Article VI Blog

Dick Lugar lost the primary yesterday.  That makes me very sad.  I have said before that Lugar was far more moderate than I, but I also know that he has served the people of Indiana and the nation very well for a very long time.  Lugar has been in the Senate for a very long time, perhaps too long – but he deserved to go out more gracefully than this.  In his newsletter this morning Jim Gerahty said:

It’s not that Richard Lugar is a bad man; it’s just that you should be able to accomplish what you came to do in Washington within thirty-six years or so. You can’t be a reformer of Washington in your seventh term.

Dick Lugar never was a “reformer, ” he was just effective.  As the piece we linked announcing the loss said:

By and large Lugar’s voting record has been conservative, but he has often worked with Democrats…

One has to remember, Indiana is the same place that kept Birch Bayh(D) in the Senate for darn near forever, and his son Evan had the same opportunity, but took an early exit.  Though a red state, Indiana is not traditionally averse to Democrats.  Working with them was, until this year I guess, kind of a matter of survival.

Purity drives can only lead to two places – stalemate as both sides square off and nothing happens – or grossly wide policy swings that leave the nation unstable from election to election.  It’s too early to tell what, if anything, is happening right now but it is worth keeping an eye on.  Reform is a very good and currently necessary thing, unless it is the kind of reform we have been subject to in the Obama administration – reform by fiat, legislative trickery and brute force.  In our efforts to reverse the tide this administration has established we must take great care not to resort to the same brutish tactics they have used.  If we do, our republic may truly be lost.

But what I really want to do here is honor Dick Lugar for his years of service.  As a tribute, Geraghty linked to a 2002 Michael Crowley piece that discussed Lugar’s failed 1996 presidential campaign:

His grimacing, mechanical approach to primary-state retail politics made Steve Forbes look like Warren Beatty. Stating the obvious during the campaign, he told one reporter, “I’ve never purported to be an entertainer or performer or a bon vivant.” His candidacy was instead based on that perennially losing theme of technocratic mastery.

I think Lugar underestimated himself.  He taught me the first lesson in retail politics I ever received.  He was still mayor of Indianapolis, but his first Senate race was a foregone conclusion and his presidential aspirations were well known.  I was a punk high school kid that heard that Lugar was to be the featured speaker at a Lenten Men’s prayer breakfast my father was attending and I asked if I could tag along.  Dad said “Sure,” and I found myself in a small room with about 15-20 of the most powerful business men in Indiana.  Needless to say, I stayed in the shadows in that crowd – I had nothing to offer these men.

I had not been in the room more than 2-3 minutes and Lugar spotted me.  All those men were well established and their votes in the next election were secure.  I would be old enough by the next election to vote for Lugar for Senate, and he figured that out with a glance.  He then excused himself from who he was talking to, parted this crowd of very successful and powerful men and walked right up to me and introduced himself.

The brief conversation was not about politics, it was about prayer, which we were there for, and about my connecting with his kids since they and I were active in Young Life, just at different high schools.  In that moment Lugar secured my vote for as long as I lived in Indiana.  I did not know beans about politics or policy at the time, but I knew a good man when I met one.

Geraghty is right – Dick Lugar is not a bad man – he is in fact a very good man.  He did a bad job of reading the tea leaves – he should have retired with the grace he always exhibited and the plaudits that are his just desert.  That said the political misjudgement of this election cycle should not be Dick Lugar’s legacy.  The decades of service that preceded it are a great legacy and for them I applaud him.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Well, if you are the Obama campaign, you have to make mountains out of molehills, because you have no actual mountains.  There was a slightly awkward moment at a campaign stop in Ohio yesterday.  Given the coverage you would think there was an assignation attempt.  The Boston Globe’ headline is the closest to the truth:

Obama campaign blasts Mitt Romney for initial silence after supporter says president ‘should be tried for treason’

The LATimes “describes” the action:

A backer introduced Romney by slamming President Obama for taking credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden, comparing Obama to Ronald McDonald. And when a woman said Obama should be tried for treason, Romney didn’t disagree and asked the woman to follow up her question.

Later, when asked by reporters about the treason comment, Romney said he did not believe the president should be tried.

There was aghast coverage by NPR. and David Plum pointed out that all us common voters are crazy.   This whole thing is kind of unbelievable.  The event presented Romney with a clear choice – chastise, publicly, an ardent supporter or provide the Obama campaign with this bit of fodder.  What he chose to do was respect the freedom of his supporter, a freedom that includes the right to overstate things and spin from time to time.  But of course the press would know nothing about that.

Or would they?  Believe it or not, someone found a way to make the incident about Mormonism:

According to the Post’s Phil Rucker, who was with Romney in Euclid, Ohio, the presumptive Republican nominee was answering questions at a town-hall style rally when a woman asked him what he would do as president to “restore our Constitution in this country,’’ given that President

Obama “should be tried for treason.”

Many in the crowd of 500 responded by applauding the woman, and the candidate had this to say: “I happen to believe that the Constitution was not just brilliant, but probably inspired. I believe the same thing about the Declaration of Independence.”

Which was not exactly on point, and not at all a stand-up response.

Mark Silk, a professor of religion in public life at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, said it’s Mormon teaching that the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired. And this is the first time Silk remembers hearing Romney reference an LDS teaching on the campaign trail.

Any excuse I guess.  A lot of us believe that God works in history, including the drafting of the constitution.  Yes, Romney used some distinctively Mormon phraseology in his statement, but he has been using that phrase throughout his campaign.  Apparently this writer wanted to take the anthill on the molehill and try to build a mountain.

Meanwhile everyone is trying to “explain” Mitt and Mormonism.  One guy said it is a “club,” not a “cult.“  I don’t think this is helpful, the last thing Mormons need is to be portrayed as insulated.  Dane McBride remember what it was like to be on mission with Mitt.  That’s a story that should get wider spread.

Salon pulls more quotes from Alex Pareene’s “The Rude Guide To Mitt.”  Won’t quote and shouldn’t link.  Pareene is clearly an ugly petty man.  Apparently that passes for funny and entertaining in some places.  And here I always thought to be considered witty you had to be smart, not merely derisive.  Oh well, I am just old and not “tuned in,” as they say.

Seriously In Closing

Leading Godblogger Justin Taylor, quotes leading Christian author Vern Polythress:

Many Western humanists expect the state to cure all ills. When they see a problem, such as suicide, drug addiction, oppression, war, poverty, sexual exploitation, racial hatred, or mere ignorance, they are greatly distressed. Their feelings of distress and indignation are in a sense proper, but because they do not admit that the root of these ills is found in human sin, they look for immediately engineered human solutions. After all, if human nature is basically good, the difficulty must not really be that intractable. It must be solvable, and solvable now. Any delay is reprehensible. The state has the maximum concentration of power and resources for the job. Hence the state must institute a program to solve the problem. If the problem cannot be solved merely by throwing money at it, then a state-run educational program can do the job.

Hence in the twentieth century we have seen the growth of huge state bureaucracies. Moreover, in many political arguments it is simply assumed that the state is the proper agent for the job. The debates tend to be confined to the question of expediency and quantity: whether the citizens are willing to foot the bill for still another program, and whether one program rather than another will be effective.

We must break out of this foolishness. The state is not god, nor is it the savior of humanity. It cannot remedy all ills.

Closing in Laughter

Big story yesterday about how dino farting lead to climate change which lead to dino extinction.  So much for the meteor impact theory of dinosaur extinction.  But worry not, referencing our section just prior the South Coast Air Quality Management District already has rules in place to control emissions from livestock operations.  Look out cow farts – they’re coming for you!

Posted in Reading List | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Actually, there’s no such thing.  We just wanted to post this video as a public service:

Posted in Uncategorized | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Mark Steyn ranted about Elizabeth Warren last week:

Hallelujah! In the old racist America, we had quadroons and octoroons. But in the new post-racial America, we have – hang on, let me get out my calculator – duoettrigintaroons! Martin Luther King dreamed of a day when men would be judged not on the color of their skin but on the content of their great-great-great-grandmother’s wedding license application. And now it’s here! You can read all about it in Elizabeth Warren’s memoir of her struggles to come to terms with her racial identity, Dreams From My Great-Great-Great-Grandmother.

Alas, the actual original marriage license does not list Great-Great-Great-Gran’ma as Cherokee, but let’s cut Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Crockagawea Warren some slack here. She couldn’t be black. She would if she could, but she couldn’t. But she could be 1/32nd Cherokee, and maybe get invited to a luncheon with others of her kind – “people who are like I am,” 31/32nds white – and they can all sit around celebrating their diversity together. She is a testament to America’s melting pot, composite pot, composting pot, whatever.

Note the shot at Obama’s composite girlfriend in there too.  Steyn’s point? – for the left labels seem to matter.  Want more evidence? – Consider an AP story that we found at 3 sites – Huffington Post – FOXNews Latino and NEWSONE for Black America.  Quoting the HuffPo version:

How unthinkable it was, not so long ago, that a presidential election would pit a candidate fathered by an African against another condemned as un-Christian.

Yet here it is: Barack Obama versus Mitt Romney, an African-American and a white Mormon, representatives of two groups and that have endured oppression to carve out a place in the United States.

How much progress has America made against bigotry? By November, we should have some idea.

I don’t think people understand that the story itself is conclusive, we don’t need to wait for the election?  Bigotry is evident in people even being concerned about such things.  It is vitally important to note that this story is carried in places designed to reach out to minorities or that is decidedly left-wing.

This story comes in the wake of Obama opening his campaign.  It represents an effort certainly on the part of the MSM, and one wonders who in Camp Obama is whispering in their ears, to cast the narrative of this general election campaign in terms of these labels.  I cannot think of anything uglier.

But then, what does team Obama have left?  Elections are supposed to be about who can best do the job of POTUS.  Obama has 3.5 years of demonstrated inability to do that job well.  And so it seems evident that he and his willing allies in the press are going to make this election about labels – maybe even tribes.  Is it any wonder Obama wants out of Afghanistan as fast as politically expedient?  Fighting the tribalism that scars that land and breeds terrorism against this nation is counter to his chosen electoral strategy.

Proponents of Obamathink will be quick to point out that our nation has always celebrated its diversity.  Yes it has, but there is a big difference between inviting your non-German neighbors to your Oktoberfest and pitting yourself against your non-German neighbors in a contest – electoral or otherwise.  The former says “welcome” while the later lets lose forces that have caused evil and harm throughout human history.

There is no such thing as moderation with some evil forces.  There is a reason Mormons and many people of more traditional Christian faith prohibit alcohol.  It is true, alcohol in moderation does no harm. but moderation with alcohol is extraordinarily difficult, and for many impossible.  Such is true with the kind of identity group/tribal forces that are being mucked about with here.  When such groups are set in competition instead of joined in common cause, escalation of that competition becomes inevitable.

This is at its core unAmerican.  E Pluribus Unum:

E pluribus unum (pronounced /ˈiː ˈplʊərɨbəs ˈuːnəm/; Latin [ˈeː ˈpluːrɪbʊs ˈuːnũː]) — Latin for “Out of many, one“^[1][2] (alternatively translated as “One from many“)^[3] — is a phrase on the Seal of the United States, along with Annuit cœptis and Novus ordo seclorum, and adopted by an Act of Congress in 1782.^[2] Never codified by law, E pluribus unum was considered a de facto motto of the United States until 1956 when the United States Congress passed an act (H.J. Resolution 396), adopting “In God We Trust” as the official motto.^[4]

The motto was suggested in 1776 by Pierre Eugene du Simitiere to the committee responsible for developing the seal. At the time of the American Revolution, the exact phrase appeared prominently on the title page of a popular periodical, The Gentleman’s Magazine,^[5][6][7] which collected articles from many sources into one “magazine”. The phrase is similar to a Latin translation of a variation of Heraclitus‘s 10th fragment, “The one is made up of all things, and all things issue from the one.” A variant of the phrase was used in Moretum, a poem attributed to Virgil but with the actual author unknown. In the poem text, color est e pluribus unus describes the blending of colors into one. St Augustine used a variant of the phrase, ex pluribus unum, in his Confessions.

The first coins with E pluribus unum were dated 1786 and struck under the authorization of the State of New Jersey by Thomas Goadsby and Albion Cox in Rahway, New Jersey.^[8] The motto had no New Jersey linkage but was likely an available die that had been created by Walter Mould the previous year for a failed federal coinage proposal.^[9] Walter Mould was also authorized by New Jersey to strike state coppers with this motto and did so beginning in early 1787 in Morristown, New Jersey. Lt. Col. Seth Reed of Uxbridge, Massachusetts was said to have been instrumental in having E Pluribus Unum placed on US coins^[10] Seth Read and his brother Joseph Read had been authorized by the Massachusetts General Court to mint coppers in 1786. In March 1786, Seth Reed petitioned the Massachusetts General Court, both the House and the Senate, for a franchise to mint coins, both copper and silver, and “it was concurred”.^[11][12] E pluribus unum, written in capital letters, is included on most U.S. currency, with some exceptions to the letter spacing (such as the reverse of the dime). It is also embossed on the edge of the dollar coin. (See United States coinage and paper bills in circulation).

While Annuit cœptis and Novus ordo seclorum appear on the reverse side of the great seal, E pluribus unum appears on the obverse side of the seal (Designed by Charles Thomson), the image of which is used as the national emblem of the United States, and appears on official documents such as passports. It also appears on the seal of the President and in the seals of the Vice President of the United States, of the United States Congress, of the United States House of Representatives, of the United States Senate and on the seal of the United States Supreme Court.

Originally suggesting that out of many colonies or states emerge a single nation, in recent years it has come to suggest that out of many peoples, races, religions and ancestries has emerged a single people and nation—illustrating the concept of the melting pot.^[13]

The concept of being tied together by a single cause, in this case the cause of building the greatest nation in human history has been within the fabric of our nation from its very beginning.  And make no mistake, one of the most important factors that divided colonies-come-states in the early days was religion and country of origin.  In large part the colonies had established, official religions often reflecting the established religion of the nation of origin of the colonists.  The constitution’s rules against establishment and religious tests was a part of the compromise that enabled the forging of a single nation out of that diversity.  It is really not just “in recent years” that the Latin phrase as gained the melting pot connotation.

Obama has called into question many of the founding ideals of our nation – capitalism and the personal freedom that travels with it being the most prominent of them.  But in this emerging meme we see if not he, his supporters in the media attacking the most fundamental of those ideals – that we are a single people rising above our petty differences to be a great nation.

It has been said the future of our nation is at stake in this election – that’s true in every election to one extent or another.  But it seems that in this election our very concept of who we are as a nation is at stake.  The nation will choose this November, but it should choose with its eyes completely open and all the cards on the table.

If you read this blog, you are more politically attuned and better educated than most.  It is imperative that you help your friends and neighbors see what is truly at stake in this election.  Take the time and make the effort between now and November.  We cannot afford to have the nation make this decision based on sound bites and ads – only education and discussion will do.

Posted in Political Strategy, Prejudice, Religious Bigotry | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

France voted to spend more money.

Greece voted to spend more money.

The European Union is so obnoxious that any smack at the arrogant Brussels bureaucrats has some value, but both votes are disasters.

Smart economists keep telling simpletons like me not to panic. Don’t buy gold. Don’t hide in a compound in Idaho. Everything will be fine.

I cannot afford gold, so will have to trust God, and as for compounds, they weird me out.

Still how is the news from Europe anything but bad?

French socialists have no money to spend, but will try to spend it. When they cannot do so, they will be face a reaction so great that one fears for the fascists on the far-right and the communists on the left finding power.

Greece is not so different. There the establishment has utterly failed the Greek people. When almost twenty percent of the nation votes for communists and Nazis, there is a serious problem. Call me a simpleton, but any party that has a banner that looks like Hitler’s is bad and significant number of Greeks just did so.

Some more complex thinkers will argue that the Greeks don’t want Nazis, they just voted to protest impotent mainstream parties. Sadly, Nazis are like roaches . . .inviting one for any reason infests the whole house.

I cannot justify even my beloved Greeks if they vote for a Nazi.

As MItt Romney might say: “Gosh darn the experts to heck.”

The brightest and best of both parties steered us over a cliff in the last Bush and first Obama years. Big government and big business have been cozy in the Obama years and a second term would mean more spending.

Sound familiar?

But if France spends more, Greece spends more, and we spend more from whence will the money come? China is tottering and anybody who believes their government produced numbers is probably an expert. . . so I don’t count on the Chinese to fund Western folly.

Will France get Germany, the EU by another name, to print more money?

If so, the Germans will have forgotten their own history: more money means less money. If the Germans are not stupid, and they are not stupid, this will mean impasse and a second recession.

It is for those reasons, conservatives and moderates need to unite and elect Mitt Romney. Romney will spend less than Obama, if only because his election will come with a GOP Congress. Romney will spend less, but he will not slash and burn: it is not in his nature. When President Obama let the Democratic Congress write his spending and health bill, he gave up the middle. President Romney will not repeat that mistake.

If Mitt Romney is anything, he is a man for sound money. He will not send a thrill up the leg of any MSNBC commentator, but he will balance the books. It is in his nature.

You don’t have to like Mitt Romney. I have friends who do not, but they are wise enough to know we need him. We just finished with a term of a messianic expectations: It failed me, how did it work for you? It didn’t do much for my California real estate.

The French turned to socialism. The Greeks turned to chaos. Europe seems determined to live in interesting times, but we need not emulate them: the US can vote for Mitt Romney and normalcy.

Or you could start building that compound . . .

Posted in Policy | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

We have all known the upcoming general election was going to turn nasty and that the faith of Mitt Romney would be at play.  I have always thought it would be of this type – where the press just MAKES a story out of Romney’s faith, or the Obama campaign, take your pick.  Conventional wisdom has always been that Romney was completely without personal scandal, so to go negative, they had to go ugly.

But yesterday Romney’s son and close adviser, Tagg, announced the birth of twins to he and his wife via surrogacy.  Now there is a personal hook, and things are liable to get interesting.  There have been a number of stories on it, but the one just linked is the first have have seen to mention the religions angle:

According to the official handbook of the Church of Latter Day Saints, to which the Romney’s are members, surrogacy is not encouraged. “The Church strongly discourages surrogate motherhood,” the handbook reads.

Surrogacy is a religiously controversial procedure.  It generally involves the fertilization of numerous eggs and the implantation of multiple embryos.  Frequently if multiple embryos “take,” a procedure called “selective harvesting” is used to abort all but one.  Given the birth of twins in this case it is unlikely that procedure was used in this case.  But there is also the problem of the unused embryos which for many of faith are also life.  Such embryos can be destroyed, which for many is a form of abortion, or used as genetic material in research.  Those who consider these embryos life also find the later practice morally repugnant.

The questions are scientifically and morally very complex.  Given the well develop Catholic doctrines about life, the moral ramifications are quite clear in their view.  Most deeply conservative Evangelicals tend to follow the Catholics on these matters, but the merely right-leaning ones see more gray area.

Romney has been running his campaign leaving the far, far right on the sidelines.  But his primary victories relied heavily on the Catholic vote, and he is counting on the less rabid of Evangelicals to fall in line for the general.  However, with the far right still nipping at his heels, this revelation gives concrete and current evidence to the qualms that some of the right have about “authenticity.”

Of course Romney can distance himself from his son, but this is apparently their second birth by surrogacy, so it cannot be news to the family.  Also Tagg has been so close to Romney, and Romney tends to be such a loyal individual, that such is hard to contemplate.

There is a firestorm on the horizon here.  I cannot believe that the Obama campaign and the lapdog press will let this opportunity to drive a wedge between Romney and a significant portion of the party base pass.  Perhaps the timing is perfect, not that many people are paying attention during the interregnum between primary and convention.  Maybe this story will be spent by the time things gets serious.  But alternately, given the opportunity the story presents, it could remain relatively suppressed until it is maximally useful.

Watch this space – closely.

Posted in Doctrinal Obedience, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 10 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post