Texas Drifter: America’s Lost Second Tradition Found
Marshall’s Law Dateline – Reader can reference All Right Magazine to refresh their memories with “Texas Drifter: America’s First Tradition”. America’s lost second tradition can be traced back to 1581; specifically: The States General of the United Provinces of the Low Countries Act of Abjuration (Plakkaat van Verlatinghe 1581 july 26).
Definition of abjuration: to revoke oath, vow, or promise. More about America’s lost second tradition later in writing exercise.
Courage for any American begins with admitting inevitable. Why, so one can prepare to confront future adversaries. Classic example, Colonel Travis’s “line in the sand” behind crumbling walls of old adobe church called Alamo. Travis informed his volunteers that re-enforcements were not coming and that they had two choices; leave, or “stand heel and toe” until death for their yet unborn republic, Texas.
Courage confronting question for America’s contemporary citizens is accepting inevitable that sooner or later, America will be dragged into its’, what historians will call America’s Second Civil War”. Reader can dispute this by identifying any past republic that did not eventually let illegal immigrants called barbarians or excessive numbers of professional welfare recipients cause their republic to collapse and be replaced with emperor or Caesar.
America’s next civil war will not be between geographic regions; where regulars some dressed in blue uniforms and others dressed in gray uniforms line up across open fields and shoot at each other. America’s Second civil War will be between good and evil: one side depending on militias, guerillas, saboteurs, and other patriots. While bad guys will probably depend on SWAT teams serving abjuratory politicians; who revoked their public oaths to Heaven and the American people to uphold, protect, and defend America’s Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
Evolution of America’s inalienable rights and due process rights are as follows:
1. Ten Commandments
2. Act of Abjuration July 26 1581
3. Mayflower Compact
4. Declaration of Independence
5. U.S. Constitution
6. Bill of Rights
7. 1860’s International Law
8. First Civil War Standards for Mutual Treatment of Prisoners
9. General Lee’s Warning Letter to President Lincoln
10. World War II Nurnberg Trials Standards
11. Cold War Standard of Mutual Destruction
Texas Drifter will briefly review some of lesser known above polices with reference sources for reader at end of writing exercise.
Starting with America’s found lost second tradition: The Act of Abjuration of 1581 which was very well known with many drafts floating among America’s drafters of Declaration of Independence.
Act of Abjuration was created to inform king of Spain that he had forfeited sovereignty and right to govern affected provinces by his persistent tyranny. This document was first nail in ideological concept for “divine rights of earthly kings”.
Premise was an earthly king was constituted by God to be ruler of a people, to defend them from oppression and violence as the shepherd his sheep; and where as God did not create people to be slaves to their earthly king; and when earthly king does not behave thus, rather oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe on their ancient customs and traditions exacting from the people slavish compliance; earthly king is no longer earthly king rather only a tyrant; particularly when tyrant’s actions are deliberate, people may not only disallow his authority but follow what law of nature dictates for the defense of their liberty and their posterity even at hazard of people’s lives.
According to ancient privileges which are expressed in the oath taken by earthly king at his admission to government; most Provinces receive their prince upon certain conditions, which earthly king swears to maintain, which if earthly king violates, he is no longer sovereign. (Preceding two sections shortened for editing purposes).
Moving on to 1860’s International Law as defined by Dr. Lieber; German immigrant who founded Girard College in Philadelphia, taught at University of South Carolina, Colombia College in New York and was “trusted adviser to President Lincoln” according to Virgil Carrington Jones author of GRAY GHOSTS AND REBEL RAIDERS.
According to V. J. Jones, Dr Lieber advised “the rising of the people to repel invasion entitled them to full benefits of the law, and the invader could not well inquire into the origin of the armed masses.”
South responded to cruelty of Northern troops with letter by General Robert E. Lee directed to President Lincoln “that for every man of this class who shall be executed; we will execute in like manner one of corresponding grade selected from prisoners in our custody.”
Bottom line, Northern federal troops like many contemporary federal bureaucrats. “In the end, even top Federal commanders ignored the opinions of Dr. Lieber and retaliated as their individual feelings in the matters dictated, making it a desperate affairs for the irregulars (and civilians)”
Let federal bureaucrats be advised that eventually good guys will win, and evil guys will eventually lose. Bad guys who violate due process rights of good guys’ regular combatants, irregular combatants, or others exercising inalienable rights “en masse” will result in bad guys being tried by Nuremberg type trials.
Federal bad guys need to understand that invaders acting like foreign terrorists may not necessarily possess same due process rights as good guys who have not engaged in “acts of abjuration to U.S. Constitution” before Heaven and American people. Which is one way to distinguish good guys from bad guys; those who honor their oaths are good guys awhile those who “abjure” their oaths are bad guys representing evil.
Perhaps excerpt from “George Washington’s Farewell Address” might say what Texas Drifter is attempting to convey: The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.
Translation: People who abjure their oath are engaging in acts described as high crimes against Heaven and Americans for violating what Washington describes as “sacred obligatory upon all”.
Good guys include: conservatives, Judeo-Christians; original Constitutionalist; ethical capitalists; security nationalists; libertarians; Reagan Democrats; other patriots; and true foreign allies.
Bad guys include (so many, vertical list seems more appropriate):
- Marxist-fascist Progressive Liberal Democrats
- Republican aristocratic ruling elite also called RINOs and Republican House and Senate leaders
- Most all public sector unions “regulators”
- Public subsidy addicts
- Unethical capitalists
- Internationalist America last crowd
- Fascist green environmentalists
- Fascist gun control advocates
- Most entertainment court jesters
- Racists
- Ethic haters
- “me first” special interest groups
- Illegal immigrants
- Islamic-fascist terrorists
- Drug Cartels
- Third world police states
- Emerging fascist capitalists like China
- Reader can list others
There is another category which can be listed in category of bad guys’ allies: common criminals, gang members, drug addicts divided into illegal and legal drugs, reader can list others. Especially of interest are those using anti-depressant drugs who become serial killers at random places like schools, movie theaters, and shopping malls.
Editors are probably wondering how much longer this writing exercise will continue?
Assignment question how many of following American traditions and principles has Obama and his allies abjured?
1. Ten Commandments
2. Act of Abjuration July 26 1581
3. Mayflower Compact
4. Declaration of Independence
5. U.S. Constitution
6. Bill of Rights
7. 1860’s International Law
8. First Civil War Standards for Mutual Treatment of Prisoners
9. General Lee’s Warning Letter to President Lincoln
10. World War II Nurnberg Trials Standards
11. Cold War Standard of Mutual Destruction
Reader can do their own research:
1. The States General of the United Provinces of the Low Countries Act of Abjuration (Plakkaat van Verlatinghe 1581 july 26).
2. GRAY GHOSTS AND REBEL RAIDERS by Virgil Carrington Jones; Galahad Books, New York; Part One: Chapter 10 including referenced notes
3. Other appropriate sources
Bottom line, “America’s Second Tradition Found” will hopefully guide America’s sleeping partisan giant into doing what is best to evil among us, to rebuild Heaven’s favorite Republic; so says Texas Drifter.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Continue Plus 492
Texas Drifter: Every Third Monday KGAB 02-18-2013
Marshall’s Law Dateline – “Every Third Monday” outline interview for Monday February 18, 2013 ideas for Mr. Dave with KGAB AM 650 Cheyenne, Wyoming; will air on Monday February 18, 2013 at 9 AM Central; Listen at KGAB.com.
Interview Theme: Questions and More Questions.
1) Public Information: The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center says that it trains agents for "over 80 federal agencies." Peter Kraska, in a Cato Institute report, estimates that SWAT teams now make 40,000 raids on citizens each year.
Question: how many of eighty agencies with SWAT teams can listener name?
2) Public information: The Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights watchdog has concluded that travelers with in one hundred miles of nation’s borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever — all in the name of national security.
The DHS, which secures the nation’s border, in 2009 announced that it would conduct a “Civil Liberties Impact Assessment” of its suspicion less search-and-seizure policy pertaining to electronic devices “within 120 days.” More than three years later, the DHS office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties published a two-page executive summary of its findings.
Question: Do same "what is Fourth Amendment" policies apply to those within one hundred miles of America’s northern border?
3) Public information: primary issue: private owners using private drones on private property for security surveillance.
Question: Would America’s Founding Fathers have included such technology if it had been available when Bill of Rights were created and added to U.S. Constitution?
4) Public information: some municipal, county, and state law enforcement agencies are having problems acquiring ammunition for training and general operations because feds are seemingly trying to horde by buying all ammunitions to delete supplies for not only from private citizens, but also from all non-federal law enforcement agencies.
Question: Should this concern private citizens and non-federal law enforcement agencies?
5) Public information: South Texas Border communities showed increase in retail sales during both November and December 2012 of estimated eight percent over same months 2011.
Question: Does this suggest Border communities are laundering cartel dollars from retail sales?
6) “Family of US Agent Killed in Mexico Sues Feds”
JAIME ZAPATA'S FAMILY HAS PREVIOUSLY SUGGESTED FAST AND FURIOUS LINK By Kevin Spak, Newser Staff Posted Feb 13, 2013 9:04 AM CST
(NEWSER) – The family of a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who was killed in Mexico and another agent that survived the attack are suing the US government, the agents' supervisors, the company that made their armored SUV, and the gun shops that allegedly sold two of the weapons used, the AP reports. Agent Jaime Zapata was killed and partner Victor Avila seriously wounded in a Feb. 15, 2011, shootout with members of a Mexican drug cartel. The lawsuit is arguing that they never should have been sent on the mission.
The lawsuit also argues that their SUV was flawed—a safety feature caused its door to become unlocked, allowing their attackers to open it—and that the guns were bought in the US; Zapata's family has in the past raised the possibility that they might have been part of the infamous Operation Fast and Furious. Lawyers had been seeking $12.5 million for Avila and $25 million for Zapata's family.
7) Public information: governments’ efforts to expand “background checks” for “private citizen to private citizen gifts or sales” of Second Amendment protected guns.
Question: Despite bold face lies by anti-gun pro-fascists; it is quite possible a grandfather’s estate would have to do background check on grandson to leave gun as inheritance to grandson. A widow would have to do background check on brother-in-law to sell him her deceased husband’s deer rifle. Only really stupid Americans would tolerate private citizen to private citizen back ground checks. TRUE or FALSE
8) Rubio and Rand Paul advocating indirect amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Question: Should conservative position be: Perhaps better deal is no conservative talking to Senator Rubio, Rand Paul or anyone else until Southern Border is secured (word is secured as in past tense). And, no conservative should talk to Senator Rubio, Rand Paul, or anyone else until more accurate number of illegal immigrants on U.S. soil is determined. Facts could prove actual number of illegal immigrants on U.S. soil is closer to mid-thirty million not propagandist claims of eleven million. Reagan thought he was approving amnesty for three to four million not eleven to twelve million or more who actually applied. Difference between eleven to twelve million and thirty million plus will require different national security and domestic tranquility solutions. AGREE or DISAGREE
9) Recent Border News
10) Callers Calls – comments or questions
11) Additional reference sources – Texas Drifter All Right Magazine or Marshall’s Law Townhall
Marshall’s Law Dateline – “Every Third Monday” outline interview for Monday February 18, 2013 ideas for Mr. Dave with KGAB AM 650 Cheyenne, Wyoming; will air on Monday February 18, 2013 at 9 AM Central; Listen at KGAB.com.
Interview Theme: Questions and More Questions.
1) Public Information: The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center says that it trains agents for "over 80 federal agencies." Peter Kraska, in a Cato Institute report, estimates that SWAT teams now make 40,000 raids on citizens each year.
Question: how many of eighty agencies with SWAT teams can listener name?
2) Public information: The Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights watchdog has concluded that travelers with in one hundred miles of nation’s borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever — all in the name of national security.
The DHS, which secures the nation’s border, in 2009 announced that it would conduct a “Civil Liberties Impact Assessment” of its suspicion less search-and-seizure policy pertaining to electronic devices “within 120 days.” More than three years later, the DHS office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties published a two-page executive summary of its findings.
Question: Do same "what is Fourth Amendment" policies apply to those within one hundred miles of America’s northern border?
3) Public information: primary issue: private owners using private drones on private property for security surveillance.
Question: Would America’s Founding Fathers have included such technology if it had been available when Bill of Rights were created and added to U.S. Constitution?
4) Public information: some municipal, county, and state law enforcement agencies are having problems acquiring ammunition for training and general operations because feds are seemingly trying to horde by buying all ammunitions to delete supplies for not only from private citizens, but also from all non-federal law enforcement agencies.
Question: Should this concern private citizens and non-federal law enforcement agencies?
5) Public information: South Texas Border communities showed increase in retail sales during both November and December 2012 of estimated eight percent over same months 2011.
Question: Does this suggest Border communities are laundering cartel dollars from retail sales?
6) “Family of US Agent Killed in Mexico Sues Feds”
JAIME ZAPATA'S FAMILY HAS PREVIOUSLY SUGGESTED FAST AND FURIOUS LINK By Kevin Spak, Newser Staff Posted Feb 13, 2013 9:04 AM CST
(NEWSER) – The family of a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who was killed in Mexico and another agent that survived the attack are suing the US government, the agents' supervisors, the company that made their armored SUV, and the gun shops that allegedly sold two of the weapons used, the AP reports. Agent Jaime Zapata was killed and partner Victor Avila seriously wounded in a Feb. 15, 2011, shootout with members of a Mexican drug cartel. The lawsuit is arguing that they never should have been sent on the mission.
The lawsuit also argues that their SUV was flawed—a safety feature caused its door to become unlocked, allowing their attackers to open it—and that the guns were bought in the US; Zapata's family has in the past raised the possibility that they might have been part of the infamous Operation Fast and Furious. Lawyers had been seeking $12.5 million for Avila and $25 million for Zapata's family.
7) Public information: governments’ efforts to expand “background checks” for “private citizen to private citizen gifts or sales” of Second Amendment protected guns.
Question: Despite bold face lies by anti-gun pro-fascists; it is quite possible a grandfather’s estate would have to do background check on grandson to leave gun as inheritance to grandson. A widow would have to do background check on brother-in-law to sell him her deceased husband’s deer rifle. Only really stupid Americans would tolerate private citizen to private citizen back ground checks. TRUE or FALSE
8) Rubio and Rand Paul advocating indirect amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Question: Should conservative position be: Perhaps better deal is no conservative talking to Senator Rubio, Rand Paul or anyone else until Southern Border is secured (word is secured as in past tense). And, no conservative should talk to Senator Rubio, Rand Paul, or anyone else until more accurate number of illegal immigrants on U.S. soil is determined. Facts could prove actual number of illegal immigrants on U.S. soil is closer to mid-thirty million not propagandist claims of eleven million. Reagan thought he was approving amnesty for three to four million not eleven to twelve million or more who actually applied. Difference between eleven to twelve million and thirty million plus will require different national security and domestic tranquility solutions. AGREE or DISAGREE
9) Recent Border News
10) Callers Calls – comments or questions
11) Additional reference sources – Texas Drifter All Right Magazine or Marshall’s Law Townhall
Monday, February 11, 2013
Continue Plus 491
Texas Drifter: About Drones By Texas Bumpkin
Marshall’s Law Dateline – Following writing exercise submitted by what city slickers disparagingly refer to as Texas Bumpkin. Drones do not kill people; people kill people. Issue is not type of weapons system, drones; would not manned flights accomplish same objectives if drone technology were not available?
Reader can reference definitions of slicker and bumpkin to remember meanings longer.
This writing exercise will evolve into how Texas Legislators are about to adopt legislation that will make it harder for private rural property owners to protect themselves and property from cartel smugglers and terrorists crossing Texas Southern porous border.
Reference following: Representative Lance Gooden, Republican of Terrell, said he was sponsoring legislation to prevent this futuristic technology — increasingly used by everyone from aviation hobbyists to law enforcement authorities — from capturing “indiscriminate surveillance.” Gooden wants to make it illegal to use a drone to monitor private property without express permission or a search warrant.
Primary media issue is strategy of neutralizing not capturing terrorist liabilities. Let me remind you my reader, environment in which drones are currently being used concerns national security foreign war, not domestic tranquility involving law enforcement.
Advantages of using drones is cheaper to operate for longer periods of time at less risk to America’s patriotic warriors.
As for collateral damages, compare collateral damages on contemporary battlefields compared to collateral damages during World War II and places like Dresden and Hiroshima.
Using military drones to neutralize American citizens on American soil, different Constitutional issue than using them on Americans on foreign soil helping America’s enemies destroy America. Then again using drones with lethal capabilities along America’s Southern porous border to control terrorists entering America at will is also separate issue.
Still another issue, perhaps primary issue of this writing exercise involves private citizen’s use of smaller in size drones for private security. Moving a step further, should private drones be limited to surveillance or possibly include self defense for private citizens?
Going even a step further, what happens when sneaky people learn to “hack into” drone control systems and turn drones on original operators? There is a concept for Texas Drifter non-fiction short story: good guys obtain control of drones and use them against bad guys.
All these drone issues are getting Texas Drifter so confused; then again, drones do not kill people is same old issue with new toys. TRUE or FALSE
Question, Americans should be less concerned about technology neutralizing Americans on foreign soil who have joined Islamic-fascist terrorists at war against America and all Americans everywhere. Americans should be more concerned with domestic federal agencies who have stockpiled more than one and half billion rounds of ammunition for public bureaucrats to possibly use on conservative American patriots on American soil. TRUE or FALSE
Question, All federal agencies have their “own SWAT teams”; why when feds’ SWAT teams are unified, feds will have physical superiority over all municipal, county, and state law enforcement agencies should feds choose to suspend U.S. Constitution. TRUE or FALSE
Question, feds are trying to horde by buying all ammunitions not only from private citizens, but also from all non-federal law enforcement agencies. TRUE or FALSE
Next question: governments requiring “background checks” for “private citizen to private citizen gifts or sales” of second Amendment protected guns. Despite bold face lies by anti-gun pro-fascists; it is quite possible a grandfather’s estate would have to do background check on grandson to leave gun as inheritance to grandson. A widow would have to do background check on brother-in-law to sell him her deceased husband’s deer rifle. Only really stupid Americans would tolerate private citizen to private citizen back ground checks. TRUE or FALSE
Still another question: Texas politicians acting like Yankee carpet baggers with rabid souls seeking cheap attention by trying to pass un-thought out anti drone Legislation? Texas anti drone legislation will make it easier for cartel drug smugglers, illegal immigrant smugglers, Islamic-fascist terrorist smugglers, and generally sadistic criminals to cross Texas Southern porous border to victimize rural Texans living within miles of Texas southern border. Perhaps these Texas politicians should stop mimicking Obama. TRUE or FALSE
Texas Drifter can hear whining now; Texas Drifter must have been suffering from part time dementia when he wrote “About Drones By Texas Bumpkin”
Pay attention reader, it does dot matter if issue concerns owner of twenty acre ranchette, or owner of twenty thousand acres dotted with gas and oil wells, if the private citizen wants to use private drones to protect their private property for security surveillance; what business is it of any Texas or federal politician, none – not a darn bit.
Especially since all Texas law enforcement can do in rural areas is show up to investigate and fill out reports of porous border crimes, not prevent a single crime. How could they, feds do not even patrol border areas between U.S. Highway 83 and Rio Grande River? Now who is suffering from part time dementia, Texas Drifter or Texas politicians acting like fools in a mob to seemingly make it easier for bad guys to victimize border rural residents?
How, reader asks, by making private citizens criminals who “use a drone to monitor private property without express permission”. By "who" an important left out detail so says Texas Drifter.A message to these seemingly want to be Obama Texas politicians, this is Texas and in case you have forgotten it is not customary for Texans to ask politicians for permission to protect their families and private property from bad guys; which includes using private drones on private property.
Texans do not have tradition of approaching any politician (state or federal) hats in hands staring sheepishly at ground while whimpering: Massa do I have your permission to protect my family, property, and neighbors from bad people?
Texas Drifter, not as gambling man, doubts above attitude will ever become Texas tradition; for all us, Texas country folk again disparagingly referred to as Texas bumpkins by city slickers. Hope reader remembers definition s of both bumpkin and slicker.
Would some one please explain to Texas Drifter when Texas politicians started acting like Hollywood stump rangers? A word to those obviously part of Austin liberal crowd, perhaps you should consider returning to having faith in rugged individualism of rural property owners that made Texas one great example for America’s other forty-nine states?
How, by not interfering with rural residents using private drones for surveillance of their private property; answer is TRUE because anyone too stupid to not know answer should move to a blue state.
Reader’s final assignment this writing exercise, do not let unrelated drone issues distract from primary issue of this writing exercise: private owners using private drones on private property for security surveillance. Texas Drifter feels confident America’s Founding Fathers would have included such technology if it had been available when bill of Rights were created and added to U.S. Constitution. TRUE or FALSE
Marshall’s Law Dateline – Following writing exercise submitted by what city slickers disparagingly refer to as Texas Bumpkin. Drones do not kill people; people kill people. Issue is not type of weapons system, drones; would not manned flights accomplish same objectives if drone technology were not available?
Reader can reference definitions of slicker and bumpkin to remember meanings longer.
This writing exercise will evolve into how Texas Legislators are about to adopt legislation that will make it harder for private rural property owners to protect themselves and property from cartel smugglers and terrorists crossing Texas Southern porous border.
Reference following: Representative Lance Gooden, Republican of Terrell, said he was sponsoring legislation to prevent this futuristic technology — increasingly used by everyone from aviation hobbyists to law enforcement authorities — from capturing “indiscriminate surveillance.” Gooden wants to make it illegal to use a drone to monitor private property without express permission or a search warrant.
Primary media issue is strategy of neutralizing not capturing terrorist liabilities. Let me remind you my reader, environment in which drones are currently being used concerns national security foreign war, not domestic tranquility involving law enforcement.
Advantages of using drones is cheaper to operate for longer periods of time at less risk to America’s patriotic warriors.
As for collateral damages, compare collateral damages on contemporary battlefields compared to collateral damages during World War II and places like Dresden and Hiroshima.
Using military drones to neutralize American citizens on American soil, different Constitutional issue than using them on Americans on foreign soil helping America’s enemies destroy America. Then again using drones with lethal capabilities along America’s Southern porous border to control terrorists entering America at will is also separate issue.
Still another issue, perhaps primary issue of this writing exercise involves private citizen’s use of smaller in size drones for private security. Moving a step further, should private drones be limited to surveillance or possibly include self defense for private citizens?
Going even a step further, what happens when sneaky people learn to “hack into” drone control systems and turn drones on original operators? There is a concept for Texas Drifter non-fiction short story: good guys obtain control of drones and use them against bad guys.
All these drone issues are getting Texas Drifter so confused; then again, drones do not kill people is same old issue with new toys. TRUE or FALSE
Question, Americans should be less concerned about technology neutralizing Americans on foreign soil who have joined Islamic-fascist terrorists at war against America and all Americans everywhere. Americans should be more concerned with domestic federal agencies who have stockpiled more than one and half billion rounds of ammunition for public bureaucrats to possibly use on conservative American patriots on American soil. TRUE or FALSE
Question, All federal agencies have their “own SWAT teams”; why when feds’ SWAT teams are unified, feds will have physical superiority over all municipal, county, and state law enforcement agencies should feds choose to suspend U.S. Constitution. TRUE or FALSE
Question, feds are trying to horde by buying all ammunitions not only from private citizens, but also from all non-federal law enforcement agencies. TRUE or FALSE
Next question: governments requiring “background checks” for “private citizen to private citizen gifts or sales” of second Amendment protected guns. Despite bold face lies by anti-gun pro-fascists; it is quite possible a grandfather’s estate would have to do background check on grandson to leave gun as inheritance to grandson. A widow would have to do background check on brother-in-law to sell him her deceased husband’s deer rifle. Only really stupid Americans would tolerate private citizen to private citizen back ground checks. TRUE or FALSE
Still another question: Texas politicians acting like Yankee carpet baggers with rabid souls seeking cheap attention by trying to pass un-thought out anti drone Legislation? Texas anti drone legislation will make it easier for cartel drug smugglers, illegal immigrant smugglers, Islamic-fascist terrorist smugglers, and generally sadistic criminals to cross Texas Southern porous border to victimize rural Texans living within miles of Texas southern border. Perhaps these Texas politicians should stop mimicking Obama. TRUE or FALSE
Texas Drifter can hear whining now; Texas Drifter must have been suffering from part time dementia when he wrote “About Drones By Texas Bumpkin”
Pay attention reader, it does dot matter if issue concerns owner of twenty acre ranchette, or owner of twenty thousand acres dotted with gas and oil wells, if the private citizen wants to use private drones to protect their private property for security surveillance; what business is it of any Texas or federal politician, none – not a darn bit.
Especially since all Texas law enforcement can do in rural areas is show up to investigate and fill out reports of porous border crimes, not prevent a single crime. How could they, feds do not even patrol border areas between U.S. Highway 83 and Rio Grande River? Now who is suffering from part time dementia, Texas Drifter or Texas politicians acting like fools in a mob to seemingly make it easier for bad guys to victimize border rural residents?
How, reader asks, by making private citizens criminals who “use a drone to monitor private property without express permission”. By "who" an important left out detail so says Texas Drifter.A message to these seemingly want to be Obama Texas politicians, this is Texas and in case you have forgotten it is not customary for Texans to ask politicians for permission to protect their families and private property from bad guys; which includes using private drones on private property.
Texans do not have tradition of approaching any politician (state or federal) hats in hands staring sheepishly at ground while whimpering: Massa do I have your permission to protect my family, property, and neighbors from bad people?
Texas Drifter, not as gambling man, doubts above attitude will ever become Texas tradition; for all us, Texas country folk again disparagingly referred to as Texas bumpkins by city slickers. Hope reader remembers definition s of both bumpkin and slicker.
Would some one please explain to Texas Drifter when Texas politicians started acting like Hollywood stump rangers? A word to those obviously part of Austin liberal crowd, perhaps you should consider returning to having faith in rugged individualism of rural property owners that made Texas one great example for America’s other forty-nine states?
How, by not interfering with rural residents using private drones for surveillance of their private property; answer is TRUE because anyone too stupid to not know answer should move to a blue state.
Reader’s final assignment this writing exercise, do not let unrelated drone issues distract from primary issue of this writing exercise: private owners using private drones on private property for security surveillance. Texas Drifter feels confident America’s Founding Fathers would have included such technology if it had been available when bill of Rights were created and added to U.S. Constitution. TRUE or FALSE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)