Sunday, November 27, 2011

Murdering a defenseless ram

I speak in defense of the ram, which Abraham slaughtered instead of his son Isaac. I say “slaughtered” since I can’t see how, in any way, this act could have been considered a sacrifice.


The Binding of Isaac

QUOTE: According to the biblical story, Abraham sets out to obey God's command without questioning but does not state in front of Isaac that he is the intended sacrifice... After Isaac is bound to an altar, the angel of God stops Abraham at the last minute, saying "now I know you fear God." At this point Abraham sees a ram caught in some nearby bushes and sacrifices the ram in Isaac's stead. :UNQUOTE. [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac ]

You should click the link (above) to the interesting Wikipedia article on this subject. Different points of view are expressed as to the meaning of this story, but nothing at all is said of the injustice of killing a defenseless animal (and, adding insult to injury, calling that a sacrifice).

Nobody speaks for that long-dead ram, but I will…here and now. Had I been present, perhaps hiding behind some burning bushes watching a hideous old man about to delusionally murder his son, I would have stepped forth (after what seemed to be an angel stopped Abraham but before Abraham murdered the ram), saying:

“Stop! Do not kill that ram. Did God demand that you kill such a defenseless creature? Perhaps He placed it there as a test of your mercy, a test you’re about to fail. For sacrifice is always of the self. By killing that ram, or even by having killed your son, how would that have been your sacrifice? You wish to please the Lord? Then behave yourself. No Lord could possibly ask more from his subjects than that.

“Whatever commanded you to sacrifice Isaac and stands in silence as you approach the ram to slaughter, is not the Lord God, Creator of the Universe.”


More on killing the animals

From the Bible (1 Samuel 15:3), we have this little gem which claims the Lord God commanded as follows:

“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

Then of course there was the grosser example of the Great Flood, during which innocent animals were allowed to drown.

Again, whatever Force mandated these premature deaths was not the Lord God, Creator of the Universe.


Conclusion

I have a good friend who is a staunch supporter of animal rights but who also follows his Savior, shunning all churches. I myself eat meat, so I was not as sympathetic as he. But as I listened, I gained a bit of sympathy. My friend was quick to point out, the Bible has been corrupted and is not even remotely similar to the truth. At worst, it’s been infiltrated by devils. At best, it’s been rendered meaningless by “well-intended” propagandists. Which means, exactly what?

It means now what it’s always meant: “Not all of us receive visits from the Lord, nor could most of us be that sure, ‘that’s the Lord.’ Therefore? You’ve got to figure things out for yourself and act accordingly. And don’t be afraid to say, ‘I don’t know.’”

As for Abraham: when commanded by the Lord to sacrifice Isaac, he should have simply said, "I have free will, right? Okay, I hereby exercise my 'free will option' by telling You, I won't sacrifice Isaac." Abraham failed us all by not saying this, which is a failure that has echoed down through the ages and affects us to this very day.

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

“Sacrifice is always of the self and is not commanded. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.”

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 Nov. 20 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:

The missile defense shield is a mistake, which we should abandon immediately. If Iran is really the concern here, an EU without a shield will have to come up with a Plan B. The EU might decide to develop and implement such a system using its own money and know-how – without US involvement. The EU might decide to include Russia in the joint operation of such an enterprise. Or, without a missile shield, the EU might decide to (gasp!) make a decision and organize a pre-emptive strike at Iran without US help. And of course not count on us bailing them out if that should go wrong. [NOTE: Nothing is too big to fail.]

Or maybe, just maybe, the EU might reach out to Iran, trying to engage them in mutually beneficial joint business enterprises. The US should pull out of Europe and let them take care of themselves.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The longer we treat the Europeans like children, the more childlike we ourselves will become.”


TWO:

The day before the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld said the military couldn’t account for 25% of what it spends. He said $2.3 trillion dollars couldn’t be accounted for. And people say I’m crazy for promising, if elected president in 2012, to veto any military budget if it’s for more than half of what we’re budgeting now.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“You know, Panetta’s getting pretty good at putting on that hang-dog look. And to think, I used to call him the Smiling Nazi.”


THREE:

[In reference to the Dallas Cowboys telling one of their cheerleaders to delete her Twitter account because…]

In this country, it’s always about controlling the message and everybody knows this. It’s also about overkill; I’m sure the team could have simply had a heart-to-heart with Melissa, but no – she had to delete her Twitter account rather than cease-and-desist with similar posts. I hope I’m wrong about that “delete” part, but that’s what the article says.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Repeat after me: Only the Big Boys get to control the message and have the right to invoke overkill. Now, like good little Sheeple, pull the Dem/Pub lever next time you vote. You have no choice, you have no choice, you have no choice.”


FOUR:

[My response to an article about CIA officers soliciting money to care for the families of its agents killed in action.]

I always thought the CIA took care of its own by extra-legal means. Whenever they want money to do something, they don’t always rely on Congressional funding. More likely, profits from illegal opium smuggling in Afghanistan should provide more than enough. As for CIA officers asking people to donate, that’s just PR. These officers know these donations aren’t really needed, but pretending they are helps people feel good by donating. The CIA is not your friend. It was for damn good reason JFK wanted to get rid of them.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“CIA thinks it knows better than We-the-People, and they’re bent over double laughing at you.”


FIVE:

[My response to an article titled, “SWAT team’s shooting of Marine causes outrage,” which should have read, “SWAT team’s killing of Marine causes outrage.” In brief: Former Marine Jose Guerena Ortiz was killed during the execution of a no-knock search warrant at his home in Tucson, AZ. ]

Did the SWAT team bother to execute the search warrant – that is, did they actually search the premises – or wasn’t that necessary after executing the suspect?

“The five SWAT team members who shot Guerena believed that he had fired his weapon first…[even though “his weapon” still had the safety on]” Contrast that with the Chief of Investigations Kastigar (was he even there?) who claimed, “I’m firmly of the opinion that he was attempting to shoot at us.”  … “us?”… What you mean by “us,” white man? Again, was Kastigar there (that’s spelled K-a-s-t-i-g-a-r, who lives at…well, I’m a gentleman and won’t go there...he might shoot me!) and, if so, what did he actually see? [He was probably cowering in the squad car if he was there at all.]

A SWAT team to execute a search warrant? Here, country bumpkins, let me explain it to you: Put a tail on him as he leaves work, then radio your fellow officers to execute the warrant before he gets home. That’s just one possibility among many. But, no, we all have to do overkill, don’t we?

“… a member of the SWAT team activated a helmet-mounted camera.” Uh huh…and people roll their eyes when I ask if the SEAL team that took out bin Laden had activated their helmet-cams. I still want to see what went down. Yes, the SEALs have this technology so…what are we trying to hide by not showing at least some of that footage?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“People, these are your hard-earned tax dollars at work.”


SIX:

Romney claims: "… the real name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We consider Jesus the son of God without parallel." Then why not simply call it the Church of Jesus Christ? The fact Mormons call themselves Latter-day SAINTS speaks volumes of their arrogance. That is, the church is more about the Saints (especially, the hierarchy within their ranks) than it is about Jesus Christ.

As for “without parallel,” apparently Romney is forgetting a famous Mormon sermon called the King Follett discourse in which it is claimed, “As Man is now, God once was; as God is now, Man can one day become.” That sermon was delivered by the Mormon founder Joseph Smith.

In 2007, Romney said, “Let me assure you that no authorities of my church…will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.” That’s a lie. If the current Mormon church president were to tell [President] Romney “I have received a revelation from God that you must do this [fill in the blank],” do you really think Willard would show him the door? Revelations from God are routinely spoken of, and seriously considered, within Mormon circles.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Come on, people. Get a clue. Mormons make no attempt to hide any of this – do your homework.”


SEVEN:

“…but nowadays, everyone is looking at Europe…” Maybe we need a new role model. How about Israel? They seem to manage their financial affairs quite nicely. I know, I know…I’ve been rather critical of Israel in most of my posts, but that was in the spirit of encouraging them to live up to their high ideals. You know, that part about being a light unto all nations. What I had in mind was the “light of moral wisdom,” but maybe the “light of financial wisdom” wouldn’t be a bad place to start.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The ways of the Law of Karma are mysterious indeed.”


EIGHT:

“… one of the main obstacles to Turkey's becoming ‘one of the world's most powerful states is that it can't face up to its past, history, taboos and fears.’

”Why would Turkey even want to become one of the world’s most powerful states? That aside, I can offer a suggested role for Turkey – abandon your military secularism, stop trying to join the EU (they don’t want you, nor you them), and try instead to reestablish the Caliphate - a Caliphate based on justice. Turkey is in a unique position to do this, but it seems to be treading water, unsure of its identity.

As for apologizing to the Kurds, why not offer them reparations? Hollow apologies based on ulterior motives aren’t worthy of “the world’s most powerful states.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Turks, you know what needs to be done – so do it.”


NINE:

“All airstrikes are approved at a higher command level than the troops on the ground…” Stop the presses. That sentence says it all. Those airstrikes were intended to kill Pakistani soldiers – to send a message: “Stop looking the other way when we’re attacked by militants.”

The article makes no mention of NATO/Afghan casualties which is strong proof there weren’t any. As for gunfire coming from the general direction of the Pakistani outposts, the thing to have done would have been to drop some bombs in the general direction (instead of the dead center) of those outposts – again, to send a message. But, no, we wanted to send a stronger message, so we intentionally bombed a concentration of troops. Forget the idea of sending up a reconnaissance drone before bombing. Forget that that drone might have been able to home in on the exact source of the hostile fire. We had to send that message. Anything else would have been too namby-pamby.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“24 dead was not a mistake but was well within the parameters dictated by our need to send a message. Sometimes you have to destroy a village to save it – sound familiar?”


TEN:

“…when Americans sit down around a meal today and give thanks, they give thanks to God."  Not all of us do. I’m a Buddhist, so I thank Buddha for being my teacher. And also for being the teacher of this God of Abraham, which is actually one of trillions of gods in this universe.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“If God obeys the Buddhist Law, then He too can become a fully-enlightened Buddha.”


ELEVEN:

[The highlighted sentence below blew me away. How can half of US voters not know, in the midst of his second run for the US monarchy, that Romney is a Mormon? Sometimes I feel like Alice in Freaking Wonderland.]


"Only about half of voters…correctly stated that Romney is a Mormon"… It’s not enough that more voters simply learn that Willard is a Mormon. They should also know he’s descended from one of the Mormon’s original Quorum of the Twelve Apostles…Willard is a great-great-grandson of Parley P. Pratt.

Not to be overlooked is another descendant of Pratt’s, a certain Jon Huntsman, who is also running for president (quick, can you say “interlocking directorship?”). Jon is a great-great-great-grandson.
Willard Romney is no ordinary Mormon. He’s royalty who knows his place. If the Mormon Church president told President Romney, “Do such-and-such because God told me to tell you to do it,” Willard would do it. No matter what “it” would turn out to be. You don’t argue with revelations from God.
And, no, this isn’t comparable to JFK saying he wouldn’t bow down to the Pope. Being descended from an Apostle carries certain obligations. And benefits … did you ever stop to wonder exactly how Willard got to be so rich? I’ll spell it out c-o-n-n-e-c-t-i-o-n-s.

Back when Willard was in high school, he won an award for those “whose contributions to school life are often not fully recognized through already existing channels.” I hope we don’t become victims of Romney’s presidential contributions not fully recognized… There is a price to pay for electing a secretive president.

Parley P. Pratt, by the way, was killed by a man who didn’t like losing his wife (and children) to a man who already had eleven wives. And Mormons, to this day, call Pratt a martyr. Are you sure none of this has shaped Romney’s thinking?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I hope our lamestream media turns a laser-like focus on all of this, to atone for not having more carefully scrutinized candidate Obama.”


TWELVE:

The topic tonight will be national security? Excellent! The moderator should ask this question of Newt Gettin’Rich:

“You contributed to a book written by Dr. Forstchen called One Second After. This describes how the entire United States is rendered immobile due to Electromagnetic Pulses caused by three (count them, three) low-yield nukes detonated over our country. This book describes how the US ought to spend billions to fortify its electronic circuitry to minimize the danger of such an attack. So here’s the question: How many billions to you think we should spend against this hypothetical threat?”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Google: EMP threat bogeyman Gingrich Searle. That will show you how little Gingrich knows about EMP.”


THIRTEEN:

“But the country can’t simply withdraw from that region of the world...” – Romney. We can’t? Why not?

How would we like it if even a token force of foreign troops (okay, let’s pick Chinese) were to insist on remaining on one of our Indian reservations, simply because that Indian nation decided to invite them for joint military maneuvers? How would we like it if Chinese were in force in Venezuela or Panama or, in order to protect the Amazon River from a thirsty US, Brazil?

I remember liberals saying, after Bush II invaded Iraq, “Well, we can’t just leave. There will be a bloodbath.” We were wrong to go in and we were wrong to stay. And in spite of (or maybe because of) our “sincere” efforts, there could still be a bloodbath. What is wrong doesn’t become right over time. So who is kidding whom?

The only reason (and the real reason) we don’t want to leave “that region of the world” is because we want to be on hand in case a regional Islamic caliphate tries to develop. We fear Pan-Islamism because we fear ECONOMIC competition, and not because we think Islam is a creation of the devil. The EU, the US, and China don’t want another power center developing which could challenge all three in Africa which has a large Islamic population. [NOTE: That’s why Obama sent those 100 US troops to Africa – to undermine efforts for African unity.]

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“People like Romney are very keen to cut off competition from any source (even something as unlikely as a Caliphate), since competition would interfere with their own monopolistic plans.”

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

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

“For those who want real change you can believe in, vote in the GOP primaries as an intentional act of sabotage.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Willard Romney’s tough guy act

Willard Romney has an image problem – too many people see him as a flip-flopping milquetoast. So to combat that (yes, I’m sure Willard himself would choose use that word), Romney is trying to toughen up.


“How I learned to stop worrying about Iran and love the bomb”

Some of you might recognize the preceding quote as being derived from the movie Dr. Strangelove. Mitt Romney loves the bomb – he has not said one word about reducing our nuke arsenal or our military. Mitt Romney isn’t now and never was worried about Iran. But if saying so will help him get elected, he will say so.

Consider:

·       ONE: "If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon," stated Mitt Romney in the GOP presidential debate in South Carolina on Nov. 12. "If you elect me as president, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon."

·       TWO: Romney said that if "crippling sanctions" and other strategies fail, military action would be on the table because it is "unacceptable" for Iran to become a nuclear power.*


You have to consider ONE very carefully. The key claim is: Whatever happens (or doesn’t) depends on which one man is in charge. It’s times like this I wish a moderator would interject, “And what would you do to limit the power of the Imperial Presidency?” What I’m hearing Willard say goes something like this: “If I get elected, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon because I will authorize a military strike without bothering to get congressional authorization or [how passé] a formal declaration of war.”

How else could Romney have made that statement, which I’ll repeat: “If you elect me as president, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon?” He could only say this by intending to act unilaterally – as an Imperial President who doesn’t need Congress.

By threatening military action, Romney only drives the Iranians closer to China and Russia. And that can only serve to undermine whatever diplomatic pressure other nations – notably in the EU – are trying to exert. Not to mention undermining his own president. Besides, Romney should take due note that China and Russia are in the same neighborhood as Iran, which should make them worry about another Islamic bomb (Pakistan having the first).  Russia has a sizable Muslim population of its own – many of whom live near Iran. Plus China has its own (though much smaller) Muslim population. However, you don’t hear either country beating war drums to frighten Iran. Why not?


“Romney urges Obama to stop looming military cuts”

That was the headline to this Associated Press article that appeared today, from which I’ll quote [adding my own highlights in yellow]:

QUOTE:

Associated Press= NASHUA, N.H. (AP) — Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney is calling on President Obama to block looming military cuts.

The former Massachusetts governor tells supporters in New Hampshire that the deficit-cutting supercommittee in Congress probably won't come up with a deal before its Wednesday deadline. That would trigger billions of dollars in automatic cuts to the military and domestic programs.

Romney says the president hasn't done enough to push congress to compromise, and Romney wants Obama to introduce legislation to stop the threatened military cuts….

:UNQUOTE.


The first sentence implies that Obama would have the power – by himself – to block these cuts. Which he does not. However, the last sentence makes clear that Obama could only introduce legislation to stop the cuts. But Romney doesn’t say anything about blocking any of the domestic programs’ scheduled cuts. And yet he has the nerve to talk about “compromise.” What, exactly, could Obama have done to “push the congress to compromise?” Romney is conveniently silent on that point.

Of course, if looming military cuts were really a concern, Congress could try to block those cuts by passing the appropriate legislation over Obama’s veto. However, We-the-People would have to wonder: “Why were these cuts threatened in the first place, other than to try to get the supercommittee to act?” In any event, if our national security were really threatened by these cuts, Congress wouldn’t have any problem going over Obama’s head to void them.

I suppose one problem might rear its ugly head: Should all of the military cuts be voided? Then the Democrats could counter, “all of the domestic program cuts should be voided as well.” That would simply put us back to where we started before all this supercommittee nonsense was foisted upon us.


Side comment: I’m in favor of cutting our entire military budget in half, which is still more than enough to defend this country. Maybe it won’t be enough to project American power and dominate the world, but I’m not real keen on that anyway. Mitt Romney is, since his own website (under the “foreign policy” section) speaks of An American Century. Wasn’t that a neo-con imperative?

And what business does Romney have advertising his feeling that “Congress probably won't come up with a deal before its Wednesday deadline?” That could only serve to undermine the work of that committee which was, after all, charged with quite the Herculean task. Apparently Willard has no trouble speaking his mind if that will help get him elected – even though his words are far from diplomatically sensitive.


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

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

“I’m absolutely amazed the pundits aren’t jumping all over Romney for such blatant and self-serving shortsightedness.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

“a nuclear power.*” = http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57323686-503544/romney-gingrich-at-gop-debate-wed-go-to-war-to-keep-iran-from-getting-nuclear-weapons/

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 Nov. 13 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 21 of these mini-essays/comments.


ONE:

I hereby dub thee – Newt Gettin’Rich. Actually, Newt’s biggest sin was his Contract with America, which I hear he’s thinking of resurrecting for this campaign. If so, I have a piece of advice for Speaker Gettin’Rich:

“Your Contract was fatally deficient because it didn’t have any built-in provisions governing non-performance. In other words, no teeth, just a lot of promises. My contract has teeth. If I fail to deliver on any of my campaign promises, I lose my office. Are you willing to match me on this, Mr. Speaker?”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The Contract with America served only to disrespect the venerable American tradition of the business contract. How ironic, coming from the GOP. What a sham!”


TWO:

"Talk about Jordan as a Palestinian state damages Israel."

I know what Avigdor [Lieberman] was thinking when he said that. Here’s the complete version of his thought: “Talk about Jordan as a Palestinian state damages Israel because that would complicate our ultimate goal of annexing Jordan, which really isn’t Jordan at all but was part of the land God gave the Jews.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Which is exactly why the Palestinians will never be allowed to have their own state – Israel wants to formally annex all of it.”


THREE:

“Israel stopped transfer of tax funds [to the Palestinian Authority] as punishment [for seeking to attain statehood by means of direct UN action]…”

A: Judge not that ye not be judged.

B: Thou shalt not steal.

QUESTION: Do you know what would happen if the US ever really pissed Israel off?

ANSWER: Detonate the nuke they buried in DC.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Think I’m kidding?”


FOUR:

“…a [proposed] constitutional draft…which would give the [Egyptian] army exclusive authority over its internal affairs and budget.”

If I am elected president in 2012, I will do all in my power to end the $2 billion in (mostly) military aid the US gives to Egypt on an annual basis. [Same goes for US aid to Israel.] There’s no good reason on God’s green earth to have been giving $2 billion annually since 1979 to these SOBs. All that did was stoke their arrogance.

Oh, by the way, you might not fully appreciate this, but we have a military arrogance problem of our own. If elected, I promise to sack at least 10% of the generals, forcing their early retirement. They don’t yet know who I intend to sack – but I know…and they’ll find out soon enough.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I will sack these generals for much the same reason J. Edgar Hoover should have been sacked way earlier in his career - as a general (pun intended) threat to our democracy."


FIVE:

One of the prime traits of an effective leader is delegating authority. We don’t need the gargantuan military we’ve got unless our real goal is to conquer the world. [Which it is, in my humble opinion.] We could do quite nicely with a lot less by delegating. For instance, why is Willard Romney saying he’ll take no option off the table to deny Iran nuclear weapons? We don’t have to do anything! The EU, Russia, Israel, and India are in the immediate neighborhood. Let them take care of business.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The sooner we get that conquer-the-world stuff out of our system, the better.”


SIX: 

“John” took exception to my immediately preceding sentence, by writing: “From Loss t loss to loss is not conquering the world.” So I responded:


John,

That depends on what you mean by “loss.” As long as the US is still in Afghanistan and Iraq, our Elite don’t chalk those up as losses. Yes, these might well turn out to be expensive wins or stalemates. But that “expensive” aspect is very much a part of the plan. If we didn’t have these wars, our people might prosper and decide to challenge the status quo. So keeping us in a state of high unemployment and low productivity discourages any uppitiness on the part of We-the-People.

The grand strategy also involves keeping the troops busy and on their toes for (shall we say) the real missions of the future. The ones we can’t afford to lose or stalemate…especially in Africa. Google these words to read my analysis of Obama’s secret African strategy: Lords Resistance Army Searle

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“There are many subtle parts to our conquer-the-world plan, but make no mistake about this: That is exactly our intention.”


SEVEN:

The following post was based on this article, which I’ll partially quote:

 HONOLULU (AP) — The Army on Thursday [11-17-11] conducted its first flight test of a new weapon [AHW: Advanced Hypersonic Weapon] capable of traveling five times the speed of sound.…The weapon's "glide vehicle" reached Kwajalein Atoll — some 2,300 miles away — in less than half an hour…[AHW] is part of the military's program to develop "prompt global strike" weapons that would allow the U.S. to strike targets anywhere in the world with conventional weapons [my emphasis] in as little as an hour....The objective of Thursday's test was to collect data on technologies that boost the hypersonic vehicle and allow it to glide.…


My response:

Too many of the Pentagon’s R&D boys were hooked on Flash Gordon as kids. And we’re paying for their masturbatory fantasies. Stop this nonsense now. Why do we keep looking for newer and faster ways to stick our nose where it doesn’t belong (aka, “projecting American power”)? The more we assert ourselves as the world’s policeman, the less other nations will come to rely on their own resources. And their own capacity for forming alliances – for peace and protection.

Not to mention: This AHW won’t work. No matter how fast it goes, it’s still got to slow down to reach its target, especially if the idea is to land troops who will be using these conventional weapons. Ample time to shoot it down. Not to mention: Where’s it going to land once it reaches enemy territory? [“Tehran Control Tower, come in. Requesting permission to land.”]

And maybe, just maybe Russia or China might mistake multiple launches of these things as a disguised nuclear first-strike attempt. Did Congress bother to set up criteria for deploying AHW – or did they just decide to leave it to the President’s discretion?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“We need to put the Pentagon’s hi-tek thinkers to the task of reducing our dependency on foreign energy sources.”


EIGHT:

Two readers objected to my post, immediately above. So I answered them:

@ College Park,

It has to slow down because the idea is to land it to deploy troops. The article itself says “The objective of Thursday’s test was to collect data on technologies that … allow it to glide [glide = slow down]." Besides, it also says the Army conducted the tests. That’s because the Army is interested in means of transporting troops quickly without the need for deploying slow-moving, sitting ducks – I mean, US Navy troop carriers.

As for “we inform people about weapons tests beforehand,” I was referring to the time in the future when we’re done testing and we start deploying. Are we going to tell Russia and China “beforehand” about our intended use against a third nation, which might be one of their allies?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“There’s way more to this than meets the eye.”


@ Girred,

We have enough missiles in quite a wide variety, so the reason the ARMY is testing this device is for suitability as a troop carrier [not, as you claim, as another missile].

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Time to beat the swords into ploughshares and stop acting stupid and spending like there's no tomorrow. Well, maybe not all the swords but we sure don’t need to build stuff like AHW because we can.”


NINE:

I post this in honor of Newt Getting’Rich’s ascendancy in the polls:

Now is a good time to alert you to a blog I wrote back on Oct. 24, 2010: “EMP threat: Our latest bogeyman.”

In that, I wrote: “Today’s blog will focus on the novel One Second After and the ‘threat’ of terrorist attack by means of EMP: Electromagnetic Pulse. Also, I will have some unkind-but-wholly-accurate words for the author of One Second After (William R. Forstchen, Ph.D.) and that shameless snake oil salesman who wrote its foreword, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (also a Ph.D. – believe it or not).”

I believe One Second After, viewed through the lens of my blog, will become Newt’s Achilles’ Heel.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Google these words: EMP threat bogeyman Gingrich Searle. I’ve been waiting a long time to spring this.”


TEN:

“France warned Iran to defuse world fears that it is working on nuclear weapons…” Why doesn’t France put the world at ease by getting rid of its 300 nukes?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Here, I’ll answer my own question: Because France then (much like Iran and Pakistan now) wanted to have the same toys (and therefore be in the same league) as the Big Boys. What price glory?”


ELEVEN:

Some of my readers didn’t like my description of the United States as “the world’s first nuclear terrorist state.” So I cite two sources who would agree with me.]

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender … My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Come on, you Yahoo yahoos, man up and admit we made a huge mistake dropping those bombs.”


TWELVE:

All this talk about first strike is kind of silly, since first strike can’t be decisive. Too many people overlook the sub-launch capability. Even more overlook the fact that both sides have buried nukes in the other side’s major cities. So what’s the point of first strike if it can’t be last strike?
Actually, the US and the (former) USSR owe each other a debt of gratitude for the other’s existence. Without one, the other would try to take over the world. No, wait…it's the rest of the world that should be grateful for that.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Don’t forget: The US was the world’s first nuclear terrorist state – Hiroshima/Nagasaki.”


THIRTEEN:

Dennis said I had no proof that “both sides have buried nukes in the other side’s major cities.” My response:

@ Dennis S,

Come on, man, use your common sense. Tactical and highly portable nukes have been around for a long time. Since smuggling them into the US would have been easy (and into the USSR, difficult but doable), I don’t see how either side would have overlooked this option. Especially in the early decades of the Cold War, when the US had such a huge nuke advantage.

I admit, though, I wasn’t a fly on the wall watching this unfold, so I can’t give you the proof you seek. But war planners have to proceed on the very great possibility that this is exactly what transpired. Why else do you think both sides decided to also work on biological weapons? They knew they couldn’t rely solely on nukes, so they had to expand their options. It’s all really very elementary if you stop to think about it.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"Quite often, it's not necessary to find proof in the form of a smoking gun - not even in US courts of law."


FOURTEEN:

But it isn't a capital offense. However, I suppose there are some folks who would like to change that. And then hang Sandusky (after being found guilty in court "of course") based on that change of law. Even though he committed his offenses before that change. Oh, well. No one cares much about such a hanging being unconstitutional. Any Tea Partiers out there want to leap to Sandusky’s defense here? Sarah, what about you? Oh, that’s right. You want to bring the rope.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Looks like Sarah just hung herself.”


FIFTEEN:

I see 18 people gave Skydiver a thumbs-up on his comment: “Death by lethal injection with battery acid.” Yo, listen up you 18: Any of you happen to be Tea Partiers who bleat about restoring the Constitution? There happens to be a provision barring "cruel and unusual punishment."

You might want to check out a movie by Herzog (“Into the Abyss”). This features an interview with a former Death Row executioner – a captain of the guards, no less. He quit after participating in 125 state-sanctioned slayings, saying “capital punishment is wrong.” By the way, quitting cost him his pension. His act was difficult – a lot more difficult than giving a “thumbs up” to nonsense.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Too many of these thumbers have too much time on their hands.”


SIXTEEN:

And if Obamacare gets flushed down the toilet by the Supreme Court, will anybody make a move to repeal the exemption from anti-trust laws the insurance industry has enjoyed for decades? Even if Obamacare survives, that exemption has got to go.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The only way out is to vote all incumbents out of office – that will mark the beginning of our renaissance.”


SEVENTEEN:

I posted this in response to Obama’s move to station US Marines at a base in Australia:

This is exactly what we shouldn’t be doing. In fact, we should be phasing out our presence, letting local nations know they’re going to have to rely on each other instead of an omnipresent US. If we keep stationing troops here, there, and everywhere, local nations will not seek each other out for mutual support and defense.

India, South Korea, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines have ample resources to contain China. And let’s call it that, shall we? China wants to expand, just like the US did (and still does). Large economies tend to do that. But it does not have to be our job to protect everybody. And that goes for the EU as well. I’m definitely in favor of pulling out of NATO.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The other nations of the world can get along quite nicely without us.”


EIGHTEEN:

“Iran has had a history of hiding information from the IAEA.” And the US has a long history of meddling in Iran’s affairs – including the overthrow of its democratically-elected government.

Even if Iran had the bomb, it wouldn’t be our problem. It’s time for the EU and Iran’s neighbors to man up and deal with this. If they want to attack Iran, they may do so – without US support. We don’t have to do everything. But I’ll tell you this much: Any who attack Iran had better be prepared for long-term consequences. I truly hope they think this thing out in advance.

One piece of advice for those who really believe military action to be necessary: Target the ayatollahs and their financial assets.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I couldn’t believe it when I first heard: An ayatollah is actually a billionaire – Rafsanjani. No way a billionaire cleric is a man of God.”


NINETEEN:

This was in response to Cicero who thought I was “delusional” in my defense of Barack Obama:

Well, Cicero, I think you lost count, since you wrote, “Delusional about both counts.” My point? You say nothing about one count – “good looking guy” – while piling on nonsensically about the other count – “book worm.”

As for his smarts – you’re exaggerating to say he can’t “construct a sentence without…” Come on, man, that’s simply not true. As for Obama’s smarts, you’re trying to lay down a blanket indictment simply because you don’t like the man’s politics. One doesn’t get to teach constitutional law at U of Chicago Law School for 12 years without sufficient knowledge of the constitution. You might not agree with how he interprets that document, but you cannot honestly say he “has no understanding” of it.

I could return the compliment and call you “delusional” – but you’re not. You’re just plain dishonest.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Obama graduated from Harvard Law and was president of the Harvard Law Review, so he’s no dummy. Get over it.”


TWENTY:

My response to this observation by “Dave” follows his words: “and then theres the real world. he might be right.”


Dave,

Even if [Gingrich] is right, it's not our problem. I'm fully confident in the ability of the EU, Russia, Israel, and India (the immediate neighbors) to take care of business. That's "real world." Thinking the US has to micromanage every far-flung situation is sheer paranoia and smacks of a massive superiority complex. Which isn't "real world" at all - it's delusional.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"As far as 'real world' is concerned, I wouldn't put too much stock in what Gingrich knows about that, him being a writer of historical fiction."


TWENTY-ONE:

Gloria Cain says, “I’m thinking he would have to have a split personality to do the things that were said.”

Well, Gloria, you may well be on to something there. You know the old saying: The wife is the last to know, and the first to exclaim “I should have known!” This is where Herman’s claim that his wife supports him “200 percent” gets interesting.

First, I’d rather hear that from his wife than from her “spokesman.”

Second, if his wife supports him 200%, that would break down to 100% support for each of his split personalities (hmm...maybe she does know).

Third, if that isn’t true, then I have to seriously question Herman’s math – and he was a math major in college, wasn’t he? Go figure!

Oh, BTW, if Herman Cain cared anything at all for his wife’s heart condition, he should not have allowed himself to be photographed (recently) with his arms around two white college-age honeys. That picture sent a message: No one tells Herman Cain what to do.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“This man is a dog; and I’m not spelling that d-a-w-g.”


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

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

“It won’t matter who gets elected president in 2012 – and ‘who’ includes me. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do the right thing. It’s never too late for that.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com