<span>I don't know if this will help or hurt your but we developed homeland security to protect our most venerable areas. Those places are located in most of our major cities. Most of those cities are "sanctuary cities" who don't ask for legal status. Why should we spend "federal funds" to protect a city that refuses to enforce "federal law" especially when we know what the problem is? The city decides how to spend the funds. In Chicago....they invested in cameras. We have tons of FILM.....just can't ask the pertinent questions. What good is video footage of people crossing the border when there's no-one there to pick them up? So far....all I've seen is the ability of "homeland security" to monitor the citizens....nothing to do with "terriorists".
We have documented film and proof of a college professor saying to kill the gringo. Nothing has been done. We have protestors saying to kill Bush. Nothing is done. We have signs saying they will take back their land....nothing. We have drug dealers than won't be busted unless they have OVER 500 LBS of illegal drugs....but they will bust a citizen for a roach clip....bust a student for a comment on their "my space" account.
I have asked over and over again what trumps what with laws? Smoking cigarettes is not illegal. It is not a federal crime. But...come here and smoke a LEGAL product in the wrong place and you have committed a crime. We have had cities that didn't want the smoking ban....but they said state trumps city. OK....Now if state trumps city....our STATE has declared English as the OFFICIAL state language. Then if that's the case.....why are people still going city by city declaring what their official language is? Why if it is federal law to not discriminate between sex, race, age etc.....that it is OK that a Spanish manager hires only latino people....but a black or white manager can't? Why is it OK for a majority latino community to oust a black principle because "their" children feel more comfortable with a "latino" principle......but it's "racist" if any other group does that? No matter what the "majority" of the population is in that area?
</span>
Developmental researcher John Bowlby proposed that all of the following are true except the infant bonds with the father as its protector
Explanation:
According to John Bowlby Children aged below thirty months are extremely likely to form secure emotional attachments to familiar caregivers. The implications of attachment theory proposed by him are that children who are safely attached at an early age tend to develop stronger self-esteem and better self-reliance as they mature.
Babies are born with the tendency to display certain innate behaviors which help ensure proximity and contact with the mother or any attachment figure. The main idea behind such behavior is not due to food or hunger but it simply need an emotional hug which the toddler receives from the mother.
Answer:WHY is no one answering
Explanation:
Answer:
hola esto es lo que you encontre en mis notas
Explanation:
Pérdidas humanas. ...
Creación de la ONU y la Declaración de los Derechos Humanos. ...
La búsqueda de responsabilidades: los juicios de Nuremberg. ...
Repercusiones económicas y reconstrucción. ...
Creación de los dos grandes bloques: EEUU vs URSS.
It might not change even if it does go through
