Bread and Circuses

Bottom line: the prosecution failed to produce / present sufficient evidence that George Zimmerman was guilty of the charges placed against him, beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the same as being found "innocent" of any wrongdoing, he was simply found to be "not guilty" of the charges placed against him, based upon the evidence.

It is tragic that Martin lost his life, and it is also tragic that Zimmerman will have to live with his decision for the rest of his. Both men made mistakes and neither of them were "innocent" when it comes to the events of that evening. Fact is, neither of these guys were the people the media painted them to be, for better or worse. Meanwhile, in the time between when Martin was shot and Zimmerman was acquitted, over 11,000 other black men and women were killed (roughly 94% of them by other black folks). Where is the outrage over that?

Neither the events of that night, nor the process behind arriving at the verdict, were rooted in race. The media and the race-baiters, however, HAVE instigated a number of racially motivated crimes as a result of the outrage they stirred up over something that wasn't. Is that really the kind of tribute people ought to find fitting for the loss suffered by Trayvon's family and friends? I don't think so; I find it shameful.

There is an awful lot going on that demands national attention and outrage - Fast & Furious, Benghazi, IRS misconduct, NSA spying, NDAA indefinite detention of citizens, drone assassinations, funding of terrorists abroad, unconstitutional wars and on and on and on... where is the pressure for investigating these and many more? Where is the outrage? Where is ‪#‎JusticeForWeThePeople‬?

If you ask me, this has all been a huge distraction from events of national importance and a convenient mechanism to keep the American people turned upon each other, instead us putting the heat on Washington. Wake up, people.

As I am often fond of saying, when there is a media circus drawing your attention, take time to find out what your government is doing while you're being distracted by it.

The Church, Marriage and The State

Just to make things clear, I am a Christian. From time to time that comes into question because of my position on certain social issues and matters of government control. It is sometimes alleged that certain views I hold are contrary to my spiritual beliefs. If at any point, you think that to be true, it is because:

a) you do not fully understand (or you misunderstand) my position on the matter; or 

b) you apply select aspects, to the exclusion of the whole, of my spiritual beliefs to the issue; or 

c) both a and b.

Case in point: same sex marriage. 

I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and that it is truth without mixture of error. Let's not get on the subject of supposed "contradictions" because I can argue with you about them until your head spins off your neck. The Bible lays out God's blueprint for the life He wants for us, out of His love for us. As much as I believe every word of the Bible to be truth, we do not live in a theocracy, nor would I want to live under one.

I am a libertarian. I believe that all men and women have the right to equal protection under the law; this is not inconsistent with my spiritual beliefs. The root of the problem with this whole marriage debate is not the church, it is the state. Somewhere along the line, we have abdicated the authority over marriage to the state; the state has no just authority to declare what is marriage and what is not. I remember all those years ago, when I got married, thinking it really is rather absurd that I should have to seek a license from the state to take a bride.

As far as the state is concerned, it should not matter who, what sex, or how many people choose to form a legal relationship, so long as they are informed, consenting adults. The state may recognize any relationship it chooses (so long as the standard is applied equally to all), to have rights equal to those traditionally associated with a spousal relationship. The authority for that recognition comes from the consenting parties, and should apply (as in any other contract) equally to all people. I don't care what the heck you call it, but the legal aspect itself is NOT marriage. Marriage is a covenant relationship; it is a sacrament of the church. What business is it of the state to decide who may, and who may not, enter into such a relationship?

As previously stated, I believe the Bible is truth. God has allowed me to accept that truth of my own volition. The truth of what God wants for each of us must be accepted freely and individually, just as accepting the gift of salvation must be an individual choice. We are just as free to choose our own path, in spite of His plans for us. There are eternal consequences for choosing to turn one's back on God, but that is for neither me nor the state to decide.

I believe each person ought to be free to live as he or she wishes, so long as the rights of others are not infringed in the process. That is the difference between freedom and liberty; freedom is doing whatever you please, while liberty is freedom restrained only by the condition not to infringe upon the rights of others. I believe in liberty, not just for myself and those who are like me, but even for those with whom I may personally disagree. I don't need to agree with your lifestyle in order to believe that you ought to have the liberty to exercise it.

Personally, I would wish and pray that you experience the life that God desires for you. I would even go out on a limb to share with you what a relationship with God really means. In the end though, the decision is yours. I would not attempt to use the force or legislative authority of the state to make you see things my way, even if I believed the end result would be a good one. I would do it the way God has been doing it for all of time... by loving you... because He loves you.

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

- Romans 5:8 (NASB)

© the stiff lizard

It isn't Really Up for Discussion

Let me try to explain a point about rights...

A right is something that is non-negotiable; it either is or it isn't. You can't strike a deal somewhere in the middle.

As an example, let's assume you have the right to live. Would you somehow still have the right to live if you agreed to a government imposed limitation on how many years you would be "allowed" to live?

Absent natural death, wouldn't you still be agreeing to have your life taken from you at some arbitrarily chosen number of years?

And who would get to decide that; people who do not have such a limitation imposed upon them?

Just something to think about, as our elected officials try to convince us that we should agree to "reasonable" limitations of our natural rights; rights which have already been significantly abridged over time.

The time for negotiation is over. Draw your line in the sand.

© the stiff lizard

1.5 Billion For You, None Left For Me

On January 30th, 2013, I used

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mail/?alertid=61046526&type=ML

to send a message to those who claim to represent me:

President Barack Obama (D)

Senator Joe Manchin III (D-WV) 

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) 

Representative Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV 2nd) 

Here's what I had to say:

Greetings,

In the course of a relatively short period of time, various agencies within the federal government have been purchasing ammunition at an alarming rate. The Department of Homeland Security alone has procured 1.5 billion rounds of hollow point ammunition. I find this to be very disturbing for a number of reasons.

As a prior-service United States Marine, I am aware that the Hague Convention of 1899 prohibits the use of expanding projectiles in international warfare, thus it can reasonably be assumed that this ammunition is intended for domestic use. As a 20+ year law enforcement veteran, with experience in training, budgeting and purchasing, I know that less expensive ball ammunition, or even frangible ammo, is commonly used for training and that this quantity of hollow point ammunition cannot reasonably be believed as intended for training purposes.

Without doing the math, it is easy to dismiss a number like 1.5 billion; most people have no concept of such a number. Just to put it into perspective, in a nation of approximately 312 million people, 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition is enough to shoot every man, woman and child 4.8 times. This begs the question, what does the federal government need with this quantity of ammunition for domestic use?

The American people are waking up... and we’re waking up on the wrong side of the bed. I remain amazed at how few people are asking questions about what our government is doing and why. However, I am encouraged to see that the number of curious citizens is growing... and we want answers.

Why, in a time of unprecedented national debt, is Congress authorizing these kinds of purchases unless it is for a specific reason or plan?

Is the federal government intending to turn on the American people?

If not, why do you need this type of ammunition in such a quantity?

Is the federal government attempting to drive up the price of ammunition or buy up supplies to prevent the American people from being able to purchase it for themselves?

If so, why?

The continuous attempts to abridge our natural rights, which are guaranteed by the Second Amendment, are failing. State governments, local sheriffs and citizens of all walks of life and political persuasion are standing in defiance of the federal attempt to disarm us. We will never, ever, give up. It is time for all of you in Washington to remember that it is you who are supposed to serve us, not the other way around.

I am hearing rumors that widespread civil unrest is being anticipated by the federal government, potentially initiated by events such as an economic collapse or an attempt at firearms confiscation. I can tell you right now that the ball is in your court; these are things that can be avoided without initiation of force by the government or the people.

If Washington wants to avert an economic collapse, the first step is to develop a plan for getting out of the business of doing all the things that the federal government is not authorized to do, according to the U.S. Constitution. That is a very long and expensive list of things. Secondly, respect the rights of the people; this includes our constitutionally protected right to defend ourselves and to ensure that the sword of government is well regulated and restrained by an armed populace. An honorable government ought not to fear free men who choose to arm themselves.

Our forefathers had experience, up close and personal, living under tyranny. They also had a pretty good perspective about the conditions that are favorable in culturing a tyranny. Great lengths were taken to craft a foundation of limited government, with checks and balances, which could logically never lead to a tyrannical centralized government, if the rules were followed. The fact that our Constitution has endured to this day, despite the changes in our society, technological developments and other significant factors, is a testament to the wisdom contained within the document. Many of the problems we are experiencing today (economy, foreign policy, etc.) can be directly tied to failures in following our nation’s instruction manual. It is time for a return to the fundamentals.

I urge, no, I plead with you, to stand in defense of the principles that made this country great and do your part to return us to the constitutional republic our founders intended. The American people are not wanting of another revolution, but do not underestimate their resolve. I believe there are enough who would not shy from it, if given no other option.

In no way do I intend for my words to be interpreted as threatening or to suggest that I am inciting revolt. I merely express what many are feeling - desperation over a broken system; a system that requires men and women of integrity to stand up and restore. I implore you to be such a person. Stand with me and represent those who put you in office, by honoring your oath of office.

In Defense of Liberty,

Raymond Campbell

© the stiff lizard

μολὼν λαβέ

On December 29th, 2012, I used

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mail/?alertid=61046526&type=ML

to send a message to those who claim to represent me:

President Barack Obama (D)

Senator Joe Manchin III (D-WV) 

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) 

Representative Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV 2nd) 

Here's what I had to say:

Greetings,

In the wake of a tragic event, such as the senseless murders in Newtown, CT, the motivation to "do something" is of noble intent. However, legislation that comes about in response to a particular event, as opposed to a set of core principles, almost universally turns out badly for everyone. In the need to do "something" government often does the wrong thing.

The legislation that Senator Dianne Feinstein is eager to propose is a textbook example of doing the wrong thing; it is a very wrong thing indeed. I won't waste my time trying to school you in history, the US Constitution or the Second Amendment. If I had confidence that our representatives in Washington understood them, and intended to honor their oath of office, there would be no need for me to engage in correspondence with you on this topic. 

Senator Feinstein is an enemy of the Constitution. Those who support her in this "assault weapons" ban are accessories in her treasonous actions. The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed, yet Senator Feinstein means to do exactly that. To say that I "strongly oppose" these attempts to infringe upon the rights of the people would be a gross understatement. You once took an oath that went something like this:

"I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."

Do you remember raising your right hand and uttering those words? Did you mean them, or were you simply mouthing meaningless syllables as a mere formality incidental to assuming the public trust being invested in you? Now is the time to prove that you mean what you say.

Words mean nothing without the kind of conviction behind them that leads to principled action. Something that all of you in Washington need to understand is that we are citizens of this republic; we are not your subjects. I also took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I would rather die on my feet as a free man, in defense of liberty, than to live on my knees as a slave.

As our representatives in Washington continue to build a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these United States, you slowly awaken a sleeping giant. The American people will not continue to tolerate the abridgment of our natural rights. I strongly encourage you to stand with me in defense of our Constitution, by opposing any such legislation.

I intend to keep the oath that I took. Do you?

In Defense of Liberty,

Raymond Campbell

© the stiff lizard

An Obituary

The United States Constitution
September 17, 1787 to July 28, 2012

After repeated bludgeoning, since the 1860s, Constitution succumbed to a final mortal wound this morning, inflicted by one of her own children, Judicial. She is survived by Judicial and her other two children, Executive and Legislative. It has been said by many friends that her children were not brought up to be this way, but as they matured and grew strong on their own, they routinely bound and tortured their mother. One friend was quoted as saying, "We knew something wasn't right for quite some time, but we just didn't know what to do."
Another said, "We've seen things like this happen in other communities but gosh, we never thought it could happen here."
Service arrangements have not yet been made, as next-of-kin refuses to acknowledge her death.
We had a good run. May she rest in peace.

© the stiff lizard

Wisdom in Diversity

Just a quick little something that popped into my head tonight...

Always strive to maintain a diverse group of friends and acquaintances;

Don't be afraid to publicly disagree with popular opinion;

Talk about the subjects most people avoid;

Ask uncomfortable questions;

Think for yourself.

These things will always bring you a degree of conflict, strife and perhaps even persecution.  We are expected to conform; reject the notion.  Set yourself free to dream, create, innovate and most importantly stand your ground against that which you know to be wrong.  Be firm in your values and beliefs without imposing them upon others... you see, they too are free to think, dream and desire as they choose.  Disagree without being disagreeable.

Take care to notice when most of your friends agree with you most of the time; that is your signal to expand your circle.  Wisdom does not spawn in a vacuum.  Closed-mindedness and bigotry thrive best in homogeneity.  Guard yourself most carefully against it.

© the stiff lizard