Defending Traditional Marriages

We all see marriages failing at alarming rates across the country, and we frequently blame various factors like money or cheating, but in taking a closer look, I am finding that the real reasons are actually much simpler, more intimate, and more difficult to admit. Ironically, despite what we have learned about affairs and abuse (to name a few), it is not men, but women who seem to be the primary cause of destroying relationships and marriages. As disturbing as that last statement may be, and the explanation to follow, it is equally empowering to look at the other side of that statement: It is women who have the greatest and primary power to make strong marriages, strong families, and happy husbands. While I am in no way justifying the abuses which men commit, I will now explain why it is that women are so much more important when it comes to strong and happy marriages/relationships.

Men are very simple and our needs and desires are also simple. We want women who loves us enough to inspire us to be our best selves.  This includes respecting women by saving sex for marriage and keep our marriages strong. By denying extramarital sex/fornication, and keeping it alive within marriage, women act as the gatekeepers of the family and of respect.  Men can undermine and attack these efforts, but the power rests with women.

When a woman perceives her man acting in ways which fall short of the levels of love or respect which she feels she deserves, then her love towards her man diminishes and her reaction determines the strength of the relationship.  If she withdraws, everything falls apart.  If she accepts disrespect, she becomes deeply resentful and angry over time.  If she invests in goodness, the man has the power to strengthen the relationship.

When a man perceives his woman acting in ways which fall short of the levels of love or respect which he feels he deserves, then he becomes immediately angry for a short period. If she becomes fairly "persuasive" and contrite, his anger will likely disappear much faster and he will likely accept the offering of intimacy.

So when you look at marriage, it becomes obvious that the greatest difficulty is in getting the woman to unconditionally forgive and love her man intimately, because the man is quite easily persuaded but the woman is not. As she resists the call to forgiveness, love, and intimacy, she sets the seeds for: anger, abuse, depression, poor work and spending habits, sexual affairs, separation, and divorce. As the man disrespects the women, he sets the seeds for her destruction through long-term resentment.  As resentment increases, it becomes increasingly difficult for the man to repent and improve the relationship which he has been investing in, and to trust renewed loyalty to the marriage. If the woman exercises her power to strengthen her marriage, and he is willing to trust her and change himself, there is much hope. Any change must be expected to continue for a while before either spouse should accept it as a new norm.  Trust increases the interest in pleasing the spouse.  The woman has the power to immediately turn the entire relationship around and strengthen the marriage very quickly. He may have some power to do the same, but the process is much slower, much more painful, and much more likely to fail if she denies him intimacy, love, and forgiveness for long.

Genesys Works and abortion

I had the privilege of working for Genesys Works this summer. Their program is quite good at taking high school seniors from failing schools and teaching them to be successful in corporate America. I also learned much from their program as I prepared for and taught their young professionals. We filled their days with fours hours of fun, learning, and practical development for the work place.

Unfortunately, there were full-time individuals who lost their initial vision and began a series of lies, condescension, and manipulations which undermined these efforts very quickly. They lost two IT instructors and several other instructors in Houston alone because of this. Through some very serious lies and the inability to communicate and resolve issues with both students and instructors, they suffered great losses very quickly through their summer program. Their first lie of the summer which I noticed was their claim that this was the first summer that the staffing agency Robert Half was used, a claim which RHT disputes. I still don't understand why they would lie about this. They continued the lies by asserting that the first IT instructor that they released actually left them without notice for another opportunity; he was in fact fired with less than a days notice. They lie to IT instructors about the reasons for releasing them from the contract, which reasons RHT also disputes. They lied about coming to an agreement with Robert Half that extra hours on their family night week had to be "smoothed over" into the next week to avoid paying over-time pay; Robert Half denies any knowledge of such an arrangement. I never got paid for those 6 hours and they are not sure if they are going to pay me for the time worked, which they required of me. They lied about awarding a contract completion bonus, because they are denying their contractors that bonus by releasing them early. Unfortunately, where there are many apparently lies, there are so many more hidden lies.

They advocate abortion very actively.  I did not agree to support them in advocating abortion, but they required it of me, and I of course refused.  I had told them repeatedly that if they turned the question to me that I would advocate the seriousness of the decision, the value of life, and the need to assume responsibility.  That is exactly what I did when they turned to me to sustain their pro-abortion recommendation to a student.  While they would cite other reasons, this was the actual reason they fired me.

I love many aspects of Genesys Works, and therefore hope they learn from these lessons, and quickly remove such unprofessional practices from their organization. This organization offers excellent opportunities for young people at the cost of pushing Progressivism, abortion. I wish them the best success in overcoming these challenges. God bless the human race. We certainly need it.

The power to say "no"

Consumers are becoming overwhelmed with the number of accounts, services, bills, and charges going online, each with their own account name and password. Companies are taking advantage of that by extracting unearned or unapproved fees without any recourse to consumers. It is legalized theft, and we need to get the law current enough with technology to stop the theft.

Companies have been an unethical trend of profit by fees without obtaining express consumer approval, which becomes even more problematic as electronic events instantly trigger these fees while paper bills are being replaced by e-bills. A lot of these changes are good, but they are creating a new paradigm where companies get to make money by charging consumers for services which they neither wanted nor needed. Technology has also made it possible to alert consumers to services and charges instantly. We need congress to force companies to immediately let consumers know about charges at least a day in advances of actually charging them, so that the charges may be declined. Consumers must be provided the opportunity to register their email or phone for text messages, so that they may see a pending service and decline it and the charge for at least 24 hours. If a company wants to charge a person for anything, they should obtain express approval for each charge, even if the charges are itemized and scheduled in a signed contract as the contract provisions will kick in if the charges are not met as agreed.

One example (of so many): A company charges a fee automatically via an electronic funds transfer. The consumer is unaware of this charge and therefore also unable to decline the services or charges, or to change the account from which the fees are paid. Even if the consumer had each paper for each summary of automated EFT charge (oftentimes doesn’t even exist in paper form) in a folder which they referred to daily, there would be dozens of automated bills to keep track of every day on top of their every day stresses, work, and other responsibilities. IF the congress could mandate that companies report their billing amount and due dates to a central database for each consumer to access and organize, that only would greatly reduce countless late payments, headaches, frustration, and anxiety for both consumers and businesses. This database would have to be accurate, up-to-date and reliable.

So, the company sends the EFT without the consumer’s immediate knowledge or express approval. The bank then processes the EFT without verifying with the consumer whether the company had the authorization to make that EFT charge, let alone to make any EFT charges at all. The bank accepts the charge without getting the customer’s approval. It then determines that there is not enough in the account and charges an over-the-balance fee, because the consumer did not know to transfer funds to the account to cover the EFT charge. The bank does not ask the consumer if they would accept the fee in exchange for covering the EFT charge. What can the bank do? It can instantly (thanks to technology) send an email or phone alert requesting permission to make the charge. The charge can remain pending until approval is obtained or until the bank declines it.

The power to say “no” is a freedom which protects us from thieves who would not allow us the power to say “no.” It should never cost a cent to refuse a charge or service, but a contract may as a result apply its own fees when that answer violates any part of it. For example, the termination of a contract brings an early termination fee. But that fee came by a consumer choice. In order to charge that fee, I believe that the consumer must be informed that their choice would incur that fee and allowed to avoid that fee by not making that choice. Again, the consumer must have the power to say “no” to ALL fees and services, even if saying “no” to one means that they will not say “no” to the other. They must also have the power to authorize the source of the payment each time. Even with automated bill payment, because the source account may need to be changed and the vendor may change the account or services details. Additionally, the consumer needs to know and approve transactions in the event that charges are not correct.

Technology is greatly accelerated and the law needs to keep up with how it changes our economic landscape or else thieves will destroy us and our economy using legally accepted mechanisms. Technology opens us to so many new connections that it is difficult to keep track of everything, and easy for thieves to take advantage of us. Please create some legislation to protect us from these thieves and protect our power to say “no.”

The Issue of Gays

Regarding gay rights and their social issues, I must first firmly declare that I have neither enmity nor prejudice toward any gay person or group simply because I have nothing at stake with this issue. To the gay defense, genetic attraction appears to be the strongest and most popular argument to support "equality." It seems to go like this: Due to a dominant gay gene, an individual naturally prefers mating with the same gender. If the gene idea proves to be incompatible with evolution, then we must turn to other arguments and accept that being gay is, in fact, a choice. Unless logic reveals that gays are naturally harmful to society, no part of that choice justifies prejudice. That said, unwelcome advances naturally burn bridges, and gays are also obligated to avoid all body language indicating even the desire for making such advances toward those who may not welcome them.

Given that evolution favors genes which produce strong offspring. The greater the chance of producing the greatest number and strength of offspring capable of also producing the greatest number and strength of offspring, the better the chance that those genes will continue to the next generation. The presence of any gene which reduces the strength or number of offspring, without making substantial contributions to some other important survival trait, should be expected to produce a genetic line which cannot compete with the others for resources and constitutes a smaller and smaller part of the population until it eventually dies off. Gay genes cannot compete with straight genes, even if those with straight genes are naturally compelled to support those with gay genes (despite evidence to the contrary in modern societies), because of the simply fact that gays tend to have fewer offspring and less ability to manage long-lasting, stable and healthy relationships while raising children. According to current statistics and recorded history, the gay gene distracts from creating large numbers of strong children in healthy families. Given that gays do not need marriage to commit to a lasting union, we may easily ask: How many gay couples have raised at least one successful child from birth to 18 years old within an official and stable "gay union?" I do not know of any to be honest, and if there have been any, the number is likely to be very small, even as a percentage of the known gay population alone. Even then, it is expected that such a gay family also contain at least one mother because the gene which makes the parents protective of their offspring would naturally require the mother to be part of the union for the sake of the children. Any gay gene must allow the influence of a straight gene, and a protective gene which includes the mother in the family union. Lacking a mother in the family, the genetic explanation fails.

While it is possible that one gender could become confused about his or her own gender identity and thus trigger the recessive same sex gene, even that implies that a choice was made to be gay, namely the choice to identify one's own gender as being of the opposite gender. Gender confusion appears to be more of a psychological issue than of a gene issue. I tend to prefer this explanation. Ironically, the preference of gays to engage in opposite gender role-playing seems to clearly testify a lack of gender confusion in at least one of the parties in their assumption of their own natural gender. It also reveals the presence and strength of the straight gene (which promotes attraction to individuals with key characteristics of the opposite gender). Lacking the gender confusion, we are left with simply the choice to find pleasure wherever we feel comfortable or able to obtain it. If the lack of female desire for sex drives men to find pleasure with other men, then we are left considering the reason for low libido levels in women and solutions to help them find as much pleasure as men. Similarly, if women seek other women because the male focus on penetration fails to pleasure women, then it would be no surprise that women would turn to other women to better meet their needs for pleasure. A solution for enabling men to meet those needs may certainly allow a women to find as much pleasure with a man as with any other woman.

The consideration of the gay issue naturally brings serious hygiene issues associated with activities associated with the anus. Given the importance of hygiene to health, consideration of this aspect may natural sicken the audience. Extremely poor hygiene both directly and integrally defines the typical gay lifestyle. This poor hygiene also dramatically increases the transmission risk of HIV and other very serious and even deadly diseases, such consideration is relevant to the merits of both evolution and the gene argument, and to consideration of the merits of the gay choice.

Whether gay or lesbian, the gene which is most plentiful dominates while the gene which is not perpetuated dies out, according to Darwinian evolution.  Evolution allows no room for the gay gene, as it intrinsically cannot be preserved, if it ever existed.  Thus homosexuality (like all other LGBT issues) falls to the psychological argument.

Which leads to the real gay issue: "gay marriage" and the rights of children to a traditional marriage with a father and a mother.

Racist, Unethical, and Wasteful Hiring Practices

Finding employment is difficult. Even if you haven't had to worry about employment for many years, consider those who do and also yourself in the possible/unforeseen future. I especially hate facing the dreaded racial and gender questions. (Ironically, these days, I answer them just to fuel their racist/sexist agendas.) Since when should race or sex matter in the hiring decision? For even in the effort to police employers (in futility), racist/sexist questions themselves advance both racism and sexism. Furthermore, I ask you, How many times do you have to go to a store or website and fill out the same information over and over and over again with slight deviations? How many times are you asked if you are white or male, or whatever? How many times are you grilled about your previous salary, your previous employment applications, your previous high school attendance, and many other personal questions? And where is your government to protect your privacy, your rights, and your time?

It is the responsibility of your government to set-up and maintain the infrastructure for quick and easy job matching across the country, while protecting your rights at the same time. This responsibility falls under its responsibilities to protect our liberties, our pursuit of happiness, our general welfare, and finally just to protect our economy and our way of life.

In the first place, government must outline the information which is legal for a corporation to solicit during the job application process, including any process which results in the payment of goods, services, or money to an individual as a contractor or employee. The solicitation or collection of information about race or gender should not be allowed by the corporation, but may be collected and tracked only by the government anonymously. Other personal information protected by the government should also include previous salary, salary requirements, credit reports, job search details, personal relationships, personal views and philosophies, to name a few. Drastically shortening the list and more completely protecting the privacy of the people, employers should be limited to acquiring or maintaining only the following kinds of information: 1) Name, Phone numbers, Email, Website, 2) Skills/Experience and strengths, Certifications and degrees, 3) Dates and evidences of skills, experiences, certifications, and degrees, and 4) Limitations of physical work and conditions. No person may be forced to provide or maintain any of this information on themselves or others, but the information provided must be affirmed by oath for its truth.

Secondly, government must enable the efficient collection, maintenance, and distribution of employment information while prosecuting the collection, maintenance, or distribution of other information through any channels. The people must be able to enter their information and update it 24/7 by website, email, or mail submission with reasonably short update times. All information submitted must be protected against theft or destruction. Information must be captured frequently to avoid data loss. All hiring or contracting must be documented at this site for the public to see. All jobs from registered businesses must be posted there at least 1 hour before any hiring or contracting decision is made. This ensures that everyone is aware of job opportunities available and can watch hiring practices. All individuals must report directly to the government all jobs or contracts accepted. All individuals must authorize the collection of race and gender for government reporting to the public. Companies with highly discriminatory hiring stats would be publicly investigated. For the sake of image alone, companies would have an incredibly strong motivation not to look bad through unethical practices.

Lethal Handgun Concealed Carry with Peace, not Fear.

I wish to speak to you about the very serious subject of handgun ownership and carrying because so many people have expressed ideas on the subject which could unnecessarily lead to very serious consequences. My goal is to promote peace at all times, while continually preparing myself to effectively use lethal weapons, when necessary. Being feared is for bullies and criminals, while helping, comforting, and secure is for heroes.

I speak as a son of a military officer, a former soldier, a concealed carry license holder, and an avid reader of many security publications. My intention is to increase the security and safety of every person through proper education on the topic of lethal force which is typically grossly neglected and frequently discussed inappropriately. Please understand that I frequently reference Texas laws, and that you will simply needed to substitute the training for your state's concealed carry laws, as appropriate. The underlying concepts are universally: make people feel good to keep people rational and friendly, but be ready to answer force with force, and lethal force with lethal force, as necessary.

According to our second amendment, every citizen has the federal right to own a firearm; though most of the people I have ever known seem unprepared to safely exercise this right. The states, cities, and private sector are all free to regulate that right as they wish according to their respective jurisdictions. Ultimately, citizens themselves must understand the consequences of the decision to own or carry a firearm (or not). Those who advocate the 2nd, that all citizens should exercise this right, should keep in mind that most people lack the self-control to make rational choices with a firearm on their person. Conversely, the fear of guns ultimately leaves people unprepared and paralyzed in their moments of distress. For those who are unprepared to exercise the right to bear arms, I encourage you to prepare for the responsibility of handgun ownership as a long-term goal.

Additionally, I would like to cover "gun-free" zones. According to the law, unlicensed citizens may not park their vehicle in a school parking lot with a handgun or other firearm in it. Concealed handgun licensed owners may park, but may not carry on a school campus. Concealed carry is not authorized in churches or at sporting events or school events, where people tend to engage in heated and emotional topics and activities. I advocate a re-examination of our laws on these "gun-free" zones, because criminals and "crazies" do not respect these laws.

Put simply, any handgun is lethal and most handguns can easily kill on the first shot. Also, display of a handgun, and even talk about handguns (even in this blog) can cause a disturbance of the public peace, and anger people quickly. The gravity of those facts sets the tone for the responsibility of owning and carrying a firearm. The moment you touch a functional firearm, you accept the possibility that you may have to take a person's life, and if that happens, you must hope that you can sleep every night thereafter knowing that you did everything you could to minimize the risk to everyone, including the assailant. Until you understand the full value of human life and the weight of the power to end it, you should probably avoid owning and carrying a firearm. It is better to live at the mercy of other lethally violent people than take lives which could have been saved, so limit your self-defense to carrying mace or other non-lethal weapons.

There is only one valid place to aim and that is the center of the body (to hit the right target and no bystanders). There is no defense against shooting an innocent bystander so you cannot miss. Warning shots or merely "flashing" the weapon both draw attention to the fact that you are carrying and quickly reduce your odds of survival. They also rely on the use of fear to gain compliance, which breaks down when the bluff is called and no justification exists for using the firearm. Such behavior also creates public panic and increases the chances of police shooting you. When the handgun comes out, you must be able to communicate that you fear for your life or for another's life and the target must soon drop; fire until the threat disappears. Otherwise, you are needlessly escalating the situation and increasing the risk to everyone around. Contrary to popular opinion, the 9mm is as lethal as the .45 (esp. when using hollow point, given no armor), and both will "stop" a person just as quickly. Being much larger diameter and much less massive, the 9mm will not penetrate walls as easily as a .45 (or most others), esp. with the hollow point round, and may be considered safer for indoor defense.

Anyone who assumes control of a lethal weapon must be sure to have great self-control and calming power, regardless of the situation. You must be able to effectively de-escalate situations, so that even if a person is trying to get you furious, you are still calm, rational, and trying to calm them down too. The goal is to avoid conflicts which could quickly escalate to a life of regret for an avoidable loss. If you have to ever shoot someone (may you never need to), you must already be at peace and accept the fact that everyone will look at you very differently for having done so, no matter how justified you were and how well you worked to avoid having to take that crucial action. Consider your history to determine if you have the self-control, peace, and discipline to handle the responsibilities connected with a firearm: 1) Have I lost control of my anger or harmed another individual, even by accident? 2) Do I blame my anger on others or allow others to "make me angry?" 3) Do I live in paralyzing or excessive fear, depression, or anxiety? [clear, rational thought is essential during critical times of conflict], 4) Have I ever gained at someone else's expense? [It is NOT okay to hurt someone just to "get your way," or because "you are right."], 5) Can I effectively calm those who do have the issues mentioned above? The goal is to reduce the need to use a handgun as much as possible. Fortunately, my conflict resolution and de-escalation skills have avoided the need to use lethal force and left me with clear conscience that I am effectively increasing both public security and public peace, and hold no/little responsibility for conflicts.

Ironically, as tough as it is to prepare for carrying a firearm, the choice to NOT carry is even tougher. If you do not carry, you exist in a state where, at any time, an armed criminal may bring great suffering and death upon you and your loved ones. Can you live with yourself with peace of mind and conscience knowing that you chose to allow that great evil to happen? Even after securing peace with allowing evil upon yourself and loved ones, you must also find peace with the effects of that evil upon everyone else; the good left undone, and the sorrow for the losses. Case in point: The recent Arizona shootings may have easily been mitigated if people were concealed carry license holders and were armed. It would have only taken one armed CHL citizen in the area a couple of seconds to identify the shooter and stop the madness. Since every person in the area chose to NOT carry, they effectively also chose to allow all the suffering and death which we have today from that grievious tragedy: they are partly to blame (responsible) for not stopping the evil much sooner.

My experience is that most people have trouble accepting ownership and control of their own anger and fear, let alone the issues of others, and would not at all be at peace with allowing either their loved ones or themselves to be at the mercy of any lethally armed criminal. This leaves them in a limbo state where they cannot chose to either accept or forsake a firearm. My advice to the people who unprepared to carry a handgun is that they should not even own a firearm until they are prepared to use it responsibly. It probably goes without saying that most children are far too immature to carry and that most parents are unable to teach their children sufficient discipline and ethics to do so safely. They have a hard enough time following their teacher's directions, not cheating on tests, obeying their parents, and so forth. Criminals most certainly lack the patience and discipline to responsibly carry and are like children in many respects, selfishly hurting others for their own gain without a second thought about it.

The conditions for taking a life are serious and require the imminent, unavoidable threat to life. It goes without saying that we must do all in our power to prevent this threat from emerging by calming everyone down right NOW. I will emphasize that we need calming peace for EVERYONE beginning RIGHT NOW with all diligence for the rest of our days. But if a person displays a handgun, club, blade, incapacitating chemical, or fighting skills and physical strength sufficient to make you fear for your life or the lives of others, you should utilize a handgun against that person in self-defense, if there are no other effective options available. I advise you to consider non-lethal or even diplomatic means of removing the threat so long as it does not risk anyone's life while at the same time holding potential for being effective.

Though the law currently forbids handguns in most school, I believe that they should be allowed by the law for those who are above 21 years of age and holding a Concealed Handgun License (CHL); many students agree: http://www.concealedcampus.org/. Teachers or students who get frustrated, anxious, or depressed to debilitating levels should not exercise this right. Why should we disarm the good guys, when you can count on criminals and crazies carrying firearms, even on campus. Concealed carry counters the threat of one wacko committing a massacre. In sympathy of the teacher's stress levels, when teachers have to both teach and discipline, both their health and their rational powers quickly dissolve. This introduces the need to separate discipline from teaching, and I would also advocate separating grading from both as well because grades are a source of great stress for both students and teachers. Holding the teacher accountable for the grades of the students is like holding the President accountable for the state of the economy. Both have some influence, but the students, like the economy, are ultimately responsible for making their own decisions. In conclusion, I advise the stable individual to carry concealed with license in order to counter evil, while always looking for problems in order to diffuse them at their earliest stages so as to minimize conflict by engaging peacefully.