Instant military

 



It is all well and good the suspected bombers in Boston were stopped from taking more lives, injuring more people and doing more damage.  There is no doubt those two brothers were identified, found and neutralized in a record amount of time.  We saw the people in the neighborhood cheer and applaud as the law enforcement, federal agents, state police and local police left the arrest site.

 

There is just one thing to remember regarding this incident.  Local and state police were federalized, the government stepped in and "locked down" an entire American city, military-like tactical gear was brought in to a city with heavy armored vehicles and automatic weapons of war, they marched through the streets, closed down the entire city and went from house to house searching inside without warrants.  If it wasn't called marshal law it resembled it so closely one could scarcely tell the difference.

 

Without a doubt people rested easier when the suspect was found and apprehended.  Yes, the law enforcement agencies along with the federal and state agencies coupled with the military saved the day.  One lesson we should learn, however, should be that what we witnessed in a five-day period after an horrific incident, the capability of military-like armaments and law enforcement under the leadership of the political structure can so easily and quickly come together to enact a marshal law type of control that immobilizes citizens in a sequester to their homes and subjects them to searches without the benefit of warrants from the court.  This should give us pause to realize this action is not so difficult to accomplish in America given the right circumstances.

 

Jim Killebrew

Jane Fonda not a Nancy Reagan

 

The group associated with this film each has an ax to grind with America.  Each one has been critical of the conservative perspective represented by Ronald Reagan and his movement in the 1980's.  It is my opinion they will either subliminally or directly try to retell the story of President Reagan in a way that diminishes his contribution to American culture and society.  The portrayal will be crass and will put Nancy Reagan in a light reflective of control, selfishness, a bit mystic, overbearing, over protective of the President and a bit odd.  In other words, her character likely will be presented in the ways liberals like to think conservatives are; in reality they will likely reflect their own behavior and transfer that onto the characters they are playing.  The conclusion the audience will come to will be confusion and sorrow the Reagan's were ever in the White House.  Again, just an opinion.

 

Jim Killebrew   



 

 

California liberals

"Frankly, I don't know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we're Number One. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on 'Macbeth'. The four of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words."  (Columnist Burt Prelutsky, Los Angeles Time)-- Columnist Burt Prelutsky, Los Angeles Time

 

This fellow writes about Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi and calls them "left-wing dingbats" and "really obnoxious women".  I know the democrat party is big on re-labeling things like "illegal immigrants" to "undocumented workers" and people who are "terrorists" being changed to "workplace violence."  I want to follow the lead, but I think this guy is too harsh on the likes of the California Four Clucks (excuse me, I'm getting ahead of myself), so I am advocating we change the title "liberal" so something else.  I know the democrats have tried to change it to "progressive" but that just doesn't seem to fit.  Using the four from California as the model, I would propose to change their title from "liberal" to those who claim "nescience."

 

Jim Killebrew   

Socialism

 

The main point of socialism is to keep people from being wealthy.  The purpose of socialism is to "spread the wealth" and "redistribute" from those who are wealthy to those who are not.  The problem is that it never works; it is one-sided.  Those who are working and generating income are the only ones who have to share their income.  Those who are not working are receivers and never have to share anything.  Currently in America there are 40 percent of the adult citizens who do not pay any taxes.  So who is sharing the wealth?

 

Jim Killebrew



Immigration common sense (To the lawmakers)

 



First, secure the borders of the United States.  I'm not sure why that is so difficult for politicians to understand.  Even in past centuries when Ellis Island was open and processing people who were entering the country there were limitations regarding entry.  Secure the borders and make sure the people living around the borders are safe.

 

Second, enforce the law.  Again, it seems axiomatic that if a law is on the books that is meant to regulate some behavior, the first and foremost consideration in controlling that behavior is to enforce the law that has been written to regulate the behavior.  That is not rocket scientist thinking; anyone but a politician knows that is common knowledge.

 

Third, keep people safe.  Not just the people who live in the border states, but all people who are suffering at the hands of people who use stealth techniques to slip into the country and pillage the resources. 

 

Fourth, complete the first, second and third priorities above so as to prevent the same situation we are experiencing now from happening five, ten or fifteen years from now.  Those who have been elected in Congress as well as the Administration need to take a common sense approach to this issue and do what is needed to secure our borders, enforce the laws of our land instead of making countless new ones, and look after our resources during the process.  It is your responsibility so please get it done.

 

Jim Killebrew  

Margaret Thatcher

 

When Margaret Thatcher took office in Great Britain the unemployment level was over 13%. When she left office the unemployment level was 5.5%. During the eleven (11) years she was Prime Minister of Great Britain she turned back the tide for the country sliding from socialism to communism, helped defeat communism in the former Soviet Union by being the first democracy world leader to forge an alliance with Mikhail Gorbachev, saying, "I believe we can work with him", and maintaining her principled stand for Conservatism throughout her tenure.

 

Now I hear on the news that liberals in England are cheering her death and saying she was a failure as Prime Minister. Just exactly what do liberals who reside in a democracy want from their leaders? By most standards she was a very successful Prime Minister who abated the fall of the economy while she was in office. She saved jobs for people who had them and created more for people who didn't. Why can't people with a liberal political persuasion judge a leader by their accomplishments rather than ideology?

 

Jim Killebrew



Nuclear war with Iran and North Korea

Over the past several months we have been hearing that Iran is working at break-neck speed to develop nuclear warheads and delivery systems.  The President has been less than enthusiastic in his support for Israel and their need to protect themselves given the powder keg that exist in that region.  During the past two or three weeks we have been told that North Korea's regime has declared war on the United States, moved nuclear-armed missiles to their Eastern border and are now warning foreign diplomats to vacate South Korea because apparently a strike seems imminent.

 

Regarding Iran, the Administration seems adamant in holding the course of sanctions against Iran hoping it will weaken their resolve.  It seems unlikely that will be sufficient since the Iranian regime continues to receive support and aid from other countries around the world, including Russia.  Regarding North Korea, the Administration has ramped up some missile defense around Guam and Japan.  There has been some show of force in the area through the presence of a few airships and Navy presence.  One wonders if it is enough to change the North Korean Leader's mind about an attack.

 

With this backdrop of activity in some of the most explosive parts of the world we would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be meeting several times daily with chief advisors including the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense with planning sessions in the White House Situation room.  Perhaps some of those things are happening; but for public consumption we are seeing something different.

 

We continue to see the President engaging in political activities to strengthen his position to ban guns in America.  He continues to push his agenda to take the guns away from citizens and weaken the strength of the Second Amendment rights of Americans to own guns.  If for no other reason than the timing of this situation alone, wouldn't it be more prudent for the President to "buckle down" and focus on the issues that loom as dangerous threats against America and her allies in the regions around Iran and North Korea?  Isn't that much more a priority to disarm the nuclear weapons of countries that have avowed to wipe Israel and the United States off the world map, than to focus on an issue of disarming the private citizens of America?  A person with political neutrality could presumably observe this situation and wonder what the Administration's motives are to focus on disarming the citizens of America of guns while at the same time virtually ignoring the movements of war preparation in countries whose major desire is to destroy America.

 

Jim Killebrew         

Criminals have feelings too



Criminals are afraid of being shot just the same as a normal, non-criminal citizen.  They want to avoid starting trouble with those people they know have a weapon by which to protect themselves.  The criminal is only hoping the government will remove the guns from the law-abiding citizens so they can rob, rape and plunder at will without fear of reprisal.  Of course the criminals will not turn loose of their guns. 

 

Perhaps the educational system during the late 1700's was much better than our current, modern one.  Since it is obvious the founders of our nation were wise enough to include the Second Amendment knowing that each American needed the means to protect themselves against foreign and domestic violence.  Today's politicians, especially those on the left, seem not to have learned the same information as our early founders seemed to know.  And we call our current politicians "progressive."  That is just another term of which they have changed the meaning.    

 

Jim Killebrew