Contradicting government agencies

 

In our public schools the educational powers-that-be decided a long time ago that the foundational premise of the origin of human beings is evolution.  It means the survival of the fittest; only those who adapt and remain the strongest will survive.  By contrast the educational powers-that-be decided morality as presented in the Bible should be eliminated from the public educational process.  Consequently the Bible with its morality teachings were replaced with evolution that maintains only the strong will ultimately survive as they continue to evolve into a super human race.  For this government educational system taxpayers pay multiple billions of dollars each year for mandated public education.

 

In 1964 then President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty.  Those who were the poorest among society were told the government would take care of them and help them to work their way out of poverty and become stronger, more self-reliant people.  We spend a trillion dollars a year helping the poor and trying to eliminate poverty.  It has been almost 50 years since that war on poverty was declared and we are still fighting it.  Politicians tell us today that poverty is still with us, people are not any stronger or more self-reliant.  In fact in the last 50 years since President Johnson declared the war the cost of eliminating poverty in the United States has increased each year and it doesn't appear the war has any end in sight.

 

I have a question:  If every person in the United States is required to adhere to an educational academic curriculum that excludes the morality teachings of the Bible, and be taught instead the humanistic, secular, evolutionary teachings of the survival of the fittest, is it possible the Department of Education is in direct opposition to all governmental departments that focus on welfare and strengthening the human condition?  When the government confiscates money from individuals through taxing and redistributes that money to "the poor" is that government arm not saying in effect, "We do not believe in the message of evolution that is being taught in our public schools, and will do everything in our power to avert the concept of 'the survival of the fittest.'"

 

Perhaps it would be a good idea for government to at least look at the goals and outcomes of their efforts on which money is being spent.  If there are confounding or totally contradicting conclusions coming from different governmental agencies, it seems we are only spinning in place flaming ourselves into destruction.

 

Perhaps there is a more sinister side to this practice.  If each adult is subject to learning the fate of the survival of the fittest as they are required from children to young adult to sit in classrooms and lecture halls hearing the rationale for evolution and at the same time be categorized into a classification of social status that relegates the need for governmental dependency through distribution of minimal subsistence, does that not create a double-edged dependency tool that keeps the less fit in a situation of barely surviving?  From that perspective the "fittest" become those whose task becomes the "distributors" of the goods and the creators of the policies to maintain the educational system to convince every person their evolution to humanness is only a process and their place can only be assured by their continued support of the distribution efforts of the "fittest" among them.

 

Jim Killebrew     



Big government logic

 

When the nation is in trouble with runaway spending that increases the deficit to unsustainable proportions and the Administration currently in power is responsible for creating more of that deficit than all other Administrations combined, what is the logic to keep supporting the same plans that have inflated the deficit?

 

As the nation developed and began building infrastructure on the use of oil and coal as energy for transportation, electrical power, home heating and modern technology, and the current Administration wants to eliminate the use of fossil fuel, oil exploration and drilling, as well as drive up the price of coal to such a prohibitive cost that people must stop using it, what is the logic to keep supporting the same plans that have prevented America from being energy independent?

 

When the nation is on the brink of disaster by virtue of political-generated crisis that threaten to drive the economy over the cliff, or the Administration devises a plan that has been dubbed "Sequestration" that claims to virtually shut-down the border security to the United States, tie up airline travel by laying off a huge percentage of Air Traffic Controllers, keep people from receiving appropriate medical care, cripple the nation's educational system unless the taxes are raised again to prevent such a disaster, why do we believe it?  When most of the economists believe that a free market system economy thrives when the people in that economy are allowed to take risks, build businesses and keep their own money, the economy grows.  What is the logic to keep supporting the same plans that has kept American free enterprise and market economy from growing the past four years?

 

I believe the logic used is that the Administration currently in power and the supporting Democrats in the Senate and house are complicit in the dulling of the economy because of one basic belief that is contrary to the free market economy.  The Administration and the complicit Democrat members of the Senate and House believe that taxes, more taxes and more taxes are the only thing that will cause the American economy to thrive.  They believe that the larger and richer the government becomes, thereby granting them more and more power to regulate, control, manipulate and make policy, will stimulate the economy to make it grow when the government is large enough, powerful enough and pervasive enough by giving back portions of money to the citizen for them to pay their bills and create a life-style that is equalized across society.  For the most part the Administration and the Democrats in the Senate and House do not believe in a free market economy that is grown by everyday citizens making investments in their villages, towns, cities and states.  They do not believe that the independent citizen is intelligent enough to know how to invest and spend their money in the local hardware, theater, gas station, restaurant or department store.  Certainly the independent citizen is not thought of as having enough intelligence to pay bills, buy different cars, take vacations, and participate in commerce as well as the policy wonks can do. 

 

The difference between free market economy and the large, pervasive government economy is the belief of how growth comes about.  Free market says the pie gets bigger with each individual's investment, a service or product comes to market through innovation and risk.  Some hits big, some keep pace, some even fail.  But people with the desire and willingness to take risks with the belief in themselves keep on going until someday they reach success.  When that happens they create jobs, hire more people, create paydays for families.  And what do those families do with their paychecks?  They spend the money on bills, houses, cars, clothes, school, parities, vacations, and everything one can think of.  That spreads the wealth around, redistributes it if you will, to those who are also working, providing products or services.

 

Then enters government.  No, no, no, in order to "grow" the economy the government needs to "take" from the economy.  For those who have entered into the free market and have risked their capital, worked very hard, the government wants to take more money from them through taxes.  Make no mistake, with money in our economic system is taken from an individual, it is usually referred to as a fine.  (Remember Obamacare and the Supreme Court ruling regarding taxes and fines.)  A fine is a punishment!  When you are fined for a certain behavior you are being punished. 

 

Now, when a person is being punished for doing something, the idea is to reduce or eliminate that behavior.  Any educator will tell us that.  If you want to see more of a behavior you reinforce the person when they behave that way.

So, when the current Administration and the complicit Democrats in the Senate and House want to continue to raise taxes on the people who are making the money, the only thing in the economy that is growing is the government, more policies, more regulations, more government employees.  People who are taxed are being punished by having more of their money taken away from them.  Remember the poor golfer in California who was lambasted by the media because he thought the government taking 63 percent of his money and leaving him only 37 percent to live on was unfair.  He was being punished 63 percent of his earnings.

So here is the logic:  Government growth = more government, more punishment to the individual citizen, no growth of economy, higher deficits, more crisis, higher taxes, high unemployment, redistribution, massive government social welfare systems with more government involvement, all with ultimate failure.  (Look at Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, all seem doomed to failure under government-run policies, and keeping the politicians' fingers out of the pie.)

 

Free market = individual citizens working for their money, earning salaries, investing in start-up's, hiring employees, people making more money and people spending more money.

 

Jim Killebrew       



Choices

 



Notice in each of these definitions the individual who owned the cows is only passive and has something "done" to him in all instances except when he chooses to be a Republican. 

 

When he is a republican he has to produce initiative, make choices, participate in hard work, take risks, planning, management, and eventually supervision of hired workers for whom he must worry about making payroll each pay period, and at the same time place himself in danger of being demonized by each of the other groups for having so much.  Wow!  Does it really pay to be a Republican?

 
Jim Killebrew

Energy crisis

 

Of late I have been hearing the clarion cry of those who would have us abandon our current energy sources using fossil fuels.  The producers of oil have been demonized, the practice of "Fracking" has been maligned as irresponsible, moratoriums on drilling for oil and mining for coal have been implemented and some have suggested we strengthen, with government stimulus funding, the alternative energy efforts to find ways to provide alternative sources of energy including solar power, wind power and water power.  At this current point in our national development those alternative sources are not nearly as marketable in society-at-large as the dependence on fossil fuels is.    

 

It may seem like I am an advocate of everything big oil; the fact is, I believe we need to do something to protect our planet from being soiled to the point of interfering with life.  But the reality is that we have during the last century put ourselves in a position that has brought us to a dependency on the fossil fuels we must have to run industrial nations, irrespective of their political ideology.  At this point on the spectrum of human existence we have sold our souls to the use of fossil fuels such as oil and coal.  Without those things we would be required to return to the so-called middle ages where ships depended on wind and travel depended on feet.  The truth is, no person in any industrialized society or otherwise would be willing to give up the industrialization and technological advances we have with oil.  Remember, much more is made from oil than just gasoline.  Look around the environment, literally tens of thousands of "things" are made from oil derivatives. 

 

Now, having said all of that, in politically-driven societies like any society in the West or the East that has risen above the mere existence of tribal life that may be found only in some African countries, or the National Geographic Magazine, or the so-called "third-world" countries, we have to contend with "special interest groups" and lobbyists who exert tremendous influence to campaigns on both sides of the aisle, where politicians profit substantially by talking out of both sides of their mouth.  The example of our supply of fossil fuels is a case in point.  Studies have revealed that in North America we have reserves in oil and natural gas that would eliminate the need to get oil from the Middle East where people are trying to wreck our society.  We already get a large supply of our oil from Mexico and Canada, but the political, environmental, special interest groups and lobbyists will compel us to continue to use the vast amounts of oil imported from other countries since they are effectively persuading the current politicians in power to prevent the use of domestic oil reserves. 

 

If for some reason the United States alone decided to completely abandon the use of fossil fuels and return to the life of the farmers as in Laura Ingalls Wilder's "Little House" using coal oil only to light the night-time darkness and the horses, mules and oxen to turn the soil in the fields, how long do we think China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, or Western Europe for that matter, would allow America to stand as a nation?  How many people would give up their flat-screen, plasma, 60 inch, wall-mounted, HD television sets in favor of returning to front porch sitting to fulfill their social craving?  Who is in favor of giving up the internet, android or the iPhone for smoke signals?  I suspect that most people would have problems with that life-style and we would likely see wholesale rioting in the streets if we should flip the switch from the 21st to the 19th century.

 

Likely that scenario would end with the "dreadful" rich leaving for greener pastures to live in the 21st century somewhere else in the world, while those with no or less means would remain at the mercy of a "survival of the fittest" type of society.  Gone would be basic essentials such as clean water, sewage systems, transportation, jobs, grocery stores changing to bartering systems, communications except for person-to-person, healthcare except for homeopathic home remedies and of course, life expectancy. 

 

I believe there is a real significant difference between the character of a person who lived at the end of the 18th century, 19th century and the industrial age at the beginning of the 20th century.  Those people were motivated with a work ethic that drove them to invent what we have today.  "Necessity is the Mother of invention," and those people looked forward to making life more comfortable and providing a better world for their children.

 

Contrasting our modern character whose mainstay is more dependency than fortitude, the work ethic has dwindled to expectations of anticipation of higher minimum wages instead of entrepreneurial risk.  The poor in America are just as dependent on ease and comfort as the rich in America.  The rich may shop on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills and pay $700 for a shirt, but the poor have Wal-Mart, strip malls, bargain basements, thrift stores, department stores and perhaps even hand-me-downs for knock-offs that at least give the appearance of some prosperity.  Retail outlets provide opportunities for appliances, gym membership, used cars, discount vacations and generic food with plain labels that provide meals of nourishment that in some countries people are as unlikely to obtain such delicacies as many Americans would have difficulty obtaining meals at the Waldorf.

 

So, perhaps our country should consider moving toward alternative energy sources on an incremental basis and titrate our reliance on oil on a gradual course that maintains our standard of living comparable to the 21st century rather than gutting modernism in favor of tribalism.  Therefore, we should stop with the war between the environmentalists and the producers of energy from whom we are in deep dependence at the present time.  Perhaps it is time for the "leaders" in Washington to stop sitting on their thumbs debating non-essentials and get to work creating a plan that will carry our nation into future generations with sound doctrine for renewable energy, sound education, strong protection from outside harm, reasonable healthcare, fairness in taxes, and a return to the work ethics of yesteryear to propel us as leaders for finding answers to domestic and world-wide problems afflicting the human condition.

 

Jim Killebrew                     



Sequestration more taxes

 



Sequestration cuts are the talking points in today's message from the field of Democrats out beating the drums to whip up the people against the opposition.  We have a three and one half Trillion dollar budget and the sequestration cuts will amount to about eighty-five billion dollars.  That counts for a little over two percent of the total budget.  Not only that, the cuts are not going to be real cuts, they are just a reduction in the proposed spending that represents an increase in spending.  It is like my boss asking me what my budget for my shop needs for next year.  I look at my budget for this year and see I spent ten thousand dollars.  I figure in inflation, projects I want to do during the next year so I tell my boss I will need a budget of twenty thousand dollars.  He considers that and says I can have only fifteen thousand dollars for the new year.  So I complain to all my staff that we are cutting fifty percent of the budget in our shop and the sky is going to fall on our head.

 

In reality, of course, I will not only spend the ten thousand dollars I spent last year, but I will spend an additional five thousand dollars for a total of fifteen.  From my perspective I have "lost" five thousand from my budget for next year even though I received fifty percent more than last year.  So the so-called cuts are only on paper, not real cuts on programs.  It is what the politicians are wanting to spend above and beyond the budget they have had in the past that has driven up the deficit to over 16 Trillion dollars.

 

The plan to fix the problem offered by the Administration:  Raise the taxes, again.  Does that really make any sense?

 

Jim Killebrew

Picture of Jesus

 

A picture of Jesus has been hanging in a school in Ohio since 1947 and the ACLU is now suing the school district to have the picture removed.  The ACLU declared the picture to be a "religious display" and "is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and must be removed."

 

Now it is interesting that nobody alive in the world today really knows for sure what Jesus looks like.  There were no cameras a couple of thousand years ago when He walked the dusty streets of Judea.  So any likenesses we have today are only pictures that have been painted by artists drawing from their imagination.  Many of those paintings were produced back in the Middle Ages and were based on what the artist thought Jesus might have looked like.  Many artists used real people as models to form the mental picture and painted facial features based on the person they viewed and shaping the features as they interpreted portions of Scripture they might have read or told about in sermons.    

 

With that being the case I wonder how the ACLU can be so certain the picture they are trying to have removed from the school in Ohio is actually depicting the face of Jesus?  Does the ACLU have special knowledge the rest of us don't have?  Have they had a special revelation and appearance from Jesus in person much like the Apostle Paul had when he traveled the road to Damascus?  For sure the ACLU "breaths out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples."  Perhaps they are so sure this is a picture of The Man because they actually met Him on their way to some persecution rally.

 

If, on the other hand, they have not actually seen the face of Jesus either, then how can they be sure it is a "religious display" and "an unconstitutional endorsement of religion"?  They have not offered any legitimate facts or evidence the picture really is a picture of Jesus.  Doesn't the burden of proof rest on them since the accusation is being made by them? 

 

Of course it is interesting that if they could find out for sure the picture is an actual picture of Jesus, then by the mere fact of their having proven it is real, do they really want to make war against the Son of God?  I really don't think I want to be in their shoes.

 

Jim Killebrew



Confiscating guns

 

I was watching The Five at Five the other day on Fox News and they were talking about the gun control issue.  One of the co-hosts said it was going to be difficult to initiate a gun ban because of the gangs in large cities and other people who do not obey the laws will keep their guns.  The Democrat member to The Five, Bob Beckel, spoke up and said, "That's no problem, just confiscate the guns."

 

That word "confiscate" or "confiscation" seems to be voiced a bit more often among the Democrat top-ranked officials lately.  Even the President made a statement the other day about "using other means" within his executive powers to act if Congress doesn't.   Of course to many ears that word translated into action brings mortified sounds.  In fact it seems far-reaching in that it would result in placing restrictions on several rights we now have associated with freedoms regarding ownership and privacy and due process.

 

At first glance and on face value we might immediately agree that if bad guys have guns and are using them to kill, rob or intimidate people we want the police to confiscate those guns so law-abiding people can be protected.  The problem is, there is a process the police must follow that has important steps to be satisfied before that confiscation can occur.

 

A law enforcement person cannot indiscriminately just decide to go confiscate someone's gun from their house.  There must be probable cause that a crime has been committed or is imminently about to be committed.  It might even be a crime has already been committed and the investigation is taking the investigators to a specific person.  That probable cause must be strong enough to specifically name the individual and demonstrate that the crime is linked to that individual.  Law enforcement must then seek out a court to present the probable cause information so a search warrant can be issued by a judge.  It is on the basis of that warrant that a search can be conducted to the individual's property.  Seizure of property generally needs to be named in the warrant so the law enforcement officers cannot seize just anything they see that may not be relevant to the purported  crime that initiated the probable cause.

 

So when the talking points of any political party or Administration includes a process of simply confiscating the guns they must realize the process to do that will likely obliterate not only the Second Amendment but the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution regarding privacy, search and seizure and court issued warrants to conduct such searches and seizures.  Once the can of Constitutional obliteration is opened, whether through Congressional actions or Executive Orders, it opens the door for many of the Constitutional guarantees to be thrown out as well.  If we are not careful we could end up living in a totalitarian state with no regard for individual rights to ownership, privacy or freedom, and of course no due process.

 

Jim Killebrew