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

CNN's Bias Exposed....or is it?

I write about many things that are close to my heart; this subject rates in the top five. I do not understand how folks can so easily dismiss another human being who is so innocent, so fragile, so vulnerable. Here is a snippet of a story that cuts to the chase of one media organization's bias towards one side of an issue. They consistently claim objectivity, but the reality is only hidden from the already sold. Please see the following link for the video in question:

www.catholicvote.org

Dear CatholicVote.org Member,

We have been quieter than usual the past two weeks for good reason. Following NBC's refusal to air our ad during the Super Bowl, we received some great feedback from our members on what we should do next. The consensus was that our latest ad should be broadcast following President Obama's first State of the Union Address -- scheduled for next Tuesday.

So we contacted CNN, thinking their audience contains precisely the type of people we want to reach. Further, given CNN's track record of running advocacy ads, we were confident we would succeed. Not so.

For the past two weeks, we have been pushing and prodding them for an answer. And late this week we finally got a response: No way.

A representative from CNN wrote: "Thank you for your patience. We have decided to pass on this creative. CNN doesn't accept advocacy ads that portray personal decisions in a manner that suggests a position in favor of the advocacy message, without having permission of the persons involved."

This is absurd. Our ad does not suggest that Barack Obama is pro-life. Instead, our ad presents nothing but facts. President Obama, like every human being, began as an unborn child. Because he was born, he was able to become the President of the United States.

CNN and others simply don't like the obvious conclusion of our ad - there was no ‘choice' for abortion back in 1961. Thankfully, we had laws then safeguarding unborn children -- laws that protected the life of a future president who tragically is unwilling to fight for those same protections today.

But wait. Is this fair?

The standard CNN used to reject our ad did not prevent the network from airing a 2005 ad sponsored by the pro-abortion group NARAL that suggested that then Judge John Roberts supported violence against abortion clinics.

FactCheck.org described the NARAL ad this way: "An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers ‘supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber' and of having an ideology that ‘leads him to excuse violence against other Americans' It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Alabama. The ad is false.'"

Several prominent pro-abortion supporters condemned the ad, including President Clinton's Solicitor General Walter Dellinger. The commercial, which attributed views to John Roberts that were not his, was ultimately pulled from the air not by CNN, but by NARAL.

At the time CNN issued a statement saying: "CNN accepts advocacy advertising from responsible groups from across the political spectrum who wish to express their views and their opinions about issues of public importance."

CNN is willing to run ads insinuating that a federal judge supports violent criminal activity, but it won't allow an ad celebrating the potential of all human life, including Barack Obama? Not to mention, we are fairly sure NARAL didn't get permission from John Roberts to run their ad.

If you want to express your concerns, please do so firmly, but charitably. You can write CNN President Jonathan Klein at jonathan.klein@cnn.com

So what now?

We aren't going to sit back and complain. We are still looking at several additional options to air the ad. We are also working on our next ad, and have set our sights high once again.

If you liked what we have done so far, we are confident you will be excited about what is coming next.


Brian Burch
CatholicVote.org



P.S. I discussed the decision by CNN to reject our recent ad with an executive of a prominent commercial ad agency. He said bluntly: "Their excuse is a textbook answer for a network that does not want to run your ad."

Of course, all is not lost. CNN's refusal will only create more attention for our ad, which has been widely discussed even among abortion groups like NARAL and nationally-syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman. The ad remains a viral hit on the Internet with over 1.6 million views on YouTube.

We have successfully provoked a national conversation about the gift of every human life -- which is why we created the ad to begin with.

Rest assured, we are working hard on the next phase of this campaign. Thank you for your continued prayers and support.

This message was intended for: mikepoast@gmail.com
You were added to the system January 20, 2009. For more information
click here.
Update your preferences | Unsubscribe

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!!

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

Do You Know The Power?

I just want to share my past week with you. Over the past weekend I had not been listening to the news to hear what was going on with the weather. So we go church on Sunday and we come out and we feel the wind just whipping around us and pushing Tyler along. We go to the grocery store, like we normally do, to buy Sunday dinner and food for the week. My niece Ryan was moving into her first apartment and after dropping off the groceries we changed and went to her apartment.

Ryan's apartment was filled with family and friends. As we sat in the living room we began noticing people's roofs coming apart, garbage cans being swept blocks up the street, and branches flying around like we were in Kansas (Wizard of Oz). Then the lights went out. After the second outage we all decided to head home. In Cincinnati we were not prepared for uprooted trees and power lines sparkling on most major roadways. Getting home was something of a puzzle. All the traffic lights were going out. Even the detours had detours. Once we finally got home we realized our power was out too. Alex got out a deck of cards and we played several games of 'Kings in the Corner' I went outside and spoke with my neighbor and remembered that my friend Stephanie had gotten a call that the city would be out of power for days.

My lights went out on Sunday and did not come back on until Wednesday afternoon. We, like many of our neighbors, lost all of our food and had no hot water. Over that span of time we visited my sister and parents probably more than we have all year. A very close friend of mine made sure we had candles and kept our home secure at night. So for three nights we had what I now call 'Kool Aid by candlelight' It has been difficult for many in our city, our family, and my close circle of friends to regroup and go on with daily life.

School was out for three days, only three grocery stores were open and getting gas was like a scene in an action movie. Our lives were simply at a standstill.
What I will cherish the most is the time I spent with my family, especially with my sons. Talking to them each night before going to sleep and running around the city making sure they were clean and fed made me realize how much I enjoy being their mother.

My life has changed so much. Sunday September 14, 2008 forced me to see life differently. What if I did not have electricity? What if I had to travel around the city daily searching for food and clean water? What if at night I had no place to sleep? God is amazing and He delivers us through our adversities. I want you to always remember that God has you through your situation. He loves you so much that He will allow a blackout to happen to prove that He is all you truly need. Be Blessed Arlinda

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