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

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

Paul or Cornelius: Who's Conversion do You Prefer?

Mr Keating is the founder of Catholic Answers-

KARL KEATING’S E-LETTER

September 23, 2008

TOPIC: Owing More to Cornelius Than to Paul

Dear Subscriber:

Whose conversion to Christianity was more important, that of Paul or that of Cornelius? “Why, Paul’s, of course,” you say. After all, who talks about Cornelius nowadays? Paul gets all the press—and for a good reason.

But let’s think this through. I believe one can argue that Cornelius’s conversion was the more important. Let me explain by turning to Luke’s Gospel, chapters 9 and 10, and looking at what happened to each man.

First of all, each had a vision, Paul having perhaps history’s most famous as he was on the road to Damascus. A light flashed around him, and he was knocked to the ground (whether from his feet or, as in traditional artwork, from a horse we don’t know). He heard a voice: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” The voice was Jesus’. Saul, now blind, was told to go into Damascus and to await further instructions. Meanwhile, in Damascus a man named Ananias had a vision, the Lord telling him to restore Paul’s sight and to baptize him.

Now let’s switch to Cornelius. He lived in Caesarea and was a Roman soldier—in fact, an officer commanding a century, which was a subdivision of a Roman legion. One afternoon Cornelius had a vision of an angel. The vision at first terrified him (an unsurprising response, I would think). The angel told Cornelius to send men to Joppa and to have them bring Peter to Caesarea. The phrasing indicates that Cornelius did not know who Peter was, but he obeyed at once, sending one of his trusted soldiers and two of his personal servants.

While the three were on their way to Joppa the next day, Peter himself had a vision, the one in which a giant sheet contained all sorts of animals, clean and unclean. In the vision Peter was told to eat the animals, but he protested against eating the unclean ones. The voice told him that it was God, not Peter, who would determine what was clean and what wasn’t. After the vision concluded, Peter sat thinking about it, and just then the men sent by Cornelius showed up. The next day Peter set off with them for Caesarea.

At the house of Cornelius Peter gave an address, and, as he ended, “the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word,” with graces coming even to the Gentiles. Peter asked, “Can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” Then the Gentiles—Cornelius included—were baptized.

Later Peter reported on these events to the other apostles, and they said, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.” (Keep in mind that Jesus had neither baptized nor authorized the baptism of Gentiles; the apostles here accepted Peter’s determination of what should be done.)

Let’s summarize. Paul and Cornelius received visions that resulted in their conversions. Paul was baptized by Ananias, a man of such little importance that he disappeared from Christian history, as though he had only a walk-on part. Cornelius, by contrast, was baptized by the first pope. Paul was brought into the Church in order to bring others in; he would become the first great missionary. What later became of Cornelius is unclear, but he and those with him were the first non-Jews to become Christians, which means that he was the prototype for most of us.

Which conversion was the more important—the one that opened the faith to the large majority of mankind (everyone who was not a Jew) or the one of the man who would begin the task of bringing in those people?

Fr. Vincent McNabb put it this way eighty years ago, “Paul’s conversion prepared the worker for the harvest; the call of Cornelius prepared the harvest-field for the worker.” While Paul’s conversion was “fateful for the Church, [it] was not so fateful as that of the centurion who, when he entered the flock of Christ, brought with him the world of Gentiles.”

This is not to say that Cornelius ended up the greater saint, of course, but it does suggest that we may profit from looking at biblical events in slightly different ways.

Until next time,

Karl

Pelosi: Dems bear no responsibility for economic crisis

So, you already have a partial grip on the economy, you want more, but it's not your fault when things go a bit south. When Obama gets elected and they ram through socialized medicine I bet they will be innocent when people are waiting in lines for simple tests and annual check-ups. Wake-up America!

read more | digg story

No WMD in Iraq? Let them eat yellowcake!!

Have you heard? The truth is out there if you want it.

read more | digg story

Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq: for those who haven't heard

The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers say.

read more | digg story

Pope Pelosi At the Gate

"In other words, human life begins at conception. That is not a religious posture, but a scientific fact that the lowest paid laborer on the planet can assert without qualm. What we do with that understanding is another matter, but no one in the 21st century should pretend not to know when human life begins."

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

Look Before You Judge...or Pope Paul IV Was Right!

Who the hell am I? I mean i don't know everything, even though I am very sure of quite a bit. The world is a crazy place and it is extremely difficult to know who to believe. For me, track record says a lot. If what you say pans out I am going to listen up a little more the next time you have something to say; just makes sense right?

Well Pope Paul IV had something to say 40 years ago, and you could argue that it's all coincidence, that's fine. You should look into it though.

Forty years after "Humane Vitae"

BY FATHER PETER J. DALY

There was an eruption in the Catholic Church 40 years ago over the release of Pope Paul VI's encyclical letter Humanae Vitae ("Of Human Life").

At the time, secular culture pronounced it a "dead letter." Cultural critics said the church was out of touch with the modern age on the role of human sexuality.

"Humanae Vitae" was blamed for the erosion of respect for the church's moral teaching and the departure of many people from the Catholic Church.

But, at the time, secular culture made some pretty extravagant claims for the virtues of artificial contraception. Forty years on, it is worth asking: What about the claims of secular culture? Were they right?

Happier marriages?
The first birth control pill came on the market in the early 1960s. It was featured on the cover of news magazines. It was talked about on television. People said it would usher in a new and happier age of sexual relations.

Did it?

Forty years ago it was said that artificial contraception would make marriages happier and more stable. Freed from the stress of many children, married couples would be better able to concentrate on each other and their marriage.

So what happened?
The divorce rate has skyrocketed. Marriages are less stable. There were many cultural factors involved, of course, but whatever can be said about birth control, it has not made marriages happier or more stable in U.S. culture.

Forty years ago it was said that the pill would mean more fulfilled sex lives. People could be more spontaneous. Sex would be more joyful. People would be less repressed.

Did it happen?

Separating the sexual act from conception has degraded the meaning of sex, caused it to lose its significance. Instead of being special, a sign of love and commitment reserved for husbands and wives, it is now commonplace.
When something becomes commonplace it loses its allure. Ice cream and cake, for example, are special if reserved for birthdays. If eaten all the time, they are boring, even damaging.

Anti-child mentality
The pill has meant that sex is meaningless, the stuff of sit-coms and lurid talk shows.
In our modern world sex has nothing to do with making babies. It also has very little to do with making love. The surreal "Sex in the City" world has turned everyone into a sex object, because sex is seen as an act without meaning or consequence. It has more to do with giving pleasure to the self than showing love for the other.

Forty years ago the advocates for contraception said that it would mean fewer unwanted children. There would be less child abuse and neglect because children would be more wanted since they were more "planned."

Ironically, today children seem less wanted. They are seen not as gifts from God but as financial burdens. Television reporters do stories on the "total cost" of raising a child as if children could be compared to buying a boat or second home.

With the ability to prevent pregnancy came the presumption that you should prevent pregnancy. Babies are now regarded as a burden. Large families are regarded with derision even in Catholic circles.

Birth control has led to an anti-child mentality.

When a woman today begins to show with a third or fourth pregnancy, people ask her, "Did you make a mistake, dear?"

Forty years ago there was an explosion in the church over "Humanae Vitae." Now that the dust has begun to settle a bit, it seems that secular culture was wrong about many of its claims for birth control.

It helps to take the long view. Maybe that is God's view?

Catholic News Service

Father Peter J. Daly writes on church life from his parish, St. John Vianney in Prince Frederick, Md. He may be contacted at cns@Catholicnews.com.

Obama on Clarence Thomas - WSJ.com

This would be funny, if it were not so very serious. "Delos" also makes a great point, by mentioning that McCain didn't vote against any of those he named when he had the opportunity. However, I must also point out that The President nominating and The Senate confirming require two different levels of agreement. The former usually means a complete agreement with the jurist's philosophy, while the later is simply a "stamp of approval" which is to ensure that The Justice is not a complete buffoon.It is only recently that the nomination process for The Supreme Court became such a difficult and contentious process. Though it is something to look at, I would fault Obama's disparaging words more than I would McCain's following of tradition.

read more | digg story

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

Does The Majority Truely Rule?

There's nothing inherently noble about a majority of people agreeing on a particular issue. Indeed, bad ideas often prove more popular than good ones. It's only when popular majorities are anchored to the idea of inalienable rights that they're most entitled to our respect. Without that underlying commitment to individualism, majority rule can and frequently will degenerate into the loss of liberty for unpopular minorities. The racist policies of the Jim Crow South, after all, were often extremely popular among white voters.

So before we get too misty over the will of the people of South Dakota, let's remember that James Madison warned us about the tyranny of the majority, not the tyranny of unfettered individual liberty.

Why a Black Artist Replaced the National Anthem

What Marie did embodied a plethora of leftist ideals and characteristics: Ethical relativism, multiculturalism, the supremacy of feelings, the belief that artists are above normal ethical standards and group victimization.

read more digg story

Conservatives for Obama?

What is becoming ever more painfully apparent is that too many people this year-- whether conservative, liberals or whatever-- are all too willing to judge Barack Obama on the basis of his election-year rhetoric, rather than on the record of what he has advocated and done during the past two decades.

read more digg story

Why America Is The Greatest Country On Earth

American history, in all of its most glorious permutations, represents the outgrowth of our founding philosophy. Only by accepting the greatness of America's founding philosophy can we hope to ensure that freedom flourishes at home and around the globe.

read more digg story