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. 5 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:
Actually, the hicks who thought up Prop 26 made a critical blunder. They want to define a fertilized egg as a person, but instead they should have tried to define it as a citizen.
The US recognizes two types of citizens, though it remains to be seen if states might try to establish their own standards for state citizenship. [Frankly, I don’t think that could fly.] The two current types are: natural born citizens, and naturalized citizens. To be a natural born citizen means [dramatic pause] you’ve got to be born. This is important, since a citizen could well ask: “How could anyone believe the rights of a citizen can be trumped by the unborn, who aren’t yet citizens?”
Too bad the hicks didn’t say “citizen” instead of “person.” But, frankly, that's not my problem.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I consider the sheer stupidity of the Prop 26 writers to be a blessing.”
TWO:
“… all trading is based on a common set of rules. Right now Europe has no real set of rules.” Oh, I don’t know about that. The prime directive has always been: “Make sure the big boys don’t get hurt (as a minimum standard), and that they have the greatest possible opportunity for maximum returns on investment (as an ideal standard).” Everything else is just window dressing for the peons and the chattering class.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Much in the way of so-called volatility can be explained in terms of this directive.”
THREE:
“Christian groups…believe Jesus is the only path to salvation.” Jesus can’t be – he’s dead, you know. Besides, if someone were to tell me, “Here, let ME die for YOUR sins,” I’d take that the same way as, “Here, let ME make love to YOUR wife for you – it will be the same as if you did it.” And people actually believe this?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I died for my sins, and then was reborn into circumstances befitting my past actions. Over and over again I’ll do this, until I get it right – which is called ‘attaining enlightenment.’”
FOUR:
[RE: Gingrich advocating secret, undermining actions against Iran.]
"All of it covertly, all of it deniable," Gingrich added.
Of course, if anyone tried that against us on our own soil, we’d consider that an act of war. Actually, Gingrich is advocating two acts of war with this statement:
ONE: Against Iran;
TWO: Against the American people, against whom he feels it proper to behave as an Imperial President conducting foreign policy accountable to no one.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Wars conducted in secret? I thought we were trying to move beyond that.”
FIVE:
“Romney said he would use any means necessary...to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
Romney seems to be overlooking Article X of the NPT, which would allow Iran to withdraw from the treaty upon giving three months notice. Then Iran would be acting within its internationally-recognized right to acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran should give this Article X notification, then the US and/or Israel would be acting illegally by bombing Iran to kills its nuke program. I wish one of the debate moderators would have asked Willard if he would still consider the military option if Iran (again, acting within the law) withdrew from the NPT.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“One of two (or maybe both?) phenomena are being manifested here: Romney’s crass appeal for Jewish support or the ugly face of militant Mormonism.”
SIX:
"Going into the primaries, … his image is solidifying around a very important attribute, which is being presidential, or being seen as presidential," Young said.
For those who bow down to the god of Image-is-Everything,” by all means elect Willard Romney. But when the day comes when all that is left is image/illusion (that is, when we’ve totally lost our capacity for being substantial), then you will have gotten exactly what you deserve.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Willard serves only the Mormon god, which (illusions being what they are) only seems to be akin to your God.”
SEVEN:
QUOTE: "An agreement was reached to form a new government to immediately lead the country to elections after ratifying the decisions taken by the European Council," the Greek president's office said in a statement. :UNQUOTE.
Question: After those elections, could those “decisions taken by the European Council” be unratified? If not, then what’s the point of having elections?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Far too often, elections in the Western Democracies are engineered to bypass the will of the people. But you've got to hand it to the Elite: They hide this very well."
EIGHT:
[This Yahoo News article was entitled, “Correcting the ‘fairy tale’: A SEAL’s account of how Osama bin Laden really died.”]
“Very few of them had even seen the video feed.”
There was more than one video feed, actually. I’m far more interested in the feeds from the helmet cams the SEALs were equipped with.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“That footage will never see the light of day; not even WikiLeaks will be able to pry that loose.”
NINE:
First, the original article in its entirety, followed by my response:
WASHINGTON (AP) — A top House Republican has ended her hold on some $200 million in U.S. security assistance to the Palestinians.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, informed the Obama administration in recent weeks that she no longer would block $50 million in economic support funds for Palestinian Security Forces and $148 million in other assistance.
Ros-Lehtinen had put a hold on the aid in late August, seeking more information from the administration. The administration provided her with some 1,000 pages of documents and President Barack Obama certified that the money was important to the national security interests of the United States.
The lawmaker said in a letter that Israel does not object or have concerns about the aid.
My response to the above article:
I’ll come right out and say it: Ros-Lehtinen didn’t give her approval because of Obama’s 1,000 pages of documents; she approved because Israel didn’t object. Conclusion: Ros-Lehtinen is the Representative serving the state of Israel. I’m amazed she said anything about a letter from Israel. Oh, wait. Of course. She had to assure AIPAC that she was releasing her block for the right reason.
In this day and age, how is it that ONE Rep can prevent the whole House from voting on a bill? Yoo-hoo, We-the-Sheeple: When are you going to kick these mutts to the curb?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I don’t mind labels such as Dem-NY or GOP-TX, but GOP-Israel is too much.”
TEN:
Eugene wrote: [“You”] is correct with his/her response. It is called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints shortened to Mormon--he translated the tablets for Joseph Smith. Evidently you disagree with Biden's statement and think Romney isn't Christian, or what you define as Christian. You would probably say the same thing about Jesus if he were around today.
My Response:
@ Eugene, I’m not sure I understood what you meant by “…you disagree with Biden’s statement and think Romney isn’t Christian…” So I’ll break it down.
Biden said, “it was ‘outrageous’ for anyone to suggest he should not be president because of his religion.” That’s a general statement, which really can’t stand on its own. For instance, I'm sure Biden wouldn’t approve of anyone running for the presidency who is a member of a religion calling for human sacrifice. But Biden, as is typical of his public utterances, doesn’t usually qualify his remarks.
Biden didn’t say, one way or the other, if he thought Romney is a Christian (shall we say?) as defined by the leadership of the mainstream US Christian denominations.
As for what I would say about Jesus if he were around today: “Watch out for the Christians; there are too many of them who would rather see you crucified than rebuke their contrived faith.” And I’d add this: “I praise the path you walk on for one day you shall surely become a fully-enlightened Buddha, an entity far superior to any mere god. Which is of course the same path all gods seek.”
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“There never were any golden tablets.”
ELEVEN:
Wolf-Spider wrote: You, Steve, also have to understand the reference of a sacrifice. In the Biblical days (for Israelites anyway), you took an offering (an unblemished lamb, for starters) to the High Priest. Through him, you made your offering: killed it, drained it, and sprinkled the blood on the Ark of the Covenant.
I've heard this used before, and I'll use it here, "God wants a Relationship, NOT a Religion." The Only real atonement for sin is a perfect sacrifice. Just like with Abraham and Issac, God made that possible through Jesus. If you want to know the Father, know the Son.
The Jesus Mormons place their faith is NOT the Jesus of Christians. Jesus is not: The brother of Satan, literal father to scores of children, and NOT sexually sired.
"Karma" is the myth. Nobody can balance the good and the evil, nor can they overcome evil by themselves. It JUST is not possible.
My response:
Wolf-Spider,
I always had a problem with ritual slaughter, even if “only” involving some poor animal. No God would ask for such an offering or accept it – not then and not now.
The only “real atonement for sin” is not to do it again. Just as alcoholics can overcome their disease, so can sinners overcome their sins. We don’t need a High Priest or a Jesus for this. In fact, Jesus has his own sins to atone for – as does God, by the way. And by “God,” I mean that Deity which the Western World’s monotheists acknowledge as the Creator of the Universe (which was not created but always was and always will be). To overcome sin, engage in Buddhist practice as described in the Lotus Sutra.
You claim, “God wants a Relationship, NOT a Religion.” Not really. As I understand it, if we don’t have that “Relationship” on His terms, we’re condemned to Eternal Torment. That would make this God the Greatest Terrorist Imaginable. For if sin really bothered God, all He’d have to do is “Dis-create” the offending parties. If He created us from nothing, He can surely dis-create us back into nothing. The only ones who think Eternal Torment is necessary are the Powers that Be who want to scare the people into submission.
Actually, Abraham was a mentally-disturbed individual primarily responsible for the mess we’re in today. When God asked for the sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham should have said, “No, not by my hand. If you want him, you take him.”
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Scripture can be a beautiful thing. Here, I’ll recommend the one I follow: The Lotus Sutra of Shakyamuni Buddha.”
TWELVE:
[Here, I quote, then refute, three different respondents.]
“You” wrote: Just read the name of the church, that should dispel any controversy. I would think it shouldn’t be an issue of ignorance but one of hatred.
@ You: For the record: The name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, just because “Jesus Christ” is part of its name doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a Christian church. I happen to think it’s far more a church of self-nominated “Latter-day Saints” than of anything having to do with Jesus Christ.
As for “hatred,” this is where I stand: Even though I don’t trust the Mormons, I am intrigued by how close they are to being Buddhists, of which I am one. Check out a famous Mormon sermon called the King Follett Discourse, which has this line (and I paraphrase): “As God is now, man shall one day become; as Man is now, God once was.”
Brad wrote: He said Romney shouldn't be mistrusted because of his religion- he never said Mormons are Christians. You're not even arguing against his point.
@ Brad: I will come right out and say Romney should not be president because of his religion. A lot of people worried that JFK would take orders from the Pope. Even back that far, though, it was well known that the Pope did not command that kind of allegiance. However, I believe Romney would not turn a deaf ear if the LDS president told him (not asked him, told him) to do something because he received a revelation from God. Mormons take such revelations quite seriously.
Romney is dangerous simply because he is so bland. He won’t offend anybody, so people might elect his as the lesser of two evils. If they do, that will be the end of the Republic.
Cactus wrote: The only requirement for being a Christian is that you accept and believe Jesus is who he said he was, and that he died for your sins to remove the barrier between man and God. Mormons do this as well as Baptists or Lutherans as far as I can see.
@ Cactus: Don’t Christians also believe that the Bible (not the Book of Mormon) is the word of God? Doesn’t the Bible warn about what happens to those who try to change that word? Christians don’t run around saying the Bible is shot through with errors. Your position is a little weak, as evidenced by your first sentence. Why did you add that extra bit after the comma? That would seem to indicate that Jesus didn’t claim to have “died for your sins” though we’re supposed to believe that anyway.
By the way, nobody can die for anybody else’s sins. We all die for our own – that’s basic karma. Saying “I’ll die for your sins” is the same as saying “Let me make love to your wife for you; it will be the same as if you made love to her.” There are some things that nobody can do for anybody else. This “dying for your sins” bit is a fabrication meant for weak people who couldn’t take responsibility for trying to overcome their own evil.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I fully believe that PACs supportive of Obama, though not demonstrably connected to his campaign, will put out a video called The Truth about the Mormons.”
THIRTEEN:
Here’s a scary thought: TWO Mormons in the White House – Romney with Huntsman as Veep. And just when you thought people could actually accept one Mormon in the White House. But two? How acceptable would that be?
Would people start seriously thinking (that is, thinking for perhaps the first time) about the implications of Mormonism? Would they even be tempted to google “Mitt Romney Anti-Christ?” How would they process that information? Or would people instead choose to (only) see two clean-cut solid family men without a whiff of personal scandal whose success in business dwarfs Cain’s – but look nor think any farther?
Certainly neither Mitt nor the Mormons give us much obvious cause for concern. And for precisely that reason, Mitt will most likely coast toward nomination. He might be called a flip-flopper but that could be spun to (something like), “I saw how Obamacare worked out and I’ve seen the error of my ways.” [What Christian Republican could resist such a heartfelt confession?] Also, a lot of pols are flip-floppers – I think that’s in the job description.
Mitt and Jon are so squeaky-clean wholesome, people might be lulled by that. Especially when compared to Cain and Gingrich. Those [first] two might even represent an America (as imagined by the Silent Majority) that was once wholesome and pure in its frontier days – not like the grimy, urbanized mess symbolized by Obama. Romney seems more in control and smoother than the mercurial Perry.
My money is on Romney winning the GOP nod unless…the GOP base wakes up and asserts itself (loudly and clearly), “We don’t want a Christian pretender in the White House.”
As to the outcome of Romney in the White House? He’ll be boring, he’ll be bland, and he’ll stealth us more deeply into a New World Order heavily slanted in favor of an invisible elite – with the Mormon Church in full partnership.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Be careful what you wish for – and who you vote for.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“In my heart of hearts? I’d love to see We-the-People withhold all campaign contributions for the 2012 race. What would the pundits make of that?”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment