New Book: Causative Fators of the Third Party Movement

To my friends who read my Blog

So, it has happened.  I have written a book that has been converted to an eBook format and is being made available in several different places.  If any of you are interested in reading an interesting account of an American Social Movement, you may access it in any of the following places:

Barnes & Noble, kobo, Apple iBooks, Scribd, tolino, 24symbols, Playster Overdrive, Amazon Kindle, Bibliotheca, Google Play books, and Baker & Taylor.

Some of these places on the World Wide Web are places for subscription, and most are for purchases.  For example, if you are interested, Amazon Kindle has the book if you simply go on Amazon and search for the following:

Causative Factors of the Third Party Movement. 

About the Book

The setting for this investigation of causative factors to a social movement will be the stage of a conversation between a Professor of History and Sociological Studies and his student who wants to learn the root causes of a social movement. The tool for that study of a social movement will be the Governor of Alabama running for President of the United States through forming a Third Political Party called, “The American Party.” The examination will focus on the causative factors that essentially drove a large number of people to participate in that movement in hopes of changing the landscape of American government.

Thank you in advance for any interest you may have in obtaining my writing regarding an actual historical event.

Jim Killebrew

What do they want?

Okay, I am wondering about something.  I keep hearing the media wanting to destroy President Donald Trump's Administration.  The democrats and media seem to be against everything President Trump stands for.  They are wanting to defeat everything he wants.

Well, he wants to bring down the corporate tax to a low of 15%.  That will help corporations invest in expanding their work force, thereby growing the economy.  What do the democrats find wrong with that?

He wants to lower the individual personal tax rates to a 15% level.  That would allow each taxpaying American to keep more of their earned money for themselves.  What do the democrats find wrong with that?

He wants to renegotiate the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  Jobs have been taken over by that platform of trading modality, having removed millions of jobs from America to be installed in other parts of the world.  He wants to bring those jobs back to America raising the employment level in this country, that will even strengthen the unions.  What do the democrats find wrong with that?

He wanted to withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal.  Negotiating a better deal for America would create more jobs in this country and create better deals for all of us.  What do the democrats find wrong with that?

He wants to end the death (penalty) tax.  A tax that forces families left with a family farm or other large businesses to sell their farm or family business because of the enormous tax burden the government wants to force on the heirs.  What do the democrats find wrong with that?

He wants to fully deduct childcare expenses from a family's tax burden.  Allowing families with high childcare expenses to get back some of that money to use for other things needed.  What do the democrats find wrong with that?

He wants to reverse restrictive energy executive orders created by the former Administration in order to bring down the cost of energy for everyone.  What do the democrats find wrong with that?

He wants to find alternative energy sources that will keep emissions down and create clean, renewable energy to help the environment.  What do the democrats find wrong with that? 

He wants to strength the relationship with our allies and those who want to do us harm.  That would make our nation stronger and make us all safer.  What do the democrats find wrong with that?

He wants to ensure that people from various countries whose governments have vowed to kill Americans and disrupt the American way of life in such a way as to destroy our society, be subjected to an "extreme" vetting that will ensure that only those who want to assimilate to America are allowed into America.  What do the democrats find wrong with that?

He wants to expand our military the last Administration allowed to weaken their strength-force to be less than pre-WWII levels, to be rebuilt to levels that would cause enemies to rethink their will to harm Americans.  What do the democrats find wrong with that?

He wants to clean out the deep and wide corruption in Washington DC decimating the power of lobbyists and bring back integrity, morality and honesty to government.  What do the democrats find wrong with that?

If the media and the democrats don't want any of these things, what do they want?  If it is significantly different from these aspirations for America, what is their allegiance to, and who is it they are following?

Jim Killebrew

 

If you died tonight

If you died tonight

"So, if you died tonight, would you go to heaven?" That was a question I asked my friend.

His response: "Of course, God has too much grace to leave me behind."

I continued, "But you are living like you don't even believe in God. You drink a lot, you never attend any church service, and I have never known you to pray."

After a bit of silence, my friend said, "Yeah, but God doesn't expect us to live some kind of 'holier than thou' kind of life. He expects us to enjoy life and have fun." "Besides," he continued, "I don't do anything really bad; I've never killed anyone, I don't rob banks or liquor stores." "In fact," he went on, "I am better than a lot of people I know."

"That may be true," I responded, "but are you better than Jesus?" "Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?"

He lowered his head, shuffled his feet and seemed a bit embarrassed, and said, "You know I don't talk about all that religious stuff like Jesus and angels and sheep; I am just part of the whole outdoors. I can worship in the woods while I hunt for deer, or at the lake where I can fish for my dinner."

"But," I started to say.

"No," he interjected, "you believe all that stuff about God and Jesus, but I'm not sure I believe all of it." "I mean after all, who says that there is a heaven, or a hell for that matter?"

Silence hung for a minute or two and he raised his head and looked at me square in the eyes and said, "Do you believe all that?"

"Yes," I whispered. I told him I believed in God the Creator and told him the account recorded in the Bible about God and the fall of mankind, Adam and Eve. I then went through some of the Scriptures that foretold about the coming of the Christ, how Abraham was chosen by God to form a nation. About the nation of Israel being God's nation through which the Son of God would be born. We reviewed the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to read about the birth of Jesus and His working on this earth.

I then said to my friend, "It really does make a difference to me. My life is built on the foundation that God is real, He has communicated with me through His Word, the Bible, and He has said to me that to be with Him forever I need to have faith in Him, submit to Him and take Jesus as my Lord and Savior."

Finally, I said to my friend, "What if I die tonight and on the other side of this life there is absolutely nothing. I am gone completely, death is absolute and there is no hereafter. Then it really didn't make any difference what I believed, I would not be facing anyone, I would be dead."

"Yeah," he said, "so then what was the difference?"

"Suppose on the other hand," I continued, "You die tomorrow and what you believe about death being the end is not really true, in fact at that moment you find out God is waiting for you on the other side, and everything the Bible says is true." "Will it make a difference to you as you stand in judgment in front of God's Throne?"

"So how do I defend myself?" he asked.

"You don't; there is no way to defend yourself, if you are covered with sin you are guilty." "You pay the price of sin, and that price is eternal separation from God in a place of eternal torment."

"However," I continued, "In the same situation I will not have to defend myself because I have yielded to Jesus and He has become my Advocate, my Lawyer if you will." "When I stand before the Throne of God it will be Jesus Who will argue my case. Sin will try to condemn me, but Jesus will have covered me with His blood that He shed on the cross to redeem me from my sin. Because of that blood God will not even see my sin. Because of my Advocate, Who covered me with His blood, God will declare me no longer guilty and confirm that I was justified and redeemed by the Blood of Jesus."

Jim Killebrew 

Appreciation of America by Christians...

The Pilgrims appreciated the new world in America for the freedom they were given to be free of persecution to worship as they pleased.

The American Forefathers appreciated the Christian foundations enough to include freedom of worship in the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers appreciated the Christian influence to credit God, not the government, with the "unalienable Rights" there were "endowed by their Creator," which included, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

George Washington appreciated the Christian values and affirmed that a government could not exist without the Grace of God.

Generations of Christians have devoted themselves to the worship of God being protected with that freedom throughout their lives.

Abraham Lincoln is noted for his devotion to the Scriptures and the foundational belief in his faith. It was that faith that burned within his soul that led him to forge together a process to not just keep the country from splitting and abandoning Constitutional rule, but led him to setting free fellow human beings who were also created by God to enjoy the unalienable Rights afforded by the Constitution of a full complement of the United States.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans who have put on the uniform and marched off to war through the two and one/half centuries of America's history appreciate America, and the freedoms, including the freedom of worship, they fought and died for.

Even today, in the Twenty-First century, there continue to be millions of Americans who appreciate America as the "The Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave." There are, however, some breaks in that appreciation. There have been significant attacks on the foundational premise of America's experiment in Freedom based on Christian values and beliefs. There is renewed efforts by political standard bearers who wish to infiltrate ideologies from people who are diametrically opposed to Christian values, many of whom cross over America's borders without the proper papers, illegally, establishing their stay on the foundation of a fundamental change that even negates the Constitution. There is an ever-increasing number of people who are pushing the erroneous presumption that America is the cause of the failures of economies and societal structures in nations around the world.

Politically, there is a greater number of people who are turning their eyes toward a dependency on government, the practice of taking from the "wealthy" to redistribute to the "poor." The outreach of churches and religious organizations are increasingly withdrawing their responsibility of caring for the "widows and orphans," to relinquishing that task completely to the secular government. For sure, there are many Christian organizations and churches that have strong influence in their communities and provide much relief for those in need. But, by-and-large, the rank-and-file citizen in America has lost the foundational responsibility of "recognizing their neighbor, and filling an identified need."

Once again Americans have reached a crossroad of a decision that will require an informed choice. That choice is clear: Take the road of the past eight years that has brought us to this point, or choose an outsider whose style we know, but whose content is yet to be known. Neither of those two choices will produce the return of a Judeo-Christian recognition of governing; at least not to the complete satisfaction of the nation's Evangelicals. But the Trump organization, even if not completely known, will be a better chance to short-circuit the status quo of the past eight years. The Clinton organization will most likely continue with the current Administration's policies, even building on those policies to lead us further away from an America that most citizens have known in their lifetimes.

Jim Killebrew

 

Guns

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

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

For all those people who are complaining that the President does not have a strategy to keep America safe from terrorist attacks really should keep in mind that he told us about his strategy in 2008 even before he won the office. That strategy was to bring fundamental change to America. He has kept his promise, it is just that so many people who could not see it then, continue now not to see it. He actually did, and does, have a strategy. For twenty years he sat at the feet of Jeremiah Wright who told the future President, and the rest of us, exactly what should happen to America. For as many years the President-Elect in 2008 had studied his mentor and fellow "Community Organizer" Saul Alinsky, the individual Hillary Clinton did her Master's Thesis on. For the strategy in play simply read Alinsky's, "Rules for Radicals." Remember?

Jim Killebrew