Published By: Dr.RobertOwens on March 9, 2014
The problem with anarchy is that it must become organized to accomplish anything. Then like militant apathy it declares war against the machine never realizing that it is merely another cog in the wheel that grinds itself to dust.
The Law of Liberty defines that space where an individual is secure and free to live their life as they choose.
The life of humanity with society is only possible because the vast majority of people act within the framework of certain rules. As society becomes more complex these rules evolve from the basic instinct of what is right and wrong to evermore explicit guidelines that are both general and abstract.
The fact that we are the products of thousands of years and hundreds of generations of institutional law makes us as blind to the intricate and all-encompassing nature of this skeleton upon which our society lives and moves. Just as a fish does not notice the water within which it moves and we are not constantly aware of the air in which we move our social self is not aware of the framework of laws which daily provide the context within which we find our meaning.
If we were to have one flash of insight which revealed to us the web of law, tradition, and ceremony within which we move we would realize that it is no more the invention of design of one person or group than the ubiquitous personal computer upon which I am writing this essay and upon which you are reading it. We realize that this wonder of technology that in so many ways defines our lives has evolved by fits and starts. One person or group developed this and some other individual or group added that. From hardware to software we have advanced from the Commodore to the Mac from the mainframe to the tablet. To trace the development of the life changing wonder now takes volumes yet we wake up every morning, turn it on, go to work, and never give a thought as to how it got here. Such is the scaffold which delineates both our limits and our freedom.
In the simplest of societies, when two individuals meet a basic level of order is inherently understood thus establishing a sphere of action that is recognized as belonging to each one separately. In personal relations this is usually through the unconscious acceptance of rules inbred by that society not by formal law. These are habits of thought and action not expressed as legally proscribed but instead as universally accepted.
This is the basis for the abstract nature of human society wherein individuals respond in a similar manner to circumstances which share some but not all things in common. People will obey and follow such abstract rules long before it becomes necessary to write them down. People knew it was wrong to murder or steal long before it became necessary to have formal laws saying these actions were illegal.
The most important aspect of laws in relation to freedom is that they need to be general and they need to apply to everyone equally as opposed to directives which are specific and focused. It is vitally important to keep these two aspects of society’s structure clearly understood and delineated.
Laws should be applicable to all people at all times in all places. In this way they do not encumber our freedom and are more as a natural part of the environment with which all must contend equally. As laws are applied in varying situations they become more specific and directed morphing from law into directive. Directives proscribe the actions of individuals and laws define the actions of all.
For example in a large enterprise most of the time individuals will go about their tasks without singular guidance. They will follow standing orders adapting them to unique situations as they arise only on rare occasions receiving specific direction. In other words within the sphere of general subordination most of the time is spent as an autonomous actor accomplishing individual tasks.
In this large enterprise we envision all activity is directed ultimately by the highest authority. In order to provide for the appearance of unforeseen and unforeseeable events a certain amount of latitude is always allowed to the individual. This is the sphere of freedom even within a tightly controlled environment. Of course this also means that the means to any end must be presupposed to be allocated to any particular individual presented with any particular circumstance. Such an allocation of resources might be the assignment of particular things or times that can be applied by the individual to their own design.
These general guidelines for individuals can only be altered by new laws from the highest authority that are announced for longer periods of time and for more unforeseen events. These new laws may serve to change the shape or complexion of the sphere of freedom however they will apply to everyone and therefore become an impediment to personal freedom akin to a natural barrier affecting all the same. Everyone must climb the same mountain to reach the same valley.
Thus within even a tightly controlled enterprise each individual comes to know what their sphere of liberty is, where it ends, and another’s begins. This is how, even within societies that mandated the communal ownership of the means of production and the state ownership of everything else such as the former USSR, people still spoke of “My” house, “My” clothes, and “My” children.
Some measure of liberty will always exist as long as humans are humans. Even as our current government seeks to exert control over the totality of life our sphere of liberty still exists.
The greatest safeguard for the preservation and restoration of liberty is the limitation of the power of government to move beyond the general into the specific. As long as laws apply to everyone the individual is secure. As long as the laws our representatives pass apply to them as well as us we are all secure. However when we find ourselves dominated by a perpetually re-elected ruling class aided, abetted, and encouraged by a unionized civil-service-protected nomenclature intent on ignoring constitutionally mandated limits we approach a time when the directives of the few will trump the laws of the many.
We need limits to be free. In a complex society we need laws to have limits. The Constitution was written to limit the laws to certain areas for certain reasons making them general and universally applied. The progression of the advocates of control past the written certainty of the Constitution to the fog of the Living Document seeks to issue directives that are specific and individually applied.
Anarchy does not bring freedom but neither does totalitarian control. Somewhere in between is the sweet spot. Somewhere in between lies a dynamic relationship where each person does not do whatever is right in their own eyes and no one attempts to make every decision for everyone everywhere. Somewhere in between is a place that declares that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been endowed upon everyone equally by our creator. Somewhere in between lays a more perfect union of limited government, personal liberty, and economic opportunity. We were there once. Let’s find our way home.
Keep the faith, keep the peace, we shall overcome.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens firstname.lastname@example.org Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Published By: All Right Magazine on March 5, 2014
Published By: All Right Magazine on March 5, 2014
Follow Barber on Twitter.
Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”
He was right.
In the aftermath of the Arizona religious-freedom skirmish, I have a few questions for those who would presume to compel religious business owners, under penalty of law, to “provide goods and services” to homosexuals in a way that violates that business owners conscience.
- Should a homosexual baker be forced to make a “God Hates Fags” cake for Westboro Baptist church, simply because its members claim to be Christian?
- Should a black printer be forced to develop and print thousands of “White Power!” flyers for a skinhead rally just because the potential customer is white?
- Should a Christian florist be compelled to create and provide black floral arrangements to a hell-bound customer for her upcoming Satanist ritual?
- Should a “progressive,” environmentalist sign-maker be required to design and manufacture “Global Warming is a Farce” signs for a tea-party rally?
- Should a Muslim photographer, commissioned by San Francisco’s “Folsom Street Fair,” be forced to document that vile event – rife with nudity and public sex – simply because the customers identify as “gay”?
- Should a “gay married” lesbian hotel owner – a card-carrying member of GLAAD – be required, under threat of incarceration, to host and cater a fundraiser for the “National Organization for Marriage,” a group that opposes so-called “marriage equality”?
If you said no to any of the above, and you opposed Arizona’s cowardly vetoed SB1062, then you’re logically inconsistent and need to re-evaluate your position.
To clarify – liberals, I know you have a difficult time understanding the “Constitution” with its outdated “Bill of Rights” and all – I’m not talking about refusing business to someone just because he appears effeminate or she appears butch, or even when that someone is an “out and proud” homosexual.
I’ve never even heard of a case where a Christian baker randomly refused to provide baked goods – such as a birthday cake – to any homosexual, absent a scenario in which those goods endorsed a message the baker finds repugnant (rainbow “pride” cupcakes, “gay wedding” cakes and the like). I’ve never heard of a single instance in which a Christian business owner arbitrarily said to a homosexual: “We don’t serve your kind here.”
And neither can the left provide such an instance. Because it doesn’t happen. If it did happen, it would be front-page news for a month.
No, I’m specifically referring to scenarios that have occurred – and continue to occur – with alarming frequency. Situations in which Christian business owners are being sued, fined or even threatened with jail time for politely declining to apply their God-given time and talent to create goods or services that require they violate deeply held – and constitutionally protected – religious beliefs.
It really is that black and white. This was never about the person. It was always about the message. It was never about “discrimination.” It was always about liberty.
While from a constitutional standpoint it’s not even necessary, that’s all the drafters of SB1062 and similar such bills have endeavored to do. Because government has begun alienating unalienable rights at a level unparalleled since passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, legislators have attempted to merely re-affirm the already existing right for religious business owners to live out their faith without fear of persecution or government reprisal.
Seriously, unless you’re fascist, who could disagree? Nobody should ever be forced to spend their time and talent to endorse – whether directly or indirectly – a message or event that he or she finds repugnant. I don’t care if you’re Christian, pagan, black, white, “gay” or straight. That’s your God-given right as an American.
As a constitutionalist, I’ll remain consistent; will you? If you’re a homosexual photographer, for instance, and, for whatever reason, you oppose natural man-woman marriage, and you choose to exercise your right to only photograph “gay weddings,” then knock yourself out. If I come knocking and want you to photograph my wedding, and you tell me to pound sand, I’ll suck it up and take my business down the street.
And I won’t even demand you be thrown in jail for it.
See how easy that was? I mean, you’re a liberal. You’re “pro-choice,” right?
Starting to get it?
Well, let me be clear so there’s no misunderstanding. If I’m a business owner and someone comes in requesting goods or services that would require me to violate my conscience – especially my biblically based, sincerely held religious beliefs – I will not, under any circumstances, provide those goods or services. This is my absolute, non-negotiable, constitutionally guaranteed right.
No debate. No question. No compromise.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”
Those are wise words from a wise man. For purposes of today’s debate, however, those words require a slight contextual modification. No “anti-discrimination” law that presumes to remove the constitutional right of business owners to operate their business according to conscience is worth the paper it’s written on.
Poo paper for puppy.
So, liberals, knock off the Alinskyite obfuscation and conflation. Quit throwing around all this “Jim Crow” crap. It belittles the legitimate civil rights struggle and makes you look stupid. You’ve created an ugly and offensive straw man and beat the stuffing out of him.
I rarely agree with “gay” activist Andrew Sullivan, but on the subject at hand, he at least has a remedial understanding. Gloss over all the obligatory “homophobe” and “bigot” nonsense, and he recently made a few good points on “The Dish”:
“I favor maximal liberty in these cases. The idea that you should respond to a hurtful refusal to bake a wedding cake by suing the bakers is a real stretch to me. … There are plenty of non-homophobic bakers in Arizona.
“We run the risk of becoming just as intolerant as the anti-gay bigots [read: Christians], if we seek to coerce people into tolerance. If we value our freedom as gay people in living our lives the way we wish, we should defend that same freedom to sincere religious believers and also, yes, to bigots and haters. You do not conquer intolerance with intolerance. … I’m particularly horrified by the attempt to force anyone to do anything they really feel violates their conscience, sense of self, or even just comfort.”
And besides, as constitutional law expert Jan LaRue recently observed in an email: “If they believe their own rhetoric, that we’re hateful bigots, why would they even risk eating our cakes?”
Published By: All Right Magazine on March 5, 2014
The Tragedy of Fidel Castro was nominated for the Montaigne Medal Awards 2014.
Published By: joncrane on March 5, 2014
GROUP CATAPULTED TO NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT IN ITS FIRST YEAR
Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty will return to CPAC (March 6-8, National Harbor, MD) as national support for the death penalty reaches a 40-year low. Republican lawmakers across the country have been taking the lead in calling for an end to capital punishment, with GOP legislators sponsoring and co-sponsoring such bills in Kentucky, South Dakota, and New Hampshire.
Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty debuted at CPAC one year ago. In its first year it has gained a score of endorsements, including one from former Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul. The group has formed a strategic partnership with Young Americans for Liberty and is assisting local conservative groups that are forming in states such as North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska.
“The outpouring of support we’ve received from the conservative movement has shattered the myth about conservatives support for the death penalty,” said Marc Hyden, national coordinator for Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty. “We know beyond any doubt that many conservatives have serious reservations about capital punishment.”
Conservatives Concerned founder, Roy Brown, a former Montana House Majority Leader and GOP gubernatorial nominee, will be among those representing the group at CPAC. “I am delighted that so many of my fellow conservatives are re-examining the death penalty and discovering it is wasteful, unfair, error-prone, and out-of-step with conservative values,” Brown said.
Other group representatives will join Brown at CPAC: local Republican Party leaders from Texas, North Carolina, and Montana, including the Director of the Montana Young Republicans, and Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty staff.
Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty will be at booth 717 in the CPAC exhibit hall.
Published By: StridentConservative on March 5, 2014
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has vetoed Senate Bill 1062, a bill that would have allowed businesses, such as wedding photographers and wedding cake bakers, to assert their religious beliefs in rejecting participation in same-sex wedding events. While she claims to have lamented over how the bill “could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want,” her true motivation really boiled down to simple dollars and cents.
This bill was never about discrimination; it was about religious freedom. Due to her pathetically weak “leadership” on the issue, Brewer allowed the the pro-homosexual lobby to turn this into an “anti-gay” discussion. A group of bipartisan law professors presented Brewer a letter that made this contention while asking her to consider the measure for what it was . . . not what it wasn’t.
Brewer wasn’t alone in her vacillation. Several sponsors of the bill channeled their inner John Kerry by voting for the measure and then voting against it, along with Senator Jeff Flake—whose last name becomes more appropriate the longer he serves—and the recently censured, but still a lifetime member of the G.O.P. Hall of Shame, John McCain. Even Mitt Romney encouraged Brewer to veto the bill. And as we all know, nobody knows how to win like Mitt.
Read the rest at The Strident Conservative
Published By: Texas Drifter on March 5, 2014
Marshall’s Law Dateline – Only thing more dangerous than a fool is a vain arrogant fool. “Wanting” accomplishes nothing; only “doing” accomplishes anything. Ignoring America’s cultural traitors in America’s cultural war is foolish.
Concepts re-affirming above premises include:
1. Cultural treasons exist in America’s cultural war, and
2. Obama’s hatreds of America’s traditions, values, principles, and history could one, cause Obama to start nuclear war to show what a “tough guy” Obama thinks he is; or two, start a nuclear war to protect his legacy of being Marxist-fascist failure of not totaling destroying America.
Objectives of America’s cultural war enemies are to destroy America’s: traditions, values, principles; including inalienable rights; due process constitution; ethical capitalism; middle class attitudes; plus putting America’s national security interest last.
Ways to verify above concepts:
1. First separate America’s patriots from America’s cultural war traitors and enemies.
2. Reader can list America’s domestic and foreign cultural war allies.
3. List of America’s cultural war enemies includes:
- Soviets by any other name
- Some middle East countries (reader can list)
- Reader can add to list
4. Reader can also develop preliminary list of America’s culture war traitors, starting with but limited too activist judges; minority race and ethnic haters; greedy seeking to steal other people’s property like Marxist-fascists for poor; and corporate fascists for internationalist Republican establishment ruling class elite aristocrats.
Simple obvious solutions to restoring America to Heaven’s favorite constitutional republic: unleash America’s natural energy resources through ethical capitalism by reducing taxes and elimination of most Marxist-fascist regulations. Second build America’s armed forces into being able to manage a three front war: Soviets by any other name; Chinese imperialists; and Islamic fascist terrorists and their collaborators like Mexico and other third world Spanish speaking countries that hate Americans.
Fact, above America last America haters seek to destroy American Hispanic citizens and American legal residents first. TRUE or FALSE
People ask what is Soviet by any other name Putin’s long term strategy. A very good guesstimate is to win Second Cold War. Putin seems to be driven to reclaim Soviet by any other name’s greatness before losing First Cold War. How, by using Obama’s vanities and in competencies to “transform” to quote Obama, America’s economic power base to a third word socialist country that Russia and China can “outspend” as President Reagan did to Soviets and China to win first Cold War. TRUE or FALSE
Translation: Putin and China are survival pragmatists and have learned they lost their first Cold War by not being able to “outspend” America on armed forces technologies in their first Cold war. TRUE or FALSE
Clue, Putin being knowledgeable of counter intelligence measures probably uses every contact with Obama “to teach” Obama that Cold War lessons were how evil Americans used capitalist greed to defeat socialist brothers Putin and Obama with their different Marxist fathers.
Talk has been spreading across America by conservative cult and clique leaders that only the truth is needed to keep Americans free. Brutal facts of real political world are: might may or may or not make right; truth without metaphorical swords is comparable to Obama’s foreign policy. Reference last writing exercise: “Citizen Investigation Ethics” Library Entry # 643 Marshall’s Law Texas Drifter Library “Obama’s national defense policy, we will urinate in our pants if we do not like what you do”. TRUE or FALSE
Seems some recently arrived in Texas, carpetbagger cult leader and his followers have been and are advocating same Obama self defense policy. TRUE or FALSE
Bonus question – seems ironic that it took shiftless Texas drifter drifting in and out of part time dementia to explain Putin’s long term strategy. TRUE or FALSE
Final question not for points, rather reader’s own curiosity: what kind of patriot are you; if you ignore, tolerate or support either America’s culture war traitors or American culture war enemies?
Published By: Texas Drifter on March 5, 2014
Marshall’s Law Dateline – Following reviews ethical principles not principals for managing investigations; art of managing investigations will be reviewed in another writing exercise. Who better to present following observations than author private sector Texas continuing education training manual “Spy As A Verb: Art ands Ethics of Surveillance?
Investigative process has one and only one sole objective: discover facts for truth. Citizen investigation managers must never let their personal likes or dislikes of investigation target corrupt integrity of investigation with prejudicial investigative process.
Clarification, citizen investigation managers can supervise one person investigation; them self; or be responsible for actions of eight or more team members. Specifics provided in art of managing investigations.
Translation: Texas Drifter’s introduction with potential clients always involved informing client: Professional standards’ include running only non-prejudicial investigations. Results of my efforts will be same: good, bad, indifferent, or nothing regardless of who pays for my time.
Moral courage for citizen investigator manager is measured by their ability to find answers to unspeakable questions. Ethics for citizen investigation managers starts with real world pragmatism not conclusions shadowed by vanity; lust for greed or power of fascist ideologies like Marxist-fascism, corporate fascism, or Islamic terrorism.
The citizen investigation manager believes that a no backup attitude is the difference between winners who never quit, and survivors who quit when they break even. Obvious truths: patriots ignoring national security threats or domestic tyranny always spend too much time at cemeteries.
Devotion to citizen investigation management teaches the following: intelligence is power; accurate information is intelligence and non-prejudicial investigations generate accurate information. Conclusion: covert investigative intelligence can provide an edge that when combined with appropriate timely resources can determine outcome.
Citizen investigation managers have two basic operation management styles to choose from: observer or participant. Mutual components for both operation management styles include: security; resource management; databases; contacts; experts; investigation; surveillance; and undercover activities.
It takes ability, experience, integrity, and attitude to make participant management style work. “Citizen Investigation Ethics” will hopefully start learning process that it takes integrity; ability; experience; and extreme duty attitude to make participant management style more successful than not.
Non-prejudicial investigations should be based on ethical industry standards, not relative industry standards. Basing investigations on innuendos, deceptions, frauds, or lies like governments acting like tyrants violates Commandment “You shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
Why would Obama’s Marxist-fascists or corporate fascist Republican establishment ruling elite aristocrats have bureaucrats engage in such conduct? Answer can be found in another Commandment: You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.
Why should anyone be surprised that Marxist-socialists or corporate fascists who are motivated by lust for power and promiscuity or greed like Obama’s Republicans like McConnell, McCain, Cornyn, Boehner, and others reader can list thrive on serving evil?
Point is no matter how much one seeks justice for America’s unwashed and Americans with middle class attitudes who have been; still are; and will continue to be victimized from crimes by Progressive Democrats and Obama’s Republicans also called RINOs. Due process legal prosecutions and due process punishments are necessary to distinguish good citizens from evil among us in U.S.
Otherwise vengeful conservatives will only be replacing one evil with another evil. Only exception being, self defense scenarios which can be divided into exigent and pre-emptive. Exigent by definition is requiring immediate action. Pre-emptive definition is to prevent something from happening.
Here is where exigent and pre-emptive can become blurred legal lines. Consider Texas Drifter’s “battered citizen syndrome” concept. Should new self defense statutes in States like Texas consider expanding citizens’ self defense statutes to include “battered citizen’s syndrome”?
Reference excerpt about “battered citizen syndrome” from All Alright Magazine – Texas Drifter: Is Affluenza Why DC Elites Blanking Crazy? www.allrightmagazine published February 10, 2014.
(Start insert) Allow “battered citizen syndrome” as valid defense when affluenza victims threaten law abiding citizens’ personal security and property as defined by “castle laws”. For more information on “battered citizen syndrome” reader can reference:
Following excerpt from GREEN WHITE WHITE published January 1999 by Editor Marshall – page 150, item “068”.
*068* – One wonders if abuses of socialist governments generate a “battered citizen syndrome?” If battered wife syndrome is a valid defense for use of violent solutions; is the battered citizen syndrome also a valid defense for citizens who react in a similar manner against abusive government?
Intellectual consistency requires that those who accept the battered spouse syndrome as a legal defense to justify violence against an abusive spouse must also accept the battered citizen syndrome as valid legal defense for citizen/s who lashes out with violence against abusive government/s which seems synonymous with abusive husbands or spouses.
To accept less is to deny legitimacy of actions by America’s Founding Fathers in 1700’s; actions by Texas rebels in 1830’s, or actions of those who sought to establish nation of Israel following World War II.
What constitutes sufficient legitimate abuse that contributes to battered citizen syndrome can be debated, but existence of battered citizen syndrome can not be debated. (End excerpt)
Battered citizen syndrome’s time may arrived since being exposed to too much wealth or too “easy” a life can be medically and legally determined to be a mental illness which rationalizes threatening, injuring, and even killing other inno0cents now called collateral damage. TRUE or FALSE (End excerpt)
Returning to investigation management ethics: Seems obvious, but starting investigations while crime is in progress is preferable, and gets more difficult as more time elapses from “end of crime”.
Compare synonyms tips, clues, and leads to evidence in civil cases, and probable cause for search warrants for evidence in criminal cases. Public sector has advantage of using extortion in criminal cases that do not exist is private sector. Anyone doubting this only need wait until Obama’s enforcement regulators come after you, your family, or friends.
Comparing “baiting” in civil cases to entrapment in criminal cases can be reviewed in “Art of Citizen Investigations”
Citizen investigators need to distinguish between different investigation standards among: civil; criminal; domestic war crimes; national security; and few others.
Perhaps good start for citizen investigators is to learn differences between “tips, clues, leads” and evidence.
Following are good sources of “tips, clues, leads”, and some cases evidence for citizen investigators to begin their collection processes for possible domestic war crimes trials.
1. Diaries recorded as soon after event as possible including basics like: who, what, when, where, and why
2. List of potential future witnesses
3. Copies or photos of papers or documents
4. Letters, tapes, photos, receipts
5. Forensic evidence indicated when and where taken using caution not to contaminate with “chain of command” list
6. Electronic (learn “bugging” and “wiretapping” statutes in relation to “consent recording”)
7. Internet items
9. Information is to be collected for potential war crimes trials involving abusive, tyrannical, or treasonous politicians and their accessory allies; not to be “snooping old hag witch”
Future potential targets of possible domestic war crimes may include:
1. Marxist-fascist Progressive Democrat: politicians, appointees; allies, and public sector accomplices.
2. Corporate fascist Republican establishment ruling elite aristocrats: politicians, appointees; allies, and public sector accomplices.
3. Public sector and private sector allies to above evil among us in U.S.
4. Others reader can list
Security issues for citizen investigation managers
1. No gossiping to inflate vanity; need to know only best rule
2. Keep copies and duplicates in different places
3. Share one set of materials with attorney when appropriate
4. Additional items provided when dealing with “Art of Citizen Investigations”
Question: In shades of gray worlds, citizen investigation managers may be required to maintain control while working wounded without backup. Regardless of special circumstances, citizen’s investigation management is not a career for self-destructive or those wanting to be remembered as heroes. Rather profession for those devoted to truth. TRUE or FALSE
Additional question: Perhaps the most neglected public relations tactic when dealing with witnesses, clients, staff, and the public is professional courtesy. Professional courtesy is one of those traits that separate amateurs from professionals. This important career trait represents a learned habit that comes from maturity.
It does not matter how vile or contemptible the person in question is, they are entitled to professional courtesy. Citizen investigation managers and their agents do not have to like or respect everyone, but they do need to exhibit professional courtesy to everyone. Personal respect and professional courtesy are different concepts. TRUE or FALSE
First bonus question: The citizen investigator should never work for or assist: liars, thieves, those who depend on employee “bullet catchers”, or those who always depend on others to do “dirty work”. TRUE or FALSE
Second bonus question: Obama by transforming America into impotent world economic power with approaching impotent armed forces due to budget reductions initiated by Republican Defense Secretary, and supported by corporate fascist Republican establishment ruling elites are providing American citizens opportunities to watch pending genocide of America’s allies. Who will be next on destruction of America’s allies list? Texas Drifter will start list: Israel; Taiwan, South Korea, parts of Europe; perhaps Saudis and even Philippines?
Perhaps list can even include some American States due to twenty million plus illegal immigrants in America engaging in cultural genocide against America’s traditions, values, and principles? Reader can add to list.
Perhaps these times might be appropriate times for Americans to start considering becoming citizen investigation managers for potential domestic war crimes trials involving domestic crimes by Obama Care and other domestic policies; plus actions future juries might consider as being acts of national security treasons TRUE or FALSE?
Clue: Does anyone really believe that Obama’s “We will urinate in our pants if we do not like what you do” national defense policy; will protect America or any ally? Consider Obama’s only remaining “tough guy” option: peace through nuclear war.
Editor Marshall Disclaimer: Neither, Texas Drifter nor Editor Marshall, are attorneys and neither makes any pretense to be so. Information is provided for information only with all applicable disclaimers applying.