Antifa invades the Capitol

It was antifa that invaded the Capitol. Don't believe everything you hear.

What you won't hear from the media is that antifa assaulted the Capitol building in disguise. And that the police let in everyone else. The crowd calls out ANTIFA: Trump Supporters Stop 'Antifa' From Breaking Into Capitol

See more antifa: Antifa Identified at DC Capitol Acting as a Trump Supporter

And antifa admits breaching the Capitol with pride!:

Antifa Thug Admits and Brags About Storming DC Capitol Buildings

The DC mayor kept the national guard out and the Capitol police was video recorded inviting everyone in to create the false narrative of an insurrection: ShortURL - URL Shortener

In other video, trained wall climbers are seen. Most likely connected to antifa training.

Never believe what you are told or even a couple of carefully snapped images for photo ops. Always look for the evidence first. Look for video and data analytics. 

6 Jan 2021

 To my Texas Senators:

I am disappointed in the Senate's conduct on Jan 6 2021:

1) Every senator failed to both consider and speak on the evidence for election fraud, including you.

2) There were NOT objections to ALL 6 swing states

3) No effort was made to call out antifa for the capitol building assault or the role of police in letting everyone else in,

4) No effort was made to advocate for election integrity with solid election reform (they will steal your seat the same way next time),

5) McConnell was NOT called out for failing to select senators to speak on evidence supporting the objections,

6) You did not hold a press conference afterwards calling out McConnell for denying you the chance to speak on election fraud evidence.

 

Congress and the presidency will remain blue until significant election integrity reforms are put into place.  We are a Banana Republic and the 2020+ elections are illegitimate.  You need to reveal the fraud and call out our election insecurity.  Democrats may allow token election reforms but nothing to challenge their power to fully control America.  Now is the time to act with courage, if this Republic is to be saved.

Democrats attack Gender in House rules

Democrats have attacked gender in the halls of congress by banning all words referencing gender; they are no longer allowed: mother, father, man, woman, brother, sister, etc.

Democrats push back that this ban only affects the House rules document, but it leaves much room for asking why and what's next?  Surely they are simply testing the waters for more gender-hating Progressivism.

Democrats attack Democracy

Fascist Democrats have attacked the capitol building by using antifa posing as Trump supporters.  Then they encouraged everyone to enter.

After the antifa assault, the cops were told to let everyone into the capitol building.  The cops admit as much in this brief clip. https://rumble.com/vcjxnp-shocking-new-video-capitol-police-appear-to-just-let-protesters-into-buildi.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=8

It was ANTIFA

Here they are.

And antifa admits it with pride!

The Democrats knew, approved and organized it all!  Including the DC mayor who stopped the national guard for many hours.

The Gravity of Physics

Consideration of the number of dimensions of known space and weighted orthogonality of those dimensions proposed in string theory, the issue of gravity helps to resolve several dilemmas in physics.

For the average person, physics has long had an issue with unifying the very "small" laws of quantum physics with the very "large" laws of the universe and gravity.  The desire for a unified theory is justified by a desire to accurately and correctly explain anything with a single law before it has ever been observed.  It also allows us to understand the nature of everything and to form the correct understanding of their relationships.

Engineers have faced a similar issue with requiring experimental evidence to discover the dominant forces of a system in order to simplify the calculations to solvable problems.  It turns out that in every situation some forces/effects or so much stronger than the rest, that we can safely ignore the rest and get extremely accurate results.  Unfortunately, ignoring insignificant forces makes it very difficult to understand the true nature of space, particles, energy, etc.

Astrophysicists have struggle for decades with the expansion of the universe and dark matter and dark energy.  This indicates that even using the laws that we have developed for a particular application, while ignoring lesser influences, our misunderstanding is great enough to lead our conclusions to great errors.  The benefit of a complete understanding seems to apply to every question which deviates significantly from our current solution sets, which is practically all new technology and research.

The traditional 4 dimensions of space, which consists of x, y, z, and t in cartesian coordinates develop the question: Is it possible for the current 3D model of space to include more dimensions?

Gravity is oftentimes compared to a membrane upon which masses may be placed.  The masses stretch the membranes downwards with steeper slopes closer to the masses, and continuing a long distance out.  Thus the membrane is another dimension.  But gravity is just another force created by the effect of matter by its very nature on each other.  How many other forces create dimensions also?  And what does this mean about dimensions or weighted dimensions like String Theory?

Success begins with good parenting

I know a great many parents who think that they are good parents.  Most people think they are good people despite their many flaws.

If your child:

Cannot appreciate both their father and their mother,
Cannot find peace and happiness continually,
Cannot eventually bless their spouse with peace and happiness continually,
Cannot forgive unconditionally, appreciate the good, hear different viewpoints, and stand with courage for goodness, then
You have failed as a parent in raising your child, and you have set them up to fail in raising their children.

If you are not inspiring those around you to be more forgiving, more peaceful, and more happy, then you are failing as a person.

DO NOT ACCEPT FAILURE.  Get up again, and be a success.  It has to start with someone, and that person might as well be you.  In fact, it MUST be you.  Then be the parent your children deserve and teach them to be the parent their children deserve.  And be sure to tap into divine power to maximize your effectiveness.

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.

Accountability for teachers and students

We oftentimes say that we want good teachers and therefore want to hold them accountable for their "performance," while we neglect the student's responsibility in the learning process. A teach with poor discipline is called a bad teacher despite their knowledge and real teaching skills, while students with poor performance blame their teachers, instead of themselves and the behavior of their peers.

Really, a teacher's knowledge is the only thing that really matters in teaching a class and the only thing that can be objectively assessed. Teachers can be taught new teaching techniques, but discipline is an entirely different issue from teaching which should be farmed out to those qualified to discipline. The teacher who is not responsible for the student's grades is free to teach.

Classrooms need cameras in them where others can watch and quickly intervene from outside the classroom. Halls also need cameras for the same reason. By quickly glancing over the monitors, a principal can see the conduct of all and give direction immediately to restore the environment to learning as quickly as possible. Specific students can be watched throughout the day, and weapons or other illegal behavior can be spotted quickly. Messages can be sent to specific speakers to provide minimal disruption of the rest of the school.

Problem students can be easily identified and moved to classes with other problem students, where they are more effectively dealt with. Tests can be more easily and effectively monitored. Discipline can be handled by a more centralized and streamlined authority. Teachers can have a wireless transmitter or other signal that brings attention to the class for swift situational assessment and student discipline.

The evaluation of the teachers can be effectively accomplished with tests and observation of the classroom for professional behavior alone. Movement throughout the school can be managed and controlled by the monitors.

The Effect of Government

Without dispute, government must act to have any effect. Government must assess a tax in order to act, for she cannot finance her operations without money or resources; unless, in some way, she manages to motivate enough people to freely contribute both their time and resources.

When a tax is assessed, the economy is always hurt. The tax assessment hurts the individuals against whom it is levied, all those who do business with him, and those who do business with them, and so on. Tax increases weaken the economy. Increasing government actions translates to both a weaker economy and a more powerful government. A more powerful government is more easily inclined to increase her taxes on a weakened economy, being less able to resist tax increase initiatives.

An income tax decreases a person's desire to work by reducing the rewards for his labors. The results are higher unemployment, and fewer people accepting jobs with increased responsibilities. This leaves much less capital available for spending, and thus weakens the economy.

A sales tax decreases a person's desire to spend. Less spending weakens the economy, but the result here differs from the first case in that people have higher wage jobs and more money saved for difficult times. The wages for increased responsibility are not diminished and therefore people are more likely to rise to their full potential, producing their finest work at their best wages. Unemployment is much lower because people are more inclined to work when the wages are undiminished by taxation. People will tend to save more because the penalty for purchasing goods is higher. During difficult times, people continue working through them because their savings carry them through it. Therefore depressions are much lighter and shorter with sales tax versus the income tax. Taxation still weakens the economy by slowing the business side, but the working part of the economy continues with as efficiently as possible given the economic state.

The decision of whether government should do something rests with the consideration of the cost on the individuals taxed. Reversing the popular quote, "No representation without taxation," because those who are taxed understand best the cost on themselves and on those with whom they do business. All must be taxed equally for all to be represented equally, and that taxation must be applied as a sales tax for the motivation to work to remain strong and keep everyone producing their best for the economy and receiving the best wages for their work.

Public schools need freedom and games

The public schools are very different than community colleges and universities for one principle reason: they hold education as a right. You might think that every child has a right to education, but from this point it is easy to choose either compulsory, boring education, or free, fun, enlightening education. I agree that it is a good thing to ensure that every child have the opportunity to receive all of the education that they are capable and interest in claiming.

The problem is that the philosophy of education as a right (while seeming benign and a "no brainer" on the surface) is usually interpreted in a very foolish way. You see, education as a right implies compulsory learning. Plato reinforces that compulsory education takes no hold upon the mind in his famous quotes:

"The most effective kind of education is that a child should play amongst lovely things."
"Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind."

To make matters worse, compulsory learning typically implies "cookie cutter" instruction, which is to say that all students will be presented with the same instruction and tests. Some teachers try to enrich their instruction with a variety of instructional styles for a shotgun effect. The problem there is that usually only one pellet of the correct learning style hits the target, if the child's style is similar to the ones chosen, and the wasted pellets represent wasted time and effort on the part of both the student and the instructor. The difference is that free education allows the child to freely claim his education without unneeded stress and through his own way, while compulsory education forces every child to receive the education in the same way or ways. Examination of public education clearly reveals that the public schools routinely force both students and teachers to embrace compulsory education. The connection of the problems commonly seen with students and teachers in the classroom with compulsory education inspires us to explore alternate approaches and condemns the compulsory education approach. Making students and teachers engage in coerced learning violates so many ethical and natural principles that it comes as a relief to back up and see the problems which follow directly from them.

For the pessimists who say that no student will learn given the freedom not to learn, I make 3 counters: 1) Learning is by nature fun and free unless the instructor kills either the fun or the freedom, 2) The learning environment remains compulsory, and 3) The natural mind is easily excited by its primary interests and all topics which unlock those interests.

Learning is naturally fun. Most games exist for teaching students skills needed to do various tasks and jobs. Rodeos demonstrate proficiency with the cowboy profession. Americas Army is a video game developed by the US Army as a tool for developing interests and skills required by the US Army professions, while war games develop the soldier's proficiency in fighting war. The game of "House" naturally develops an interest and ability in managing a house. The spelling bee is a game used to develop the skill of spelling, of course. Other games are designed to develop specific muscles or skills used in other activities or for other purposes. But how many of those games remain fun after compulsion enters the equation? Interest and compulsion are antagonists.

Some students are lazy, even when learning is made fun through games, and avoid the fun because of an established bad habit of avoiding anything requiring work in favor of their own meaningless games. Because of these students, the learning environment is compulsory, which only means that the must remain in a study hall type environment until their work receives a SATISFACTORY grade. Contrasting the boredom of a study hall with the fun of the games offered, the students will likely choose the games. Participation in the games requires of course that they follow the rules or else return to the "study hall" to be mentored by teachers without games.

So I ask, how much of our public education is games? Furthermore, how much of it is compulsory?

While those questions speak clear volumes, I will slam the dagger home into public education. How free is a child to enter the classroom or a teacher to accept or deny the student in our public education system? While dozens of questions and justifications may race to your mind at those questions, I ask you to suspend them and ask yourself how much better education might be if the student chose to enter the classroom knowing that the teacher was free to accept or reject him or her, and knowing that he or she could leave at any time? The logistics of discipline and responsibility for minors follows as a separate, unrelated, and easily addressable issue, so just consider the previous questions without the baggage of wondering about the consequences of "unacceptable" decisions, which is the root of all compulsion and the enemy of all liberty and enlightenment/learning.

You may have begun to make connections with post-secondary education because college is much more similar to this approach and enjoys much more effective education; though the damage done by this point is already extensive and almost irreparable.

What of the games, though? That sounds interesting, right? Why don't they happen? The primary reason is that the system doesn't like games because they remove the professional atmosphere and threaten a disciplinary system which is already heavily taxed with continual compulsion. If that weren't enough, the system taxes the teachers with the job of discipline and compulsion, leaving little time or energy available for the intense creativity required for both devising games and executing them. Finally, policy makers simply don't know how to evaluate the effectiveness of games either for learning or for testing.

I leave you with eight points which open the door to a whole new educational world of possibilities: 1) Teachers need to be free to work together to make games and to practice them, 2) Teachers need to be free from discipline, 3) Students need to receive complete responsibility for their learning which includes choosing their teacher and deciding to go to class, 4) Student testing must be done by a tester, not by a teacher, 5) Discipline must be monitored and enforced by an administrator without question for a teacher's or tester's acceptance of the student, 6) Teacher evaluation is only done by their students' scores, 7) Students must be in study hall run by administrators when not in class, and 8) Administrators track their students at all times.

The State of the nation and her constitution

Guys, no one is ignoring the constitution or ignorant of it. People are simply finding the loopholes around it so that they can do what they want. A poorly written document has many loopholes, and the constitution is no exception. And no, loopholes are not a sign of wickedness in people set to undermine the constitution, but instead are a sign of a constitution unprepared to meet the needs of a very modern nation or the level of morality required to maintain the fine balance in: the market, freedom/security, and diplomacy. But government is more balanced than in earlier times, as great issues are worked out through bloody conflicts like the Civil War, Kent State, and 9/11.

Yes, it is possible to design a constitution to perfection, immune from loopholes and in tune with the needs and morality of all future generations. In all humility :), I am probably the only one who can do it. I see the problems in the system and I know how to politically catalyze the good of the people as the free market mechanisms do economically to produce the mighty American economy; which even in the height of our current depression holds tremendous influence in the world economy. My constitution re-engineering project has already begun, but it is far from complete, though the foundation and framework are in place already. Interestingly, many of my initiatives can be enacted to some degree through creating Presidential departments.

Did God create a document which brought upon us the Civil War by proving unable to resolve the state-slavery issue or to establish the proper conditions and procedures for states to adapt government to meet their needs without a civil war? Original intent assumes the old document is better than the new, which is simply not true. The constitution is constantly adapting to our needs and accumulated wisdom.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.6

Secure wireless networks

We all know how easy it is for anyone to drive into our neighborhood and hack into our wireless networks within minutes using freely available programs on the internet. I suggest that we have our networks hop passphrases. The transmitters and receivers are given a passphrase database and hop schedule via USB so that they all hop to the same passphrases at the same times several times per second. Eavesdroppers will have no idea when the passphrases change, when they will be used again, or that they are changing, except that as they attempt to assemble the passphrase, the pieces change. They will be unable to listen long enough to determine any complete passphrase, or even if they did, to use it for more than a split-second, literally.

Right of Separation and Constitutional Relevance

The right to leave the union assumes that the union allows this peacefully. Force gives no moral rights, thus by force anyone may dissolve any political bands whether or not they have this right. To secure the moral right, the union must violate some inalienable right or the constitution which binds the union. The right of individual agency to act and judge with sovereignty is an inalienable right, not a political right. If political powers attempt to remove this inalienable individual right, then the individual and his state retain thu right to forcefully oppose this defiance of nature. To secure any right (moral or not) as a political right, all political powers must surrender their commitment to forceful opposition. Colonies earned their political right to separation by convincing (usually only possible by force) Britain to release her claim upon their governance. States are justified in rebellion and separation from the union when defending their citizen's rights of representation and suffrage, or other issues of justice which which the union forcefully opposes. On that note, if the union forcefully enforces submission to a just constitution or to just laws, such as the protection of her citizens from slavery, the states who oppose this use of force are not justified in holding grievances against her. By this argument, the Southern States of America stand corrected. There was never any violation of the constitution, and their cause of perpetuating slavery was unjust, therefore they had no moral right to separation.

If the constitution were ignored (as my father also believes), then all laws supported by it would crumble; without the constitutional foundation, the entire government must immediately collapse. Even if the "ignoring" is not misinterpreting, then the parts being ignored are isolated and not likely to be important "cornerstones." Either way, this perception provides clear evidence of the need for re-engineering because it reveals that the judicial branch lacks the power to defend and uphold the constitution. We need you to help re-engineer the constitution to give the courts sufficient power to uphold the constitution as we intend it to be interpreted and in no other way. The constitution works, not because the citizenry police their government, but because of checks and balances, she (government) polices herself. Failures in checking government is not our fault, but the fault of a constitution which needs re-balancing of powers (like a regular car tune-up). That "paper" has real power whether Bush or anyone else chooses to believe it or not. For one thing, it gave him the power to do what he did, otherwise no one would call him President or obey his orders.

The reason that a larger body has become so corrupt by mob rule is because representatives do not derive their power from the people and are so free to be sold out to the highest contributing special interest groups. I have an effective amendment correcting that problem. PS: The Californians who are "people migrating from places of tyranny to places of freedom" are by definition political refugees, though not in the sense of exiles or fugitives.

While uniform, universal law has been abused (see Hitler, WW2) and is no argument by itself, the promises of a well-written constitution are great if government can be held to check all those who would corrupt or ignore the re-engineered constitution. The alternative is to do nothing or constantly run (voting with our feet) from local mobs, cartels, and tyrants, wherever we go. Isolation is not acceptable, so why not continually make a stand here and now (instead of feet voting) and improve the current political system so that tyrants less easily thrive and justice reigns with greater power?

I think that a strong central state preserves a stronger union and the re-engineered justices at all levels of justices. Rest assured that I hold zero tolerance for wealth distribution, yet it is clear that resources must be pooled for the benefit of the society as a whole, and not of small factions who would have us believe that their benefit is our benefit, too. Rest assured that we can engineer a constitution which cannot be interpreted except to advance good and harm evil.

Infrastructure and exclusive contracts

The people encourage competition by separating infrastructure from services. Any company may use infrastructure at the same price as any other company, non-exclusively. Infrastructure must be owned by companies independent and wholly separate from any company which uses it. Infrastructure includes phone lines, cell phone towers, data lines, power lines, road, satellites, etc. which connect more than one business or residence.

No company may offer a contract exclusively nor discriminate with a different fee schedule, except with direct competitors.

Medical care amendment

The people declare the importance of medical care in establishing the general welfare and insuring domestic tranquility. We declare it unlawful for any company to collect information regarding their own employees' medical insurance. Each company must pay their medical benefits directly to their employees in the form of medical benefits vouchers payable to the employee's choice of eligible medical insurance company located anywhere in the country. The insurance company may not record or collect employment related information in any way or for any purpose, including the name of the employer.