Sipping in Starbucks, using the Buddha-eye

While sipping in Starbucks in Chicago at 1900 W. Montrose Ave, I saw a wall-sized photo. This wasn’t in a frame, but instead was plastered to the north wall, dominating by virtue of its 12 feet by 6 feet.

I wonder how many of that store’s hundreds (if not thousands) of customers ever took more than a casual glance at this photo, which was shot from a God’s-eye perspective. That is, looking straight down. And why shouldn’t Stars’ customers look straight on, which is to say (from the photo’s point-of-view) straight down? Are they not Gods?

I tried to find a link on google but couldn’t find one – isn’t every image there or didn’t I look hard enough? However, I just had a sudden flash of inspiration: “Even if I could find such a link, I would not share it with you – instead choosing to describe that photo in words.” Patience! I’ll do that soon enough. But I wish to take a moment here to reveal to you (and bow down to) that which inspired me: The Artist.

Yes, I saw the recently-released The Artist, which is a (mostly) silent movie. Simply brilliant! I will see it again with my son on Monday, knowing he’ll appreciate just how much we need such a throw-back. I mean, who makes silent movies anymore? Last one I can remember is (dramatic pause) Silent Movie by Mel Brooks, which came out in 1976.

Okay, I’ll weaken a bit here and share that link with you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph6GIWOCiO8

Yes, silent movies are indeed a throw-back, as is the use of words to conjure an image instead of providing an uploaded photo or a link. Call me sentimental, but I still think words have value.

Description in my own words

Okay, on with it then. The photo was shot apparently a few feet over the head of a bean sorter, whom I assume is female. She is wearing a large, white, woven, bamboo hat which dominates the lower, central, one-sixth of this photo. So you can’t see her head but you can see her hands as she sorts the coffee beans spread out before her. Those beans fill most of the photo. We also see the hands of the person to the left and of the one to the right of our “star” actor. Nothing else of all three, just their hands and forearms.

So, what’s wrong with this picture?

I’m not sure if anything is “wrong,” so I’ll just report what I saw. I had to get up out of my seat to be sure I wasn’t seeing a fly resting on the central sorter’s right arm. My eyes aren’t so good at a distance – I was seated about 12 feet away. But I can assure you that was a fly – moreover, a fly which any person of average sight would see. Should see, if they were to pay attention.

First thing I thought: “Huh! I wonder why that wasn’t Photoshopped out.” But there it is – bigger than life – a fly for all of Stars’ customers to see. That is, if they would bother at all to access their God’s-eye view to take more than a cursory glance. But I saw it. Maybe, out of all those thousands, I was the only one.

Likelier, I was the only one who wondered, “Is that a tsetse fly, the scourge of Africa that causes sleeping sickness?” Just now, I saw a google-image of a tsetse, but can’t be 100% sure if that’s what was on her arm.

Then I thought of the hat she was wearing. It looked brand-spanking new. So it occurred to me: Maybe this photographer saw the shabby hat she was wearing and thought, “That won’t do for Stars’ customers.” So did he say, “Wear this instead?” I wonder if he let her keep that hat.

What price, a cup of coffee?

The Buddha-eye

Even since I started practicing Buddhism over 20 years ago, I started seeing things differently. I can’t say I see what isn’t visible. But what I do see makes more than just a visual impression on me. One of the benefits of practicing the Lotus Sutra is an ever-increasing enhancement of one’s senses. That’s promised within the pages of the Lotus itself. I haven’t acquired the Buddha-eye yet, since my practice is still relatively young. But all good things take time.

As I’ve soldiered on over the years, I’ve become more and more impressed with what people don’t see. Or, more accurately, choose to overlook. Then it occurred to me: Maybe their lack of compassion serves to effectively blind them.

Case in point:

When Walk the Line came out in 2005, one particular scene made a deep impression – mostly because I was keenly aware that nobody else sitting in that theater with me felt what I felt. Walk the Line is a biopic about the life of Johnny Cash, starring Joaquin Phoenix in brilliant portrayal. In it, “Cash” is about to start performing for the convicts of Folsom Prison. But first, he holds up, for the prisoners to see, a glass of polluted yellow water which he just poured from a nearby tap. Looking at it disgustedly, he smashes it to the floor to the cheers of the prisoners.

When I saw that, I thought how easy it was for Johnny Cash to do that, knowing he could get water from the outside (or even from the warden’s office if he were that thirsty). However, the prisoners didn’t have any such choice – if they were thirsty, they would have to drink polluted water. For 10, 20, 30 years – for life in some cases. Then I wondered how many of my fellow audience members cared about what prisoners had to drink or even noticed what I’d noticed.

Probably the same number who read stories in their local newspapers, but think nothing of them, about suspects undergoing 48-hour “interrogations” by the police before confessing. And these are the same people who, without batting an eyelash, will swear that “The US doesn’t torture people.”

Yeah, right.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“A nation which ignores compassion will not for much longer remain free, nor will anyone care when it passes” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Beware of the best and the brightest

One of the best and the brightest happens to be Ilya Shapiro. With his sterling credentials, surely he must qualify. At the end of my piece today, I will compare his credentials to mine. But for now, I’ll concentrate on two paragraphs of a scholarly article he’d published in the John Marshall Law Review, which were quoted in the Chicago Tribune on 12-22-11. In their entirety:

QUOTE:

While it’s true that corporations aren’t human beings, that truism is constitutionally irrelevant because corporations are formed by individuals as a means of exercising their constitutionally protected rights. When individuals pool their resources and speak under the legal fiction of a corporation, they do not lose their rights.

It cannot be any other way; in a world where corporations are not entitled to constitutional protections, the police would be free to storm office buildings and seize computers or documents. The mayor of New York City could exercise eminent domain over Rockefeller Center by fiat and without compensation if he decides he’d like to move his office there. Moreover, the government would be able to censor all corporate speech, including that of so-called media corporations. In short, rights-bearing individuals do not forfeit those rights when they associate in groups.

:UNQUOTE.

Now, I will copy, interspersing my comments [NOTE: All highlights in this post were added by me]:

QUOTE:

While it’s true that corporations aren’t human beings, that truism is constitutionally irrelevant…

COMMENT:

Actually, corporations are constitutionally irrelevant, for nowhere – not even once – within the text of the constitution itself (or in its amendments) does the word “corporation” appear.

QUOTE:

…because corporations are formed by individuals…

COMMENT:

…”formed by individuals” who must apply to the state for a corporate charter, risking revocation if found in violation of that charter.

QUOTE:

       ..as a means of exercising their constitutionally protected rights.

COMMENT:

Really? I thought corporations were “formed by individuals as a means of” making money. The Constitution (and here I personify) didn’t think it was necessary for corporations to be formed as a means for individuals to exercise their constitutionally protected rights. That’s why a checks-and-balances system of federal government was set up, with pertinent amendments added later.

If anything, corporations are formed by groups of individuals in an attempt to override the wishes, desires, and competitive effectiveness of other individuals or groups of individuals. To limit abuse of this focused power, our system opposes monopolies.

QUOTE:

When individuals pool their resources and speak under the legal fiction of a corporation, they do not lose their rights.

COMMENT:

I’m surprised Mr. Shapiro would use the term “legal fiction” – for that is a term I would have used. Truer to his intentions, Shapiro should perhaps have written “legal entity” or “legal umbrella.” By using the term “legal fiction” (remember, the word “fiction” means “false”), this author undermined his own case. For how could anyone possibly argue that something which is false is worthy of constitutional rights?

Ilya Shapiro chose to overlook the obvious point that, “When individuals pool their resources and speak under the legal fiction of a corporation, they… [in reality, do] lose their rights.” There could very well be shareholders or even (minority) members of the board of directors who (for instance) might be Democrats who would be having their own right to political preference overshadowed by a corporation deciding to support a Republican presidential candidate.

QUOTE:

It cannot be any other way; in a world where corporations are not entitled to constitutional protections, the police would be free to storm office buildings and seize computers or documents.

COMMENT:

Ilya Shapiro is guilty of overreach here, to make his point (which I believe to be a silly point, indeed). As a lawyer, Shapiro must surely know the falsity of such a claim – “It cannot be any other way”…indeed! It can “be” whatever the courts or the Congress deem it to be. His claim is simply from a lawyer trying to laughingly dismiss even the thought of a challenge.

It’s not necessary to cite violation of corporate rights to prevent such seizures. The shareholders of that entity could rise up in a class action lawsuit, under the terms of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, by claiming their property was taken from them “without due process of law.” The corporation may well own that property directly, but the shareholders (as owners of the corporation) own that property albeit indirectly.

QUOTE:

The mayor of New York City could exercise eminent domain over Rockefeller Center by fiat and without compensation if he decides he’d like to move his office there.

COMMENT:

This wasn’t a very good choice for an example, since Shapiro felt he had to make the mayor’s action truly despicable by adding “by fiat and without compensation.” In addition, I have to wonder why Shapiro feels the need to “ridiculize” his scenario by suggesting the mayor could take over the entire Rockefeller Center simply because he felt it necessary to move his office, an office which doesn’t require the whole Center.

First of all, at issue isn’t a “world where corporations are not entitled to constitutional protections.” By saying “world” where he meant “country,” I must conclude Shapiro lapses at least occasionally into sloppy writing.

Second, if the mayor were to seize that Center, he’d be seizing assets belonging to individuals. Yes, the corporation would be taking a hit, but so would its stockholders. The defense against the mayor here should be to invoke the individuals’ rights to their property instead of the corporation’s.

QUOTE:

Moreover, the government would be able to censor all corporate speech, including that of so-called media corporations.

COMMENT:

Let’s take the example of media corporations. “Speech” generated by a media corporation is a commodity produced by that entity. That commodity was prepared with the idea of maximizing profits. Should the government try to censor that speech, it would in effect be seizing that commodity and substituting its own of dubious value.

However, it’s not necessary to cite violation of corporate rights to prevent such a seizure (and, therefore, loss of value). The shareholders of that entity could rise up in a class action lawsuit, under the terms of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, by claiming their property was taken from them “without due process of law.”

QUOTE:

In short, rights-bearing individuals do not forfeit those rights when they associate in groups.

COMMENT:

Rights-bearing individuals should not have to forfeit their rights or have them diminished due to the machinations of groups of other rights-bearing individuals. That’s why we have social mechanisms in place to level the playing field. But, somehow, I don’t think Ilya Shapiro is much interested in leveling the playing field.

Additional Analysis

“A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members” - *

This is a good starting point, for it makes clear that corporations are not simply (in Mr. Shapiro’s words), “…formed by individuals as a means of exercising their constitutionally protected rights.” These individuals already have rights which they can exercise to their hearts’ content, with or without being incorporated. But, as cited above, the corporation has rights “that are distinct (therefore, different) from those of its members.”

The Tenth Amendment doesn’t deal with the powers, rights, and relative standing of various “groups” of people (including corporate groups). It states quite simply: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Tenth deals with three entities:

·       “the United States” – referring to the national government;

·       “the States” – referring to local governments;

·       “the people” – referring to all US citizens (please note: no further subdivisions are mentioned – corporate or otherwise).

I could even segue from the Ninth Amendment, which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Mr. Shapiro believes that “corporations are…entitled to constitutional protections [that is, ‘rights’].” But (again) corporations are not mentioned at all within the Constitution nor are any rights enumerated for them in particular.

Corporations can’t share the same rights as human beings who are US citizens, simply because corporations cannot be citizens. And not even Mr. Shapiro is pretending that they are – thank God! The Supreme Court was long ago persuaded to declare that corporations are persons under the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. But so far, SCOTUS has never pronounced this death sentence upon the Republic: “Corporations are citizens…therefore they can vote in elections.”

And why not? If a corporation is to be deemed a citizen, why shouldn’t it have the right to vote? Indeed, why not allow wealthier corporations to have a vote in proportion to their wealth? Not all people are treated equally in this country, anyway. For instance, the retarded and felons are denied the right to vote. So why should corporations (which are really just another form of citizen) be denied the maximum exercise of their powers?

But of course I digress

In my last paragraph, I played the role of Devil’s Advocate – that is, arguing as I suppose Ilya Shapiro might. And this turns me to the subject of Mr. Shapiro himself.

QUOTE: Ilya Shapiro: Senior Fellow in constitutional Studies and Editor-in-Chief, Cato Supreme Court Review…He holds an A.B. from Princeton University, an M.Sc. from the London School of Economics, and a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School (where he became a Tony Patiño Fellow). Shapiro is a member of the bars of New York, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Supreme Court. He is a native speaker of English and Russian, is fluent in Spanish and French, and is proficient in Italian and Portuguese.:UNQUOTE.**

Wow! What can I say? Ilya Shapiro appears to be a very intelligent fellow indeed. Which isn’t to say, though, that he’s intellectually honest or moral in any way. In fact, he seems exactly like the type of apparatchik who could have written the Torture Memos for the Bush Administration; the kind of man who, if followed with any degree of seriousness, could lead this country into a wide variety of messes.

The fact that he’s part of the Cato Institute, a fascist front if ever there was one, is also cause for concern. Groups like Cato exist to lend an aura of respectability to genuinely loathsome ideas and people. Billionaire Charles Koch, much in the news, comes readily to mind:

QUOTE: [Charles] Koch provides financial support for a number of libertarian organizations, including the Institute for Humane Studies and the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He also co-founded the Cato Institute.:UNQUOTE.***

According to its website, the Cato Institute promotes “individual liberty, free markets, and peace.” This is what I think they really mean:

·       We promote individual liberty, while holding fast to the idea that superior people must hold power, unrestricted by common men;

·       We promote free markets, which means a cut-throat capitalism unaccountable to anyone but its own barons;

·       We promote peace, until it becomes time for the occasional necessary war to boost profits and thin an overpopulating herd.

Who are these people kidding? Like we don’t really know what they’re up to?

Such silk-gloved villainy begs to be countered by plain-spoken folks like me who are willing to think through their bull shit. Unlike Mr. Shapiro, who speaks six languages, I only speak one – but I speak it plainly and honestly, with no ulterior motives, no master to serve, no hidden agenda. I do not have an advanced degree, having only an Associate’s degree to my credit. Frankly, I found college to be boring and a colossal waste of time.

But that doesn’t mean I can’t think or see through lies and deceptions. For I am a very patient person – that is, until I figure out how I’m being lied to. Then I become not so patient. As should you.


Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“We must stand united against the Best and the Brightest who think they’re so much better than we are.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

  ** http://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro

   *** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Koch

I was in Mohammad’s cave when…

I was in Mohammad’s cave when the Archangel Gabriel embraced him. The story of the First Revelation is well-known. What are not so well-known are these:  the Prophet was not alone, nor was he aware that I was sitting not too far behind him. What is also not known is that he was not the first person embraced by Gabriel in that cave. I was.

One day before Mohammad arrived at the Cave of Hira for his historic encounter, I was alone in that very same cave. For it was my habit, as well as that of the Prophet, to seek out an isolated cave and mediate. As you can imagine, I was shocked to be embraced by this entity and ordered to “Read.” Unlike Mohammad, I knew how to read, so I asked, “What am I to read?” When I was presented with a vision of the holy text, the entity calling himself Gabriel (but how am I to know for sure?) once again said, “Read!”

And I said… “No.”

Here I will pause for a moment and tell you what is rarely even contemplated – there are people who actually say “No” to God, even when they’re sure It’s really God Who is trying to engage them. This should not surprise you, though, for do we not have free will? And does not God respect that? After all, He has His purposes, and (if it’s quite alright) so do I.

When I said “No,” the entity released me from its embrace and said no more. But I remained in that cave to think about what just happened. The next day, Mohammed enters. He did not notice me crouched in the back for he seemed preoccupied. It wasn’t long, though, until he was embraced as I had been. I didn’t see or hear anything, though I heard the Prophet’s replies.

That was back in the year 610 AD, over 1400 years ago. And I am still alive but Mohammad isn’t. [Maybe that is my punishment, though I don’t feel that way.] I go back as far as the Pharaohs, having even seen some of them from a distance. And I am not the only one like this; we even find each other on occasion. Being a recluse (I have my reasons), I always keep my distance from the celebrated and powerful.

Mohammad left the cave, still not having seen me. In the years that followed, we never spoke or made direct eye contact. From a distance, I followed his career and that of his faith, as I’ve followed the careers of others – genuine and false. To this day, I don’t know what had embraced Mohammad (and, earlier, me) in the Cave of Hira.

I’ve often wondered how Mohammad feels, from wherever he happens to be, about the Muslim community and the turns it’s taken. I guess I should say “Muslim communities” – for that seems to be the problem. Maybe it’s true, that which is written: All things fade over time.

The entity said to each of us that he was Gabriel. It’s not that I didn’t believe him – I didn’t care one way or the other. Other entities have beckoned me since then, and before then, but I’ve ignored them all – especially when they ask me to do something.

I can’t account for my long life except to say that maybe I am here only to be a witness. Actually, that’s quite a big job. Toward that end, I sometimes disguise myself to get closer to people. Once I even disguised myself as a Sunni Muslim and got quite close to members of one rural small community in Egypt in the early 1800’s.

I’d managed to save a bit of money to make the pilgrimage to Mecca, since it’s a prime religious obligation to do that at least once in a lifetime. I’d actually saved “a bit” several times, but I never went. As I’d prepare to go, without fail I would encounter some desperately poor family and would give them my money.

I hope that was alright.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“                                            “ – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

US President’s Weekly Yahoo News Updates

Once per week, I consolidate comments I’d posted to recent articles appearing on Yahoo News. I share my views, written as if I actually were the US President. [I’m working on that.] The following were posted between Dec. 18 and today, though appear below in no particular order. As is my usual custom, if I open with a quoted item, that’s from the article itself.

I hope you enjoy all 13 of these mini-essays/comments:

ONE:

I took another look at a YouTube clip from Sacha Baron Cohen’s movie “Bruno,” which showed the real-life Ron Paul being “hit on” by Bruno, who dropped his pants in this scene.

At the time, I laughed while feeling sorry for a clearly uncomfortable Ron Paul. But I also wondered, “How on earth did Cohen get away with this? Aren’t there laws?” Or did Ron Paul unwittingly sign some kind of waiver in advance that he didn’t read very carefully. If that, then Ron Paul seems to be the kind of person who’s easily duped. Can we afford that?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If Ron Paul’s campaign really catches on, believe me – I won’t be the last person to bring up Bruno.”

TWO:

“State media have showered Kim with new titles.” Under whose authority does state media do this? Who do they think they are, to presume to bestow titles on the Supreme Godhead? If Kim were really supreme, he would bestow titles upon himself. That’s what gods do, right?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If elected president in 2012, I wouldn’t give the North Koreans the time of day. Let China take care of their poor relation.”

THREE:

“[Ron] Paul…[said] insurance companies should not be required to offer coverage to people who are already sick.” Did Paul happen to say what those people are supposed to do? Let me guess: “If you can’t afford to live, then you must die.” I wonder if Dr. Ron Paul ever did any free doctoring for those in need. Lawyers are expected to be available to work Pro Bono on occasion. What about doctors, Dr. Paul?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I suggest that a certain amount of free doctoring, for those who can’t afford it, should be considered part of the cost of doing business. What do you say, Dr. Paul?”

FOUR:

"God, Syria and Bashar only." Whatever happened to “God is great?” People start getting into trouble when they add their country and their Glorious Leader after God.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“We in the US make the same mistake when we equate God and country.”

FIVE:

“…paid silent tribute to Kim Jong Il, ‘praying for his immortality,’ KCNA said.” Praying for his…what?! Immortality? The man’s dead, so it’s too late for a prayer like that.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“What are these people thinking?”

SIX:

“The 2012 election is due to be the priciest ever with Obama expected to raise more than his record $750 million from 2008.” And why should this be the case? Even Obama’s most ardent supporters should be thinking: “Let the President run on his record, which he’s in a great position to promote, but not on one red cent from us.”

By now, friends and enemies alike know all there is to know about Obama. The only purpose for raising tons of campaign contributions is to overwhelm the airwaves with his “message.” Yawn…we already know that message. Frankly, I’d like to see “Change We Can Believe In” starting with Obama refusing all campaign contributions. Like me.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“When it comes to playing the money game, Obama’s no different than anybody else.”

SEVEN:

Upon hearing the news that Newt Gingrich wants to conduct a write-in campaign, since he failed to get on the primary ballot in his [currently] native state of Viriginia, I responded with:

"No write-in shall be permitted on ballots in primary elections." I wish the article had expanded on what that means. For instance, if a voter writes a name on a ballot, is he to be arrested on the spot for violating state law? Or is his ballot simply counted as “spoiled?” If the latter, Newt should plough full speed ahead (to mix a metaphor) and go for a write-in campaign. He could claim a moral victory if the results went something like this:

21% Ron Paul, 19% Mitt Romney, 60% spoiled ballots.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“It won’t matter even if Jesus were to win the presidency, he’d still be stymied by a cranky Congress.”

EIGHT:

[SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court has tossed out a lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.]

“The [Court] ruled Thursday that none of the challengers had legal standing to file the lawsuit…” All of us who are US citizens should have legal standing in such a fundamental case as this. But the Court decided to take the easy (though inaccurate) way out instead of hearing the evidence and ruling on those merits.

This whole concept of “legal standing” has been abused for far too long (along with our tolerance of the Senate’s unconstitutional filibuster rule). But you won’t hear Ron Paul railing against either. And yet, Dr. Paul’s supporters hail him as such a great constitutionalist. Riiigghhtt!

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Hate to break it to you, but Ron Paul (as a staunch supporter of the Two Party System) is as much a part of the problem as are any of his opponents.”

NINE:

"… this may be the greatest transfer of wealth through theft and piracy in the history of the world and we are on the losing end of it”… Transfer of wealth through theft and piracy? Exactly what would Senator Whitehouse call the colonialists’ behavior that saw fit to partition Africa and (prior to WWII) squeeze concessions out of China? I guess much depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Frankly, I don’t think the Chinese are primarily responsible for this massive hacking, although our CIA (the likeliest of culprits) has much to gain by making it appear they are to blame. You can’t convince me that China could overwhelm us with hack attacks so successfully, considering the huge lead the US has in computer technology.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I’ve got a funny feeling that Senator Outhouse’s chief complaint is that ‘we are on the losing end of it.’”

TEN:

The only relevant thing you need to know about Ron Paul is this: If he were to get elected, he would go down in history as the worst of the got-nothing-done presidents.

Granted, he’s got a lot of ideas, and he seems genuine enough. But you know what they say about good guys finishing last.  Congress will prove to be Ron’s undoing, especially the Senate filibuster. Ron will be solidly opposed by Democrats, incensed because Obama lost, and by the GOP, because he’s not one of the boys. And to unify them will be the lobbyists who are quite satisfied with the status quo.

The worst thing about all this? Ron Paul already knows, deep down inside, that he couldn’t be an effective president. He might actually hope to use the bully pulpit to rally “the people” to overthrow Congress. But then you and he will find out exactly how powerless we are to run our own lives. But…go ahead and vote for Ron Paul if that will make you feel better.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Feel better, yes. But change anything? Not a chance.”

ELEVEN:

Chandra,

They’ll be unemployed, all right. Once Ron Paul brings the troops home, there will be irresistible pressure to demobilize. People will ask, “Well, if we don’t need all those troops overseas, why pay to keep them on hand here within our borders?” People will start grumbling about paying troops to sit at home and “do nothing.”

And don’t buy into any argument that these “do nothing” troops will guard our Mexican border. For one thing, not that many guards would be needed; for another, there’s a reason why we intentionally allow illegal immigration (to allow dissatisfied Mexicans to flee instead of revolt against their own government). [What? You didn’t think we allowed illegals to come in unless that served our larger purposes, did you?]

Pressure is already on with the Pentagon looking for ways to fight with fewer troops – a leaner and meaner machine. As for your point about “Ron Paul just wants to bring them home where they belong,” that argument will evolve to this: “And really bringing the troops home is to get as many of them out of uniform as possible so they can really go home (that is, back to civilian life).”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“During one of the presidential debates, the moderator should ask Ron Paul directly: ‘Do you intend to demobilize and if so, what percentage would you cut?’”

TWELVE:

The only way Dr. Paul will win the nomination is if the GOP figures out it's going to lose no matter who they nominate so "what the heck, why not?" BTW, Obama would slaughter Dr. Paul.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"It saddens me that not one single candidate has said what he would do if Iran decided to withdraw from the NPT (which it has the legal right to do) and declared its intention to build a nuke (also legal, once it leaves the NPT). We are a nation that respects the law, so we couldn't legally do anything to stop an Iranian bomb. Right? Right?!"

THIRTEEN:

American Vet,

I think you’re guilty of overreach by calling Romney and Gingrich “freedom-haters.” As for Ron Paul, it won’t matter one bit how loyal he is if he ends up being opposed by a business-as-usual Congress. In short, Paul won’t be able to get anything done because the establishment powers (ably represented by a Congress controlled by lobbyists) won’t let him pass a single bill they don’t approve of.

You were in the military, so you know one man alone can’t do it all – even if he’s POTUS. By the way, here’s a little test for you: Is it possible to be loyal to this country but not to our constitution? Careful…much depends on your answer.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Try this out for size: Anyone who is loyal to our Constitution (resisting all attempts to replace it – not just amend it but replace it), is actually being disloyal to this country.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I noticed, earlier today, that my blog got a hit from someone in the Central African Republic. Thanks for checking in! I’m the only candidate for US President who supports you by insisting, ‘Africa for Africans’”– Steve.


Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Beware of the false revolutionary

This catchy title is to an article by Christopher Ketcham in the current issue of Harper’s Magazine (January, 2012):

STOP PAYMENT!

A homeowners’ revolt against the banks

Introduction:

OWS is still fresh in our minds, with Time Magazine chiming in by declaring The Protester as the Person of the Year. So who could resist (at least) skimming an article about a homeowners’ revolt? I did more than skim it, though. I read it – three times – after buying the magazine.

Disclaimer: I didn’t buy the magazine because corporate Harper’s reeled me in with an enticing headline; I bought it to support the local, non-corporate, ma and pa bookstore I happened to be in at the time.

I had to read this article three times in order to learn as much as it had to offer me. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I feel the author failed to convey what was the problem with MERS’s approach.

MERS

MERS stands for “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, whose role will soon become clear.  In preparation, I will now quote from Ketcham’s article, which will segue to MERS (NOTE: All of the material I quote in this post is from that article):

QUOTE:

…there was another strategy that we could follow: attack the banking industry with the fine print of real estate law. For a bank to foreclose on a homeowner, the law requires the bank to show it owns the loan secured by the mortgage against a house. To do that, the lender needs to produce a chain of title as documentary proof that it has legally acquired the loan….In the frenzied mortgage markets of the past decade, the chains of titles on the loans of tens of millions of homeowners had been “clouded.” If homeowners sued to quiet the title – demanding proof of who really owned their loan there was a chance they could get their house back. They could even separate their house from the debt against it. The debt then would be unsecured, non-collateralized, and the bank could not take the house even if the homeowners never repaid the money. “And why should we pay it? What are they gonna do?” Mantor [the presenter] struck a defiant pose… “The fight going forward is about the title,” he went on. “We need to do it together or it won’t work. Pack the courtrooms with quiet-title actions.”

:UNQUOTE.

My comments, by the colors:

Focus on the two sections I yellowed (above), and ask yourself this question: If “the law requires the bank to show it owns the loan,” then why would a homeowner have to sue to “quiet the title?”

Now look at the words in green, starting with “the debt.” The basic fact of the matter is, the homeowner is in debt, went into debt knowingly and as a result of being in sound mind, and for a reason. He had been dutifully making his monthly payments until circumstances dictated otherwise. At no time while he was making his payments did he question why he was doing this – to eventually acquire full ownership of the house.  At no time did he raise the question as to whether he was paying the appropriate party or if that party “really” had title to his house.

The bank that loaned the money and the (borrowing) homeowner had an understanding. Why should it make any difference if that particular bank sold that debt to another party? As for simply refusing to pay (“What are they gonna do?”), I wish the author would have tried to answer that question. If it’s true that “the bank could not take the house even if the homeowners never repaid the money”, does that mean the bank wouldn’t have any other legal remedy?

Last but not least: “We need to do it together or it won’t work. Pack the courtrooms…” Mr. Mantor seems to be a bit of a rabble-rouser here (as well as earlier, when “He said there were 50 million handguns in America.”) Why should we need to do it “together?” Why? Does his strategy hinge on packing the courtrooms (backed up by the implied threat of those 50 million handguns) or does it hinge on the righteousness of his legal argumentation?

QUOTE:

MERS was created in 1995 as a privately held venture of the major mortgage-finance operators…Its stated purpose was to manage a confidential electronic registry for the tracking of the sale of mortgage loans between lenders, which could now place loans under MERS’s name to avoid filing the paperwork normally required whenever mortgage assignments changed hands. No longer would the traffickers in mortgages have to document their transactions with county clerks, nor would they have to pay the many and varied courthouse fees for such transactions. Instead, MERS was listed in local recording officers as the “mortgagee of record,” the in-name only owner, a so-called nominee for the lender, so that MERS would effectively “own” the loan where the public record was concerned, while the lenders traded it back and forth.

:UNQUOTE.

More color-coded objections:

·       Confidential – Suppose this registry wasn’t confidential, instead being open for public inspection. Would that have made MERS more palatable?

·       Normally – What you mean by “normally,” white man? Ketcham should have expanded on that so we could make a better determination if MERS was acting outside the law.

·       Traffickers – Ah, now there’s a loaded word! This does nothing but create negative bias in the reader. The better word – trader – would have been far more neutral.

·       county clerks and courthouse – I fail to see how county clerks and courthouse staff would have overlooked being circumvented. Upon being notified, I doubt the 50 states’ attorneys general would have sat on the sidelines. That is, assuming MERS was acting illegally by bypassing county clerks and courthouses.

Current status of MERS in court:

Ketcham gives us some background as to how MERS fared after being sued – which was not well. However, toward the end of his article, he writes, “Over the previous weeks, MERS had been faring unexpectedly well in the courts.” Why “unexpectedly?” Does our author think MERS’s opponents have all the arguments on their side? On a hunch, I went to the MERS website at http://www.mersinc.org/ and noticed they’ve been doing quite well indeed…lately. This story is far from over.

Ketcham closes with: “The question before the Idaho court, and everywhere else, is when is the possibility of a cataclysm not a threat to be feared, but an opportunity to be embraced.” The “cataclysm” would come about by major lending institutions taking hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hits if the MERS business model were to be sufficiently condemned by the courts. I fail to see how this could even be remotely considered “an opportunity to be embraced.”

In fact, I severely chastise Ketcham for failing to elaborate on this highly leading and unsubstantiated statement, which seems to deserve an article all its own.

Beware of the False Revolutionary

Yes, that’s what I entitled this essay, and for good reason. There are people out there who will try to dangle false hope in front of the desperate – those about to lose their homes. There are those who will try to make money by leading the revolution. And there are those who will try to sell magazines by trying to hype one fringe movement or another as The Next Big Thing.

I didn’t walk away from this article with a very good feeling about the purity-of-motive of the leadership of this homeowners’ revolt. This is a sample, again from the article:

QUOTE:

They would provide a service to each of those homeowners, but they wouldn’t do it for free. They were broke. “An army travels on its stomach. You got to feed the people in the movement.” Trotter told me. “You got to eat if you want to destroy the banks.”

:UNQUOTE.

That might be where Trotter’s coming from – a wish to “destroy the banks” – but I tend to take a more sober view.

Going through the courts, as a revolutionary strategy, won’t work. Judges are overwhelmingly conservative creatures. They might see a need to reform the banks but they certainly won’t assist in destroying them. I want you to compare my approach (and personality) to Trotter’s and his fellow anarchists’:

·       I don’t charge for my work. As a candidate for President in 2012, I’m not even accepting campaign contributions.

·       While I too take due note of all the handguns in America, I don’t suggest trying to use them against the Man. In fact, quite the opposite: I urge non-violence, especially since the Man has more firepower than we do.

·       I count on the persuasive power of my proposed reforms, as detailed elsewhere on this blog, not on trying to fire up the excitable to take ill-considered actions which cannot succeed in the long run.

·       My suggestions are practical and easily implemented. For instance, if enough of us voted to skew the outcome of the upcoming GOP primaries, that might be enough to actually put one of the two major parties out of business. As I’ve said before, it’s perfectly legal for a Democrat to ask for a GOP primary ballot and vote for Herman Cain if they wanted to. An even better strategy? Vote against all incumbents, which can be done successfully if enough people realize they can really shake things up by bucking their programming. That last is probably our single greatest possibility for success.

There are a lot of ways each of us could participate in the upcoming revolution. But allowing ourselves to be swept up by the incendiary rhetoric of self-motivated revolutionaries is not one of them.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Unfortunately, there are a lot of fools out there who think they’ll be able to weasel out of making their mortgage payments by following scam artists. Not caring one whit for the revolution.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com