Importance of Ethics and Character in Law Enforcement

When considering the importance of ethics in our modern world, there are several areas in our society that require that the employees possess the most ethical standards. We will explore one of these areas, the criminal justice system, more specifically the law enforcement portion of the system..

Racism, Justice and Unrest

Readers, before we get into the meat of the subject matter of the title of this article, I want to say directly that this article will be drawn from Media sources from around the country, with my search specifically focused on race related headlines or in print opinions, those references as always will be available in link form at the bottom of the articlem.

Exploring Research Methodology in the Criminal Justice System

Within the confines of the criminal justice system, research plays an important part in our society, as it is this research that ascertains what laws and policies we as citizens must obey or become part of the system.

Comparing and Contrasting Organized Crime

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2012), reports that organized crime is a problem on a global scale that has many adverse effects on society, including risking peace and prosperity, human safety, and the “economic, social, cultural, political, and civil development” of the countries that have large organized crime groups operating within..

Theoretical Perspectives to Understand and Explain Criminal Behavior

The first theoretical perspectives on crime to be recognized originated around 1764 according to Siegel (2010), with the classical perspective. Founded by Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, the perspective holds that society can deter crime when the consequences of crime are absolute, harsh, and quickly administered.


To Impeach or Not to Impeach, that is the law

Article by: Scott Hall (
            Greetings Readers, we certainly are living in a complex era and if you live in or out of the United States in the year 2020, have access to any media outlet at all, you are quite aware that the President of the United States of America is currently going through a part of the process known as impeachment.  Many right now are calling this a circus and say it’s a hoax and nothing done is impeachment worthy, some are angry that POTUS has to deal with this, some blame a specific political parties motivations and still others, are looking to take him out of office completely. Just the word itself sounds heinous, “Impeachment”, sounds like the end, doesn’t it? Perhaps there is more than what we see on the surface to this area of our government.  Why would the founders of this country place impeachment inside the Constitution anyway, I mean, if anyone were doing terrible at any other job, they would just be fired from it, so why then does impeachment hold a different view or sting? Let us put on our truth glasses and find out what the law, history and critical thought have to say.
            Impeachment is defined as: (noun) 1 – the action of calling into question the integrity or validity of something; 2 – a charge of treason or another crime against the state; 3 – a charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office (Source: Oxford Dictionary).  Before we bite into the realm of impeachment, I wish to make an open statement, this article, will not feature bias to one side or the other in the argumentative debate of Donald J. Trump’s ongoing impeachment, if you came here looking for a spin, an angle, a rant, a hard line opinion, stop reading.  This article will look at facts that are known, from credible sources and this author, while having his own opinion, absolutely will not condone or condemn you the reader’s right to their own thoughts, insights, opinions or the like.  My aim is to educate, inform and hopefully open up enough dialogue so that we can all understand just how important this part of our country and the laws of the land established are and will be for centuries to come.
            To get a better grip on exactly what a presentation of the “Articles of Impeachment” correlates to, here’s a similar term: Indictment.  When articles of impeachment are presented, they are literally a list of charges being brought against a public official, for committing crimes or for official misconduct, while they are in that office or position.  Article 2, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states this: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”
            What makes this interesting is after this section, no definitions to support what is meant by other high crimes and misdemeanors is seen in the constitution, no specific definition for bribery, but looking at Article 3, Section 3 we find a defined word: Treason.  To which, is written: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.  No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
            In essence, it’s vague other than the without a doubt items, bribery speaks for itself as does the defined “treason” per constitution.  This leaves the door open for several items to be impeachable offenses under the high crimes and misdemeanors.  Considering we are speaking in terms of criminal laws on the Federal level, a few examples of these (Source: Cornell Law would include: Importing or Conveying False Information; Expenditures to influence Voting; Violations of NASA regulations and yes, even Failure to Pay Child Support. These can also be found in the US Federal Penal Code, Misdemeanor section. The listed examples are random and picked from a variety of categories but as we can see, some seem serious and others make us scratch our heads.  The bigger question here is, does the Presidency or is the Presidency included in this list? The answer is yes and more - all from History. Though our History section in this article may not mention it, historically those shaping the document on June 2, 1787 cited adding the wording of “other”, would be a benefit to lawmakers (Congress) and it would include all established Federal laws, including any new ones that were ratified into the laws of the land, constitutionally by future Congress’s. That means the President, Vice President, Governors, really anyone holding a public office, can be impeached due to committing a crime that is detrimental to the country or governance it represents at any time, regardless of person holding that office.  Now that we know the core of impeachment and the seriousness of its implications, we need to see what that process includes.  We know: Impeachment and the deliberate wording was debated and placed in our Constitution, for cases where those who hold public office, whom may seek to defraud, injure, or commit federal level crimes, can be removed from their seat, legally and politically correct, of course the hardest part is defining exactly what is all inclusive in high crimes and misdemeanors.  I admit fully, it sounds dry in theory, but US history has had several in trouble this way, indeed, a look into the process is necessary.
            In the United States recorded history, no president has been involuntarily removed from office, Nixon resigned and many theorize that if he hadn’t he may have been the first, that aside, it just hasn’t happened.  In the constitution, the House of Representatives have the sole power of bringing forward impeachment articles. The number of votes required to formally produce them, is two thirds of a majority vote.  Because of the wording being vague, several debates as to what exactly are high crimes and misdemeanor goes on.  For the most part, it is what the House of Representatives consider is worthy of being indicted.  Congress makes the laws of the land, they have a heavy burden: Uphold the laws they create. Not to fret, there is also the burden of deciding what is indictable. We will look at those cases in our US History section in this article, not forgetting that we are speaking in terms of criminal law.
            The founders did provide for a definition of these crimes in the constitution, Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, mentions the trial of all crimes except impeachment shall be by jury and that’s the Senate’s job.  According to procedure ( both the House and Senate have the right to make their own rules regarding any impeachment governing, regardless, the starting point belongs in the hands of the judiciary committee of the House of Representatives; that means a formal investigation into the facts surrounding the charges.  Included in their duties, they hold hearings, gather evidence, and listen to testimony of witnesses regarding the accusations; they also subpoena relevant information, a literal gathering of the facts, just like what happens before a prosecutor is presented a case to bring before a grand jury.  Witnesses are then interviewed by the committee counsel and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. That same committee then formulates the Articles of Impeachment, which may contain multiple charges; again, using our prosecutor example as before, this is where formal criminal charges are presented. The committee then votes on those articles and presents them to the house as a whole. Then, the entire House gets to debate, change and vote upon acceptance of those articles and then presents them to the Senate. Here, we have a body of people where everyone in the room hears what has been discovered or thought, they ask what everyone thinks is it worthy or not of formal charges, 67 out of every 100 have to say yes, in order for the next step, having a “trial” in the Senate, to take place. Note: This way, not a single representative can deny knowing what the President or office holder has allegedly done.
            The trial in the Senate is handled by “Managers” from the House of Representatives, being assisted by attorneys employed by the prosecution of the impeachment case.  The Senate sits as a jury, just like the trials by a grand jury in our criminal justice system, where fair and impartial is the rule of thumb in considering the evidence.  The Senate debates the matter and votes either to convict or acquit, if more than two thirds of the Senate votes to convict, the President is removed from office. If a simple majority votes to convict, but is not the required two thirds, he cannot lose his seat. Note: No President has ever been involuntarily removed by a Senate Impeachment vote to convict, PERIOD.  Along the way, there may be items that also require a vote, but in essence, the prosecution speaks, the defense speaks, witnesses may be called or documents procured or even request certain persons to testify again, anything is possible but has to be done according to the rules of the trial, which is laid out by the Senate Majority Leader, then the Senate must decide whether the charges and evidence add up to enough to remove the office holder.
            Let’s take a look at a scenario, hypothetically speaking.  President Gen Eric commits a crime which catches the attention of the House of Representatives. The committee is formed; all the procedures are followed to the letter of the law, and a single Article of Impeachment comes out and is presented to the Senate.  The Senate decides on the rules of the trial, hears all testimony and evidence, decides to convict based on overwhelming facts and according to the rules, the President must vacate immediately, the Vice President is sworn in, does this mean the end of the President’s chances as though the doors are locked and they are outta here? No, it doesn’t, and in order to change that, only one avenue exists: The Courts. While there are no cases on file for a President appealing things to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has had to rule on items relating to impeached persons.  The case I refer to is, Walter Nixon vs. United States 506 U.S. 224 in 1993. The outcome: The justices ruled that they should not review judicial impeachments avoiding the issue, using political doctrine as their reasoning; in English, no one wanted to say that an impeachment, since it is by trial, could be appealed to the Supreme Court….I guess that door remains unchecked to see if it’s open or closed, only History and Time will denote when that happens, for now, nothing.
            As we can see, to impeach a person who holds an impeachable seat, takes quite a bit of effort, all of which really has no time line of how long an investigation may last, how long or short the debates will be or the trial (without set rules) and that really no sitting US President has been involuntarily removed and yes, that does include William Jefferson Clinton and that whole fiasco, which we will be reviewing shortly.  Just for review: House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee investigates and presents, House reviews, makes changes, then votes, once 2/3’s say “Aye”, Articles (containing multiple charges if necessary) are presented to the Senate. Managers (People from the House) work with prosecutors, presenting their case to the Senate, in a trial where all 100 Senators are to be the jury and decide the rules of the trial; hearing the defense (person accused side) as well as the prosecutor’s, then vote to convict or acquit and if convicted by 2/3, then removed.  As is recorded in US History, no President has been involuntarily removed; however, 3 have been impeached.
            Andrew Johnson (1865-1869) the United States 17th President was the first President to face this part of the US Constitution.  When Johnson became President, was during the civil war era of our history, from the get go, he vetoed several bills from Congress citing they were too harsh upon the south though he himself was a pro union democrat. Among the items he vetoed, was the Freedmen’s Bureau Acts, which provided displaced southerners and African Americans with food, shelter medical aid and land.  The impeachment articles didn’t come until after he replaced the Secretary of War, then Edwin Stanton.  This move, netted President Johnson 11 (eleven) articles of impeachment, which stated that he violated the Tenure of Office Act (a law limiting presidential power on removing persons from office) and replaced Mr. Stanton, without consulting with the Senate. Convicted on 2/3’s majority in the House of Representatives, all things seemed in order. President Johnson held his seat by a single vote, his defense was that he himself did not appoint Mr. Stanton in the first place and that removing him wasn’t a violation of the Tenure Act. This impeachment set a few benchmarks for the ones in the future, one of which stands firm: A president cannot be impeached for political reasons; they must be a criminal indictment which upholds the Constitutional requirements of “other high crimes and misdemeanors”.
            William Jefferson Clinton (1993-2001) the United States 42nd President was the second President to face impeachment and just like Johnson, he clashed several times with Congress throughout his Presidency.  After his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinski became public in 1998, the investigations into them concluded that President Clinton obstructed justice by encouraging White House staffers to deny the affair and that he perjured himself by denying the relationship with Lewinski when questioned by investigators.  The outcome of Clinton’s trial again reinforced the principle of not for political reasons. During the trial, Senators agreed that his behavior was terrible, but that what he did actually did not rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors”; ultimately, he was acquitted and even though this left many shaking their heads, in the eyes of those who set the rules, nothing he did rose to that level.
            Donald J. Trump (2016-    ) the United States 45th President            was the third President to face Impeachment.  Impeached in 2019, President Trump in the House of Representatives was impeached on 2 charges: Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power.  The charges stemmed from a whistle blower’s concern about the President allegedly using his office to have a potential political opponent’s son, investigated by a foreign government, all in relation to a phone call that took place in July, the suspicion grew, because around that same time, it appeared that the military aid promised by the US, was withheld.  The House Judiciary Committee concluded that President Trump abused his power, by asking a foreign government to corrupt an upcoming election as well as Trump interfering with an ongoing impeach inquiry by telling Executive branch officials to not comply with Congressional Subpoena’s.  According to those Articles of Impeachment, officials claimed this fell into the category of (yep, you guessed it) “other high crimes and misdemeanor’s because it isn’t politically motivated”.  On February 5, 2020, President Trump was acquitted, just like his predecessors before him.
            With all of these things being tested on the Presidents who actually had Articles pressed against them, one would think Nixon would have had them considering how heinous that scandal was, but Nixon opted to resign long before the Articles were actually imposed, and yes there were congressional inquiries all over Nixon, don’t be surprised, historically, a few president’s have felt the heat of a pending impeachment vote. As is recorded in History, those presidents include: George Washington, John Tyler, Herbert Hoover, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and yes, Barak Obama.  Each one, had a piece of their Presidency reviewed by a House judiciary committee, the closest that actually came to a vote: George W. Bush for war crimes; fun fact, under this Bush administration, GWB would place one Nancy Pelosi as “Madam Speaker”, the first female to host such a seat, who when those articles came forward against then President Bush, she stated directly, “Impeachment is off the table, it won’t be heard”.
            The founders and original document creators of the Constitution of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, inserted wording, that would insure that anyone, who was convicted of wrong doings while serving in offices that hold particular authority, can be removed; that is so long as the entire Congress, through procedure and proper methodologies, agree, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to convict after being charged, which nearly included our very first elected President.  The US Constitution, isn’t a perfect document (though a few believe it to be), in its core wording, it gloats racism (if not white and a land owner, you don’t vote), however, it also touts a bit of fairness, at least in theory, but in truth, the only time, in any impeachment proceedings that a fair and just outcome can be done, is with bi-partisan thought and attendance, for so long as the Senate or House’s political demographic is in sync with the President, the chances of impeachment are nearly 0, unless of course you were Nixon and rather than decide to resign, stick around, then the history would look something like this: Impeachments 4, Convictions 1.
            In all of these items, this author must ask the following questions: Will the US ever involuntarily remove a sitting president and if so, what will it take to uphold the statement, “other high crimes and misdemeanors” to a Presidential Level?  The average citizen, if they were to become criminally indicted, would be subject to the rule of law, including penalties for not adhering to court procedures; for example, wonder what would have happened if say Ted Bundy refused to adhere to any subpoena’s or say a DUI refused a court ordered mandate for DNA in a death.  In our Constitutional views, none of that seems to apply when it comes to indicting the President or a high office in our government, which in this author’s opinion is highly interesting considering that we employ the very House of Representatives and Senators, through voting into a Congress, who makes the laws of the land and rarely seems to grasp the actual procedures desperately needed to uphold our democracy, why?  Because not one single person, president, Supreme Court justice or congress has dared to define, ‘other high crimes and misdemeanors’ and no one knows if a sitting official can appeal this style of judicial hearing. 
            One last question for you the reader: Given the known parameters of each of the mentioned impeached Presidents, if you were a Senator during each of those trials, how would you vote? This author would have convicted 2, I will leave it up to you to guess which it would be and hope that while you consider those items, you use critical thought and careful wisdom against known laws (then and now), just like each of the Senator’s who heard those three cases had to do, over the last 250 or so years, thank you and God Bless the United States of America.



HACK3D Episode #3 Best one yet!

Hack3d Best episode yet! Check it out and let us know what you think.....


Tell Pewdiepie to donate his $50,000 to the Ending Hate Project



Volunteer to Make the World a Better Place!

We are looking for volunteers to help us make this world a better place for all.

Posted by Criminology & Justice (U.S) on Thursday, September 5, 2019


Change Force Corp Podcast #2

Check out the latest Podcast from Changeforce- Topics include overcoming depression, Scambusters and much more. Check it Out!



Memorial Podcast for Mass Shooting Victims

Change Force Memorial Podcast for mass shooting victims. Listen free on Spotify. Join us in our #EndingHate group on Facebook Discuss these issues and more... join the non-profit revolution that is Change Force! Separate article to come soon on the history and motivations of Mass Shooters as promised!
Posted by Change Force Corporation on Monday, August 5, 2019


Help us bust Scammers!

While this isn’t something we normally do, we are looking to ramp up our efforts to control and interfere with scammers....

Posted by Rickie Hall on Tuesday, July 30, 2019


#EndingHate Giveaway 7/25-7/26 Must be a group member to participate!

Change Force Corp is going to be trying out a new concept tomorrow and we hope you will help us achieve our goal! Check out the rules in this memo released by Rickie earlier today and get ready to win some prizes and end Hate!
Awesome! You can become a member of our group #EndingHate here: to become a member and participate in the giveaway!
Posted by Criminology & Justice (U.S) on Thursday, July 25, 2019

Change Force Scam Busters Project Fundraiser

Posted by Elizabeth Hall on Wednesday, July 24, 2019
Another project that Criminology & Justice is involved in with Change Force Corp is the scam buster project. Another important project aimed at protecting people from scammers on the internet, social media sites, and the telephone. According to the FBI's Internet Crime Report from 2017, they received over 300,000 complaints and report that the dollar loss in value to consumers was over 1.4 billion. Support this project by purchasing a shirt, volunteering, or donating to the organization at (FBI, n.d.) You can donate to any of the Projects at this address. Currently, we are working on the #Scambusters and #EndingHate projects. All donations received as set up in our by-laws are to be utilized for the cause. The sale of merchandise only is used partially for operational costs, actual monetary donations are utilized for specified causes only, unlike other non-profit companies. JOIN THE NON-PROFIT REVOLUTION!!!! 

 You can find us at YouTube: 

Facebook: for Scam Busters Facebook: for the #EndingHate project Twitter: (FBI, n.d.)Latest Internet Crime Report Released.


Change Force TV- #EndingHate Video

Here is the Video for Change Force's #EndingHate project- Enjoy! Join our YouTube Channel here: 
 Join our Facebook Community here: We would love to discuss these issues with you!


ChangeForceCorp Fundraiser



#Ending Hate with Change Force Corp: Join the Fight to End Hate

Criminology & Justice has joined forces with Change Force Corp on their #EndingHate campaign! Support us by ordering a limited edition One World United Tee!

Join our Facebook Group to discuss issues and solutions regarding Hate worldwide!



One Percent President

One Percent President
Article by: Scott Hall (

            If ever you grew up thinking, “I’d like to be President someday”, you’re not alone, many citizens dream of the chance to lead America.  If you think that the US Constitution is clear and concise on the requirements of doing such, then you need to read this article fully, because the Constitutional requirements are only just the beginning.  What the Constitution doesn’t tell you could cost you, especially if your interests don’t add up to the workload, long hours, campaigning and start-up of trying to just get on the ballot legally and history helped to shape all of it. Indeed it’s not as easy as stepping in front of a camera and saying, “I’m running for POTUS”, simply; it does not work that way at all.  Recently, I was asked to get in on the ground level of a political journey, one that after only 1 month, revealed some serious ugliness and serious levels of things that very few citizens even know indeed, it is no secret it takes serious money. There is so much more to it than meets the eye and in essence, if you are not in the top 1 percent in funding, popularity, notoriety or political prowess you have zero chance of winning against the established paternalism and structure many Americans are not even aware exists.  Put your truth glasses on with me, and let us explore why only 1 percent of our population, can be, may be and could have been President.
            When I was a younger man, I thought that all one had to do was meet the basic constitutional requirements and get a good majority of citizens to vote for one or the other candidates to become president of The USA, this is only partly true of what it takes.  The constitution is where we will start our truth glasses journey, including a bit of history.  According to the United States of America’s constitution: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, US Constitution)
            It is widely accepted in political science that the founders of the USA set these parameters in place (which are basically the same for Vice President), to ensure that only persons of significant virtue, patriotism and those who have good judgment would fill that office.  200+ years and 45 Presidents later, we as American’s find ourselves debating which candidates contain those three basic features and indeed if this was all there was to it, thousands of people would be lined up, all asking for the votes to get them there.  Looking closely at Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 what we don’t see is any racial bias, racial prejudice or discrimination, however, when examining the very first election, wherein one George Washington became President, at the time, only white men who owned property were allowed to vote, what about the 5000 plus, African American men who fought in our Revolutionary War? ( Right off the bat, because of discrimination, African Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans or really any ***-Americans are discounted as being worthy of even casting a vote in the land of the free and home of the brave.  NOTE: Since 1789, the Electoral College has been responsible for choosing President, not the popular vote as many learned in early general education.
            As it did in 1789, the United States still uses the Electoral College System, established by the US Constitution, which gives all American citizens over the age of 18 the right to vote for Electors, who in turn, cast their votes for President.  Political parties usually nominate these electors, at their state conventions and are often picked out of the “loyalists” within that party, or if thinking about this in more ‘fun’ terms, hardcore folks about their party are the ones that get chosen to decide who goes to the big dance.  Each state is allowed to pick electors based on the number of senators and representatives it has within that state and, no, neither senators nor representatives are the electors themselves; In a “winner take all” philosophy, the majority of votes for that set of electors wins the state (i.e. if the votes are mostly for the Republican candidate, they win the electoral votes, same for democratic or independent), the only exceptions are Nebraska and Maine, who proportion those electors differently or more equally.  It is not required that electors stay in line with the public’s vote (party vote), however, in 26 states it is the law that the electors must cast for what the public wants, this leaves 24 states not required to stay on point with the public’s interest.  On the first Monday, after the first Wednesday in December in a Presidential election year, the electors meet and simultaneously cast their ballots nationwide; this is usually done within those state’s capitols. 
            While this system of choosing president is contested vs the popular vote, the longstanding argument is this: States like Texas, California, and others where the population is vastly larger than others, may be the sole reason, someone gets into office, so as we can see, this was done to ensure no one state could sway an election on popular vote alone.  NOTE: There are several occasions in history where the popular vote and electoral votes didn’t add up, such as the years 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016 where the popular vote was greater for the losing candidate than the winning one. We also see in history that unless you meet certain criteria, you won’t be as impactful in your popular vote (electoral vote) and not until civil rights came into focus many years later, did all votes count to sway electors or elections - that being women and those who aren’t “white”. 
            Through out the United State’s history, based on these parameters, one could argue the validity of every president from 1789 through 1965, due to citizens who were not “allowed” to vote, many citizens voices were muted at the ballot box thus not applying fairly, the choice of the USA’s citizen base in its entirety and the constitutions “clear” definitions regarding the vote cast and it’s electors influence.  Fast forward to 1965, where President Lyndon B. Johnson, signed into law, the voting rights act, not long after succeeding an assassinated President Kennedy.  Right now, many of you just cited the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, where race, color, or previous condition of servitude was prohibited in discrimination, the part many of us missed, this was shortly after the civil war and even then, folks in the south and abroad were still finding it hard to make an impact by getting to the voting booth; especially if you were not white or a woman, because the original amendment also states that it applied to men only. Nearly 100 years later, President Johnson worked to try and change the venue that no other president tackled by an Act that said flatly no more discrimination, period, at the ballot box. 
            Let’s be clear, from about 1840-1920, women fought to be heard at the voting booth, the women’s suffrage movement is an important stretch in American history, but breaking down the lingering barricades took another 45 years past the women’s right to vote – otherwise known as the 19th Amendment.  There are thousands of reasons that women fought for this right, amongst them, women, in general, were tired of being labeled as housewives with little or no input to society other than keeping up with happy homes; loads of women and yes, a few men disagreed, which lead up to the Seneca Falls convention. These things aside, among the key items discussed, included the language of the 14th and the 15th Amendments, which ignored women and extended with wording to men’s favor, were debated and then later amended.  The movement was on a roll up until the civil war and born from the ashes of a horrible series of events and bloody battles, Susan B. Anthony and others continued in the quest to get women’s voices heard, but not until 1965 and Johnson, did color, ability, income, property or any of the aforementioned stuff really become better for all voices.              In keeping step with our focus, it is easy to see, how if the USA’s Executive Branch of Government’s principle document, (The Constitution) is the founding of this great nations ability to choose who gets into office, how we can protest the value of a vote for our first 150-180 years of electing presidential candidates; clearly, not just anyone could be President because the true voice of the citizens was clearly impeded,  notwithstanding the ideas and beliefs about the great American tea party, as if taxes, monarchy rule and other things were a reason to be angry. Historically, without those votes, the percentages of actual influence on who runs the country, was impeded severely, especially if we in today’s world tout equality under the law, it is clear that many congresses and many presidents had the opportunity to make a difference and until 1965, only one broke through that barrier that previously took suffrage, war, violence, protesting and standing up for what is morally right, to get to that point in history.  Note: The USA’s population in 1776 was estimated at 2.5 million people, in today’s recent census, it’s 321 million people; if “non-white” and “women” made up (and I’m being hypothetical) 55 percent of the population in 1776, then only 45 percent got to cast their elector vote and that’s only if they owned land, are we truly only one percent presidential in choice and vote?
            Indeed, it is no secret that the costs of travel, signs, rallies, television appearances and all the things associated with reaching out to people without actually being there in person are magnanimous in nature. The idea is to gain the confidence of every voter, as though these candidates have been a part of your life all along; their focus, to influence you into believing that they exemplify the three core principles we just read about and have the countries' best interest in mind through all outlets possible.  Picking up from our earlier stopping point of 1965; we’re going to step back just a bit, to the Kennedy / Nixon Election years (the 1960’s), but only briefly. NOTE: First radio broadcasts were 1906-1920 era, First Television broadcasts were 1928 and the first television set 1925.  Digging a bit deeper and looking at the pair, Kennedy and Nixon in the 1960s, they raised or spent around 300 million each. (Huffington years of presidential campaign spending) Compare that to the record-breaking amounts in 1972, where Nixon’s amount soared to nearly 900 million and Obama’s push toward a full 1 billion dollars in 2008 and 2012; economists believe inflation and the changing times along with growing incomes across the board influence those costs and amounts. Indeed, the cost of a gallon of gasoline has grown, as has the cost of the vehicles on the roads and perhaps even the cost of broadcasting over a system that is almost 100 years old in existence. It doesn’t take millions to get started and America, we are financing it totally, from the real citizens to the ones counted as a person (business corporations).  In the link mentioned by the Huffington Post, there is a bar graph, that interestingly enough, shows he who spends the most, wins most often, few exceptions and hints that an oligarchy mindset may also be influencing our choices and impeding the vote cast, beware of voter fraud as well, right?
            I was recently asked to assist in the exploration of what it takes to gain ballot access in the race to the presidency of the USA, along with miscellaneous obvious items, such as costs of printing flyers or even securing petition signatures, I became entranced and a bit stunned as to the “other” costs included such as; if you satisfy the requirements of each secretary of state’s offices (each individual state) you must also pay to file to get on the ballot, in some states, it’s 2,500 dollars, in others, it’s 1,000 dollars and in still others, there are no costs, but, in all of them, in order to register with the Federal Election Commission (FEC.GOV) and be considered somewhat “viable”, you must raise or spend, 5,000 dollars, and then file forms for both yourself if you are the viable one and the committee that helped to get you there.  Not to worry though, if you happen to be fortunate enough to raise 100,000 dollars or more, you can ask for matching funds.  Those are the funds you pay into, when you check that box on your tax form for giving a few bucks to the political campaign fund etc.  Tour buses are 750 to 1000 for 5 hours then additional fees for extra hours and some are literal mobile hotel rooms, complete with Wi-Fi.
            Its crowdsource funding at its core and is influenced by every single citizen’s dollar, even those who file taxes who are under the required age to vote if that checkbox is available to them to mark to donate to the political campaign fund, usually about 3 bucks. Let me cut the red tape down for you, you have to raise or already have money, to spend money, which you can only gain the money, by asking for the money from everyone around you, and then their money, along with your own money and perhaps the governments' money that you paid into, gives you the right to spend their money on gaining ballot access to hope to have a chance at being the one chosen from a particular political party to run against another person who has taken those same steps, so that more money is needed to gain the office that is available to anyone and everyone who has the money to do it through travel, advertising, rallies and campaigning for a salary with it, of over 250,000 dollars, now breathe and raise your hand, if you have the money or can raise the 500 million or more to run for office. I deliberately avoided breaking down costs, but I will cite this fact, no viable candidate can get printing done or posters made on credit, those are not flexible, because yes, a campaign can go bankrupt. Tour buses are very expensive and candidates rarely stay at the Econo-lodge, remember America this is in essence, your dollars.
            Not just anyone can be President as is stated in our constitution’s requirements, if we look at just current financing requirements alone, that would mean only those who are of certain wealth or influence to gain that wealth, have the shot at fulfilling their goal; or literally, the top 5 percent earners in our nation and someone from the rest of the citizen base who has one heck of a lot of influence and in addition to this, shortly after fighting to get women and men of all colors and races the right to cast a vote for an elector who chooses the viable winner in only 26 states where it is required to stay in line with what the voters have chosen, clearly, our neighbor who works on a farm for average wages or the mother who is struggling to raise her kids on a tight budget has no shot; at the core, deprives them of their own constitutional right and for the record, I haven’t seen a “real” American run for office in decades that didn’t have power, money or influence with them to gain that seat, the nobility of office is indeed in question when we look at not just history, but financing and no, that is not all, you have to really be influential, especially if you follow the signed petition path, yes, there are rules and criteria the viable candidate must follow.
            In an effort to be concise, we will only cite a few of the requirements from various states as well as on the federal levels, as the rules are specific, lengthy and as expected, complex in nature and description, but all of these are available to be researched at your own state's secretary of state websites or on the FEC’s site,  Pressing onward, now that the foundations have been laid, as we see, there are costs, and histories that have impeded our true voices in choosing whom to make president, we have easily narrowed down the percentages of people who can’t, to 95 percent unless circumstance and wealth afford it. I will now share with you, my own personal experiences in the hopes of spreading wisdom and insight to those who are thinking of these things themselves. As part of my duties in my role in the exploratory group, research, and fact-finding as well as making sure no rules were broken along the way were embraced with a seriousness like no other, this was my chance to see firsthand what the path to the white house, actually contained and within 2 days, I knew the journey would be a very long one indeed.
            To get started in one’s quest for office, they must gather people together who agree that you or that person are the ones to take on running for that office, this is known as a committee formation, where people who wish to take part, are assigned duties, such as committee chair, treasurer and the like as well as decides salaries and volunteer levels, and the candidate chosen files to incorporate this committee, via an EIN and Tax ID from the State and Federal level.  They then, open a business account (supporting the incorporation of the committee), where the treasurer oversees all disbursements, expenditures, and finances. The hopeful person, then registers with their home states Secretary of State’s election commission or other offices by filing forms required (if any), stating their purpose and position desired this is also recorded by the committee.  The Federal Election commission’s rules state a candidate can spend all of their own money they want, without caps on amounts used or donated toward their own cause, however, an individual donor is capped at $2,700 per election cycle or year. Each donor must provide their name, address, amount donated and in some cases a phone number, but on donations of 250 or more, they must also include their employers and the company they own or are employed by if the owners head company isn’t the name of the place they work; for example, “Bob’s Toys, owned by Joe D Owner Incorporated”, if the vital information isn’t recorded correctly, that campaign could be held accountable and if the violation is heinous enough, fined.
             Once the interested person has spent or raised or spent 5,000 dollars, they then have 15 days to file a statement of candidacy with the FEC, in addition, within 10 days of that filing, they must also file the forms that ratify the viability of their committee including showing the incorporation details and then either once a month or once per quarter, that the treasurer must submit a finance form, showing the finances of that campaign, to ensure fairness and no underhanded funding.  Other areas, such as the individual states, may also require the person to provide tax returns or other vital statistic information, including requiring them to have a petition signed.  That petition must be signed by persons of the same political party as the interested person and vary from state to state, for example, Tennessee only requires around 300 people, Kentucky, 5,000 from 20 different states and still yet California, at a whopping 178,000 plus signatures from several districts (California has the strictest voter laws in our nation) keep in mind if you are a Democrat, it’s democratic persons signatures only that count, same for Republicans.
            Mentioned earlier in the financial section, what advertising costs could influence the money needed? Well, by Federal Definition, “Expenditure” is not a news story, commentary or editorial distributed through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or periodical unless it is owned by that political party, committee or candidate.  Keep this fact in mind the next time you come across one of those advertisements that say, “Paid for by the committee to elect blah” they are owned by one of those mentioned in the very rules governing the election. That committee, party or person is funded by other citizens, so the money has resulted in advertising because those mudslinging ads and jargon, comes from some of your own financial influence, not necessarily your voice.  In fact, when it comes to funding, typically, the average donor who isn’t “wealthy” donates more than 200 dollars up to 1000 dollars if they believe in their chosen person, on the contrary, those who are wealthy, account for 18 percent of all donors and usually donate the maximum to the leading candidate based on “polling”, so, direct influence or judgment of the character of a person without them being there, based simply on someone’s question that others may have answered a particular way.  The idea is if a group of citizens think one way in a particular region and a few answers in another show the same trend, the “majority” must also view things the same, see, polling helps the person of interest think they know you, even if they never see you.
            The challenges and rules are vast, for example, in Arkansas, all the forms are signed or filled out in triplicate, must be accompanied with a signed petition of 10,000 signatures, a signed political practices pledge, candidacy forms, certified affidavits regarding those signatures and potential fees that upon calling their secretary of state’s offices, no one seemed to know exactly how much or whom it would be paid as in what department would collect it. Cutting to the chase, in total, the interested person would have to acquire 864,427 total signatures from across all 50 states combined.  In essence, if you are considering this office, you should have started collecting signatures two years ago and no, electronic signatures (or online e-signatures) are not allowed.  Hidden costs: Hiring voter canvassers, acquiring transportation, food, lodging, paraphernalia/campaign slogan printing, which if the candidate sells, is guaranteed at a serious markup, a 5 dollar bumper sticker didn’t cost them more than 50 cents to have made, that aside, who, other than a select few that are financially able and fit the predisposed criteria, that includes suffrage, resistance and in today’s world the threat of fraud can say that any one person who makes it to the presidency, is only 1 percent of those 100 percent we all think is included in our constitution. 
FACT: 43.1 million Americans live at or below poverty levels in the United States, those whose income is less than 25,100 dollars for a family of 4 or 12,140 dollars for a single person.
FACT: The top 1 percent of earners control 38 percent of privately held wealth and 90 percent of those not in that top 1 percent hold 73 percent of all debts.
FACT: The United States is 21.2 Trillion Dollars in debt, but only generates 3.5 Trillion in income revenue at the Federal Level.  15 Trillion Of this debt is held by the 90 percent, not in the top 1 percent (those same people and companies in the top 1 percent).
FACT: 15 million citizens claim to have made 1 million or more, 8 million claim 2 million or more in a year’s earnings. There are 153.4 million Americans employed, 10 percent are millionaires of them, 1 to 2 percent are at or near, billionaire. 
            If these statements are true, as per the US Treasury, world markets and the statistics of the US that do so boldly cite it, and we apply them, to the financial aspect of becoming president, the ‘average’ person's chances and even the lower millionaires chances are placed against the 1 percent earners (if we aren’t one of them); who are selected from a pool of mostly infamous people, that the other 90 percent of this country support financially (other than perhaps their own financial investment), remember, election costs soared to nearly a billion dollars; by example, current President Trump raised over 300 million dollars from donors who only contributed about 25-200 dollars each and yes, he did pay for a good portion of his campaign out of his own pocket contributing around 200 million, but how much of that is loans and gifts we will never know as it does not have to be disclosed, that’s donor privacy and it is protected under the law, to an extent. NOTE: Voter canvassing is a detailed list of where registered voters live, what political party they are affiliated with, who they voted for and when they voted last; it also may include demographic data that indicates average income levels, education and similar items, so don’t be surprised by those who turn out to vote, they are directly targeted with advertising and appearances, with information all citizens think is private, the truth is: it’s not and in some states, you can buy a copy, right from the Secretary of State's offices. 
            In conclusion to all this data, this author finds that only about 1 percent of our population, can be, may be or could have been, President, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that throughout the canals of time, have shown impedance, resistance, suffrage, hatred, bloodshed, movements and unity that came full circle into oligarchy and financial oppression, to keep the “integrity” of the office intact.  I am not saying we haven’t had some presidents who didn’t portray some dignity, temperance, wisdom or even a set level of leadership, but I am saying that in today’s society, as we move through these choices, these persons, believing that America is capable of electing anyone, as is pointed out in our founding members documents, we truly are only selecting 1 percent of those capable, on multiple platforms and instead of criticizing who held office, take a closer look at why or how they got there and yes, I applaud former president Obama for being elected the first “African American” to hold that office, because he broke the rules that say anyone can be president, within 100 years of 1965 and prior, when we as the land of the free and home of the brave, were as sick then as we are now in our thinking about what it means to seek out and hold the office of the president of the United States.  We have focused ourselves on who can outspend, out speak, out mudsling, out campaign, but not in decades have we selected from whose critical thoughts were clearly, of the people, by the people, and for the people.
***Author’s Thoughts***
            America.  I love you, from shore to shore.  Your diversity, your townships, your local customs and the citizens in them all; what I don’t love is the hate, the violence, the division, the sides being forced to be chosen, the differing opinions that lead to riots and outbreaks, the false accusations and generalities as labels are too easily being placed upon us all, becoming somewhat of an acceptable norm.  We aren’t poor, we aren’t rich, we aren’t black, we aren’t white, we aren’t liberals, we aren’t conservatives, we aren’t a nation divided, we are AMERICA damn it!  The America that had citizens fight for voting rights, desegregation rights, children’s rights, civil rights, freedoms that make us all proud; America, it is okay to protest, it is okay to support a cause, it is not okay to try and forcibly impose that view on your fellow Americans, we should not allow these tactics or attitudes on any level.
            We will always have differing views, we will always have innovative and challenging ideas and troubles to face, but instead of claiming singularity, we should be claiming unity by being willing to hammer out our differences and finding that compromising area where we can all be satisfied with the work we put in. We shouldn’t wonder why our children are doing tide pod challenges, when we are throwing morals and standards into a fire that is willing to consume them. Remember we used to have to lock our cabinets to keep the babies from drinking the cleaners. Why are we fighting over a figurehead in the White House who is chosen from a pool of people who rarely demonstrate what America needs to grow, when we should be solving the issues placed before us, as a nation and yes, I know we all want to be secure and free, I uphold and will defend the rights of everyone’s right to a secure nation, but let us use wisdom and critical thought to solve those problems, not throw rhetoric and name calling around nor being or exemplifying bullish beatitudes.
            It has become, so easy to inflame one another, to point fingers and shout look there, not here creating distractions that keep us out of focus.  America, we are better than the country we are showing the world today, if it was not so, then the 100-year women’s movement, the 200-year refining, civil war and struggles including the great American melting pot of thought would never become the great nation it is now and we never needed America to be great again, we needed to stop limiting our choices and start exercising wisdom overhype. Our ancestors realized the wrongs and have been fighting against them for 2 centuries, when did we decide, we should not do the same now, when did America, forget that even if, only 1 percent of us makes it as elected President, that only by the Grace of God and the American people, does anyone get there and it is the majority of our population that will put them there, not less than 50 percent saying “eh whatever”. America, we can do anything when united, but these divisions of left, right, up, down, red, blue, black or white, are making us weaker and a nation divided, cannot stand; Neither will the Presidency limited to 1 percent of its nations the citizenry, that’s not democracy that is paternalism, modern monarchy, oligarchy and certainly not American.



We have now decided to make this a film project! Donate today and help us stamp out prejudice!

Expanding the study can help us as a society to better understand  these rates of co-occurrence,
and  can assist with understanding the causality, maintenance, and growth of the various
forms of prejudice occurring in the world today. Other studies on prejudice have not included
all forms of bias to understand the relationship between them and socioeconomic class bias.
This better understanding can greatly aid future research  on causation of prejudice. Just click
 the link above to donate to the cause! 



Article by: Scott Hall (
Image result for angry free stock images
Public Domain Pictures : Photo Credit
            Milah Abhorn: Holding onto anger is a poison. It eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves”.  We have all known someone who, it seems, that no matter the situation, hold their tongues, they do their best, to refrain from unleashing a verbal hell upon others, likely without measure.  We have all known someone who, just as before, instead of holding their tongue, are quick to unload, verbally accosting their focus, they may even go back to events that previously made them angry, bringing back up, old bones and comparing them to new ones, drawing similarities and indeed, valid conclusions.  Are these things justified? Are we really becoming a planet of unrest so grueling, that things set us off greatly, and in case you haven’t been watching the news, it seems like it’s escalating.  Hard emotions, require hard looks, so, this author has dusted off his truth glasses and decided to dig into the dark, black abyss, known as anger.
            Ellen Hopkins: Anger is a valid emotion.  It’s only bad when it takes control and makes you do things you don’t want to do.”  Just as in our opening paragraph, we start off with a quote.  In our first quote, anger is compared to a poison, that if we hold on to it, hurts us more than the person we directed it at, creating a hate that does double damage.  In our second quote, anger is validated, but only labeled as harmful, when it controls us and forces us to do the things we didn’t want to do in the first place.  So…which is it or is it both?  It is truly not a healthy thing to hold on to anger, our blood pressure goes up, and we pant, pace or have the desire to punch out a window or two.  Those side effects from the stress anger brings, are not good ones, I would even go so far as to make an educated guess, that not a single person who has ever been angry, felt great afterwards. 
            Webster’s online dictionary, defines anger in both noun and verb form.  So, it has personality and takes action.  Definition 1 (noun): A strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure or hostility.  Definition 2 (verb): To fill with, or provoke anger within someone.  Digging into the realm of synonyms, the word “hate” never appeared, but, according to what we’ve seen so far, it sure seems like hate may take a role in this phenomena of an emotion, right?  The inquisitive mind must know more, it simply cannot be possible that anger, the noun, the verb, has no influence upon how we truly feel about persons, not with word combinations such as; Angry with, Angry at, Angry because of, etc.  Let our first question be: “What causes Anger?”
            According to an online article at, anger is simply part of the being human, we all experience it to varying degrees, for some, it is a mild irritation with something, others, it can boil into a seething rage and the triggers vary as well.  Triggers like hearing someone gossip or criticize someone when they aren’t around, facing an unreasonable course of relief over an undercooked meal at a restaurant, not being treated fairly and even simply not getting one’s way, these are generalized examples, I am certain we could all fill in the blank and come up with our own lists, that isn’t our focus.  For many, overcoming the side effects of that anger is a lot tougher than we may think.  Things are said, thrown around, hurtful and personal pot shots come into view, the aggravating circumstances escalate and in the end, the only thing left behind is the regrets that both parties have, even if they never speak again, it stays with them for years. 
Related image Photo Credit
            The article goes on to explain, that anger is actually a secondary emotion that unloads or unleashes because of other factors, such as anxiety, stress, fear, sadness or disappointment.  It can also be provoked unintentionally through conversations where ideas and ideals are not expressed clearly, hey, it happens.  The core is, as we look through all the gambit of emotions, an uncertainty of whether or not, what was just experienced was justified, in all eyes.  As an example, Susie recently lost a relative, while mourning, she overhears others talking about events that don’t paint that relative in a good light, but to Susie, the deceased doesn’t deserve to have any “terrible words” spoken, Susie confronts them angrily which triggers an argument, where all parties grow in their own anger,  and the secondary emotion wins.  If you are experiencing anger, according to the article, you should stop for a moment and think about the actual trigger, rather than the symptoms, the reality of this is, anger sets in quickly and rarely do any of us stop for a moment and ask, “What am I really upset about?”, that usually happens in the aftermath, when heads are a bit cooler and the only time peace can be resolved is when both parties recognize their part, healing on one side rarely is good for restoring communication barriers, so try to be patient and work to resolve, rather than plot revenge or carry malcontentment for someone.
Image result for angry free stock images Photo Credit
            So, we have one view point, let’s take another look, this time, from the American Psychological Association (, according to an online article from them, Anger is an emotion characterized by antagonism toward someone or something that has done you wrong or something you believe in, harm.  Anger can be a good thing, giving you the ability to speak out on levels that once, made you feel reserved, which may motivate some to put thought into solutions. In other words, use the anger to solve the problem, peacefully; admittedly, this isn’t a likely approach but there are cases where the result of anger, gets problems, solved. Anger can also be dangerous to your health, especially if it is constantly carried around and “no one is safe around them”. Holding on to anger like this, is very similar to hitting your head with a board and thinking someone else will yell out, ouch.  That type of anger, pushes health to the limit, raised heartbeats, blood pressures, systemic rushes of adrenaline that block out the ability to think clearly,  elevating stress levels on the brain, indeed, easily harmful to the body and mental health of the person experiencing it. These persons, most don’t enjoy being around and those who have tried to help them, end up angry at the angry person because the angry person lashes out at the helping one, causing them to anger, this is easy to understand isn’t it?  In essence, from our two articles, we see the same thing as our quotes have shown; anger is diversified, good, bad, healthy and harmful.  This big ball of stuff, we call anger, sounds almost as if it is necessary, as part of everyday survival, though, I myself cannot state with truth, that I’m angry every day, I can even safely say the majority of us aren’t either, or at least I hope not, so, perhaps we should look at expressing anger as our defining and attempt to pin point only shows us how diverse and unruly is anger. 
            According to the article posted by the American Psychological Association, anger is a natural adaptive response to perceived threats.  It allows us to fight and defend ourselves, which is necessary for survival but on the other hand, we simply cannot lash out at every instance where we perceive a threat or something irritating, thankfully, there are acceptable norms in place as well as laws to help safeguard against “Johnny Angry Pants”, so in this sense, anger is somewhat restricted.  The article goes on to state that people use both conscious and unconscious processes to deal with anger, with three that can be used to a degree of effectiveness in helping to control it. Let’s dig deeper.
Image result for suppressing anger free stock images Photo Credit
            The three ideas we should use to process or deal with anger are: Expressing, Suppressing and Calming.  Expressing your feelings in an assertive manner, rather than angrily. To accomplish this will take practice; because it means you have to be able to express what it is that you are affected by, without hurting the feelings of others, supporting our first view of stop, think, and then speak.  From my own viewpoint, while that is a solid approach, there are many occasions, when a hard dose of truth, tactfully placed that causes positive changes, is not only necessary, but sometimes warranted, we should all be humble enough to accept criticism, no one person is above anyone else, and we are all human, so temperance, is a part of anger.  Next is Suppressing, according to the article, suppressing or holding in anger, can help us convert and redirect it, by using the opportunity to focus on something positive.  The hard reality: If we hold anger in and don’t express it, that inward anger, can turn into depression, guilt, passive aggressive behavior, and can start the person thinking they have the right to criticize others for the very same things they were hurt by, notice the word “right”, because it becomes an inherited response, “those people were angry with me, so I have the right to be angry at them” anger in this sense, is over inflated and very harmful to the health of the person going through it.
            The last of these approaches is Calming.  Walk away, calm down, practice breathing exercises or try to refocus your build up of emotions on something other than the feelings you are experiencing during anger.  My own mind wonders, what the clerk behind the counter would do, when we are angry about their no return policy and suddenly break out with “OHM! OHM!” with our eyes closed, humming and breathing, likely we would open our eyes to security wanting to help us out of the building.  This type of approach is for those who are practiced at being able to withstand verbal onslaughts and still manage to not retaliate with even angrier words, the idea is that one calm person can calm down 2 or more if it is consistent, I will wait while those of you who read this raise your hands and say, “Yep, that’s me”, I certainly know of none this way, not saying it’s not possible, but, realistically, I haven’t met all 3 billion on the planet yet, moving on.
            So far, we have read things that support both of our philosophical quotes on anger and my truth glasses are not satisfied.  Anger is given so many diverse qualities; it is like it is its own person capable of adapting, changing, and evolving in just about any environment. I decided to search out “What are the origins of Anger”; my Google query was answered with “What are the 4 main types of Anger”, which raised my eyebrows further, anger is: a secondary emotion with triggers, that we should both hold onto, using as a tool to produce a positive and let go of, but only expressing the appropriate amount, staying focused on what is upsetting us, rather than just we are upset AND has 4 known types.  The abyss is living up to its name in that anger is vast and varied with all sorts of dangers and some good hidden inside. A side note, when I typed in “What are the four types of Anger” in my query, one of the results came back, from Australia, “10 types of anger, what is your anger style?” as well as very few (.edu) websites, what are educators thoughts on anger?  Anger has a style and types, things are getting deep indeed, but no fear, we press on toward the mark of the prize, explaining, Angrified.
             Angrified, is a term that no doubt will go as viral as the staring hamster but in essence, it’s us, it’s our makeup, our right, our person wanting better for themselves and a weapon, a result of fear or anxiety, a big old ball of blackness that is being understood, but isn’t being addressed.  The four types of fear are: Anger at self, Anger at Others, Disappointment and Constructive Anger, this according to self growth (  First, is anger at self, this anger sits inside us, boiling, churning and after some time, it erupts like a volcano and could be aimed at the wrong person, at the wrong time or to the wrong degree. At times, it can lead to rage as well as cause all sorts of negative health effects both from holding it in and releasing it in a sudden outburst.  90% of all persons, experience this type of anger, 90 percent of our US population is about 270 or more million folks who experience this, daily. 
Image result for suppressing anger free stock images Photo Credit
            Next up, Anger at others, an outward anger, directed at the wrong persons for the wrong reasons, frequently marked by rage or violence. In cases like this, it may be beneficial to find constructive means to ventilate your anger, write those thoughts down, rather than speak them, take a walk and ask yourself, is this the right time to exuberate my anger? Results may vary from person to person when dealing with this type of anger, sometimes it’s best to diffuse it with why are you attacking me, or just walking away and letting them vent, likely there is a deeper problem going on, so be resilient and prepared to advise or point in the right direction.  Don’t ever encourage someone to hold in their anger, but do encourage them to find more tactful means of expressing it. 
            Third in our list, is Disappointment; it feels awful to be disappointed in someone, it feels a lot like being sad about something, the core, is the person feels as those certain things are not being met correctly, a judgment call if you will.  Judgments are not good for anyone; they signify moral superiority over someone, as though one or the other is greater somehow by some “magical” item.  The simplest answer to this, is to think about keeping your opinions to yourself unless they ask for it, don’t ever judge someone, until you have lived their exact life and think, react, speak, etc just like them, in fact, it would be better if we could look at ourselves looking at them from their perspective, perhaps we could then ease that sad feeling and turn it into encouragement. We all will face disappointments; it’s up to us to decide which we let affect us.
            Finally, we have Constructive Anger, the “teacher”.  The idea is to use this type of anger to gain in productivity or outcome over something.  Suppose you have a goal and something is in your way of achieving it, you reach down deep, get angry and finally overcome it, some guys might equal this to opening a tightly sealed jar, constant motivators and that one time push and pop, the frustration is gone, the problem overcame and the feelings of tension or unrest, gone.  Constructive Anger, takes time to learn and master, think of it this way, you go to college all the way to doctorate level, you present your final thesis, it gets rejected on a technicality that you omitted thinking it wasn’t necessary, this means a delay and it upsets you, determined, you head back to the keyboard make the necessary adjustments and are fully prepared, healthy anger.
            Upon discovering these four types, I went on to read from this article, that there is a possible antidote, though few carry it on them regularly.  It’s COMPASSION.  The idea is to consider your environment as nurturing and compassionate, and if so, it is designed to provide nurturing behaviors in persons.  Compassion transcends both natural human sympathy and Christian concern for their fellow person, enabling them to feel a varied range of emotions, allowing them to provide, by caring means.  Compassion happens when a person is moved by another’s distress or plight, to take action regardless of how small.  To be clear, compassion is empathy not sympathy; it is identifying with and understanding another person’s situation, feelings, motives or person depending on how intimate the relationship.  Help them remove the obstacle and gain focus, using that sadness that is so close to disappointment, this time in self, to construct the greatest positive of all, simply by reacting or showing that you are concerned for them, you care.  I concur, this is a great antidote, but how often, do we react in such a way that reflects this level of calming the storms, is it a vaccine as well or just a tool to lessen the intensity of a pending argument when we encounter someone who is upset for whatever reason, the author of that article, is Doctor John Schinnerer, he has a private practice helping persons with learning anger and stress management and how to deal with destructive emotions.
            Knowing that anger is a global item, and remembering our brush with the 10 types of anger, my truth glasses happened across a website from our friends in Australia, life support counseling ( a listing to help us learn our anger style.  In order listed, these are: Assertive Anger, this is the most constructive type of anger expression, we use our feelings as a catalyst for positive changes, rather than avoiding confrontation, internalizing it or verbally expressing it with outbursts, you express your anger in a way that changes the world around you. Next, Behavioral Anger, this is noted by persons whose anger causes them to lash out at the things they are angry at, such as throwing phones or even actually physically attacking someone, it’s highly unpredictable and usually carries legal consequences. 
            Our third type is Chronic anger, a general ongoing anger toward people or frustrating circumstances and is earmarked in some ways by the person being angry at themselves more often than normal or at least a bit more intensely and is never a good thing for their personal health.  Fourth up, judgmental anger, wherein the anger is a result of feeling a certain injustice due to someone else’s shortcomings, likely this type of anger will push people away, rather than attract those a bit more understanding.  Fifth on their list is Overwhelmed Anger (sounds exciting doesn’t it?)  Overwhelmed anger is an out of control anger, usually shows up when we may feel a situation is out of our control or feel hopeless and frustrated.  Too much responsibility or unexpected events overthrow our limits and make us go to the max, it is stress induced, causes a general sense of moodiness or a built up need to vent, just this side of a weekend drinking binge for you alcohol consumers. 
            Sixth on their compiled list, is passive-aggressive anger; Persons who avoid confrontations may deny or suppress any feelings of frustrations they are experiencing.  Sometimes expressed verbally through sarcastic remarks about someone, long measures of silence in situations, veiled mockeries and in physical behavior like dragging things out at work or taking “forever” to accomplish a task, the sad reality of this is most of those persons may not realize their anger expressions are keeping their professions stuck in circles or alienating them from opportunities for fear of similar behaviors in more responsible environments, it is recommended this type of anger is dealt with by using better communication standards, prevent the sarcasm by not allowing it during open, conversation.  Moving on boldly to our seventh style listed, we find Retaliatory Anger waiting with open arms.  It is an instinctual anger, when we feel threatened, motivated by revenge and doused in purpose.  Its aim is intimidation, asserting dominance over another person and usually escalates tensions amongst those involved, remember our quote from earlier about hate, this sounds familiar.
            Coming in at number 8, Self Abusive Anger, and it carries destruction with it, not the kind we want to face.  Shame based, it stems from feelings of worthlessness, hopelessness, being humiliated or ashamed.  Holding on to this type of anger may result in self harm, drug abuse, eating binges and beating one’s self up over loads of items, that they are just “incapable” of doing.  This anger style is very harmful and needs direct and immediate attention, get them talking, take them to get help, but don’t let it go, this is more than anger here in this one, it resembles paths where the self harm can lead to serious injury, don’t ignore them.  In spot number 9, we have Verbal Anger; Anger is that closely resembles behavioral anger, but carries psychological or emotional abuse, the angry person may constantly apply pressure to persons through critiques, vulgarities, defined superiorities and the like.  Sarcasm, intense blaming and infuriated shoutings that hurt are also a part of this style, though not as intense as behavioral anger.
            Finally, in this listing from Australia and anger styles, is Volatile Anger, like a bolt of lightning, it comes from out of nowhere, the person may get upset about something big or something small, with no clear picture of a trigger.  As quickly as we display this style of anger, we calm down, though those around us may walk on eggshells for a bit in uncertainty of whether or not it may happen again and if left unvented or not kept in check, it may lead to inward anger that turns into explosive anger, rarely is this healthy and sometimes can be overcame with deep breathing exercises or meditating. According to the article, there are even more types however these ten are the most common, I don’t know about you, but my head is spinning and I’m not angry, I am however, beginning to understand Angrified. 
            Let’s set aside all these insights, definitions, styles or types and cast our thoughts on the whole scope for a moment.  We get angry at our cell phones when they don’t have enough bars, our vehicles when they experience mechanical failures at untimely times, our kids when they don’t live up to the parents expectations in school grades or attitudes toward others, we get angry when our meal is undercooked, or our favorite shirt gets mustard on it.  We get angry with our spouses, live-ins, ourselves, the president, the government and so much more, so, by my own definition, based on what I’ve been reading and researching, “Angrified” is indeed, everyone of us, in some form or another and we could all use some relaxation techniques as well as apply some critical thought as to what is it, that is really making us angry? Is it hate, is it money, is it career or relationship woes, what is it? Let’s hope we can all calm down at some point, long before the preverbal pot boils over and we all end up boiling ourselves alive. Thank you for reading, follow up on your own curiosities, practice kindness and find happiness, far, far away from Angrified.




Serial Killers


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...



Criminology & Justice Headline Animator



Amazon UK 2

Amazon UK 3

Amazon UK


Now Available!

In the small town of Kent, just south of Seattle in Washington State there is a child serial rapist and murderer who has targeted young girls. Over an eight-year period, Victor has abducted, raped and murdered 12 young girls. Detectives Simon Stocker and Gus Hall begin the chase of Victor. Just when he appears to have disappeared, he abducts 12 year-old Brittany Redman and the chase is on again.

With the assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law enforcement agencies, a task force is established to chase Victor down. Victor’s method of operandi is to abduct his victims and then they are found 72 hours later, dead.

The time to save Brittany is running out, Detectives Stocker, and Hall pull out all the stops to save her life. Will they be in time?

About Lawrence W. Daly

Lawrence W. Daly is the author of multiple sex crime non-fiction books and booklets. Lawrence is one of the leading experts in the field of child sexual abuse investigations. Chasing Victor is his newest adventure. This debut novel, an exciting thriller will keep you on your toes, wondering who Victor might be, and whether Detectives Stocker and Hall will succeed in chasing Victor down. A must read!

Paperback Edition

Kindle Edition

Get Your Copy Here Today! A Great Read Which Keeps You Enthralled the Entire Story!

Research Opportunity

Everyone is a victim of bullying and police misconduct whether directly or indirectly!

Criminology & Justice Digital Media U.S. Inc is dedicated to providing educational, scientific, and charitable contributions in the social science and criminal justice fields, to include victim and family issues, research, and criminal justice related charities, through digital media, presentations, charity drives, and scientific research funding.

Lawrence W. Daly

Larry's colored photo.jpg
Forensic Educator, Investigator, and Interviewer

“Specializing Nationwide in Investigating Child Sexual Abuse Allegations”

(877) 364-5797 or (253) 852-6702

Visit our website at:
Non Fiction by Lawrence W. Daly


Shattered Innocence

Shattered Innocence

Follow by Email

Lawrence Daly New Novel

Lawrence Daly New Novel
Available in Paperback and Kindle

Share This



Blog Archive

Recent Posts

Unordered List

Theme Support

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported .. Powered by Blogger.