Distichia Moralia provides with keen wisdom the following, “Speech is given to many; intelligence to few.” After the European trip of US President Joe Biden, intelligence is in short supply in the White House, the staff, and of course, the US Media! Would someone please tell me how so many can say so much, yo-yo’ing from one point to another, and still make no sense? Honest question, the other day someone told me the patients were running the asylum, and I countered no, the clowns took over the circus. Both sentiments are accurate, but I detest clowns, and mental patients can occasionally do something brilliant.
Now, to be perfectly fair, little Joey Biden has a mental cognition problem that is more than likely some form of senility or Alzheimer’s disease. I am not entirely blaming little Joey; his spouse and handlers bear the full brunt of the blame and deserve their punishment for not allowing this senile old man to retreat to his beloved basement and finish the rest of his days in solitude and grandchildren. May little Joey sniff hair and massage shoulders in a creepy fashion after retirement to his heart’s content. But his handlers, the complicit media, and his spouse need to be hauled in front of a judge for elder person abuse!
From Australia’s Sky News, the BBC, Daily Mail, FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, and Jerusalem News, essentially covering the entire globe, every media channel worth a small moment is complaining about Biden’s European performance. Not all media channels are created equal, but to have them all complaining about Biden in Europe is pretty phenomenal. To have Biden walk back his handlers’ “clarification” and then renounce his previous sentiments in the same speech is nothing short of a full-blown communication failure.
To clarify, I do not care what you embrace for your political party. Any person with half a brain cell can observe what is happening and know instinctively that the elected leaders have no clue and even less intelligence. Worse, their intellectual ability for self-preservation is running on fumes and day-old flatulence. Truly, “speech is given to many, and intelligence to few.” Unfortunately, this is not the tip of the iceberg humanity is headed towards at full speed!
Satire is truth wrapped in comic wit and presented for discussion. Never taken seriously as supported by how many “shock” comedians? Yet, the Babylon Bee is removed from Twitter because some Twitter employees think they have a special mission from their god CEO Parag Agrawal to silence any voice they deem “hostile.” More people prove that “speech is given to many; intelligence to few.” Would someone please tell me how Kathy Griffin can parody cutting off then President Trump’s head, and she can maintain a Twitter account, but the Babylon Bee has their account suspended. Worse, Kathy Griffin, a fully non-humorous comedienne, got a Netflix special, but Dave Chapelle was hounded mercilessly for weeks because he told the truth and was actually funny.
Kathy Griffin, Dave Chapelle, Biden/Trump, Babylon Bee, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Apple, and others are tied into a Gordian Knot over the topic of controlling speech unconstitutionally. Whether as perpetrators, victims, or politics, every actor mentioned, especially those not mentioned, as this was NOT a definitive list, all share in the ongoing saga over the First Amendment.
A reminder, the First Amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The perpetrators who are pulling the political strings to hinder and thwart the First Amendment hide, like evil thinking cowards, cower behind the shield, “Congress.” Claiming that since they are not Congress, they only prohibit speech on their private platforms conditional as part of the “User Agreement” or as private citizens or businesses. Hence, limiting the speech of others is entirely legal, moral, and socially acceptable, intentionally muddying the lines between legal and illegal for entertainment or some other bloviated excuse. Except, what these perpetrators are doing is stealing freedom from everyone for personal profit.
What is “Hate speech?” Sure, the lawyers have concocted a definition for court, but in practice, “Hate Speech” is anything any person who thinks they possess a modicum of power deems it to be. Any tool that limits speech will be used as a weapon to beat people out of their rights and freedoms and steal the same to enslave all. The Supreme Court regularly hears cases on First Amendment issues, specifically speech. Of the five freedoms protected and enshrined in the First Amendment (Speech, Religion, Press, Assembly, and Petition the government), speech is the one most often attacked. The Supreme Court has wisely used the rule of thumb, “Screaming ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater,” as the basis for whether to rule speech as governed under the First Amendment or not.
Why is this a wise rule of thumb? Because creating panic in a population enclosed in a building should not be protected “free” speech as the consequences are dire indeed. But does this mean anything else goes; absolutely! A simple rule exists to explain why, “When you limit the freedoms of a single person in a society, the entire society loses ALL of their freedoms, rights, and liberties.” Democracy is messy! A constitutional republic is doubly chaotic! We, the citizens of either a democracy or a constitutional republic, accept this as a necessity to protect our individual rights, freedoms, and liberties.
This means when Twitter declares something as broaching their “User Agreement” and limiting one person’s speech, as a citizen of the United States, every citizen of the United States loses! When Facebook or LinkedIn practice censorship in the name of “socially acceptable speech,” they are thwarting the US Constitution and decrying they are the wisest of us all and intelligent enough to declare what is and is not “acceptable” speech in a public environment. When YouTube ends people’s livelihood because they do not like the content in a video, everyone loses their right to produce content free from burdensome oppression.
Chris Rock was free to make a joke about Jada Pinkett-Smith as a point of reference. Will Smith was perfectly in his right to first laugh at the joke and then choose to become offended. But, Will Smith’s rights ended when he took action and hit Chris Rock. Speech is a responsibility, and exercising speech properly means sometimes being held accountable for the speech made. Unfortunately, modern society has allowed people to make offensive and degrading remarks without accountability for too long, which is a problem. However, the solution is not to control speech by a business, company, government, non-governmental board/organization, etc. The solution is to remind people of the accountability inherent in exercising their rights to speech.
Speech is never “Free.” Free speech means no consequences to what you say, but the reverse is true, and speech has a significant cost! Ask any disabled veteran about the cost of speech, and let me know if they claim their injuries are free. Worse, ask any person jailed who made a speech if their speech was free, and tell me if their sufferings, depravations, and sacrifices were without cost. Chris Rock was entirely in his right to make an offensive joke. I did not find it funny. But could Chris Rock have been held accountable for his poor sense of humor without being slapped on international television; absolutely. But, name me another group of people who abuse the rights, freedoms, and liberties of others without care and concern than Hollywood. I know of no other industry!
Yet, Hollywood has taken it upon themselves to be the lords and masters over everyone else when they cannot control themselves. Solidifying the permanence in the principle, “Speech is given to many; intelligence to few.” How many known victims of Harvey Weinstein? How many unknown victims are living? How many dead victims? How long was Harvey Weinstein abusing his power to subjugate people to whet his appetites and passions? How many others are currently copy-catting Harvey Weinstein’s example?
The government has failed to police Hollywood, and Hollywood refuses to police itself, but how many in Hollywood are willing to insist that Hollywood needs a deep cleansing, an injection of values, morals, and law; not many, if any. Name another industry so rampant and steeped in villainy, depravity, and disgust that it can escape basic law enforcement. Hollywood spawned Bollywood and how many other incarnations in countries around the globe, all suffering from the same moral vacuum and creating the same social decay without consequence. Spoilt children, parading as virtuous adults, demand their rights, liberties, and freedoms, all while denying others the same rights, liberties, and freedoms. Demanding politicians, the same politicians fawning and feeding the Hollywood monster, to use the powers of government, and big business, to thwart laws for their own profit and gain.
Have you ever heard of a “Casting Couch?” In business, the military, and government, a “casting couch” is sexual harassment, a crime worthy of jail, heavy fines, and social scorn for the perpetrator. In Hollywood, the “Casting Couch” is regular business for those desiring to be in Hollywood, and the victims, if they speak out, are scorned and unemployable. The horror stories about the “Casting Couch” are depraved, disgusting, and the victims’ ages run the gamut, all with little to no consequences for those soliciting sexual favors in return for employment in Hollywood. The case of Harvey Weinstein ripped the scab off the festering wound of Hollywood, but Big Business and Government have helped keep the wound alive and infected, to the shame and horror of the victims.
Will Smith, enjoy the spotlight your actions created, and may the consequences fit the crime. Chris Rock, you’re still not funny. Wanda Sykes, you lost your funny. The Oscar’s is not worth my time and energy to scorn, let alone watch. But, Hollywood, your industry is sick, and the greatest crime is that your infection is spreading faster than a case of Chlamydia in the Playboy Mansion. Hollywood, you have lost any and all claims to tell anyone else how to live and until you clean up your mess, I will continue to refuse you my money. You might start by remembering, “Speech is given to many; intelligence to few.”
© Copyright 2022 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the images. Quoted materials remain the property of the original author.
In 1993 one of the biggest hits was a song called “
My wife the other day asked me why I don’t quit jobs I have undertaken. She doesn’t understand the lessons I have learned; I cannot do a poor job. I cannot commit to doing a job and give less than my full potential and all of my talents, skills, and abilities. Even when it means I am surrounded by enemies in a hostile environment where my life is constantly threatened. I have to give it everything I have; I owe this debt to my neighbor that must be serviced. I have earned a working man’s Ph.D. as well as a couple of master’s degrees from the school of hard knocks; I owe too much to those who have taught me to forget these lessons.
Hard work teaches hard lessons, but the lessons learned are worth more than gold and diamonds, and I wouldn’t trade a single lesson learned for all the money in the world and all the fame in Hollywood. Of all the degrees and titles I have acquired in this world, or will acquire, the only one I ever want is that of “Hard worker,” for that single title says it all. When the chips and markers are counted at the end of life, I want to be found pulling my weight. I might be disabled, I might be stubborn as a Missouri Mule with a mean streak a mile wide, but I want to be found pulling my weight.
My deepest thanks to Aaron Tippin for his example and his incredible talent as a singer and person. I have met many military people who sing Aaron Tippin’s praises, and I am very grateful for the talent shared. May I encourage you to consider how well your studies are progressing on your “
Please excuse me; I am branching out a little today. However, I am not entering into the realms of religion, even though prayer and faith will be discussed. I make this clear at the beginning so as to ensure no misunderstanding occurs; I am not here to tell you how, where, what, when, or who to worship; all I expect is the same courtesy in return. We can discuss sensitive topics without causing problems and individuals choosing to be insulted. There is a phrase (verse) in a book considered scripture by The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints that appears in the writings of Moses, somewhat differently worded as counsel to Joshua. The same idea appears in the Old and New Testaments, and while in slightly different verbiage, it is available in various religious texts, dogmas, and belief structures.
Like tiny stones that fill gaps and plug holes in an earthen dam, the faithfulness of small things empowers the dam to remain strong. Consider the story of the Dutch kid with his finger in the dam, it was a small thing that broke, and it was a small thing that plugged the hole. Faithfulness is not about grand actions, large token gifts, and glorious virtue signals. Faithfulness is all about the small daily acts of charity, the defense of a friend when gossip comes, and the day-to-day carrying out of duty. Have you ever seen a 
Consider two examples and determine which is faithful to their cause, even if you do not support their cause. Congresswoman A. Ocasio-Cortez went to the MET Gala event wearing a “Tax the Rich” message on her dress. Tickets cost upwards of $35,000, and other costs are always exorbitant for these affairs. Al Gore and the man-made climate change political machine demand that everyone else change their behavior, but not those directing the movement. Personal lives do not reflect the public image created, personal conduct does not reflect public demeanor towards the issues advocated, and individual lifestyle does not meet minimum standards to match words. By definition, is either of these two faithful to their causes? Why are they followed?
Let me be clear, upfront, and personal; I am not here to tell you what to think, how to think when to think, or where to think. I will not force my opinions and ideas upon you as the global corporate media does. I will offer ideas and suggestions and how you proceed is your affair. Your choices will determine your destiny. I aim to aid you in understanding and viewing the world a little differently to improve your destination.
For example, Speaker Pelosi tore up President Trump’s State of the Union speech record on live, national TV as a knee-jerk response to the sitting US President. Of all the US President’s Speaker Pelosi has experienced, her behavior to President Trump was the most toddler-like, and people quickly excused this behavior as “Trump-Derangement Syndrome (TDS).” Thus, we can drop the “knee” in knee-jerk responses and describe the activity aptly as being a jerk. No thought, not intentional activity (even though the action has intention, the brain does not register cognitive effort), and the reaction to the stimulus is mono-synaptic.
Macro-aggression is the complete opposite and are “obvious, intentional, above-board insults, where there is no chance of a mistake on the part of the transgressor to be provoking, insulting, or otherwise discourteous.” But, again, the definition does not include the fact that the person claiming another person’s activities are macro-aggressive is a personal choice, a judgment, and a socially powered decision.
Micro- and macro-aggression are often claimed to be “triggered” by specific words, colors, foods, waters, fruits, and a host of other items. Essentially using fear and envy to demand people act differently or the consequences are toddler-like fits and fussing, picketing, rioting, looting, e.g., acting like a terrorist. Thus, micro- and macro- aggression is nothing but the toddler throwing a temper tantrum because they are not getting what they want at that moment. While claiming their aggression is on behalf of someone else, and their acts of terrorism are excusable because the aggression was triggered by someone or something else. This is like the eight-year-old older brother or sister throwing a fit that the toddler was punished and claiming they are behaving irrationally in support of the toddler’s tantrum. How many parents will buy this logic; I do not!
Love them or hate them, comedians have changed since I was a kid sneaking peaks of comic relief on cable while washing dishes late into the night. Comedians now carefully pick their materials based upon their perceptions of the audience. Thus, we have classes of comedians, including “Shock Comedians,” who try to be as offensive as possible and still get laughs. We have political comedians; some come down equally on both sides of the political aisle, others are as cemented to a political agenda as they can be and use their “comedy” as a tool to influence their audiences towards that political agenda. We have a host of comedians dedicated to helping people laugh and others who see themselves as able to influence, regardless of consequences.
Last week, while scrubbing my SPAM folder on Gmail, I discovered that Google had arbitrarily been sending several emails containing news of a more conservative slant straight to SPAM. Why would Google arbitrarily act in a manner to thwart the delivery of email? A topic for discussion later in this article.
I am not excusing individual accountability for specific acts, but every silent politician in America has condoned the divisive behavior. The corporate media have fed the violence and division, and the press has even been videoed participating in the violence. My wife stated something, “The problems have become too great for any single individual to make a difference.” I vociferously disagreed then and state unequivocally now that good is still in the majority of America and Americans and that 
Join me! Join with your neighbors and family members! Let us for a community of responsible and intelligent citizens, who are informed, and active in halting the government abuses at every turn! As a united front, we can win! Believe that, and we are halfway to restoring America to the ”Shining city on a hill!”
Military commanders are taught there are two great sins in planning operations; one is waiting, and predictability and the other is indifference. Today, business leaders are instructed well by academics about the problems with waiting to make a decision, failing to act, and the costs of blown opportunities from taking too long to make a decision. But few have ever considered the costs of indifference. I intend to close this gap in education, using some recent examples and some history to reflect why indifference is a corrosive acid on the souls of men.
Let’s take Robert Solomon’s position that emotions are a choice, a judgment, and a social event. Indifference is not distinguishable from other emotions and remains a choice, a judgment, or a social event. Except one is not left trying to distinguish between indifference as emotion and indifference as lacking interest or caring. More to the point, if indifference was simply an emotion to choose, then indifference is apathy, and apathy is another emotion on the path to ruination.
Solomon makes a classic point in tying indifference to defensive mechanisms used in choosing emotional interactions for social situations. Indifference can reflect envy, resentment, hate, disdain, and the “opposite” of these emotions: love and respect—indifference embodying the individual’s psyche through emotional choices. When angry, frustrated, or time-pressured, how many times has the words “I don’t care” slipped out as the position when at another time the decision would not have been indifferent? Is the defensive aspect clear?
Public examples of indifference abound; one of the most obvious was the Beer Summit. President Obama’s indifference to police officers during the Henry Louis Gates arrest debacle in July 2009 reflected poorly in a socially political aspect for all his faults and all his other decisions. Thus the “
President Trump was criticized for caring too much about war zones and problems outside the United States, while the infrastructure crumbled and the poor suffered. President Obama was criticized for his refusals to enforce “Red Lines” being crossed with impunity and where internationally illegal weapons of mass destruction were employed. Which one was a reflection of indifference? Why? I am not getting into political discussions here; the topic is indifference, and recognizing indifference and the consequence from indifferent actions remains crucial to improving decision-making. Both presidents inherited situations where American Troops were in harm’s way, and these troop conditions rightly took priority in decision-making short and long-term. Yet, which president was indifferent? Why? Does indifference change solely because of political leanings? Why?
On this momentous day, marking 100-days of the fraudulent president, I thought it fitting to mark the occasion by reminding everyone of freedom grabbing runaway government promoted by President Biden. As 
Examining closer the 50-executive orders issued by President Biden, we find the most egregious of these orders, 
America, we learned a lot about the “families” presenting themselves at the US Southern Border for entry into America. We learned about child prostitution, children being “attached” to two strange adults and calling it a “family.” We learned about a lot of schemes to feed the growing human trafficking problem in the United States. Yet, the media continues to call the separation of “families” unfair, and the president has proved he learned nothing but smoke and mirrors. At the same time, these children are raped, abused, disappeared, and destroyed, all through executive order instead of legislated demand! Legitimate families should be kept together, but until documentation can be obtained, separating the families for the safety of the children should be paramount! Sorting through the MS-13 plants is not uncaring; it protects America’s main streets from terrorists! But, these immigration policies, designed by President Trump, are hated by the media; so, these policies have to go. Thus, I ask again, do you feel safer in your home or not?
I was never a President Trump (R) supporter; but, I did, and do, support anyone willing to try new ideas to make America safer. I am not a supporter of holding children indefinitely in nice hotels when veterans are homeless and fully support an America FIRST agenda. But, I also firmly believe that the churches and non-profit groups of America can organize to help in a humane way better than runaway government supported by executive fiat!
America, we need legislation on immigration, NOT executive orders that change as frequently as the president! I have maintained this stance, publicly, since President Reagan signed the first orders providing paths to citizenship for illegals. The illegal immigration policies in America can be directly traced to President Roosevelt and WWII executive orders allowing foreign workers access to America’s jobs in agriculture.
If the fraudulent president has proved anything in his first 100-days, he has proved America is in trouble, DEEP Trouble, due to the executive orders, runs around the constitutional process, and the abdication of Congressional rule (legislative branch) at all levels of government. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, this president has proved that bigger government is a millstone dragging this Republic down. Finally, this president has proven you cannot “trust” the government and must watch it like a toddler running with a knife! So, CNN, and all the other corporate media outlets, you cheer the fraudulent president; but don’t you dare try to claim this is a good thing for America!
Recently, an email purportedly written or approved by Warren Buffett came through my email inbox. The email has me thinking about the perks and problems in elections, allowing politicians of all levels of government to act like “Lords and Masters” over other citizens. Agree or disagree, your call; however, I do passionately believe that America needs better politicians, and the following are my thoughts on obtaining better politicians.
Agency and freedom, liberty, and capability are interconnected principles needed for a Republic to select its politicians. Term limits unfairly reduce all these interconnected principles, and while I believe in the “Rule of Law,” the framers had good reason not to include term limits. Please note, I am not advocating for a permanent ruling class, nor am I arguing for career politicians; I urge people to think beyond the current disastrous crop of politicians and how they got there. Living in a Republic means change requires time, a lot of time, and sometimes the best politicians need more time but do not have that time due to term limits, so they rush, and in rushing, what could have been a good thing, becomes a disaster!
Thus, bringing us back to the need for better candidates for elections, and a need for better vetting, lower election costs, and keeping an informed electorate firmly in control over the politician elected to lead. Does anyone remember when President Clinton faced impeachment in the Senate for lying; he was genuinely scared of being defeated and kicked out of office. Yet, the governor of California, when facing an impeachment, laughed. That is where politics have fallen since, and because of President Clinton and his vile blaggard of a spouse! Why was President Clinton successful in winning the impeachment process. For two reasons, his wife is an expert in backroom dealing, bribery, and sycophancy, and the Republican Party fell apart without a clear successor that would have been superior to President Clinton.
I have yet to see a “debate” during an election; by the way, neither have you! I have seen manufactured plastic candidates, witnessed corporate media play gotcha, and I observed weak-kneed spineless people talk, but never a debate! A debate includes ideas, not emotion, logic, and reason, not hyperbole and media controllers. A debate does not include commercials! Nor does a debate include 26 or more people on a stage answering questions and interrupting each other for “points.” After a debate, I do not need a talking head “explaining” anything, which is why debates in public used to mean something in politics. A debate should never include more than three people at any one time on a debate platform, and the media are not “asking questions or arbiters of rules, nor are there stopwatches and timed speeches. A debate begins with ideas, ends with logic, and there is no place for the media to interrupt. Pick a topic, detail your ideas, and allow the public to decide.
In conclusion, I have some questions for consideration. I hope to take these questions and form future articles, but before those arrive, I want to spur conversation, and I hope to get mental juices flowing while considering these five fundamental points.
Let me reiterate, America is a Republic (if we can keep it)! A Liberty FIRST Culture knows and understands political accountability and responsibility is crucial to maintaining a free republic. Better candidates are needed to improve those who win political office. I do not know about you, but I am through with coddling the current politicians across America. They need to act for the best of all America or leave office and be held accountable! There is no third option!
Some of you are thinking, “I will skip this article because the title does not sound interesting.” I beg your forbearance, just please keep reading. I laughed today, long and loud, over the incompetence of the current elected leaders in America, fully supporting public mocking, public shaming, and public humiliation over the following piece of news.
Let me see if I understand this statement correctly. Political instability, Venezuela’s continuing meltdown politically, and the invitation from many politicians with (D) after their names have nothing to do with the “border surge.” Just like a stricter stance on illegal immigration by President Trump (R) didn’t slow down illegal immigration on the southern border; do I have that correct? Let’s talk about incentives, mainly welfare, housing, education, and a political base that refuses to enforce immigration law, do these not influence a southern border crisis, and buffalo wings come from flying buffalo.
Yet, let’s give VP Harris the benefit of the doubt; maybe her staff did complete an RCA process to reach this conclusion, while she has been sequestered and unavailable since the election. If so, it would be easier than stepping off a curb to produce the RCA in detail and allow us, the electorate, to see how and why she is blaming the weather for a migration crisis. This is a reasonable request, produce the proof an RCA was completed, where climate change is the only root cause in a “complex problem.” Want to raise the stakes a little; if you cannot produce the RCA and accompanying evidence, along with the plans of action, you leave American politics forever. If you produce the evidence and RCA, I will issue a sizeable public apology and never write about politics again. I am waiting!
Today 03 March 2021, the BBC ran an article titled, “
Let us face the elephant in the room; the BBC is not known for reporting information without personal bias, political opinion, and a hearty dose of fearmongering as tools needed to sell advertising and lure unsuspecting readers to their version of the news. Nothing against the BBC, just acknowledging that when it comes to newspapers and news media, it is always best to understand the basics, corporate media outlets exist to sell advertising. Hence, lurid stories lead!
Finally, let us be perfectly clear, The United States of America is NOT a democracy, but a Republic! America being a Republic is a good thing because democracy is just evil under the guise of freedom. In a democracy, the majority rule, not just a supermajority of 60% of a population or more, but a simple majority of 51 out of 100. Having laws and procedures demanding significant government changes need supermajorities is a protection to the freedom and liberty in a nation, a state, a county, and a city/town.
Returning this discussion to the problems with human rights vs. human obligations. Human rights are laws, and the report is very damning on laws the authors do not like and then claim those laws are anti-human rights. The report’s authors create a couple of human rights from whole cloth to batter politicians they particularly do not like but were democratically elected by their respective populations. The authors’ political bias becomes clear very quickly while reading the report. The report will be like throwing red meat to the political left’s lions and tigers, who will never admit there are biases, issues, and confusion purposefully twisted into facts in the report.
Because human obligations are a reflection of the morals of a population, these do not change, nor should they change, which means that there is a constant method to care for the sick, the afflicted, and the downtrodden. The problem inherent in human obligations is those who consider that it is the government’s job to care for their populations cradle-to-grave when this is simply not possible! No government should ever be saddled with morals, or care for human obligations, as human obligations are individually fulfilled, not government programmed.
The report states, “As COVID-19 spread during the year, governments across the democratic spectrum repeatedly resorted to excessive surveillance, discriminatory restrictions on freedoms like movement and assembly, and arbitrary or violent enforcement of such restrictions by police and nonstate actors.” All of which is true and distressing in the extreme. Yet, the rest of the paragraph twists a couple of half-truths into facts and closes with how non-democratic governments went to the extreme to punish their citizens during a “global pandemic.” Still refusing to believe, or even consider, that the government response to COVID has been the problem from the beginning of Sars-COV-2 spreading from China across the world.
Since the authors got the social unrest in the United States wrong, how can anyone have verity that the rest of the report was right? More, where human rights and human obligations cross, how can the authors get away with spreading half-truths as facts and diminish any country through a couple of authors’ personal biases and opinions? Since the matrix for measuring “democracy” is not revealed, how do the authors make the conclusions they make with unsubstantiated data?
DNC-Consulting 