On the subject of lawlessness...a letter to my pastor.

I know that Romans 13 commands us to obey the "lawful authorities".

This is where the trouble begins for me. Throughout the bible, I see passages showing me that God wants us to live free. I’ve always been what many would refer to as an “anarchist”, I guess, being the type of person who refuses to serve a master as a matter of force. All service to God is a performance of my own volition, as are my adherence to his commandments to the best of my abilities.

Likewise, so is my adherence to the laws of man, whenever possible. I’ve long-since believed that the greatest gift man was ever given by God in a post-Adam & Eve world was not salvation, but the knowledge to understand what is required for our salvation and the ability to freely accept it.

Is this not the only path to salvation as believed by the Christian? It is not through good works, or by birthright, that we obtain salvation, but by our willingness to accept Christ as our savior and allow him into our lives.

Now, getting back to what I was saying about lawlessness, I remember sitting in your garage one evening a while back when the question of self-defense was brought up…and your answer involved your own personal departure from the defenseless pacifist upbringing to your current belief of self-defense. While the discussion involved a robber in the middle of the night, I ask if it matters any at all if it is one man or a uniformed gang of several thousand men perpetrating the robbery? Does it matter if the robbery occurred inside your home in the middle of the night, or on a public street in broad daylight in front of anyone who might be passing by?

Does a government’s power over everyone within a given jurisdiction not exist solely upon the basis of force (or the threat of it)? For example, let’s take taxation, since a government cannot exist without funds. Assume, for instance, that a person has a conscientious objection to paying taxes, because that tax money will be used to fund things said person disagrees with (i.e. war, abortion, illicit drug interdiction, public schools, et cetera).

Now, assume that this person decides to not pay taxes, because he doesn’t want to pay for one man to kill another, be it in the form of abortion, war, capital punishment, or any other form. What happens when he doesn’t pay? He is threatened with prison. If he does not choose to pay taxes OR go to prison and actively refuses, he is met with government force in the form of IRS agents carrying firearms. Should he defend himself from kidnapping, they will shoot him.

I cannot see much difference between this and an armed robber that breaks into the home in the middle of the night to steal your television so it can be pawned for crack money.

Throughout the bible, we read stories of men who stood on their faith in God while doing what is right, even though it went in opposition to the law. One of my personal favorite passages is that of Daniel 6, and reading it has brought me strength in God’s word many a time while waiting to see a judge after standing my ground in what I’ve known to be right.

Even in the NT, we read of how fallible men and their regulations are to be shunned, in favor of our understanding of the law of God…and yet, we are also told to give Caeser what is his, even though it pays for things that bring anger to God. We are told to obey our worldly masters (in our case, everyone from the lowest city cop, all the way up to the President of the United States), because they are ordained by God according to the book of Romans.

I’ve never studied Greek, but something I found rather odd about the ancient Romans was their use of the word “licentia”. It has several translations into the English language, with the two standing out most vividly to me were “anarchy” and “freedom”. When I think about it, I cannot see any true freedom in the presence of any law that infringes upon it, when such laws can only be sustained by force or threat of force. Much of the book of Galations is devoted specifically to the concept of freedom, with verse 5:1 specifically stating “For freedom, Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”

The “direct” law of God, this master I choose to serve, is rather explicit with his law. It’s when we get into the laws of the middleman known as “government” that I get a bit confused.

On one hand, we are told to obey these worldly masters. On the other hand, we know that the dictates of these masters directly contradict the commandments of God on a very frequent basis…and obviously, we should obey the laws of God before the laws of man when they don’t reconcile. With that being said, how are we to determine when and where to stand our ground?

Imagine if the will of the state had been resisted in Germany, circa 1933. There would have been about six million Jews that hadn’t been slaughtered, in addition to the countless millions of others who lost their lives as a result of Hitler’s rise to power…and yet, all the law said was that the German government had the right to rule as it willed. More importantly, the Enabling Acts were passed via lawful means, through a lawfully-elected government. However, they were used to provide for the wholesale slaughter of God’s “chosen”…in addition to a whole host of other crimes against God. At what point do we cease to view tyranny as an ordained mechanism of God, and begin to view it as a violation of the laws of God?

If Christ tells us to “sell our cloak and buy one” in reference to owning a sword (the ancient equivalent of owning a decent firearm), what is the purpose if we are not supposed to resist unjust laws because the laws were put into place by those elected via majority vote? Would it not serve a better purpose to oppose such laws through non-violent means, and to do so prior to the point where we have no other means at all? If so, how are we to oppose such laws once they get past the “debate” stage on the congressional floor and are made into actual laws, if we are to submit to our duly elected leaders?

I’m having a difficult time understanding what I currently view as a contradiction in teaching within the bible (definitely wouldn’t be the first time!). If the bible tells me “Thou Shall Not Steal”, am I any less of a bank robber if I don’t actually go into the bank but I do knowingly drive the getaway car? What are we to do when obeying an unjust law does not directly violate the law of God, but we also know that obeying such a law enables our government to violate the law of God?

At what point do we take a stand, and say, “NO! I will not obey this law!”?

Just another shitty day in paradise...

So, the purpose of tonight's post isn't anything really meaningful. It's more of venting. In less than an hour, it will be my brother's birthday. Were he with us, he would be turning 36 tonight.

Today generally sucked donkey balls. I miss my girlfriend. I had a very disappointed customer that I'm sure to be dealing with tomorrow. To top it off, I had to ask my boss if she needed a flashlight...because the view from up my ass (where her head was at for the last four hours of my workday) had to have been pretty dark.

Then I get home, and a friend sends me a link about how "The Reverend" Al Sharpton is calling for Rush Limbaugh to be hauled before a congressional committee to explain his "racism" comments. Apparently, I'm supposed to be up in arms about this bullshit 1st Amendment soap opera between two talking heads that still play the "left v. right" game, as if it matters.

In the grand scheme of things, it's nothing more than an idle threat at this point.

My boss can't continue one of our most in-demand services, because she built a new shop on her own property instead of continuing to rent one less than two miles down the road...and because of "environmental regulations", her new shop isn't grandfathered like the shop she was renting. That's several thousand dollars a month we AREN'T making.

A customer of mine recently told me of how "city regulations" required him to spend almost twenty thousand dollars to stucco the front of a commercial building he owns, simply because he decided to lease part of it to another business...and it's no longer grandfathered.

A few months ago, the city council of the town I live in banned a particular species of mint plant that my ancestors have used for centuries to combat all manner of ailments from constipation to depression...because of the fact that if you eat or smoke enough of it, you just might get high (if, of course, you're in a very controlled environment without any lights or loud noises to distract you!). If you do grow this plant, which used to be available for purchase in the Lawn & Garden section of the local Wal-Mart, you're now subject to a $2,000 fine.

I can't park my privately-owned car in a privately-owned driveway without being threatened by the government to have it stolen (at my expense, no less!) because it doesn't have a current registration sticker...even though it hasn't been driven on the street in over a decade.

When I see the raccoons in my back yard (the same ones that have invaded the attic and ripped apart our phone lines and the electrical going to our central AC and heat), it's illegal to shoot them in a safe and responsible manner, because it's a violation of city code...even though they're potentially also carrying rabies and all manner of other diseases, as well.

Every other traffic light I drive through is equipped with a "red light camera" put there by a company in another state, which has whenever possible shortened the yellow light period to the minimum allowed by law in order to collect the most revenue...and our local governments don't even try to pull the bullshit about how it's "for safety" any more. Now they play the "it's against the law, you'll pay up if you get caught" role.

I can't open the local paper without reading about how someone, somewhere, is involved in some form of public graft, corruption, or criminality as a matter of their employment...whether it's from a police chief stealing paperwork from a reporter in a city council meeting, to the Water Board playing illegal politics, to the officers being on the clock while not on the job, shit is getting fucked up.

Meanwhile, I'm supposed to give a damn about the fact that Limbaugh and Sharpton are having a collectively bad hair day? Those leeches feed off of each other. If it weren't for the fact that they need each other as "enemies" to sell books, they wouldn't even know who the other was. The federal government called my grandmother a criminal because she smoked pot while she was dying of cancer. I'm supposed to care that a fat white republican with no hair called a fat black democrat with bad hair a "racist"? I'm supposed to give a damn about the fact that said fat black democrat with bad hair wants to drag said fat republican with no hair before a congressional hearing?

I'm sorry, but my give-a-shit reservoir is running dry this evening. Happy birthday, Brandon Laurn Raines. In a way, I'm glad you're not here to see it...

If you're going to tell me "You're wrong!"...

So a few days ago, I got into this discussion about something, and was accused of A) being wrong, B) being "combative", and C) being "dense".

The issue I take with this is the fact that I make it a point to not hold strong opinions (more typically, I don't hold any opinion at all) about things I haven't thoroughly researched or personally experienced. I mean, I'm not the kind of person that would argue the value of Tibetan philosophy, or who really killed JFK. Not only do I not give a rat's ass, but I also don't know enough about such subjects to form a valid opinion.

However, when I do voice an opinion, it is most often grounded in actual observable fact. I'm not going to sit there and argue with you, if I can't point out very simply the exact logical method of how I came to hold such an opinion. Therefore, I'd appreciate it if you would be prepared to show me exactly where I've gone wrong...and to back yourself up with facts. In the meantime, the following guidelines might come in handy for you:

1) Don't try to use written legislation to show me anything other than what written legislation happens to be. Seriously. Don't try to equate "it's illegal" to "it's morally wrong". You're getting into the realm of Malum Prohibitum v. Malum In Se, and confusing the two shows a gross degree of ignorance on the subject of right and wrong.

2) Don't use the "straw man". Stick to the conversation at hand. Don't go throwing random extraneous stuff into the mix when it has no relation to the issue at hand.

3) When I ask you a question, just answer it...even if you know it will prove my point. Don't change the subject, don't call names, just answer the question. If your position is righteous, you should be able to.

So there you have it. Three simple rules for arguing with me. If you are going to tell me I'm wrong when I say something, have the common decency to back yourself. Otherwise, please continue with your delusions, and leave mine to me. Thank you.

Rip that mother out!

I just saw an article in USAToday, where Mr. Pistole (chief of the TSA) said his agency's newest focus will be on trains and subways.

Honestly, I hope so.

No, I don't enjoy authority for authority's sake, which is what the TSA is and has always been. However, until the collective anger of this nation reaches critical mass, they'll be there. I've been saying for quite some time that the government of this nation is like an ingrown toenail, and our nation won't heal until we bite the bullet and rip that mother out. Having suffered through a few actual ingrown toenails in my younger days, I know that it hurts so bad to rip them out that a man will generally let it fester until the pain can no longer be tolerated before getting out the pliers and going to work.

We're going to see that in America, and we're going to see it soon. It's not because of a "few nutjobs", it's going to simply because John Q. Public is going to eventually get so fed up with The Man that there will be a shortage of rope in this nation. Government employees will be seen as somewhere between pedophiles and gangbangers in our society's scumbag-scale. They will become strange fruit dangling from the lampposts, and they will have no one to blame for it but themselves.

I wish, for humanity's sake, that things would never get that far. Unfortunately, since the beginning of time, it has been in man's nature to control others. When you take an ordinary man and put him in control, he will allow himself to become a god in his own mind. The downside of this is that he is nothing but an ordinary man, and those he controls typically don't like being controlled.

It will take a bit of time for this to happen, but it would appear that the TSA has become the alarm clock that is systematically waking up Boobus from his great American slumber. On that note, I say let the TSA take the reigns at the post office, while we're at it. Let them monitor the drive-thru lane at WhataBurger. Let them man the call centers for tech support. Let them into every facet of our lives outside of our own homes, and give them the power to giveth and taketh away...just like they have at the airports right now.

If you give a man an inch, he'll think he's a ruler. Let 'em keep pushing until they push us ALL into a corner. Let 'em make it so tough that everyone and their uncle has been accosted by these scumbags. If you keep pushing and pushing, pretty soon this nation will be so compressed that it will explode.

Let's roll...

I'd gladly fly "Shit Happens Airways"...

Seriously, was the Transportation Safety Agency specifically created as a means to "ease" Americans into tyranny, a la the parable of the frog and the boiling pot?

It's a well-known fact that most of these gubbmint lackeys are little more than McIdiots that managed to squeak through a security check, which tells me they aren't exactly the greatest people on the planet to be ensuring that we don't die in a fiery airplane crash.

That being said, I have a pair of questions to ask of the TSA (and government, in general) regarding the arrest of Sam Wolanyk in the very same airport as John Tyner of "Don't touch my junk" fame.

1) What are you hiding? If your general activities (your "pat-downs" and other related searches) are on display for the public who happen to be waiting in line for their turn to get molested by the PornoTron scanners and rubber-glove-wearing agents of the state, WHY IS IT A CRIME TO FILM THIS ACTIVITY? Surely, it can't be because "the terr'ists" might see what you're doing, if EVERYONE IN LINE CAN SEE IT! Why is it a crime then, for a private individual who helps pay your salary, to film you as you perform the duties he is paying you to do in public?

2) If a man is willing to strip down to his skivvies in order to show you that he's not carrying any guns or explosives, why would you not simply see that he's hiding nothing and allow him to move on? Why is it necessary for him to put his clothing back on, for the sake of allowing you to give him a "pat-down"?

Is it the job of the TSA to search for weapons, with pat-downs and PornoTron scanners being a tool to help in this search for those who don't want to remove their outer clothing? If a man is wearing skin-tight undies and nothing else, what is a pat-down going to tell you after he's put his clothes back on?

Could it be that it's not really about security, but rather, only about showing travelers who "The Boss" is when you go through an airport?

Undoubtedly, this incident was completely staged by Mr. Wolanyk, simply to prove a point...and, for what it's worth, it's hard to deny that his point was very well-made! That point is, of course, that our government is completely and totally full of shit when they tell you that their pseudo-security measures are there for your protection (as opposed to being yet another mechanism for conditioning people toward authoritarianism).

They can't stop anything from getting onto an airplane, as long as a TSA agent making barely more than a shopping-mall rentacop can be bribed with an extra hundred bucks to pad his kids' Christmas gift fund. The moment "following procedure" becomes more important than "getting the job done", the TSA becomes just another gov't bureaucracy.

Personally, I think airport security should be privatized...but not in the "opt-out" version given to us under federal law, where an airport is given the choice between gov't rentacops or one of the handful of "approved private security agencies". Personally, I think airport security should be handled by the airlines themselves. Instead of paying a federally-mandated tax to cover the ridiculous cost of the TSA (in addition to the income tax money diverted to them via "Homeland Security"), a minor $2 fee could be instituted to the ticket price for air travel that would provide more than enough to handle the cost of equipment and manpower for pre-flight security screening.

Not only would this be infinitely cheaper to the passenger, as well as being much more efficient (like everything else the private sector does when there is no gov't involvement), but it would provide for the AVENUE OF ACCOUNTABILITY that is sorely lacking with the TSA.

Imagine the possibilities! An airline could tout itself as "more secure" than its competitors, for those pansy-ass cowards that willfully submit to getting rape-scanned and felt up because they're afraid of funny brown people in pajamas. "Iron-Fist Airlines" could probably charge that left nut they're gonna grope in the security line, because some people think it's a good idea to pay for such things.

Meanwhile, at the next ticket counter, people like me could take their chances with "Shit Happens Airways". It's like the Greyhound of air travel. Security consists of some dude with a hand-held metal detector, and their firearms policy consists of "Keep your guns and ammo separated until you get off the plane!". You would, of course, be allowed to keep your nail clippers, scissors, box cutters, Benadryl, et cetera. You'll be offered the choice of domestic beers, in your choice of 12 or 16oz cans (24oz when available), and no one will have you arrested if you bitch about the temperature! In fact, no one will have you arrested at all, unless you seriously interfere with the property or safety of another passenger. In short, you're paying low-budget prices for low-budget air travel...because you aren't concerned about comfort, nor are you really that concerned with the extremely minute possibility that someone will smuggle a bomb onto the airplane you're flying on. You're more concerned with getting where you're going for as little money as possible, than you are with being comfortable...and you feel even more comfortable knowing that if you see someone lighting his boxer briefs on fire, you're free to start beating him over the head with a tray table without fear of being arrested for either beating the shit out of him OR for ripping the tray table off of the seat in front of you before you do it!

Then, of course, there could be a multitude of other airlines that choose to split the difference all the way through the scale. You'd see higher or lower security, comfort, and ticket pricing depending on what the owners of the airlines themselves thought was necessary to keep their bottom line in check.

If given the choice, I'd much rather send my family on a slightly less-comfortable airplane and be in charge of keeping my own family safe, than have to submit them to gubbmint PornoTron operators so they could take kiddie-smut pictures or feel up my kids. These people couldn't stop terrorism if it was laid out front and center, with a giant red "OFF" button. Then again, I'm that same kind of guy who thinks depending on the police to keep me safe is like depending on a public school teacher to actually educate someone. I guess I'm just crazy like that...

More on the FLDS...

In case you've been reading my stuff from the beginning, you may remember that my very first post was on the FLDS church members having their "compound" (more like a commune, but "compound" makes them sound more like the Branch Davidians) raided by the Texas CPS...and how the Sheriff's Dept brought out a tank nicknamed "Bubba" to help them kidnap more than 400 women and children.

Tonight, I'm reading in the Houston Comical (er, "Chronicle", whatever) and I see where an FLDS member has just been sentenced to 20 years in prison for "sexual abuse of a child"...who happened to be his 15 year old wife.

Now, before this conversation goes any further, I would like to once again reiterate for the record that I do not endorse or condone child molestation, polygamy, running stop signs, or any other random crap the state claims this man did. I'm merely making a point here.

That being said, let's look at this situation once again. It was not until after the FLDS moved to Texas, that the Great State of Texas decided to introduce and pass legislation making it a crime to marry a person under the age of 16. Prior to this, the statute read that a person must be 14 years of age, in order to be married. This actually happened in 2005. No bullshit, a 14 year old could legally be married in Texas during Bubba Dubbya's first four years!

Now, let's examine the notion of "consent". It's a really funny thing, what the government considers the lawful age of consent to be, and I find it strange that it sets random arbitrary age limits on what an adult is or is not allowed to do.

For instance, a person can lawfully consent to marriage at the age of 16...but can't buy a pack of cigarettes. At the age of 18, a person can lawfully consent to purchase of cigarettes, lottery tickets, et cetera and can also enter into legally-binding contracts...including a contract binding him or her into military service, where he might lose his life on the battlefield. Ironically, this same government that claims you're "mature enough" to kill and be killed for political purposes also happens to be the same government that says you're not "mature enough" to decide that you want to drink a cold beer after a long hard day of work until another three years!

Now, let's examine the text of the laws amended in 2005 by the state legislature here in Texas. Upon reading it, it almost appears as if these literally HUNDREDS of changes to the law were made specifically criminalize the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say that both the 20 year old groom and his 15 year old bride were both consenting parties to this "marriage"...and I'm also going to assume that, if one or both parents were members of the FLDS church, then "parental consent" was given. According to Texas law, "parental consent" requires the signature of only one parent, but I'm assuming it must be the custodial parent in case of divorced or otherwise separated parents...but, again I'm assuming here, if the kid is on the "compound" with one parent, it would be the custodial parent.

So, here we are, faced with two very interesting issues once again.

A) Was the "age of consent" law governing state-sanctioned marriages changed solely upon the religious and cultural beliefs of a group of people who moved to Texas in 2003, or was it because the Great State of Texas had a massive change of heart and all of a sudden decided that 14 was just too young to make up your mind...but 16 was old enough?

B) Does the state have an inherent right to limit how many marriage contracts a person may lawfully consent to enter? I'm asking because the article in question states that a man was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for "sexual assault of a child" that he had chosen to be his wife. While the "child" in question was a minor aged 15, he would still be prosecuted for the same offense if this "child" was a minor aged 16...provided he had already legally married another minor "child" aged 16. The state says that you can marry one 16 year old girl, if her mom signs the permission slip. The state says that if you marry one, you're a lawfully-wedded man...but if you do it twice, you're a child molester.

So does the state have the authority to make such decisions for us? Does it have an inherent right to declare how many people we may consensually enter into contracts with? Does the state have a right to declare how and under what circumstances a parent may provide parental consent for a minor?

Straight outta Rikers Island...

Today was a damn fine day for a man named Dwayne Carter, being released from Rikers Island Correctional Complex after being held for eight months. He was convicted of "Attempted Weapons Possession" for a .40S&W-caliber handgun found on his tour bus after it was searched by police in New York City.

The thing that really bugs me about this case, even more so than the fact that he was ever in jail to begin with, is the public backlash against him by the majority of "white conservative" America. If you look at the newspaper articles about his arrest, his conviction, his being sent to solitary confinement for the last month of his confinement for possession of "contraband" (an MP3 player that wasn't one sold by the prison commissary), or his release from prison, it would seem that all you'll find are thinly-veiled racist remarks coming from both white and black when you look in the comments sections of these papers.

Being a white conservative male, I'm not going to focus on what the "other side" is saying, but rather I'll go ahead and condemn what my fellow white male conservatives are saying.

Before I get there, let's look at a few things about the rap musician known as "Lil Wayne", shall we?

1) Dwayne Carter had a lawfully-purchased, loaded handgun on his tour bus.
2) At the time of his arrest in New York City, Dwayne Carter did not have a felony record.

Now, don't get me wrong...the man was known to smoke copious amounts of marijuana, as well as engaging in the use of other recreational drugs such as cocaine and ecstasy (MDMA). He sang very vulgar profanity-laced rap songs. He has tattoos on his face. His pants are usually three sizes too large, and hang half-way off his ass. In short, he's the guy most middle-aged conservative white male suburbanites would lock their doors and roll their windows on, if he were to walk up and ask for directions while they were stopped at a red light.


That kinda makes me wonder about something, though. Suppose it was an aging hillbilly wearing a cowboy hat that was singing songs about getting wasted on cocaine and booze, committing acts of misogyny, and having issues with the police. You know, someone like Johnny Cash!


Can you imagine that? In this day and age? Bill O'Reilly would be screaming to have those cops drawn and quartered for even thinking about pulling over the tour bus! The NRA and GOA would be blowing up our emails, demanding that we all call the mayor of NYC to demand that their draconian gun laws be repealed...and that after immediately having Mr. Cash released from jail with all charges dismissed, they give him the key to the city!

But no, we can't have that, because Lil Wayne promotes the "ghetto lifestyle" of drugs, misogyny, and refusal to submit to common mores of society! Oh yeah, and he's black.

I guess there's not a whole lot that's changed in America during the past hundred years, huh?