Message to Republican True Believers: Romney will be President; Ryan will be Vice President

Years ago, Vice President John Nance Garner, who knew from first-hand painful experience, said that the Vice Presidency was not worth a pitcher of fresh urination – or words to that effect.  Garner came from Texas; Texans have colorful ways of putting things.    

Some things have changed in the vice presidency since Garner left it in 1941 and retired to Uvade, Texas.  However, the dog’s body quality remains around the office of the Vice Presidency to this day.  

THE VICE PRESIDENCY COULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO A HILL OF BEANS.  

Way back in 1896, candidate William McKinley selected for his vice president a Republican party official and New Jersey state legislator by the name of Garret Hobart.  Among other things, Hobart is credited with saying “What this country needs is a good five cent cigar.”   He got that right:  we can make bigger fortunes selling many things for a nickel than a few things for 50 cents.    However, to get back on point, McKinley set out to make Vice President Hobart a sort of executive assistant president.   Heaven knows what would have happened if Hobart had not suddenly died two years into the experiment.    McKinley replaced Hobart in 1900 with the huge ego of Governor Theodore Roosevelt.  McKinley died a few months later.   Roosevelt became president.   When the Great Ego finally got himself a vice president in 1905, he did not want any powerful assistant blocking his limelight.    So much for an executive assistant president.

More than a hundred years later . . .

 candidate Mitt Romney won the contest for Republican Presidential nominee without exactly setting True Hearts on fire.  He did not win over the  minds of the conservative faithful.   Affection for him ran wide but not deep.     

Romney  decided to select as his vice president candidate a U S Representative from Wisconsin who had a nationwide reputation for fiscal conservatism of the hardest, coldest order.   Paul Ryan of Janesville Wisconsin also had gone on record with plans to reduce the dreaded national fiscal deficit.  Among so called Tea Party people (whomever and whatever they are) and among True Blue Conservatives of both fiscal and social varieties, Ryan was The Brilliant Star in the Midwest, The Rising Hope of the Generation.

In the weeks since Romney took Ryan to the mountaintop and showed him the Kingdoms of the World, news programs have broadcast many stories featuring people who now find themselves excited about the Republican ticket.   People willingly state for the record they really did not like Romney much or did not agree with him wholeheartedly.  Now they will work hard for the ticket.

Their enthusiasm, while admirable in its purity, is completely misplaced.  

Romney is the presidential candidate.   He is the same man who –

    ●    was the son of a Rockefeller Republican
    ●    labeled in the 1960s as as part of the rising generation of The New Liberal Modernized Mormons
    ●    went from riches to richer
    ●    created his own state health insurance requirement. 

The Romney Ego will eventually notice if crowds like his veep candidate better than himself.   I seriously doubt it will like it.    

Ryan can say what he wants.    Will  Romney consult him if the voters elect them to highest offices?  The Vice Presidency never did evolve into an executive assistant president:  it has only a few real constitutional duties from the beginning to now.   The Constitution does not specify that the President has to take his vice president seriously in fiscal consultation. 


RYAN MISSED HIS CHANCE

Representative Paul Ryan should have held out for a cabinet position in a department with a lot of entitlements.   Or he should have held out for director of budget.     Then he would have been in a better position to actually put his ideas into effect.

Representative Akin's brilliant career goes bust

That haze on the horizon is the career of Missouri Republican Representative Akin, as it goes up in smoke.

To review:   Missouri voters elected Representative Akin, Missouri Republican, as  this year’s candidate for Senator hoping to unseat a vulnerable Democrat senator named Claire Conner McCaskill.   He made the mistake of saying in public that victims of "legitimate rape" cannot biologically become pregnant and thus do not need access to legal abortions.

This raised a question in the minds of many Missouri voters:   should  we require a senator candidate  to know human biology?

Fire and brimstone fell over Akin’s head.  Republican candidates, leaders, and financiers back-peddled to distance themselves from him.  They urged [ if not ordered ] him to withdraw.  Never mind the fact that he was (yesterday) the darling star of the Missouri Republicans, their Great White Hope.  Missouri Republicans have few darling stars available at any given time to take up The Crusade.  He is the same person they elected a few weeks ago.  What really changed about him exactly?   The change came in voters’ perceptions; that is all.


Let this stand as a lesson to us all.   

Say something really dumb or really politically incorrect; it corrupts or invalidates your whole person.   The assumption, however, is silly.  Just because someone says something dumb in one area does not mean that someone is dumb on all subjects and in all respects in all areas.    

The Akin Crash does illustrate to what extent some  voters obsess over political issues sexual and the extent to which some of them will punish the baby in case of rape.   If people want to execute someone as punishment for these acts of violence, it should be the rapist.

LINING UP FOR MARRIAGE: an essay discussing real definitions of marriage and family values

On August 1, people lined up for blocks to buy sandwiches at Chick-Fil-A to show solidarity with a company president who publicly defined traditional man-and-wife marriage as a command of God and the best way to go.   A few days later, same-gender couples lined up around the restaurants and smoched openly on the kissers. 

People find it easy to stand in line to buy sandwiches.   Will these people stand in line to vote?  Will they write for the record their stand on marriage and family?  

Someone I know wrote on Facebook the other day: 

“There is real inequality and favoritism taking place with the government choosing who can and can't be married. It isn't fair. And while a lot of religious people take pleasure being "favored" by the government - it's immature. What if tomorrow the government decided to only recognize marriage between homosexuals and void everyone else's? Would you still be happy with the government's ability to favor?

“Everyone gets caught up in fighting the definition of "marriage" when the truth is we need to be caught up in the gross lack of separation between church and state that has taken place. That's what's causing all this mess, and causing my facebook feeds to read like a bipolor teenager (let's just say my Utah and California friends wouldn't get along very well).”

What does a parent say when his favorite son elopes to British Columbia with his sweetheart to get married in a same-sex marriage ceremony?   How does he respond to this --

“All Tom and I ever wanted was to get married because we love each other.   And if we hurt some people’s feelings, well — that is just too bad.  It is their problem, not mine.   I married the only man I ever loved and am glad I married the man I loved.  It meant a lot to me to marry the person I found most precious, despite the fact that some people thought he was the wrong kind of person for me to marry.   Government has no business forcing some people’s religious beliefs over others.  I support the right to marry for all – white or black, gay or straight.  That is what loving is all about.”

Interesting that in red states in general and in Utah in particular –

 When the homosexuals corrupted the concept of marriage, their opponents called it "sin."   However, when heterosexuals corrupted the concept of marriage they call it "progressive."

Marriage as political alliance.  Dowries.  Women treated as property with no rights.  Institutional violence between men and women.  Polyandry.   "la casa grande” for the mistress.  “la casa bonita”  for the wife.   No-fault quickie divorces.  Heterosexuals have done the most damage to the concept of marriage over time.    Changing the gender ratio is only just the latest step in the devolution of marriage definitions. 

Marriage is not a domestic agreement between two people.

Marriage is a covenant between at least four entities

the man

the woman

the culture in which they live

and or

God

and children, who have a vested right to a solid stable extended family. 

The central issue in this debate  needs to be stated a different way.    Children have a right to a legal family relationship.   They have a right to two parents, one of the male persuasion, one of the female gender. 

Civil governments in general have done a lousy job in protecting and preserving marriage.  Traditional orthodox churches, however,  have in the main been ineffective, as well.    In fairness, though, neither the Old Testament or the New Testament are really clear on the subject of when God considers a couple “married.”     The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contains sections that do a clearer, more convincing, job of defining marriages both in the world and in the next sphere.

Marriage is not first and foremost about companionship.   People should not confuse marriage with companionship.   Marriage is about a stable legal framework to raise children.   Eventually most if not all marriages get various people and things attached to them:  houses, summer homes, yachts, in-laws, friends, ecclesiastical leaders, accountants, teachers, trainers, and attorneys -- as well as children.     If a married couple is not careful, their marriage will evolve into a way of insuring that they get what they do not want.

Marriage was ordained by God.   Civil unions were ordained by humans.   People in civil unions should have clear rights of inheritance and work benefits for themselves and their partners. 

The president’s comments on marriage on 9 May 2012 only shows how little those in authority have thought out the definitions of family life, marriage, and domestic arrangements.  Domestic arrangements have a long, sometimes honorable, history in the long evolution of human events. 

THE CALL TO ACTION

In the meantime, red-state, traditional family values political activities will insist on chicken sandwich lunches and blue-state progressive family values political activities will insist on Swedish meatballs or Greek salads for lunch.  Lunch will not have much fun in it.  We will accomplish very little in the way of getting strong solid families for children.  

Children deserve both a male and a female parent either at birth or at adoption.   If a government allow gay couples to adopt, then the law must stipulate that the child must have regular meaningful contact with someone of the other gender.

DARK KNIGHT RISING MASSACRE: CONTEMPLATING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

INTRODUCTION RATIONALE

The mass killing outrage at the Aurora Colorado cineplex brings to mind all sorts of bad memories associated with another mass murder incident which took place in the Columbine public high school in Littleton, Colorado, back in 1999.    

It should be noted clearly that in both cases, people willingly sold weapons to these unbalanced – maybe crazy –  individuals. 

The ironies of the Aurora atrocity compound before our eyes.   A bunch of citizens come together at a cineplex at midnight to watch a famously violent movie in which people (one character in particular) die.   Instead dozens of them become the victim of a violent person.   It will be interesting to see if Dark Knight Rising gets associated in history with this event the way Manhattan Melodrama still brings to mind that authorities killed Dillinger as he left a showing of that Gable-Loy-Powell romantic drama. 

In the wake of this outrage, certain Utah leaders talk about increasing gun availability and  concealed weapons permitting.  What a pretty picture of civility that paints. 

It does not seem to occur to any of  them to promote the use and research-improvement of non-lethal weaponry. I suspect their fascination with guns must have something to do with the sexiness or violence of them.


BACKGROUND

The Second Amendment guaranteed the rights of a community to create militias.    Militias fell out of favor in favor of professional militaries rather early on.    It is ironic that Constitutional purists use this amendment in modern times to guarantee a person’s right to own as many deadly weapons as he or she wants, when this was not the original meaning at all. 

The Second Amendment guarantees the exercise of power and dominion in  militias.

The Amendment barely made sense in the 1790s when police forces did not exist, and many citizens lived in isolation or small villages.  In those days the weapons were primitive.   One had to load the powder, then the shot, and maybe the weapon would fire correctly and maybe hit someone if one was a good shot under pressure.    And maybe not.

In 2012, The Second Amendment guarantees the right of a citizen to stop a person from shedding the citizen’s blood by giving the citizen the means to kill or disable the person.   Instead of the person bearing responsibility for shedding the citizen’s blood, the citizen gets to take responsibility for killing the person.   This really does not open up much by way of a choice. 

Now the military industrial complex builds bigger, more sophisticated, and deadly weapons.  One person can do a lot of mayhem without much effort.  Unfortunately, many merchants happily sell automatic weapons to just anyone who has the money.  Thus the atrocity that occurred in the Tucson Safeway parking lot is not one of those things that just happens.   There are cause and effects; there are reasons why. 

The Second Amendment is not about hunting.  English common law addressed that topic back in 1791.

The Second Amendment  is not about self defense.   The Old Testament guaranteed that. English common law covered that as well.   We should not rely on the Hebrew Covenant and English common law for this particular point of law.

As a result, gun enthusiasts hang their rights on an amendment that has nothing relevant about twenty-first century conditions.


THE CALL TO ACTION

1 Both the Utah Legislature and Congress should encourage research-improvement on non-lethal weaponry.

2 Congress and The States really should  replace the outdated Second Amendment with two new amendments. 

One should address the limits of American military power.  It should limit soldiers’ minimum ages to 19 (preferably 20).   It should ban conscription. 

The other should guarantee the right of citizens to self defense with non-lethal weaponry.

3 State and federal laws should require gun owners to buy insurance for their guns.  The gun owners –  not the governments -- should pay for cleaning up messes caused by misuse of guns.

Federal and local law should require people who want to buy guns and/or concealed weapons to submit four notarized affidavits.  Those documents should specifically endorse, for the public record, prospective gun owners as law-abiding,  mentally, emotionally,  physically competent to own and use a gun.  Government should charge people with perjury if they lie.  All four documents need to agree on the particulars. 

I would like Romney and Hatch and Herbert state for the record How long will Republican Constitutional conservatives misuse an amendment that guaranteed civic militias to justify and guarantee mayhem

OBAMACARE > ROMNEYCARE > HEALTH CARE > HEALTH

The John Roberts Supreme Court today upheld the Affordable Health Care Act – and by conservative estimate, this is the most important supreme court ruling since that day in 1973 the Burger Court discovered the right to privacy for women and took away the right to life for unborn babies.   It really may be the biggest ruling since that day the Taney Court ruled that Dred Scott was not a person.    In today’s ruling, the Act is declared constitutional.  However, the 5 justices justified it as taxation, not commerce.  
Taxation always brings out the hypocrisy in both America’s citizens and America’s Congress.   Everyone has a favorite federal program; everyone has a favorite entitlement.  Everyone wants that program and entitlement funded to the max —  but with someone else’s tax money.     
Just a few days ago in Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch won a primary election by exploiting that very cultural hypocrisy.   He won the election by, in essence, flattering Utah voters into believing he will use his massive seniority in the Senate Finance Committee and his basic fiscal conservative principles to slash federal spending and federal taxation – while preserving federal programs  important to Utah’s jobs.   This not only illustrates taxation hypocrisy, it may be this week’s best working definition of “federal pork” :    Excessive federal spending in someone else’s state. 


MEANWHILE ON CONSTITUTION AVENUE
Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate presumptive, decried the Supreme Court decision and promised to repeal it.   It is a tall order; we will see if he is up to the task.
First, the Electoral College has to elect him.  
Next, the American voters need to elect Republican majorities to the Senate and the House.    And the voters can be fickle creatures.  Do more of them want Affordable Health Care?  Or the status quo where only people with money can get access to health.  
We should hope that Romney does not exploit divisive tactics simply to appeal to the bitter devils of  his countrymen’s natures as the negative method to win election.    Anti-Obamacare – like anti-Communism of the 1960s – mixes fear, jealousy, and intense emotional displays and rhetoric all for a theatrical quasi-patriotic effect.   
Romney, however, really needs a positive plan to replace Obamacare.  He cannot just take a negative stance.   He’d be the one to develop a plan:   as an executive he made plans;  as governor of Massachusetts, he created his own state insurance mandate.  


IN FOCUS
Some people like to say that The American Health Care System is rather like a glass half full of possibilities for those with the funding.   Other people like to say The American Health Care System is rather like a glass half empty for those without status or money.   I think The American Health Care System has the wrong glass.
A problem in the whole Health Care debate is that people and leaders generally across the nation ignore  “Health.”    Health always seems to get lost amid the bickering and posturing over Insurance and Taxation.     
What is health?   How do we get it?   How do we maintain it?   How do we preserve it in old age?   What things in American culture and American cuisine make us unhealthy?   What can the governments do to promote health instead of just funding care for sickness?

THE CALL TO ACTION:

Romney could lead a national discussion on American health and make proposals as to how governments can encourage a healthy American life.  This will not be easy.   Americans, as a generalization, want to live as heathens but still stay healthy.   If that does not happen, what with causes and effects, they want complete funding to repair their damages to their health.   Neither expectations are reasonable in a 21st Century of tight budgets and scarce resources.  We should promote health fire, health care systems next.

IS SENATOR HATCH NECESSARY?

In his campaign ads, Senator Orrin Hatch says it is urgent to reelect him, again, because he might become the Senate Finance Committee Chairman.

Actually -- 

If Orrin Hatch gets reelected and if the Republicans take control of the Senate, Hatch might become chairman of that committee.

If America elects a Republican president, and that is not yet a sure thing. If the Republican leadership proposes budgetary cutbacks. If.

America contains more than 310 million people. A nation that big cannot have a small government. It cannot have a small budget especially if a prospective President Romney seriously wants to increase military size and scope. 

Military spending comes in one variety -- expensive. 

Furthermore, a leader gives the people what it needs. A politician gives the people what they want. The senate's ratio of leaders to politicians means that the senators will all have various programs that they insist on funding. So far as I can tell, the Republican definition of budget cutting is cutting back on someone else's pet programs.

When Hatch served as senator in the Reagan administration, I remember he supported most or less enthusiastically the president's deficit spending, particularly the militaristic deficit spending, for two terms.

When Hatch served as senator back in the First Bush administration -- ditto.

When Hatch served as senator back in the Second Bush administration, I remember he supported most or less enthusiastically those two large wars that Bush funded off line by deficit spending and borrowing. If Hatch has any fiscal conservative tendencies, I do not quite remember them.

Frankly, several Republican senators sit on the Senate Finance Committee whose conservatism on the record is more conservative than Orrin Hatch's.

THE CALL TO ACTION

Senator Hatch really should have more time to spend with his grandchildren and in writing his poetry.    Eventually, the Republicans will take control of the Senate, though I have a hard time picturing this happening in 2012.   However, when the change comes, Utah should have a more conservative senator in the chair ready to go.   And that senator is not Orrin Hatch. 

MARRIAGE: DECLINE?? DEFINITIONS??

Interesting that around here in Utah when heterosexuals corrupted the concept of marriage they call it "progressive," and when the homosexuals corrupted the concept, it's called sin.  From marriage as political alliance to dowries  to women treated as property with no rights to polygamy to "la casa grande -- la casa bonita" to no-fault quickie divorces, heterosexuals have done the most damage to the concept of marriage over time.    Changing the gender ratio is only just the latest step in the devolution of marriage

Marriage is not a domestic agreement between two people. 

Marriage is a covenant between at least four entities

the man

the woman

the culture in which they live

and or

God

and children, who have a vested right to a solid stable extended family.  

Civil governments in general have done a lousy job in protecting and preserving marriage.  However, churches have not been entirely effective, either.    In fairness, though, neither the Old Testament or the New Testament are really clear on the subject of when God considers a couple “married.”     The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has sections that do a more convincing job of defining that point. 

Marriage is not first and foremost about companionship.   Marriage should not be confused with companionship.   Marriage is about a stable legal framework to raise children.   Eventually most marriages if not all marriages get in-laws, friends, ecclesiastical leaders, and lawyers attached to them as well as children.     If a married couple is not careful, a marriage is a great way to insure that you get what you do not want. 

The president’s comments on marriage on 9 May 2012 only shows how little those in authority have thought out the definitions of family life, marriage, and domestic arrangements.  Domestic arrangements have a long and sometimes honorable history in the long chain of human events.  However, children deserve both a male and a female parent.