The Assassination of Ron Paul

Ron Paul will not even come close to winning the GOP’s nomination for US President in 2012. If he starts winning any more than a token number of delegates as primary season unfolds, if he gains any threatening traction at all, he will be assassinated.

In spite of what you learned in elementary school, not just anybody can be president. At least, not any more. JFK scared the shit out of the CIA when he talked about disbanding that Agency. From that point on, the determination of who shall be president wasn’t left to chance. There was simply too much at stake for the Elite to permit a man they couldn’t control to become POTUS.

What about Barack Obama?

As soon as Obama made it clear he’d play by their rules, he got the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval from the Elite. Not to mention their active support. Consider this checklist regarding that support and what he did to maintain it:

·       Enable his meteoric rise with key financial and political support from the Chicago Democratic Party – check!

·       Make sure no embarrassing stories from his past come back to haunt him – check!  [Ever wonder why no former girlfriends (well, he is good-looking) came forward with “anecdotes?” Ever wonder why there weren’t accounts offered by old friends or people he worked with when he was a “community organizer?”]

·       Give marching orders to the media not to subject Obama to any serious vetting or grilling on policy questions – check!

·       Without any severe domestic backlash, Obama was able to sink us deeper into Afghanistan – even though there was no hint he’d do this during the campaign – check!

·       As soon as he was elected, he (as he’d been ordered to do) “picked” Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff – check!

·       All of his economic advisors (without one dissenting, Devil’s Advocate voice at the table) were the very people responsible for our economic mayhem – check!

·       Even though Obama could at least have tried to bring the insurance industry under the same federal regulatory anti-trust mechanism as all others who deal in interstate commerce, he “chose” not to – check!

Back to Ron Paul

The Elite tolerate people like Ron Paul – in fact, they know they need them. But only up to a point. And even Ron knows how far he can go. But if somehow he gets a little fuzzy on that, he’ll get a “gentleman’s reminder” – which I’ll translate, “Stop or we’ll kill you.”

There is genuine dissatisfaction rampant throughout the land – the natives are getting restless. But as long as those natives don’t have a champion to rally to, there’s really only one danger the Elite face. That is, if We-the-People should ever come to feel that the deck is totally stacked against us, random acts of violence against the system might break out. Kind of like rats lashing out when they know they’re cornered.

And that kind of violence could lead to any number of uncertain outcomes. And that’s one thing the Elite hate – uncertainty.

Enter Ron Paul – and people like him (Ross Perot comes to mind). These gnarly, curmudgeonly old men are lightning rods. They are meant to attract the hot-fevered “lightning” of dissidents and channel it safely and harmlessly to be absorbed by the earth, so that pesky and disturbing thunder of outrage won’t disturb the general public’s slumber.

Without Ron Paul, society would be lacking a valuable means for people to let off steam. If too much steam isn’t “let off,” there could be an explosion.

Ron Paul “quits" the race

Ron Paul is a medical doctor, which he will use to his advantage. If it should ever come time for him to bow out of the primaries – even (read: especially!) at the point when he’s emerging from the pack – he’ll feign a personal medical emergency. He’ll be checked by fellow doctors who won’t be able to comment to the press – due to patient/doctor confidentiality rules. But, truth be told, they won’t find anything wrong with the man.

However, not to let truth interfere, Ron Paul will claim otherwise: “For the good of the country, in view of the uncertainty [good word!] concerning my health, I hereby withdraw from the race for the nomination.”

What about me?

It doesn’t matter to me if I should fail to become the next president – or to even gain any media-recognizable traction. My goal is to communicate my ideas to people – to paint a picture of what could be. Since I’ve already managed to plant some seeds, I can be satisfied with my efforts.

However, just for the sake of argument, suppose I should gain traction. Suppose I get that midnight knock on my door from an agent bearing a message from a “friend.” I would tell them exactly this:

“Not only is my candidacy the last, best chance for the American people, it’s also your last, best chance. However, I won’t waste your time and mine trying to explain to you why that is. But I want you to return to your superiors and give them this message: Even if you should speak of trying to harm me, your entire house of cards will come tumbling down – and you won’t know why. But I’ll tell you why: It is written in the Lotus Sutra:

“If for the space of a [billion-year eon] one should constantly harbor a mind destitute of good and with angry looks should revile the Buddha, he will be committing an offense of immeasurable gravity. But if toward those who read, recite and embrace this Lotus Sutra [that’s me – one among many] one should even for a moment direct evil words, his offense will be even greater [leading to truly ghastly punishment extending many lifetimes].”

Take these words back to your masters with this bit of advice: You would be wise to leave me alone and speak absolutely no evil about me.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“In spite of hype to the contrary, the Elite aren’t especially bright. So even if they might decide to ‘eliminate’ me, they will live to see the destruction of their entire enterprise – much the same as if I were to become the next President. I see that as a win-win.”

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 Aug. 22 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 14 of these mini-essays/comments.

ONE:

“British warplanes struck a large bunker Friday in Moammar Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte”…

NEWS FLASH: In a daring raid in broad daylight by a single low-flying plane from Gaddafi’s air force, Westminster Abbey was leveled by a huge bomb blast earlier today. Radio Free Libya issued only this terse statement within minutes after the attack: “One good turn deserves another.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Naw, didn’t happen. There will be retribution but it won’t be this obvious or this soon.”

TWO:

"Little by little the US is becoming Mexico."

Some Mexicans embrace the concept of Reconquista, meaning to take back what the US took from Mexico. They figure, one good turn deserves another.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"When I asked my Mexican-American father-in-law about Reconquista ("Is it true?"), he just smiled."

THREE:

[“Congress may be able to approve the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan even if President Barack Obama should object, a Republican senator said Tuesday.” By slipping it into a general defense appropriation bill.]

“Obama still would have the right of veto, but exercising it would mean scuttling approval for a wide array of defense programs.” Maybe it’s about time to scuttle a wide array of these programs, which are not really as defensive as they are world dominators.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Vote for me and I’ll veto all military appropriations that exceed half of those currently in effect.”

FOUR:

“Both Cameron and Sarkozy will now brandish their cojones, claiming to have had ‘a good war.’”

Fine. I suppose you have to have something to show the peasants as the economy sinks deeper into the toilet. BTW, those so-called “good wars” don’t come cheap. And it remains to be seen how much more will have to be paid after the rebels win. Assuming they really do win.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I say, jolly good show and all that rot.”

FIVE:

"You can be God fearing and patriotic?" No you can't, for to be "patriotic" is actually a form of discrimination - saying, you love part of God's creation more than other parts. And your "God bless the USA" further reinforces this point. It should be "God bless all of us."

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"I never had much use for the term 'God fearing,' since 'God worshipping' or 'God loving' seems a better salute to the Almighty."

SIX:

Pro-Gaddafi forces have suffered the wrath of US and NATO bombings for months, making me wonder how much actual fighting the rebels did. You have to wonder why they continue to fight on; maybe they know something about the rebels that we don’t.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The saddest part of this undeclared war against Gaddafi? Voters in the Coalition of the Duped won’t care about their leaders fighting without their consent – as long as ‘we’ win and it didn’t cost ‘too’ much.”

SEVEN:

"S&P will continue to produce ratings that are comparable, forward looking and transparent.” How about ratings that are accurate? Ratings that are based on some type of scientific methodology? Naw…

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I still say the entire ratings system is nothing but a scam.”

EIGHT:

“The picture The Daily Mail paints of the rebel plan contrasts sharply with the reports we used to receive of a disorganized opposition.”

Oh, make no mistake about this: This opposition had been very well organized for years. The question now: What price did we pay, and will we yet pay, for our involvement?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Be careful what you ask for.”

NINE:

An example ALL of us should emulate. I’d like to go to a social gathering someday and not hear people talk about how much they earn (usually disguised as, “This is what I do for a living.”). I’d like to hear, “This is how much I gave last year and I deeply regret it wasn’t more” or “This is how little I live on, giving most of it away…and still I feel not sufficiently shorn of greed.” Only by means of compassion and almsgiving can any land be transformed into a Buddha-Land.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Imagine a land where the main goal in life, shared by everybody, was to attain enlightenment.”

TEN:

@ Van K

The Con Con wasn’t organized to “throw out the Articles.” According to Wikipedia, “Although the states' representatives…[to the Con Con] were only authorized to amend the Articles, the representatives held secret, closed-door sessions and wrote a new constitution.” So our Constitution was created under rather dishonest circumstances, wouldn’t you say? Certainly a far cry from your claim that “we organized a [Con Con] to throw out the Articles.”

Next, my preferred model (glad you brought it up) is to replace the current Constitution with one based on Cross-Sectional Representation, a concept I developed in the 70s. Essentially, this replaces all Congressional Districts with Cross-Sections, with constituents randomly assigned from a national list of eligible voters – there no longer being a Senate or a popularly-elected President. This is a cornerstone of my own campaign for the presidency. If you’re concerned about our growth for the next 13 decades, you should be very keen on replacing our current Law of the Land with one based on CSR.

As for “sorry,” no need to apologize, though I hasten to add, “nostalgic bubble” is not where I’m coming from. My complaint is that whatever powers the Founders intended the states to keep, as enshrined in the Constitution, have been systematically destroyed by an overreaching national government. I don’t champion what you call a “sovereign states model;” rather, I believe the states were intended to keep a significant degree of sovereignty in the name of checks-and-balances (as also were We-the-People). But somehow, the feds ended up taking way too much.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If we’re supposed to be one nation, then why wasn’t our name changed? Last time I checked, it’s still called the United STATES.”

ELEVEN:

“The pledge … states that, if elected, Perry will send a Constitutional amendment…to the states for ratification…” This is misleading since the Pledge actually states, “…if elected President, I will: One, support sending a federal constitutional amendment…to the states for ratification.”

So, what’s the difference? The President cannot, as the article indicates, send any amendment to the states – that’s up to Congress or an Article V Convention should one be called by Congress. However, the President can “support sending [an]…amendment…to the states.”

Perry can support whatever he wishes. However, I wish he wouldn’t support this provision (also in the Pledge): “[to] establish a presidential commission…to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.” If citizens have been “harassed or threatened” for any reason, there are already laws on the books to protect them. We don’t need to “establish a presidential commission.” That is, we don’t need to unless Perry wants to spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars to needlessly duplicate existing institutions.

But I guess Perry isn’t as interested in saving money as in pleasing the ever-voracious base.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Actually, why didn’t Perry [or Bachmann, Santorum, Romney (who should know better), or Pawlenty (RIP)] show a little independence by signing a pro-marriage pledge in his own words instead of mindlessly signing a version promoted by some pressure group.”

TWELVE:

@ Stephen

There was a time when the "melting pot" description fit. But we're so polarized now, there are thousands of mini-communities that don't think of themselves as Americans first and which don't care to "melt into" any larger community (if indeed there is such a thing).

If you think about it, that was the intent of the Founding Fathers. This was never supposed to be ONE country. Someone pointed out to me that the word “democracy” doesn’t appear in our Constitution even once. So he concluded that our form of govt was (instead) a “constitutional republic.”

I returned the favor by pointing out to him, “You mean, ‘it’s a union of constitutional republics (more than one).”

There was never supposed to be “one nation [under God]” as in the Pledge of Allegiance. It was supposed to be a United Nations of sorts. But the Elite didn’t like that, so they did everything they could, after the Civil War, to destroy the sovereignty of the individual states.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Anyone who uses the term ‘melting pot’ these days is showing their age. Oh, I’m 60 by the way.”

THIRTEEN:

[This is based on a story about a mom who wanted to “Bullyproof” her 12-year-old son, who had been bullied in school for years.]

“The bully's friends told Martin to get up, but … ‘I chose not to.’

Of course, this story could have taken another turn. For instance, “The bully’s friends told Martin to get up. And when he didn’t, one of them took a flying leap and kicked him in the head and broke his neck. Martin’s heartbroken mom then took a shotgun and blew his instructor away before turning the weapon on herself.” Sounds pretty horrible, doesn’t it? But sometimes real life turns out that way.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Deep down inside, a lot of Americans suffer from the residual effects of ‘bully problems’ they had as kids, which is probably why we’re so much into the Pre-emptive Strike strategy.”

FOURTEEN:

One problem I have with Ron Paul is, ironically, the very thing I could praise him most highly for: His better-than-average devotion to the Constitution. Because of that devotion, he cannot see the need (not to amend but) to completely replace our current Constitution. Unfortunately, there are people out there who really believe we could not (even if we wanted to) replace the Law of the Land. [NEWS FLASH: Yes, we have that unalienable right.]

Our Founding Fathers could have been more honest – and trusting of future generations – if they had included words to this effect in their Constitution: “At least once every 25 years, at least half of the states must re-ratify this Constitution; failure to do so, resulting in a new Constitutional Convention [which could rewrite the whole thing].”

Frankly, our current archaic document is dragging us down. Witness legislative gridlock and the anti-democratic Senate filibuster rule. I favor a model that weans us away from the corruption inherent in geographically-based Congressional Districts. These CD’s should be replaced by Cross-Sections each electing a Congressman from a constituency drawn at random from a list of all eligible voters in the country. No more Senate. One chamber – a House, with each Rep serving a cross-section of the nation’s voters.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“What this really boils down to is one question: When are we going to really consider ourselves to be ONE nation, instead of a collection of fiefs forever at war with, or in destructive competition with, or working at cross-purposes with other such fiefs?”

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Yes, you’ve probably noticed by now that I respond to individuals in my posts. I invite all questions, especially via email sent to bpa_cinc@yahoo.com . Since the response to my presidential bid has been so (er) underwhelming, it’s not like I’m too busy for a bit of one-on-one.”

Governor Perry’s anti-gay marriage amendment

QUESTION: How did four GOP candidates for US president manage to shoot themselves in the foot – using the same bullet? [Five candidates, if you count Tim Pawlenty who has withdrawn from the race.]

ANSWER: All of them signed the [Anti-Gay Marriage] Pledge** written by the National Organization for Marriage. That “same bullet” I referred to above was their willingness to sign the Pledge as worded by NOM instead of signing a version in their own words. Their personalized pledge(s) would have spared them the deadly consequences that await once the more astute among us tell the rest of the electorate exactly what this Pledge means.

For instance, item #4:

I, ___, pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will: Four, establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.

If citizens have been “harassed or threatened” for any reason, there are already laws on the books to protect them. We don’t need to “establish a presidential commission.” That is, we don’t need to unless Perry et al want to spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars to needlessly duplicate existing institutions.

But I guess the GOP frontrunners aren’t as interested in saving money, allowing current laws to provide the “protections…needed,” or in resisting the temptation to pass new (& unnecessary laws) to increase our “protection” as they are in pleasing the ever-voracious base.

For instance, item #2:

I, ___, pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will: Two, nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning of the Constitution, appoint an attorney general similarly committed, and thus reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution.

What is meant by “committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning?” What is it our judges should restrain themselves from doing? The pledge should have used these words instead, “committed to applying the original meaning of the Constitution.”

Question: Why was the word “restraint” inserted?

Answer: There was no good reason. If judges were to apply “the original meaning of the Constitution,” then we would not need to worry ourselves about “restraint.”

What about “the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution?” Nobody is claiming the Founders did any such thing. And I don’t see how any presidential candidate could sign his name to a pledge containing such a silly assertion. By the way, there’s no mention of marriage anywhere in the Constitution. So are we, then, to assume that marriage is unconstitutional? Of course not, as a casual glance at the Ninth Amendment reveals:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The people have a right to marry, even though that right is not explicitly stated in the Law of the Land.

For instance, item #5:

I, ___, pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will: Five, advance legislation to return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote on marriage.

This is assailable two ways: Item #5 claims the people of DC have a “right to vote on marriage.” But item #1 seeks to take away that right:

I, ___, pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will: One, support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification.

So much for the “right” of the people of DC to determine the standards suitable for their community. I thought the GOP wasn’t in favor of the feds running our lives. Oh wait, I forgot: We can’t ignore the power of pressure-groups like NOM, now can we? Makes me wonder: What other pressure-groups will make their demands known?

The second assailable way: This issue of the right of the people of DC to vote on marriage has already been decided – in court. According to Wikipedia*:

QUOTE:

Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr… sued the District after the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics refused to approve a ballot initiative on the issue of same-sex marriage. The Board stated that such an initiative would violate D.C.'s Human Rights Act. In January 2010, the D.C. Superior Court upheld the board's decision.

On May 4, 2010, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals heard an appeal of the Superior Court decision. … On July 15, 2010, the Court of Appeals upheld the Superior Court's decision in a 5-4 decision.

The United States Supreme Court on January 18, 2011, rejected Jackson's appeal without comment.

:UNQUOTE.

Perry et al don’t care about the rights of the people of DC. Sounds to me like this GOP Gang of Four wants Congress to pass a law overriding the law enacted by the duly-elected representatives of the people of DC. And if such a law were to be passed and, supposing, the people of DC would vote to accept gay marriage, President Perry would cackle: “It won’t matter what the people of DC want, once we get our Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment on the books.”

Conclusion

This Pledge signed by the Gang of Four consists of only 158 words. That’s it! If the four leading candidates for the GOP nod can stumble so badly by having blindly signed on without even thinking – without even considering signing their own, more carefully-worded version – why shouldn’t We-the-People question their basic intelligence?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“The willingness of the leading GOP contenders to march in lockstep according to the dictates of some pressure-group is highly disturbing but not entirely unexpected.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

   *  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_District_of_Columbia#Legal_challenges

   ** Word-for-word, here’s the entire 158-word Pledge as it appears on NOM’s website:

QUOTE:

I, ___, pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will:

One, support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification.

Two, nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning of the Constitution, appoint an attorney general similarly committed, and thus reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution.

Three, defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act vigorously in court.

Four, establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.

Five, advance legislation to return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote on marriage.

:UNQUOTE.

Unsung “Heroes” of Libya’s War?

This article*, by Clive Irving, was posted on Yahoo! News on Aug. 22: “Libya War’s Unsung Heroes.

I’m going to quote portions of that article and intersperse my comments. Highlights below (in yellow) did not appear in the original but are mine for emphasis:

QUOTE:

Somewhere high over the Mediterranean right now, a small crew of military specialists sits hunched over computer screens aboard a cruising jet [nicknamed AWACS – Airborne Warning and Control System]. They could be American, British, or French. Since March they have been the commanding brains of the NATO mission against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces in Libya. Largely unseen and unsung, they are as responsible as anyone for Gaddafi’s defeat.

:UNQUOTE.

COMMENT:

Remember: The title of the article is “Libya War’s Unsung Heroes.” There’s nothing heroic about what the AWACS crews did, which was akin to shooting fish in a barrel.

I remember some of the more hawkish Americans calling suicide bombers in Afghanistan cowards, challenging them to “Face us on the battlefield in a fair fight between military combatants instead of blowing up innocents.” Of course, that wouldn’t have been a fair fight either – considering our side’s superior firepower (not to mention, again, air power).

I disagree with the suicide bomber on moral as well as strategic grounds. But even he – who, after all, won’t be coming home from his mission – must be considered more heroic than the air jockey flying high and mighty out of harm’s way.

QUOTE:

What makes the NATO Libya operation unique is that it is, literally, a complex battlefield directed and operated entirely in the air. The AWACS crews have to control all the resources being deployed simultaneously, a sky full of airplanes of every type and size flying from high in the stratosphere down to near sea level…Virtually all the aerial refueling was provided by the U.S. Air Force.

:UNQUOTE.

COMMENT:

I highlighted battlefield above. And yet, not one country among the allied forces actually bothered to issue a declaration of war.

QUOTE:

The U.S., British, and French air forces each provided their own AWACS airplanes to maintain 24/7 coverage of the war theater…

On Monday, NATO confirmed that since the Libyan operations began its forces have flown 19,877 sorties, including 7,505 that were strikes against Gaddafi’s forces and installations…

:UNQUOTE.

COMMENT:

Those are some pretty impressive stats. But I can’t help but wondering how much fighting the rebels actually did. As for heroic, perhaps that term would be better applied to Gaddafi’s loyalists who were on the receiving end of this “smear” campaign. I wonder what motivates such a soldier when he surely must know the Western powers are throwing all those bombs at him. Maybe they know something about the “rebels” that we have yet to find out – much to our chagrin.

QUOTE:

At the outset, the first priority was to enforce the no-fly zone that rendered Gaddafi’s Air Force impotent. But whatever the euphemisms employed to cover the air operations—such as “a limited support role”—the coordination of NATO air power and the rebels on the ground steadily improved from those early days when the first rebel attacks were chaotic and NATO pilots could barely distinguish who was friend or foe.

:UNQUOTE.

COMMENT:

“Euphemisms,” you say? How about, outright lies, as in another sentence in this article which reads: “ … under the guise of “protecting” them, NATO set about a relentless war of attrition until the rebels could close in on that final Gaddafi compound in Tripoli.” This is absolutely correct and I’ll quote it again: “NATO set about a relentless war of attrition…” That is, “set about” as in, that was their goal from the very beginning.

As for “NATO pilots could barely distinguish who was friend or foe,” that could ironically be said of each pilot as he looks at his fellow pilots – as in “with friends like us, We-the-People don’t need enemies.” The US pilots violated the Constitution by engaging in this highly illegal operation. The NATO pilots (including ours) violated the UN mandate itself by going above and beyond its parameters. And they did this knowingly and not in the heat of the moment.

QUOTE:

(It’s been evident for a while that some of the more tactical targeting has been assisted by French and British special forces on the ground.)

:UNQUOTE.

COMMENT:

Personal opinion? Those special forces connected with sleeper cells (our guys) which had been planted in Libya years ago, just waiting for US/NATO orders. There wasn’t anything spontaneous about the Libyan uprising, except among those who were sincerely demonstrating after Friday evening prayers. To be sure, many did join up in the spirit of revolution. But this subversive operation had been set in motion years ago, just waiting for the “go ahead” from DC.

Once upon a time, during times of war, intrepid journalists would risk life and limb to report directly from the war zone. But not this time. Why? We haven’t seen much in the way of photos to verify how much fighting the rebels had done. I still can’t get over how clean their clothes looked (not to mention their bodies) in the few photos that managed to make it for mass consumption in the Western press. And those photos looked staged!

QUOTE:

And even though the outcome now looks and smells like victory, NATO’s resources were severely stretched…

:UNQUOTE.

COMMENT:

This will be just another excuse to jack up the military budget. The pols will say, “We took Libya, which was quite a prize and will return our investment quite handsomely. But, my dear peasant taxpayer, such victories don’t come cheap, so we’ll have to raise your taxes”…or words to that effect.

QUOTE:

Both Cameron and Sarkozy will now brandish their cojones, claiming to have had “a good war.”

:UNQUOTE.

COMMENT:

The best they can claim is to have had “a profitable foreign adventure,” for this surely wasn’t a war – or at least not a declared one. As for their cojones, I doubt they really have any balls at all, if they have to get off by shooting fish in a barrel – or by having their minions do it for them.

Closing Comments

I wonder what the Sub-Saharan African man in the street must be thinking. Maybe: “Europe went to a lot of trouble to re-colonize Libya. Is any country safe from this kind of behavior?”

What about the Russians? Even if they had wanted to object, they no longer have the power to back it up. Maybe they’ll be tempted to increase their military budget in the face of such blatant abuse of the UN’s mandate. China is definitely paying attention, noting carefully to what extent we’ll go, including a willingness to violate our own laws and conventions.

Our enemies have taken due note of our behavior and will bide their time in getting even. Sadly, we won’t even know what hit us or why when that dreadful day of reckoning occurs.

I came to realize one of the truisms of American politics. Even though Obama’s supporters have been disappointed by many of his actions, they will cut him some slack on Libya for two very “good” reasons:

·       We won without much cost or loss of life;

·       We won’t abandon our President for this “infraction,” since we don’t want to see a Republican dethrone him in 2012.

Each US President has this built-in cushion of support, therefore making it easy for him to overlook/ignore the law. And We-the-People, for the most part, don’t seem to mind at all. However, this is short-term thinking. The blowback from our Libyan adventure will be felt for years to come, though only gradually at first. But our electorate won’t be able to figure out why, or how those seeds of destruction were planted. And our “free press” won’t bother to enlighten us – this isn’t the kind of news that makes money for their parent corporations by selling advertising.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Our ‘victory’ in Libya will turn out to be of Pyrrhic proportions.”

     * First printed in The Daily Beast.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com