Gay Marriage and The Freedom to Associate

I think it's important for you to know that I have been described by friends as being, politically, "just to the right of Attila the Hun." This is not to say that I necessarily have a mean bone in my body (OK, so I can be sort of aggressive) but that I am very passionate about the dangers of an over-active and ever-encroaching State. Our Founder's papers and correspondence are replete with warnings against the specter (HA! Specter, get it?) of, as B. Franklin put it, giving up liberty for safety. I think H.L. Menken said it best when he suggested that the main goal of politics was to get the people begging for the State to save them from the (State created) terrors of life by telling them how to live.

In our recent "shift" in DC and elsewhere around the country I have seen many people and politicians become excited, perplexed, glorified, and dismayed by all that has come to pass in the past 6-9-12 months. These events have given me much perspective; a chance to take a step back from my bias and reexamine who I am and what I believe.

I was so pissed off and angered by "W" that I felt it necessary to reexamine my positions on some subjects; which could be considered litmus tests for being a "Dittohead."

One undeniable truth that I have come face-to-face with is that The Founders of this amazing American Experiment were so right on the mark that you may not be far off to call them prophetic. Another is that the VAST majority of our current crop of politicians at all levels, but mostly the State and Federal, are liars and thieves.

...the last undeniable truth is that I have been wrong about some things.

The issue of gay marriage is really one of association: do two or more people have the freedom to associate in a way they deem acceptable, or do we in a collective, called The Government, have the right, or need, to stop them, or give them our blessing?

Politically, I am a libertarian on the issue and feel anyone should have the personal freedom to associate with anyone else of their choosing, in a way they deem appropriate, so long as they are not infringing upon the inalienable rights of another. Personally, I am conservative on the issue and think that anything other than marriage and intercourse, which belongs in the institution of marriage, between a Man and Woman is wrong. I mean no disrespect towards my GLBT brothers and sisters on this point, just that we have a religious disagreement, not a political one...fair enough?

Further, I believe that if governments are given the power to regulate such things it should only be at the State level. There is nothing in The US Constitution about marriage (but it is very clear about speech, association and conscience) and under the principles of federalism this is an issue better handled at the State level. I guess the question then becomes: do we really need permission/regulation of such a personal thing from ANY level of government?

Abiding by this concept, and if we can get ourselves back to the principles of federalism, we will have a much less powerful Federal Government. What's more is if you are GLBT you have the right to move to a State where the laws fit how you want to live, or you can change the laws in your current State through the proper mechanisms; same as me. And on that last point, the States that have done so through their legislatures or ballot issues have used the proper mechanism, using the courts becomes tyranny of the minority. I think people can be persuaded on this point, but if you force them you will lose.

What this really boils down to is the right of any free individual to live in this World in a manner consistent with their conscience, so long as it does not interfere with anyone else's same right.


In His peace, and our liberty,

Mike Poast

The Federalist (Remix) No. 1

"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

-A. Hamilton, 10.27.1787

Those words were written by Alexander Hamilton over 200 years ago as an introduction to as series of letters he and two other notable founders were to write to the people of The State of New York as an edification of the proposed constitution before them. They were under no illusions as to the enormity of the cause under which they labored, as the common state of mankind was not, and is not, one of peace, freedom and prosperity, but one of constant turmoil and subjugation by seen, or unseen forces, all around them.

Most of human history tells a tale of Man's inhumanity to man as he forces his kinsman to bear the burdens of some form of slavery for the pleasure of the tyrannical mind and body of his oppressors. Our founders sought a different tact, they saw liberty on the horizon.

Their ancestors had come to this land seeking religious and political freedom. The founders, after leading one of the most unlikely of revolutions in human history, were now looking to secure the liberties they had won by force. These rights from God had been codified in The Declaration of Independence and The US Constitution.

They had feared for some time that the union would dissolve into waring factions under the rule of despotic monarchies if they were unsuccessful in the ratification of this new compact. But they also knew what they were up against in selling the idea of this new, hybrid, government, as passions being what they were (and are) many falsehoods were bound to catch the imagination of the States before any truth had time to supplant itself. Also working against them was the tyrannical nature of Man and his desire to hold and grow his power when possible.

"Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety
of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices
little favorable to the discovery of truth. Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several
partial confederacies than from its union under one government."

They knew full well that it was very easy for men of goodwill to become confused and unwittingly relinquish their liberty under the banner of safety. They also knew that it would take time and careful, wise consideration for the several states to become comfortable with the new ideas.

"And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists."

They had their work cut out for them, but this was not foreign soil for them, for they had endured many a political and deliberative battle previous to this one. But, this one would be different, for now they had to convince the States to sign onto a document that, for all intents and purposes had it's prize in the perpetual branding of liberty upon this new world called America.

"It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

So, Hamilton devised a plan to write these series of letters called The Federalist. He recruited two others John Jay and James Madison to assist in the formation of what ended in 85 papers fully explaining the ins and outs of this new governmental structure and it's ability to secure the liberties of the people and the States while giving requisite power to the Federal Government to effectively govern in an appropriate capacity. They had done their reasearch into what had and had not worked in the past to secure liberty, now they had to sell it to the people.

This has been an attempt at an introduction to these papers and I will in the coming weeks and months take each at its message and glean from the lofty language of the 18th century a more understandable, relatible and modern flare, so that you might understand from where our Founders come. For, if you ever propose to alter the workings of an engine, you should first learn the engineer's goals.

-Poast

No, You Cannot Join My Club!

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
-1ST Amendment to the U.S. Constitution


The right to associate, or to not, has created such a stir that it has caused some lawmakers to force otherwise law abiding citizens to break the law by not sharing air with their disturbing brethren.

It all begins with our general freedom to pretty much do as we please, as long as it does not interfere with another's, as far as it pertains to our person-hood.

We have a general understanding that we are not to be forced by The Federal Government to "associate" our thoughts or our being with anything that is incongruent with our self-actualized identity. Further that we have not the power, through any government or personal conquest, to force others to bend to our thoughts or actions until such a time as we can persuade them on such through the exchange of agreed upon goods, service or due process.

The problem has seemed to have presented itself where some of our fellow citizens have confused the word "association" with the word "acceptance." The Freedom to acceptance exists nowhere in The United States Constitution. You are free to disassociate yourself with my thoughts and properties, just as I am free to run away screaming from yours. You have the freedom and the right to organize a large group of supporters to stand up for your right to be you just as I am to create the same to denigrate you doing so. The critical line is drawn at me forcing you, through the power of government, to shut your mouth on either side of the equation.

What seems to have happened is that we have become lazy and have come to a general conclusion (not legal) that those things, with which we do not agree that make us uncomfortable, are included in this protection. They are not, and never were. One of the most fundamental protections of The First Amendment is the right to be unpopular or wrong. This includes being hateful or counter-cultural. It also includes being traditional, religious or old-fashioned.

I think it is important to recognize that while you may not agree with who I am, I may not agree with who you are and that neither of us has the right to empower our government to force us to see it any differently.

The Right Wing View on Unwanted Pregnancy

I post a lot of very hotly debated topics on my blog and on Face Book because I see a great deal on confusion in them. Consequently we never get past the emotions of any one particular issue which leaves us to make decisions at the ballot box with lacking or faulty information. I know none of us wants to do this, so I try to crate debate and open conversation whenever I can.

Recently a friend asked what I thought, specifically, about the issue of unwanted pregnency. I truely appreciate his candor in the question and was happy to divulge my belifes on the subject, of course backed up with facts.

I do not have his permission to post this, so I will not give his name.

Feel free to add what you think is missing..

"So the right wing view is... "You have to have this severely deformed child no one will adopt and you cannot afford and no, we will not provide any assistance in raising it because it is your own fault because you did not learn about birth control on your own because sex education shouldn't be taught in school and your parents were absent because law makers were influenced by a religion which we are "free" not to subscribe too"? I'm not sure, but sometimes I think I hear this."

First off I do not think you will find many conservatives who would say that they are against helping a struggling single mother to raise her child. You have a multitude of social aspects that lead us to the circumstance that you purport. I think you would agree that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for it to go down exactly as you have suggested. Public policy must be made on reality. I cannot speak for all but the general thought is that situations like the one you have described are first off better handled by the charity/private sector in the community as they are closer to the person and most likely know the details of the lives we are talking about. Secondly, if government is to get involved, it is best handled at the local and state levels. Nowhere in The Constitution does it provide Congress with the power, or authority, to meddle in such things. State and local governments have way more latitude in these areas.

Second, on the "unwanted/deformed child" argument; I do not know when it came to be considered good policy that an individual's unalienable right to live depend upon somebody else wanting them. Better watch out for the application of the equal protection clause of The 14th Amendment because you and I are next, as I am sure someone doesn't want us‼ I do not think that anyone would argue with Planned Parenthood’s slogan “every child is a wanted child,” but the idea that another human being’s right to life is contingent upon another human being’s deeming them “wanted,” reminds me of Hitler’s Germany. Remember that anyone who was not “Aryan” was not “wanted.” If you do not want a child…do not have sex. Why is the decision not to have sex beyond the ability of some, but the decision to have an abortion completely OK?

Third, your adoption argument: In 2006 there were 200,000 couples who wanted to adopt and only 25,000 babies available for adoption. I do not have current #’s but the point is that there are many more “parents” who want to adopt, who are forced to go to foreign countries, than babies available. Further, most abortions occur as a result of misused, or not used, or failed contraceptives. So we are removing the need for the responsible thinking that should always precede these decisions because we are removing all consequences.

Fourth, sex education should not be taught in a one-size-fits-all fashion. This whole debate brings us back to school choice and the need for the principal of federalism. State and local governments should deal with education, not The Federal government. There is no clause in The Constitution giving The Federal Government this power. If this were the case then you and I would choose schools for our children where this subject was taught in a manner in keeping with our belief system. I no more want to force you to believe what I believe than you do me or any one so let’s stop empowering The Federal Government to force our beliefs on others!!

Zucker: Republican is "the new gay"

I have consistently said that the straight-Christian-white-Conservative-male is the only "group" left who hasn't demanded special treatment from the law and is the only one which can be openly bashed and discriminated against while people laugh on the side-lines. I don't want special treatment here, I just think the hypocrisy is blinding.

read more | digg story

The IRS & The Constitution

Schulz explained that the petition that he submitted to the United States Government included the following alleged violations of the Constitution: U.S. aid to Israel, illegal immigration, North American Union, the Iraq War, The Patriot Act, the Federal Reserve, and income tax fraud.

read more | digg story

The Real Global Crisis

It does us great harm to ignore the lessons history can teach. We are not the first to come this way, however, most people's historical perspective begins from the moment of their birth. This failure to garner wisdom from our ancestors has us to believe that Socialism/Communism/Marxism are new and exciting ideas, nothing could be further from the truth. I was reminded years ago why my parents insisted on a good education, and why my dad always was demanding that I think, I just hope that one day we will all do as my dad requested. The present financial turmoil is really a failure of global statism. Socialism has failed once again. Let's try capitalism.

read more | digg story

Taxes and Tax Cuts in Terms of Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the
bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill
the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite
happy with the arrangement until one day the owner threw
them a curved ball (or is that a curved beer!).
'Because you are all such good customers,' he
said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily
beer by $20.'

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay
our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They
would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20
windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if
they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the
fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to
drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to
reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and
he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And
so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%
savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first
four continued to drink for free. But once outside the
restaurant the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared
the sixth man.. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he
got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth
man. 'I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that
he got ten times more than me!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.
'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The
wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in
unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The
system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks,
so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when
it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something
important. They didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college
professors, is how our Tax System works. The people who pay
the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax
reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy
and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

David R Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
Universityof Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is
possible.'

How the death tax bulldozed a hole in the environment

The Left's tax policy has, once again, destroyed a small business, left us with one less local farm and killed a slew of old-growth trees. They stuck it to "The Rich" though...nice job!!

read more | digg story

The Next War of the World

I saw this guys (Niall Ferguson) documentary on PBS last night and he, along with several other facts that have come to my attention, and am still investigating, are beginning to fine tune my world view. I believe that I am thinking towards several conclusions here.

Not prepared to put it into words yet...

read more | digg story

Most companies in US avoid federal income taxes

I just think it is a scam that people fall for this class-envy/shell-game stuff that politicians put in their heads. The fact of the matter is that ALL companies will always pass along the costs of doing business to their consumer. No matter if the expense is the cost of materials, or taxes, the consumer always absorbs the expense.

The other thing that occurs here is that a politician may claim that they are sticking it to the Big Bad Corporation out of one side of their mouth, but then they will give the company some loophole in the tax code while you are not looking, all the while convincing the unread voter that they are being protected by the great and powerful politician, and then they get large campaign contributions from the very same company.

There are a myriad of other scams that the politicians pull on us, but the single solution is to adhere to the limits in The Constitution and shrink The Goverment down to a size that doesn't allow for so much power in so few hands.

A Limited Federal Goverment baby!! Works every time.

How to Produce Real Change

I do believe that I need to learn more about Mr. Wilberforce and work to adopt his methods...how about you?

read more | digg story

Things Have Not Always Been the Same

This will give you a much-needed shot of perspective...

read more | digg story

Seize This Opportunity or, please rule my life sirs!!

Yet another example of Government’s well-intentioned control of our lives turning into a dismal failure; the private citizen is a much better guarantor of his well being than some busy-body bureaucrat 100’s of miles away. It makes absolutely no sense to me why someone would advocate that these sorts of duties are better left in the hands of government. Not to mention that in our form of government, and according to the law of the land, this is an absolute violation of the law.What will unfortunately happen here is that the elite mind’s of congress (by the way what exactly qualifies them as experts in finance? Oh yes, they won a popularity contest) will determine that a government entities’ failure is the fault of the free market and that their needs to be more control and oversight by them. I should be so lucky as to gain employment that enshrines in me the wisdom to determine that my failures were actually the fault of my competition. We should throw all of our mortgages in the Boston Bay!!!

read more digg story

The Ultimate Resource

So you're telling me that Napolean, Ghengis Khan and Jesus could have had Iphones? YES!!Walter E. Williams does it again! What a great explanation of how absurd myopic views of society can be. Such simple language. One of the best!

read more digg story