Thoughts from an old Italian mind
After 43 years of RVing, my last RV here is sold (2013). There comes a time when it ends. It started with a Jungle hammock, a Starcraft popup trailer, Holiday trailer, Airstream trailer, two Holiday Rambler motor homes, and the final Surveyor Select trailer.
Are we here?
Fillppo Mazzei was born in Tuscany, Italy in 1730. He was persuaded to come to America by Benjamin Franklin to produce certain agricultural commodities he was skilled in. Thomas Jefferson took a shine to him and Mazzei bought land next to Jefferson. Between Jefferson and Mazzei, Mazzei started writing political articles in Italian which Jefferson translated for printing. Here is a portion of one, the first part winding up in the Declaration Of Independence, but the concluding part is what predicts.
“All men are by nature equally free and independent. This equality is necessary to establish a free government. Each one must be equal to the other in natural rights. Class distinctions are not always static and will always be nothing more than an effective stumbling block, and the reason is most clear. Whenever you have many classes of men in one nation, it is necessary that you give each its share in the government; otherwise one class will tyrannize the others. But the shares cannot be made perfectly equal; and whenever one class takes power, human events will demonstrate that the classes are not in balance; and bit by bit the greater part of the machine will collapse.
For this reason all the ancient republics were short-lived. When they were stabilized, the inhabitants were divided by class and were always in dispute, each class trying to procure a greater share in government than the others; consequently the legislators came to yield to the prejudices of custom, to the contrary pretensions of the parties, and the best that could be had was a grotesque mixture of liberty and tyranny.”
Whether Donald Trump succeeds in gaining the Republican nomination for president or not, he has succeeded in reducing the political double talk connected with candidates running for office. The journalist Peggy Noonan in writing about Trump a few days ago said this about him, “Mr. Trump touched an important nerve in opposing the political correctness that has angered the American people for a quarter century. “ Or, political correctness is political double talk!
This has given me courage to state that I believe we have had an element of “correctness” when it comes to the Catholic Novus Ordo Mass. Saint John Paul II wrote in 1988, “Respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.” Please note the use of the words, “generous application.” So, setting the predicate, the Church deems both Masses are valid, and the continued use of the traditional Latin Mass is to be generously applied. However in reality, the traditional Mass has not been offered as equally valid and has not been generously applied. Double talk!
Recently, I read an essay by a Priest that although the Latin Mass has become more accessible to congregations and has grown in great measure; those Catholics in love with the traditional Mass needed to get more involved in evangelizing others to the Mass or the gains will be lost. Yes, but I don’t fully agree 100% in that appraisal.
There is a saying in marketing that one “cannot sell from an empty wagon.” On Sunday morning, when there is no traditional Mass, or perhaps one, in a Diocese with 2-300,000 Catholics, is that not an empty wagon? And is not that empty wagon actually owned by the Diocese?
My case rests.
Trinity Sunday is a Catholic celebration of the Trinity, the three Persons of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the “mystery of divine mysteries.” – The Maryknoll Fathers – “so complete that the divine Persons do not exist except in relation to one another.” Said simply, “3 is 1.”
Marriage has been profaned by the growing crusade by homosexuals to redefine marriage as including same-sex unions. The emotion used to sell the parity that same-sex unions may be called marriages has been the emotion of “love.” The new definition is that Marriage is the love uniting of two humans for one another. Frankly, Christianity may have lost the time-honored definition of marriage to now include same-sex unions. Maybe!
Soon, same-sex unions (marriages) will begin to co-opt the word, “family” as a first child is adopted by them, or procreated by a surrogate. In the Church, “family” is also a Trinity; Father, Mother, and Child. Under the natural law, and law of the Church, family is also “3 is 1.” However, I submit to you that a same-sex marriage cannot “ever” become “family” because the family members, Father, Mother, and Child in same-sex unions, “do not exist in relation to one another.”
In the natural order, Father is the seed of life. Mother is the vessel of life. Child is the new life. In same-sex unions, there is NO relation between the three. Trinity (3 is 1) is never met. Family defined for same-sex unions never exceeds “two” thus cannot be a Trinity. In a gay union, the one defined as Father may have the seed of life, but there is no “vessel of life” in the union so no Trinity. In a lesbian union, the one defined as Mother may be the vessel of life, but there is no “seed of Life” in the union so no Trinity. In the same-sex union, Child may be related to one of the partners, but not both, so there is no Trinity.
This is just an exposition about definition, not equity, meaning fairness. Example. A single person is not a married person. That’s definition. Life is inequitable. So there are many cases where traditional marriages do not meet the test of Trinity. However, a Catholic couple living their faith are open to new life, thus complimentary. The same-sex couple is closed to new life, thus a nullity. In sum, one was by Godly design possible, the other impossible. And I leave it at that. I hope it provokes much thought as it did me.
Although the Conservative Party does, indeed, pay fidelity to the Constitution, it also honors all the documents of the founding of America. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
On this 2015 Memorial Day, we honor those servicemen who gave their lives for these Rights. Although “Life” and “Liberty” seem to be understood well, “Happiness” can get a bit foggy. How does Happiness figure in as an element defining government?
About 50 years ago, a young lady we only know as named Michelle took her life, but left this with us.
“My happiness is me, not you.
Not because you may be temporary,
But also because you want me to be what I am not.”
Happiness from government is more than the political argument; too big, too small, not caring, too much caring, etc. “My happiness is me, not you.”
There is no Federal budget aspect to happiness. No taxes are needed. There are no Federal crimes of happiness. No new laws are needed.
Quit telling me what should make me happy! “My happiness is me, not you.”
A few days ago, the Baton Rouge Advocate presented two long articles about the two sides of a possible incorporation of a new municipality in East Baton Rouge Parish to be called St. George. We applaud the Advocate for it! The Conservative Party USA of which the Louisiana Conservative Party is an affiliated state party has always stressed the right of the voter to assert “self-determination” in presenting new ideas. After respectful debate, it is then at the ballot box that the “winner” is found. The fact that opposing sides exist does not mean there is a divided allegiance about the “public good.” We have to get away from the notion that one side possesses a superior answer to what is always the “public good.” No side or class is permitted to dominate in our country.
This evening, Florida Sen. Rubio will announce his candidacy for the position of the President of the United States, joining with already declared presidential candidates Sen. Cruz, Sen. Paul, and Hillary Clinton. In Louisiana, state-wide candidates are beginning to announce. The political “season” is heating up which is why I write.
The State of Louisiana has the most open election system in the country. Contrast that with the State of West Virginia which has not elected anyone but a major party candidate since 1906, or 109 years. In fairness, they are attempting to change that now. I hope you are as proud of our Louisiana system as I am. Louisiana voters can make a huge difference in Louisiana when it comes to voter “self-determination.” But the critics will say that’s why Louisiana can get a candidate the likes of David Duke. Yes, but that is freedom. When the freedom door is open, it’s open to all. That means you and the Louisiana Conservative Party can make a difference.
The Louisiana Conservative Party is looking to recruit a volunteer “Chief Political Officer.” You see, we believe in working “smart.” Our volunteers, and we are all unpaid volunteers, have strong conservative values, and express them often. However the “art” of politics requires talented experience. This would be a person that is experienced to walk the halls of our capital building. Loves to corner elected officials for commentary. And understands “spin” when it’s spoken.
Help us find that person. They, or if it’s you, should contact me at mail@cp-usa.org.
Because we are a representative republic, citizens elect candidates to represent them in a political deliberative assembly, being a library board, city council, or some state and federal office, to name a few. Although the elected representative is expected to carry into the deliberative assembly the political culture of his or her constituents, once officiating, the elected representative is legally afforded the right to use his or her considered judgement in resolving issues brought before them for a vote.
Recent events on “talk radio” and cable news have initiated much discussion about calling an Article V Amendment Convention. Simply stated, Article V of the U. S. Constitution provides for two methods of introducing amendments to the Constitution; either by Congress, or by States. In either case , final state ratification of amendments remains the same for both. Why two methods of introducing amendments? Our Founding Fathers understood human nature very well, that being that Congress would never proceed to introduce an amendment to the Constitution that ceased or diminished its own powers. Although a “call” is required in the case of a state requested Article V Amendment Convention, only Congress may do so. Congress is not authorized to debate the merits of the State submitted amendments, only call the convention.
When an Article V Amendment Convention is held, delegates to the convention are selected as “Representatives” by and of the peoples of the state from which they have been elected. Delegates to the amendment convention are not controlled by Congress, or state legislatures, except in the case of the states, where the state will oversee the nominating and election “procedure.”
Can you see where this is going? The Article V state introduced amendment process shifts to the “people” and away from Congress. Surprise, surprise. Congress has never made a “call” for an Article V convention. However, it may be getting close, which leads us to Indiana.
Just recently, fearing the future, the legislature of the State of Indiana passed into law (Sen. 224 & 225) what is considered beyond doubt by many legal scholars an unconstitutional Act. My reading of the Indiana law requires that SHOULD an Article V Amendment Convention be called by Congress, the Indiana delegates shall be agents of the state, not the state’s people, and if Indiana delegate “agents” do not follow the state’s instructions, they are to be removed from the convention and may be charged with a felony crime. Like, JAIL!
This message of mine is to alert Indiana voters about something they may not know anything about, or were misled about what purpose the Indiana law set out to remedy. Surely there must be someone in Indiana that will sue to reverse the unconstitutional Indiana Act.
America was created by its Founders based on what it was “meant to be,” not what it “might be.” America today is not what it was meant to be but sliding swiftly under President Obama to something else.
I am 100% Italian, the offspring of family existing in a region of Europe for so long it’s beyond grasp. My family surname is 2,000 years old. I bring this up to make a point, not to impress you. My parents are from the “old country.” My father went to the 4th grade, while mother, the 6th. As I entered my teen years, it was a mystery of sorts to me as to amount of wisdom each had, yet so little education. One day (true story) I asked my father, “How come?” My father answered, “We trust our culture!”
America, as a nation, is over 235 years old. Enough time, now, to reasonable say, we have an established American culture. Until very recently, we Americans used to trust that culture because America was what it was meant to be. Americans, even newly arrived immigrants, functioned well based on their acceptance of the American culture. My parents learned it well and quick. That was the time of the 1900-50’s.
I lament less today about Obamacare or other present-day Washington establishment moves, than I do about losing our American culture. America is a Judea-Christian nation established in our culture. Sharia law is foreign to it. The liberals promoting the introduction of other cultures in America say that America was meant to evolve over time, meaning putting it in the “might be” category. No! Our Founding fathers knew exactly what they designed as a nation, and today is not what they “meant” America to be.
Marriage, one man, one woman.
The side of the debate on marriage by liberals invariably centers on “rights.” The Conservative rebuttal is to revert the debate to the natural law, because natural law trumps civil rights. Don’t let this point unsettle you because it is the same reasoning that placed attention to it by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. They understood the natural law.
Natural law demonstrates that male and female were created for one another for the procreation and education of offspring. Mankind has understood the societal magnitude of the coupling of a male and a female, and over time gave it definition and protection; marriage. However, bear in mind, the underlying natural law conditions to marriage are sex, procreation, and education of offspring.
This understanding of the natural law regarding procreation has a recorded historical basis of thousands of years. The Judea Christian biblical reference often used about procreation has to do with Zechariah and his childless wife, Elizabeth (Luke 1:5-25). In the times of Zechariah, a Jew who had no children could be removed from the temple (God). Childlessness has always been grounds for divorce. Actually divorce is a less accurate term for a lack of procreation in marriage. The better term is annulment, because the natural law prescribes that “marriage” not open to procreation, is no marriage.
Therefore, without procreative sex, homosexual marriage is a nullity, a void, because the sexual attraction, a condition to which we admit exists, can never procreate because the natural law made no physical provision for it.
Summary Points
1. The natural order attracts male and female into procreative sex.
2. Society found this to be good and protects the procreative union, which replaces society numerically.
3. Homosexual unions are a procreative nullity, which reduces society numerically.
A day ago, I received an e-mail inquiry from a state website viewer regarding their possible involvement in their state. I returned the inquiry by phone, resulting in a lengthly discussion about the Conservative Party. One element of our conversation repeating itself was the member prospect questioning of the party position on a number of social items. On balance I feel I did well and have already heard back again from this person.
I have looked throughout the American Conservative Party website and fail to see anything that is finite about an official position on social issues. Perhaps I missed it. There is much discussion about many social positions made by viewers, but nothing I could see that represents a plank. What I suggest is that we articulate the social issue into a plank. I think it can be done. The first and most important criteria for this plank, in my opinion, is that it be broadly stated.
One Christian biblical commandment is, “Thou shalt not steal.” We first teach our children that lesson about stealing in statements like this, “Jimmy, you shouldn’t take Mary’s toys to play with without asking her. You know, Mary’s toys are not yours.” A very simple understandable statement. As life progresses, that child, no doubt in school, will be writing about things. If they use your words without attribution, have they stolen them? Depends. The source from which they took your words may have provided for “generous use.” Knowing when and when not to use words of another becomes part of the graduated learning process that takes one from childhood simplicity to adult knowledge of more complex subsidiary versions of the original statement.
As we recruit new members to our party, the questions on social issues pour forth. “What is our position on abortion, on gay rights, school prayer, and on and on.” Although these questions represent extremely important social issues, in my opinion, they are subsidiary issues to what was the very simple social teaching of our founding fathers. Let me quote Thomas Jefferson, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.”
That pronouncement of Thomas Jefferson took 20 words to make. Our task here is to create a plank that consumes few words that represents our party’s social issues plank. I will place one on the table for discussion.
“We uphold the principle that human life and happiness are personal choices, and society is best served when these choices are embraced and defended at the family and community level.”