that sends the individual in a tail spin.  Some believe that traditional forms of worship are closer to the heart of God and must be incorporated into the congregational worship or suffer the consequences of blasphemy.  Hence, the real issue is often the personal unhappiness derived as a result of the disruption of personal worship traditions experienced during earlier times of worship experience.      
 
The problem is that worship is not necessarily focused on or about the individual; worship is a response to the God of Creation and a deepening relationship with Him.  We join with others of "like precious faith" to lift our hearts to the Eternal God to thank Him for His Grace and the work He has done on the cross relative to our personal salvation.  The indwelling of His Holy Spirit allows us to submit our spirits to His and continue to grow in the Grace and Knowledge of His presence and work through our lives.  Lifting up our voices in prayer, joyful noises, supplication, thankfulness, obedience and acknowledgement of His Strength is our response to His Grace.  That response goes forth irrespective of the type of chair we sit in, the type of windows we gaze out of, the type of lighting in the room or who carries the communion cup and bread.  
 
When we are distracted toward the insignificance of petty complaints regarding our worship service, we are inclined to return to subjection toward replacing God's Grace with the following of the law.  When we hold fast to traditions of using hymnals instead of viewing a screen in front, insisting the preacher stand behind a pulpit instead of walking unrestrained on the stage, or having the choir wear velvet robes rather than street clothing, we exchange the Truth of God's unconditional love to the lie that our salvation depends on the way we worship and the power of the traditions we hold.
 
By focusing on our personal traditions of worship as the only way we can reach out to God, is like substituting those personal sets of traditional actions as being equal and holy in regard to our worship, especially if we engage in actions to force others to worship our personal way.  That action substitutes the value of personal traditions for the work of Jesus on the Cross.  When that substitution occurs, it is the same as reverting to works relative to salvation.  That puts the individual in danger of driving away the power of the Holy Spirit since He only testifies to the works of Jesus, not the strength of traditions.   
 
We must be careful in our assemblies of worship to avoid worshipping traditions, when that happens, it changes worship to works.  When we begin to worship our own works we experience the loss of the Spirit of worship; and the loss of power in our worship.
 
Jim Killebrew