Starting a career in Intelligence can be daunting due to its secret nature. Finding information can be frustrating. I have outlined some important considerations to aid your decision-making.
Covert vs. Overt
Covert is secrecy. In some capacity, what you are doing or who you are, is kept secret. Covert also means your lifestyle will be different. You will have to maintain details of your deception, keep secrets from loved ones, and be vigilant regarding breaches in your cover. If you have a spouse and children, it will require them to help you keep up your cover.
Overt is openness. Although you may not be able to tell about the assignments you work on, you can tell whom you work for or what your job title is. These jobs do not generally cause any lifestyle changes.
Education vs. Experience
Which is more important? I had an arduous time getting hired for lack of experience. Most agencies will take experience over education.
However, education is equally important. This is especially the case if you have limited experience. My degrees were the sole reason for my acceptance to the Department of Homeland Security since my competition also lacked experience.
You should take every opportunity to gain both education and experience. While you are working on your education, apply to jobs and/or internships that gain you experience, even if they are unpaid. Whether education or experience is preferred will vary upon the agency and who your competition is for that specific job.
Strategic vs. Operational
Strategic is the over-arching intelligence. It describes trends, makes predictions, and looks at the over all big picture. I was being strategic when I looked at methamphetamine trends for the state of Kentucky.
Operational is down in the weeds. These people are generally gathering the intelligence. I was being operational when I was aiding officers on a methamphetamine case.
Home vs. Abroad
This decision will affect your opportunities. Jobs within the States are generally going to be desk jobs or with a domestic law enforcement agency.
If you are not averse to traveling abroad, the field is wide open. Remember your family in this decision, as they will be affected as well. They may have to travel with you or you may be traveling frequently without them knowing where you are.
Government vs. Civilian
Government can include federal, state and local. Every state has intelligence positions, just as the federal government does.
Civilian jobs are mostly with defense contractors. The important thing here is that the benefits are significantly different, so research them well, and contracts can be cut easier than government jobs if there are budget issues.
L. Murray is a Senior Policy Analyst with Sussman Corporate Security. She has worked for the Department of Homeland Security and the KY State Police Intelligence Branch. She has a Masters of Intelligence w/concentration in Terrorism and a B.S. in Political Science.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/8649865
Monday, 14 March 2016
A Diminishing Republic Ruled by Obama, or by Law?
If you were an American law enforcement officer, say a city police officer, sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and your State Constitution and to enforce your State's penal code, and you knew of a conspiracy being hatched to rob a bank in your city, would you prepare to arrest the perpetrators before they robbed the bank and brought serious harm to innocent people? Moreover, if you knew that the perpetrators were known criminals with long rap-sheets filled with crimes and misdemeanors, would you try to act speedily to keep the crime from occurring? Yet, what if your watch commander and, even, your police chief, told you to stand-down when you reported to them the incontrovertible facts about the impending crime, when it was going to occur, how it would occur, and the specific day and time? What if they, however, told you that it didn't matter and to forget about it?
To answer these poignant questions, I will specifically point to an article that appeared on the front-page of the August 2, 2014 edition of the "Washington Post" entitled, "Obama readies executive action on immigration." This article, coming from about the most Marxist propagandizing newspaper in the country, flippantly published this excuse for journalism with the same contempt for the U.S. Constitution as they did when they announced that the great (illegal) bill, Obamacare, was on the President's desk for signature. The article should have, instead, be properly entitled, "Obama plans high-crime to issue the illegal and unconstitutional executive order granting amnesty to further denigrate the U.S. Constitution. Why is this so?
Well, the most compelling reason is that executive orders are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. They are an abstruse creation of the U.S. Supreme Court. Article 2 does not, in any way, give the President authority to hold the legislative, executive, and judicial powers in one hand, and a bull-whip in the other. The President, as chief executive, has only the specific power to issue directives, not laws, that affect only the working status of the employees of the executive branch. He has no power to unilaterally create a law (tantamount to a U.S. statute or code), to define and interpret its legal status, and to enforce it. That is the precise definition of pure tyranny.
Remember the infamous executive order issued by the first real American fuhrer, Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he ordered, in late 1941, that all of the innocent Japanese-Americans be rounded-up and imprisoned in internment camps? That order was later ruled as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, as it should have been before it was issued. That order was responsible for over 100 deaths in those internment camps, and ruined quite a few human lives. Something very awful, after 1929, happened to the majority of the American people when they were exposed to the severe adversity of a Depression deliberately engineered by the Federal Reserve, in 1927, when it secretly ordered that 1/3 of the paper and coin money in circulation be taken out of circulation incrementally (Economist Milton Friedman establish this fact). By 1929, the runs on the banks and savings and loans in the nation were imminent. Then, when it happened, the People of the United States buckled to socialism, government regulation, and the philosophies of John Maynard Keynes, which were implemented by FDR in his unconstitutional New Deal. The People surrendered their precious liberty and freedom to the federal government for some temporary physical security, thinking that FDR was a savior instead of the demon he was. There were at that time a few American constitutional patriots who fought Roosevelt, but through FDR's deceitful conspiracy and collusion, proven through detailed historical research, they lost the fight.
The first executive order was, surprisingly, rendered by good old President George Washington when he took it upon himself to do the job of Congress by ordering the building of the first federal mint. Congress should have tongue-lashed Washington and told him never to assume a legislative power that rightfully belongs to the Congress. Nonetheless, Washington was not reprimanded (he was, for some reason, extolled) for his usurpation of the U.S. Constitution, and a precedent was unconstitutionally set that a President has the power to issue "executive orders." Yet, the old, but true, aphorism, "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile" was exemplified by that happening, and has been evermore true in the passage of history since that first illegal order was given.
Now, getting back to illegal immigration, there are laws, U.S. Codes, that have been passed by plural (Democratic and Republican) Congresses, and signed by standing U.S. Presidents, going back to Harry Truman, which make illegal immigration into the United States, across U.S. borders, a crime, and actionable by federal law enforcement. According to standing law, any federal law enforcement officer can intervene in the commission of a federal crime, such as bank robbery, kidnapping, shoplifting, and illegal immigration. If they deliberately don't intervene during robberies or kidnappings, they can't use, as an excuse for not intervening, that it was not his, or her, jurisdiction. This applies to all federal law enforcement officers, the FBI, the U.S. Marshall's Service, the DEA, the ATF, etc. For example, if an armed, or unarmed, U.S. Border Patrol officer or INS (ICE) agent witnesses a bank robbery, a kidnapping, an act of shoplifting in DC, or an act of illegal immigration, he, or she, has the authority to intervene, to stop the crime, and to arrest the perpetrators. If an FBI agent, perchance, witnesses a van-load of illegal aliens, from Tijuana, Mexico, unloading in Chula Vista, California, he has the jurisdiction to intervene and arrest the aliens and turn them over to the U.S. Border Patrol. This is only as reasonable as the duty of a deputy sheriff to have the jurisdiction to enforce any, and all, state laws in any city in that county where the local police are not witnesses to crimes that are committed. The object of law enforcement, federal, state, and local, is to maintain the public peace and security for the residents of the States who are American citizens, through the proper enforcement of all laws, federal, state, and local, legislated and enacted for the public good. When these laws are deliberately not enforced, the peace and security of the People, for which these laws were intended, diminishes in proportion to the diminution of law. I believe that this is what the Honorable John Adams meant when he solemnly said, "We are a nation of laws, and not of men."
So, in the beginning of this essay I asked what you, an American peace officer, would do if you knew that a sordid federal crime, a felony, had been planned, and when it was going to be perpetrated. If you also knew that the federal law enforcement officers, sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and to enforce all standing federal laws, were going to standby and allow the crime to be committed, what would you do? I have some associates who are federal law enforcement officers, FBI and U.S. Border Patrol, and some associates who are Department of Justice lawyers. And you know what? They don't give a diddly-squat about whether high-crimes are being committed by the U.S. President; and what a shame it is! These federal fat-cats are much more interested in maintaining an unlawful status quo, in order to continue getting their paychecks and retirements, than in the rule of law. All of them are bowing to their boss, Eric Holder, and saying to him, "You're command, which is your fuhrer's command, is my desire to enforce." Would you, a sworn peace officer, throw-up your hands and say, "There's nothing I can do?" Or would you do something, perhaps something a bit drastic?
Of course, what you would have to do is to first come to a conclusion as to whether the issuance of an unconstitutional executive order is essentially tantamount to the commission of a bank robbery, murder, or kidnapping? Let's, for a moment, go back to FDR and consider a blatant correlation that cries-out for recognition. When that fascist President illegally ordered the internment of over a million Japanese-Americans, U.S. citizens, and some of those people died during their internment, was that order tantamount to a felony? Were those deaths the result of the commission of involuntary manslaughter, or murder by Roosevelt's henchmen? When American citizens directly suffer, to the point of death, through the issuance of unconstitutional executive orders, shouldn't something drastic be done? Will Obama's order to give amnesty to illegal aliens, in direct violation of federal law, cause the People of the United States (the residents of your State) to suffer from crime, lack of jobs, and deliberately engineered social disorder (70 percent of the violent crimes in San Diego are committed by Hispanic illegal aliens)? My opinion is, and will forever be, that when the standing federal, state, or local laws are discounted, negated, ignored and unenforced by the chief law enforcement officers and their direct enforcers, anarchy will preside, which calls for that system, allowing such absence of law, to be abolished and a new system instituted which will ensure the blessings of liberty and freedom for the People. This is only the recourse stated in that blessed document that was the foundation of American republican government, the Declaration of Independence.
When due process of law, and the reasonable acts of the American citizens, the People, to redress their grievances against the government, have no impact on the illegalities that are being routinely perpetrated by an obviously guilty standing U.S. President, his federal henchmen, and the U.S. Representatives and Senators who are in collusion with him, letters, calls, and faxes to the Legislative and Executive branches are of no avail. They don't read them. Most of the faxes go into the circular file. These hypocritical people have other capricious agendas, and do not want to hear your complaints and grievances. I know this to be a fact. The Representatives and Senators who are really trying to uphold, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution are in a very small minority of the Legislative branch, and the mainstream media denounce them. When the Speaker of the House is a 195 pound mental weakling, and allows the Executive branch to push him, and the House of Representatives, around, the House cannot accomplish anything collectively; and neither can a Senate, which is comprised mainly of millionaire Marxists.
The only thing that will make a real difference is if 75 million American citizens, the electorate of working men and women of the American Republic, put down their jobs temporarily and collectively converge on Washington, DC in force, to surround the Capitol Building, the Supreme Court, and the White House, and demand, what Dr. Michael Savage has called, a revolutionary change in government to restore the U.S. Constitution as the exclusive federal rulebook. You, the People, have that right, according to the Declaration of Independence. What will the feds do if it happens, order the young men and women of the military to fire on their mothers and fathers? It will never happen!
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/8650711
To answer these poignant questions, I will specifically point to an article that appeared on the front-page of the August 2, 2014 edition of the "Washington Post" entitled, "Obama readies executive action on immigration." This article, coming from about the most Marxist propagandizing newspaper in the country, flippantly published this excuse for journalism with the same contempt for the U.S. Constitution as they did when they announced that the great (illegal) bill, Obamacare, was on the President's desk for signature. The article should have, instead, be properly entitled, "Obama plans high-crime to issue the illegal and unconstitutional executive order granting amnesty to further denigrate the U.S. Constitution. Why is this so?
Well, the most compelling reason is that executive orders are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. They are an abstruse creation of the U.S. Supreme Court. Article 2 does not, in any way, give the President authority to hold the legislative, executive, and judicial powers in one hand, and a bull-whip in the other. The President, as chief executive, has only the specific power to issue directives, not laws, that affect only the working status of the employees of the executive branch. He has no power to unilaterally create a law (tantamount to a U.S. statute or code), to define and interpret its legal status, and to enforce it. That is the precise definition of pure tyranny.
Remember the infamous executive order issued by the first real American fuhrer, Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he ordered, in late 1941, that all of the innocent Japanese-Americans be rounded-up and imprisoned in internment camps? That order was later ruled as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, as it should have been before it was issued. That order was responsible for over 100 deaths in those internment camps, and ruined quite a few human lives. Something very awful, after 1929, happened to the majority of the American people when they were exposed to the severe adversity of a Depression deliberately engineered by the Federal Reserve, in 1927, when it secretly ordered that 1/3 of the paper and coin money in circulation be taken out of circulation incrementally (Economist Milton Friedman establish this fact). By 1929, the runs on the banks and savings and loans in the nation were imminent. Then, when it happened, the People of the United States buckled to socialism, government regulation, and the philosophies of John Maynard Keynes, which were implemented by FDR in his unconstitutional New Deal. The People surrendered their precious liberty and freedom to the federal government for some temporary physical security, thinking that FDR was a savior instead of the demon he was. There were at that time a few American constitutional patriots who fought Roosevelt, but through FDR's deceitful conspiracy and collusion, proven through detailed historical research, they lost the fight.
The first executive order was, surprisingly, rendered by good old President George Washington when he took it upon himself to do the job of Congress by ordering the building of the first federal mint. Congress should have tongue-lashed Washington and told him never to assume a legislative power that rightfully belongs to the Congress. Nonetheless, Washington was not reprimanded (he was, for some reason, extolled) for his usurpation of the U.S. Constitution, and a precedent was unconstitutionally set that a President has the power to issue "executive orders." Yet, the old, but true, aphorism, "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile" was exemplified by that happening, and has been evermore true in the passage of history since that first illegal order was given.
Now, getting back to illegal immigration, there are laws, U.S. Codes, that have been passed by plural (Democratic and Republican) Congresses, and signed by standing U.S. Presidents, going back to Harry Truman, which make illegal immigration into the United States, across U.S. borders, a crime, and actionable by federal law enforcement. According to standing law, any federal law enforcement officer can intervene in the commission of a federal crime, such as bank robbery, kidnapping, shoplifting, and illegal immigration. If they deliberately don't intervene during robberies or kidnappings, they can't use, as an excuse for not intervening, that it was not his, or her, jurisdiction. This applies to all federal law enforcement officers, the FBI, the U.S. Marshall's Service, the DEA, the ATF, etc. For example, if an armed, or unarmed, U.S. Border Patrol officer or INS (ICE) agent witnesses a bank robbery, a kidnapping, an act of shoplifting in DC, or an act of illegal immigration, he, or she, has the authority to intervene, to stop the crime, and to arrest the perpetrators. If an FBI agent, perchance, witnesses a van-load of illegal aliens, from Tijuana, Mexico, unloading in Chula Vista, California, he has the jurisdiction to intervene and arrest the aliens and turn them over to the U.S. Border Patrol. This is only as reasonable as the duty of a deputy sheriff to have the jurisdiction to enforce any, and all, state laws in any city in that county where the local police are not witnesses to crimes that are committed. The object of law enforcement, federal, state, and local, is to maintain the public peace and security for the residents of the States who are American citizens, through the proper enforcement of all laws, federal, state, and local, legislated and enacted for the public good. When these laws are deliberately not enforced, the peace and security of the People, for which these laws were intended, diminishes in proportion to the diminution of law. I believe that this is what the Honorable John Adams meant when he solemnly said, "We are a nation of laws, and not of men."
So, in the beginning of this essay I asked what you, an American peace officer, would do if you knew that a sordid federal crime, a felony, had been planned, and when it was going to be perpetrated. If you also knew that the federal law enforcement officers, sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and to enforce all standing federal laws, were going to standby and allow the crime to be committed, what would you do? I have some associates who are federal law enforcement officers, FBI and U.S. Border Patrol, and some associates who are Department of Justice lawyers. And you know what? They don't give a diddly-squat about whether high-crimes are being committed by the U.S. President; and what a shame it is! These federal fat-cats are much more interested in maintaining an unlawful status quo, in order to continue getting their paychecks and retirements, than in the rule of law. All of them are bowing to their boss, Eric Holder, and saying to him, "You're command, which is your fuhrer's command, is my desire to enforce." Would you, a sworn peace officer, throw-up your hands and say, "There's nothing I can do?" Or would you do something, perhaps something a bit drastic?
Of course, what you would have to do is to first come to a conclusion as to whether the issuance of an unconstitutional executive order is essentially tantamount to the commission of a bank robbery, murder, or kidnapping? Let's, for a moment, go back to FDR and consider a blatant correlation that cries-out for recognition. When that fascist President illegally ordered the internment of over a million Japanese-Americans, U.S. citizens, and some of those people died during their internment, was that order tantamount to a felony? Were those deaths the result of the commission of involuntary manslaughter, or murder by Roosevelt's henchmen? When American citizens directly suffer, to the point of death, through the issuance of unconstitutional executive orders, shouldn't something drastic be done? Will Obama's order to give amnesty to illegal aliens, in direct violation of federal law, cause the People of the United States (the residents of your State) to suffer from crime, lack of jobs, and deliberately engineered social disorder (70 percent of the violent crimes in San Diego are committed by Hispanic illegal aliens)? My opinion is, and will forever be, that when the standing federal, state, or local laws are discounted, negated, ignored and unenforced by the chief law enforcement officers and their direct enforcers, anarchy will preside, which calls for that system, allowing such absence of law, to be abolished and a new system instituted which will ensure the blessings of liberty and freedom for the People. This is only the recourse stated in that blessed document that was the foundation of American republican government, the Declaration of Independence.
When due process of law, and the reasonable acts of the American citizens, the People, to redress their grievances against the government, have no impact on the illegalities that are being routinely perpetrated by an obviously guilty standing U.S. President, his federal henchmen, and the U.S. Representatives and Senators who are in collusion with him, letters, calls, and faxes to the Legislative and Executive branches are of no avail. They don't read them. Most of the faxes go into the circular file. These hypocritical people have other capricious agendas, and do not want to hear your complaints and grievances. I know this to be a fact. The Representatives and Senators who are really trying to uphold, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution are in a very small minority of the Legislative branch, and the mainstream media denounce them. When the Speaker of the House is a 195 pound mental weakling, and allows the Executive branch to push him, and the House of Representatives, around, the House cannot accomplish anything collectively; and neither can a Senate, which is comprised mainly of millionaire Marxists.
The only thing that will make a real difference is if 75 million American citizens, the electorate of working men and women of the American Republic, put down their jobs temporarily and collectively converge on Washington, DC in force, to surround the Capitol Building, the Supreme Court, and the White House, and demand, what Dr. Michael Savage has called, a revolutionary change in government to restore the U.S. Constitution as the exclusive federal rulebook. You, the People, have that right, according to the Declaration of Independence. What will the feds do if it happens, order the young men and women of the military to fire on their mothers and fathers? It will never happen!
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/8650711
Being Judgmental Ends in Chaos
Being non-judgmental has taken on a positive connotation in our culture. Our society has moved away from consequences due to false self-esteem and our welfare mentality. The only people punished are those who insist on traditional Christian-Judaic values. Being bad is good, good is bad. These upside down values are leading us down a rapid decline in our standards of behavior and morals. We are on a trajectory to chaos.
It is true, many people of our older generations have put people with different cultural values down without understanding them. The need to be superior to others has often been the motivation in shunning people with different values.
The modern "anything goes" attitude, which is really scoffing at traditional values has severe consequences in our society. Today we are facing a more destructive behavior of not noticing a person who is being offensive or harmful to another. These obnoxious, belittling behaviors have lost their stigma and are becoming acceptable. A vulgar person might be cursing another in front of youngsters. An individual might be speaking loudly on his cell phone or watching a pornographic video in a public place or putting down his spouse or child for everyone to hear.
We are often cowardly ignoring any inappropriateness even those behaviors we know are harmful to that individual. In our politically correct culture, we are being conditioned to keep our mouths shut so as not to offend someone that is publicly offensive to those around him.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, coined the phrase, "deviancy down" to highlight when a society begins to tolerate the intolerable. At this point evil behavior explodes. He noted the break-up of the family not only produced emotional scars for all of its members but created a vacuum where moral values were no longer communicated from one generation to another.
Lowering our institutional standards in education, media, judiciary, military and religion has had disastrous effects. Grades are inflated in our schools to appease parents and to maintain student's false high esteem. The progressive state run media does not report the true news story but creates a narrative to push an ideological agenda. The courts, the DOJ and military are not sending a clear message that there will be serious consequences for disobeying the law.
Even our churches are not teaching and stressing a clear moral code. Instead they are communicating a moral relativism that is weakening and undermining the conscience of our populace. Too many religious people have remained silent when members of the church have sexually molested children. It is unconscionable when a person representing the church takes sexual advantage of a child. When the people of the congregation are tolerant of any horrific act it makes them accomplices to the crime. This non-judgmental silence of people in many institutions is making it an easier environment for "anything goes" immoral behavior to prevail.
The softening of our moral conscience by our institutions is making it that much tougher for God fearing and loving families to keep high moral standards. Citizens are becoming demoralized with being punished for maintaining high standards while irresponsible parents and adults are seen as "cool."
We are witnessing an epidemic of parents not motivated to fulfill their duty as parents by not commanding their children to stop inappropriate actions. The parent does not demand an end to the child's shenanigans as it may appear abusive. Instead many "cool" parents go out of their way to assist their youngsters in illicit behaviors such as underage drinking, drugging and sex.
Often the parent does not put his foot down because the parent does not want to alienate the spouse and suffer the consequences or feel the anger and resentment of the child. They choose to look the other way when the children do something inappropriate not to harm the unnatural, phony friendship with their child. They do not want to be the bad guy as the head of the family.
Mature adults should realize that not stopping negative behavior is a lost opportunity to do one's moral responsibility.
Maybe it is time we analyze what the non-judgmental mentality is doing to the social fabric of our society. High standards based on moral values and expectations will bring about an upswing in wholesome and productive behaviors. These time-tested traditional moral values will reverse our decadence returning us to peaceful, prosperous stability.
Dr. Maglio is an author and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/8645758
It is true, many people of our older generations have put people with different cultural values down without understanding them. The need to be superior to others has often been the motivation in shunning people with different values.
The modern "anything goes" attitude, which is really scoffing at traditional values has severe consequences in our society. Today we are facing a more destructive behavior of not noticing a person who is being offensive or harmful to another. These obnoxious, belittling behaviors have lost their stigma and are becoming acceptable. A vulgar person might be cursing another in front of youngsters. An individual might be speaking loudly on his cell phone or watching a pornographic video in a public place or putting down his spouse or child for everyone to hear.
We are often cowardly ignoring any inappropriateness even those behaviors we know are harmful to that individual. In our politically correct culture, we are being conditioned to keep our mouths shut so as not to offend someone that is publicly offensive to those around him.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, coined the phrase, "deviancy down" to highlight when a society begins to tolerate the intolerable. At this point evil behavior explodes. He noted the break-up of the family not only produced emotional scars for all of its members but created a vacuum where moral values were no longer communicated from one generation to another.
Lowering our institutional standards in education, media, judiciary, military and religion has had disastrous effects. Grades are inflated in our schools to appease parents and to maintain student's false high esteem. The progressive state run media does not report the true news story but creates a narrative to push an ideological agenda. The courts, the DOJ and military are not sending a clear message that there will be serious consequences for disobeying the law.
Even our churches are not teaching and stressing a clear moral code. Instead they are communicating a moral relativism that is weakening and undermining the conscience of our populace. Too many religious people have remained silent when members of the church have sexually molested children. It is unconscionable when a person representing the church takes sexual advantage of a child. When the people of the congregation are tolerant of any horrific act it makes them accomplices to the crime. This non-judgmental silence of people in many institutions is making it an easier environment for "anything goes" immoral behavior to prevail.
The softening of our moral conscience by our institutions is making it that much tougher for God fearing and loving families to keep high moral standards. Citizens are becoming demoralized with being punished for maintaining high standards while irresponsible parents and adults are seen as "cool."
We are witnessing an epidemic of parents not motivated to fulfill their duty as parents by not commanding their children to stop inappropriate actions. The parent does not demand an end to the child's shenanigans as it may appear abusive. Instead many "cool" parents go out of their way to assist their youngsters in illicit behaviors such as underage drinking, drugging and sex.
Often the parent does not put his foot down because the parent does not want to alienate the spouse and suffer the consequences or feel the anger and resentment of the child. They choose to look the other way when the children do something inappropriate not to harm the unnatural, phony friendship with their child. They do not want to be the bad guy as the head of the family.
Mature adults should realize that not stopping negative behavior is a lost opportunity to do one's moral responsibility.
Maybe it is time we analyze what the non-judgmental mentality is doing to the social fabric of our society. High standards based on moral values and expectations will bring about an upswing in wholesome and productive behaviors. These time-tested traditional moral values will reverse our decadence returning us to peaceful, prosperous stability.
Dr. Maglio is an author and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/8645758
Wedding Vows Cherished As Marriage of 62 Years Is Over
In Bakersfield, CA, a true love story has came to an end. The featured love of the Simpsons had flourished for decades; as a result of their love at first sight marriage. They met in a bowling alley... Thereafter, Don Simpson gained more knowledge concerning his career move, and set out for California in order to share their married lives--filled with commitment--together for 62 years.
Don and Maxine Simpson decided to marry early, and took this commitment only a few months after they encountered each other. This maturing relationship presumed for decades, as they grew and had families, while Don worked in his profession.
After an extremely unique passing, the Don and Maxine Simpson's relationship has moved on. This extraordinary couple of 62 years had experienced the fate that only true romantics can enjoy. Family members are stunned and honored by method of their sudden deaths. Mr. Don Simpson set the trigger when his hip was damaged by a fall. Thereafter, his wife's detrimental ailment of cancer began to worsen as the days went by.
Melissa Sloan rushed to aid her elderly family members. she did what she could to keep her grandparents together the entire time. In fact, she ensured that her grandparents were in the same room, holding hands, until her grandmother's final breath. Unfortunately, Melissa's grandfather, Don Simpson, passed just four hours after his wife was removed from his presence.
Don and Maxine Simpson made the promise "till death do us part" when they were young, but the phrase gained new meaning this week when the two died just four hours apart. Instead of mourning, the Simpsons' family is choosing to celebrate their love.--Melissa Sloan
"I walked them out with her body," Sloan explained. "Walked back in to check on grandpa and he quit breathing as soon as her body left the room. He left with her, and they passed four hours apart from each other."
"It's just amazing. It really is amazing. It's a true love story," she added.
According to sources, after a traumatic experience, such as losing a cherished loved one, the body goes through changes. These particular changes may affect the heart, causing an overflow of hormones to overwork the left side of the heart. Ultimately, this couple will be remembered as a true love story that ended, while holding genuine value to their wedding vows of being together until the end..
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/8653867
Don and Maxine Simpson decided to marry early, and took this commitment only a few months after they encountered each other. This maturing relationship presumed for decades, as they grew and had families, while Don worked in his profession.
After an extremely unique passing, the Don and Maxine Simpson's relationship has moved on. This extraordinary couple of 62 years had experienced the fate that only true romantics can enjoy. Family members are stunned and honored by method of their sudden deaths. Mr. Don Simpson set the trigger when his hip was damaged by a fall. Thereafter, his wife's detrimental ailment of cancer began to worsen as the days went by.
Melissa Sloan rushed to aid her elderly family members. she did what she could to keep her grandparents together the entire time. In fact, she ensured that her grandparents were in the same room, holding hands, until her grandmother's final breath. Unfortunately, Melissa's grandfather, Don Simpson, passed just four hours after his wife was removed from his presence.
Don and Maxine Simpson made the promise "till death do us part" when they were young, but the phrase gained new meaning this week when the two died just four hours apart. Instead of mourning, the Simpsons' family is choosing to celebrate their love.--Melissa Sloan
"I walked them out with her body," Sloan explained. "Walked back in to check on grandpa and he quit breathing as soon as her body left the room. He left with her, and they passed four hours apart from each other."
"It's just amazing. It really is amazing. It's a true love story," she added.
According to sources, after a traumatic experience, such as losing a cherished loved one, the body goes through changes. These particular changes may affect the heart, causing an overflow of hormones to overwork the left side of the heart. Ultimately, this couple will be remembered as a true love story that ended, while holding genuine value to their wedding vows of being together until the end..
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/8653867
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)