Friday, February 25, 2011

Excommunicate TSAers

I'd rather speak of duties than rights. But a government agent who violates the "rights" of the People violates his duty. If nothing else, his duty to keep his oath of office. He takes the Lord's Name in vain. TSA agents violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, and make themselves liars.

"Public Servants" who strike for higher wages are thieves. "Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need." (Ephesians 4:28)

If today's churches had been following in the steps of churches in the American Revolution, they would have already excommunicated any of their members who had jobs with TSA or any other unconstitutional bureaucracy (Matthew 18:17). "Let him be unto you as a tax collector." Today, wimpy churches allow tax collectors to dictate what gets preached from the pulpit.

The British called America's pastors "The Black Robed Regiment."

Here's news that a Seattle-Area Restaurant Refuses To Serve TSA Agents.


Mubarak's government in Egypt fell when the enforcers stopped enforcing. Restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations, and churches need to put pressure on today's Red Coats among us to repent, resign, and seek productive employment.

No guns or riots are necessary to bring down the tyranny in Washington D.C.


The Excommunication of George W. Bush

Shunning Government Down

Anonymous Hacks Westboro

Jael Phelps, granddaughter of America's most hated preacher, Fred Phelps, has posted a screen shot of Westboro Baptist Church's infamous website, The website was vandalized by a group of hackers calling themselves "Anonymous," or at least by one hacker calling itself "th3j35t3r" ["the jester"].

From a libertarian perspective, "Anonymous" has initiated force, engaged in aggression, and perpetrated an act of violence against the website. Even libertarians who reject "intellectual property" concepts can distinguish between copying someone's property and destroying it.

But this act of desperation should come as no surprise. "Anonymous," like the vast majority of Americans, are victims of educational malpractice at the hands of government-run or government-accredited schools. Americans are unable to engage in critical thinking. Therefore Americans are unable to engage in original thinking. Americans simply parrot politically correct slogans ["God loves everybody"]. Americans are all unthinking anonymous conformists.

Zombies who cannot refute an idea with reason and truth throw a temper-tantrum. Unable to understand a proposition, analyze it, and demonstrate its falsity, they must resort to aggression.

As a result of hacking the Westboro website, perhaps millions of people have typed in the words "God-Hates-Fags-dot-com" just to see the "triumph" of "Anonymous." The seeds of thought are planted in many minds that cannot refute them. "th3j35t3r" has spread Westboro's message far and wide. And this is why Jael Phelps can sincerely believe that


Who are the Haters?

Monday, February 21, 2011

"Lawsuits" and "Marriages"

Smith comes up to me and says he's really angry at Jones. Smith asks me if he can sue him. I prefer working out conflicts peacefully, without asking for the State to initiate force against anyone, but it appears Smith does have a case against Jones.

The next day Smith says he's filed his lawsuit against Jones. Curious as to whether Smith made "a federal case out of it," I ask Smith where he filed his lawsuit.

"WalMart," he says.

I knew that WalMart SuperStores also had a Pharmacy, Banking, Optometry, and other services, but I hadn't heard about courts.

Smith says he wrote up his lawsuit and gave it to the woman at the "Customer Service" desk. As Smith related the ensuing conversation, I can imagine that the Customer Service Representative was quite confused.

I tried not to be insulting to Smith. Courteously and respectfully, I tried to explain that there are certain traditions surrounding this thing called a "lawsuit," certain formalities that are expected, certain requirements that must be met, and that Smith hadn't actually initiated a "lawsuit" at all.

Smith insisted that he had in fact filed a lawsuit, and that he was going to win his case.

He asked me why I wasn't on his side. I said his grievance against Jones may have been justified, but eventually I convinced him that really, technically, a genuine "lawsuit" doesn't exist at this point. Smith didn't have a "lawsuit" going yet.

I tried to help Smith overcome his anger against Jones in other ways, and he was thankful for my time.

The next day Smith told me that he and Jones had reconciled, and in fact the two men had gotten married!

I didn't even want to know if they had gone to WalMart.

I tried not to be insulting to Smith. Courteously and respectfully I tried to explain that there are certain traditions surrounding this thing called "marriage," certain formalities that are expected, certain requirements that must be met, and that Smith and Jones weren't "married" at all.

Smith insisted that he had in fact gotten married, and that he was going to live happily ever after in matrimony with Jones.

He asked me why I wasn't on his side. I said his admiration for Jones may have been justified, but eventually I convinced him that he really, technically, wasn't married to Jones, and never could be.

I went back to an early decision on marriage by the Texas Supreme Court, which said:
Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband. . . . When Noah was selected for salvation from the flood, he and his wife and his three sons and their wives were placed in the Ark; and, when the flood waters had subsided and the families came forth, it was Noah and his wife and each son and his wife . . . . The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage . . . which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary [sic] . . . . [Marriages] will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. . . . It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation "a civil contract" to such a marriage. It is that and more; a status ordained by God.
Grigsby v Reib, 153 S.W. 1124, 1129-30 (TxSupCt 1913)
I explained to Jones that God prohibits incest, homosexuality, and other sins, and that these relationships cannot be labeled "marriage." Jones reminded me that many governments were calling these things "marriages." I explained that decades ago, there were some who were quick to seize on ambiguous language in the constitution and attempt to legitimize their anti-Biblical acts with the protection of the First Amendment. Courts didn't buy their arguments back then, and shouldn't today:

[The Founders] did not mean that the pure moral customs which Christianity has introduced should be without legal protection because some pagan, or other religionist, or anti-religionist, should advocate as a matter of conscience concubinage, polygamy, incest, free love, and free divorce, or any of them . . . . No Christian people could possibly allow such things.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Commonwealth v. Nesbit 84 Pa. 398 (1859)
Smith insisted that government is now "secular," and many government agencies more recently have officially recognized same-sex couples as "married." I reminded Smith that just because a government entity says something is true does not make it true. "Marriage" was invented by God before conquerors and looters invented "the State." "Governments" have occasionally been more respectful of the Bible, but their shift in allegiance does not change reality. Reality is determined by God and revealed to us in the Bible. "Governments" and other organizations should acknowledge God's Word.

I tried to help Smith see that nobody is forced to engage in homosexual activities (except, ironically, those imprisoned for committing sodomy by conservatives in "the government"). It's a voluntary choice that should be changed. I pointed Smith to resources that show repentance is possible, and that many have experienced victory over sin.

Smith and Jones are now good friends.

Call this "The Parable of 'Smith' and 'Jones.'"
Everything else is factual.

Friday, February 04, 2011

Ronald Reagan on Abortion

Ronald Reagan was born 100 years ago on February 6, 1911. He was definitely one of my least unfavorite U.S. Presidents. I still enjoy many of his speeches. His spoken ideals were not always embodied in the policies of his administration, as they were often opposed by powerful people with whom he had close contacts, such as members of the Bush and Hinckley families.

Lincoln served Reagan well for rhetorical flourishes, contrary to the facts of history.