On occasion, I consolidate comments I’d attempted to post in response to articles appearing recently on Yahoo News. I share my comments with you here hoping to reach an audience immune from Yahoo’s periodic attempts to block or censor. My posts are written as if I actually were the US President. As is my usual custom, if I open with a quoted item, that’s from the article itself.
I hope you enjoy all 23 of these mini-essays.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ONE:
3 reasons America will fail:
The two-party system, the two-party system, the two-party system.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"I once asked a US soldier what he thought the biggest threat to our security was. He responded: 'The Terrorists. Why? What do you think it is?' When I replied, 'The Two Party System,' he thought about that and slowly nodded."
TWO:
So, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states want to fund the Syrian rebels, eh? Someday, these states might find some foreign power returning the favor by funding their rebels. Or maybe Assad won’t wait for that to happen. He might decide to use his air force, or covert ops, to start blowing up some Saudi oil pipelines. You know…just to get their attention. Careful, boys, this internal affairs meddling stuff is contagious.
As for paying members of the Free Syrian Army, how much? It shouldn’t be more than Assad is paying. If it is, then you might as well call the FSA by another name – mercenaries.
Don’t you just love Hillary’s line: “We are discussing…how best to expand this support.” Translation? The US is still at the stage of not going it alone. But it won’t be too long until we do go it alone, not even pretending to seek international support. Then you may officially welcome the New World Order.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“If we don’t stop sticking our noses in other people’s business, they won’t mature and we’ll never lose our paranoia.”
THREE:
Ron Paul is so transparent, he once thought of accepting the GOP nomination wearing only a suit made out of Saran Wrap. But he thought better of it when he realized Bruno (Sacha Baron Cohen) might be in the audience.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"Actually, SBC would make a better VP choice than any of the oft-mentioned possibles in the Pubber stable."
FOUR:
[The following deal with the ongoing story of the circumstances of the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman]:
What a relief! I thought Taffy was going to say, "My house was being robbed, but George didn’t just watch this burglary in progress. After calling the [police], he went in my house with his gun drawn just in case the cops didn’t show up on time.”
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Sorry, Taffy, one foiled robbery doesn’t raise the dead.”
“Sorry, Taffy, one foiled robbery doesn’t raise the dead.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
When the cops brought GZ to the station, I can understand why they didn’t take a formal statement. He had a head injury and might later claim he wasn’t in his proper frame of mind, so the statement could be tossed out of court if it came to that. Apparently, GZ didn’t ask for a lawyer to be present – further proof of temporary mental incapacitation. What I don’t understand is why the cops didn’t keep him in custody until his head cleared and then sought to take a statement.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“We pay an awful lot for police protection and THIS is the best they can do?”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I want to know why Zimmerman, when calling dispatch about Trayvon, said it looked like Tray was on drugs. MT wasn't on drugs - that much has been settled. So, why did Z say he was? I also don't buy the part that Z had to check an address to see where he was, which was when (Z says) Trayvon confronted him. If Z had been the neighborhood watch captain for years, how could he not know where he was? Not to mention, since GZ wanted to be a cop and he thought he was following a dangerous suspect, how on earth could he have allowed Trayon to get the drop on him?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"Personally? I think George Zimmerman is a liar."
"Personally? I think George Zimmerman is a liar."
FIVE:
[In response to Mr. P's commentary of an article, concerning Obama’s “claim” that the Supreme Court can’t overturn federal legislation]:
Mr. Poupard may well be (as he claims) “a political scientist,” but he’s profoundly guilty of exaggeration, which is a scholarly no-no, by writing: “…[Obama] made comments to make people think he has no idea how the Constitution works.” Why would these particular words of Obama “make people think he has NO IDEA how the Constitution works?”
Perhaps Obama should have said (although I had managed to understand his overall gist made clear by other comments made in this same speech): "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress; a majority that has been subsequently backed by a majority of the opinions of legal scholars."
Obama attacked the notion of judicial activism, while noting the “political” nature of the Court’s objections. Maybe the president was trying to say that his “strong majority” has a pretty good idea of what is or is not constitutional; at least an idea as good as that of the Court, some of whose members can scarcely disguise their bias.
I am, though, disheartened that Obama’s legal team isn’t making use of its strongest argument. Why invoke the Commerce Clause, when elsewhere in Article I, Section 8 we have this: “The Congress shall have power to…provide for the…general welfare of the United States…”? Sometimes it's necessary to exercise broad powers to assure "general welfare."
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Mr. Poupard, you should strongly consider giving up your day job.”
“Mr. Poupard, you should strongly consider giving up your day job.”
SIX:
“…the 1803 Supreme Court case that established the courts' right to strike down laws. ‘Courts have final say.’” So, back in 1803, the Supreme Court gave itself the “right” to strike down laws. Doesn’t that strike you as rather odd? Perhaps the first instance of judicial overreach? The only reason that 1803 decision has stood so long is that Congress has never bothered to move against it.
Actually, though, courts don’t have the final say. Even Supreme Court justices can be impeached. There is a reason why Congress gets top billing in the Constitution (RE: Article I); it’s meant to be dominant. Our two-party system, highly unconstitutional by the way, has severely dissipated Congress’s power. Anyone who really thinks we have three separate co-equal branches of government should take due note of this: Congress can impeach members of the other two branches. That sounds pretty dominant to me.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The only way out is to adopt an attitude: No matter what, always vote against the incumbent. Pave the way for independents.”
SEVEN:
Wrdsmth,
The nation you described has never existed. We’ve always had factions – and had a War Among Two Blocs of States to prove it. Most people are too lazy to educate themselves to the point where they can actually “honor facts.” For how can one honor what one does not know? For if facts were honored, we certainly never would have had a Depression in the first place, let alone have had to face up to it. But we did, didn’t we, simply because too many people were too ignorant and not politically involved.
As for your use of the word “intelligence,” that has nothing to do with it. The “me first” attitude dominant in this country will override any consideration of intelligence (and, for that matter, compassion).
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“We will reach a point where we will start taking what we can from others (to a greater extent than we already do) – specifically, foreign others – throwing out all the rules of decent conduct…simply because we can.”
EIGHT:
[This wasn't posted to Yahoo News (yet?) because the source article didn't accept comments (yet?)]:
“Mayor Emanuel points out that Wrigley Field is a private entity…” So far, so good. So why does this sentence continue by saying: “and his job is to represent the taxpayers in talks with Cubs owner Tom Ricketts...”?
If Wrigley Field needs improvement, let the Cubs deal with it. The Mayor’s job is NOT “to represent the taxpayers in talks with…Tom Ricketts…” Everybody talks a good game about how private enterprise should function within the free market. But then the capitalist sticks his hand out asking for public cash. The Cubs are LOSERS, and I as a Chicagoan don’t like backing LOSERS. But even if the Cubs were world champs, let them fund their own expansion.
As I wrote on my blog on Nov. 15, 2010: “I fully expect that, somehow or other, the people of Illinois will be sucked into [paying for a Wrigley Field upgrade].”
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I also fully expect that, somehow or other, Rahm-bomb will end up with a ton of cash in exchange for his facilitation.”
NINE:
"Does the [Department of Justice] recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes…?" [a federal judge asked]. If I were the attorney to whom this question was directed: “Your Honor, I can’t answer that question because I am only one attorney in the employ of the DOJ arguing this specific case; I am not its spokesperson.”
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“A better answer would have been: ‘Your Honor, by asking such a stupid question, you’re engaging in exactly the kind of judicial activism the president was criticizing.”
TEN:
“… that the Justice Department would comply with the Texas judge's DEMAND for a letter of explanation.” Wow, earlier in this article (scroll up), the claim was “Smith…ASKED the Justice Department for a three-page, single-spaced letter…” Demand vs ask…oh well, what difference does a word make?
I’ll answer my own question: This is an example of judicial overreach. The judge is “asking” for something that has nothing to do with the case he’s trying. Do the words “immaterial,” and “irrelevant” mean anything to this judge? I’m sure they’re within his daily, operational vocabulary. He’s demanding of the Executive Branch that it issue a statement of policy. The Executive would be making a big mistake by complying with this hick. [My, the little dogs love to bark, don't they?]
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Yes, I said ‘hick’…I seriously wonder where he got his law degree from.”
ELEVEN:
"[Israel is] the only state in the world whose right to exist is publicly doubted". Well, “the world” doubted the right of Gadhafi’s Libya to exist, and doubts the right of Kim’s North Korea. What Israel really wants is to be the only regional nuclear power so that it can force its claim to what the Zionists believe God gave them: an Israel far larger than its current borders, as defined in the Bible. Once the Zionists win their war of attrition against the Palestinians (read: encroachment by settlers), then they’ll feel confident enough to press their territorial claims against their neighbors. That’s the long-term plan no one dares mention out loud. But I will.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Israel cannot tolerate a militarily powerful Iran and will do everything in its power to get the US to do its dirty work for it.”
TWELVE:
[This is 1 of 8 posts concerning a Marine sergeant in trouble for maintaining a Facebook page critical of President Obama]:
This is an amazing sentence, starting with: “Military experts have said that by associating the name of his Facebook page with the Armed Forces…” Instead of “military experts,” perhaps this was meant: “Military law experts?” How did [Sgt. Stein] associate his page with the Armed Forces? Would there be anyone stupid enough to read his “Armed Forces Tea Party” blog and conclude, “The US military has an official Tea Party affiliation?” Taken as a whole, one might conclude that the Tea Party has an armed forces component – a militia.
The rest of the sentence is also a stretch: “…Stein was essentially putting himself in the position of publicly expressing his personal political opinions while in uniform…” That’s an assumption. For all these “military experts” know, Stein might have been blogging buck naked.
This is no way to treat our troops – as second-class citizens. They have as much right (if not more!) to express their “personal opinions” as any other citizen.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“From this outrage, it’s not much of a stretch for the DOD to come right out and say, ‘Soldier, not only can you NOT express your personal opinions, you will not be permitted to have any.”
THIRTEEN:
[This is 2 of 8 posts concerning a Marine sergeant in trouble for maintaining a Facebook page critical of President Obama]:
Son of Liberty,
You open with “…a relatively low ranking…” Whatever happened to “All men are created equal?” We are equal in the eyes of the law.
That Marine Sgt. swore an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” I know he also swore to “obey the orders of the President,” but even during basic military training, that is explained to mean “all lawful orders.” Not even the President can order a soldier to break the law. [Are you understanding any of this, so far?]
As for your concern about who “gets to decide…whether [those] orders are ‘lawful’…” – the question to that must be obvious. The one who “gets to decide” is the one who swore the oath. We’ve already suffered from White House legal authorities deciding it was “lawful” to waterboard, even though it is not. And We the People can’t count on the authorities - like the perennially divided (along 5 vs 4 lines), very political Supreme Court - to tell us what is lawful and what is not. We the People don’t need vested interests to dictate to our common sense notion of what is lawful or not. Some “Son of Liberty” you are – NOT!
[SIDE NOTE: It’s interesting to me that nowhere in the oath of enlistment does it say that soldiers are sworn to protect the people of this country. You might want to think about that.]
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“With friends like you, the US doesn’t need enemies.”
“With friends like you, the US doesn’t need enemies.”
FOURTEEN:
[This is 3 of 8 posts concerning a Marine sergeant in trouble for maintaining a Facebook page critical of President Obama]:
Son of Liberty,
You ask a good question by bringing up the example of Bush v. Gore. The simple answer to your question is: “Correct.” The key part of your question, though, is in this wording, “…because they didn’t agree with the Supreme Court’s decision…” If they really thought SCOTUS was wrong (or, as was most likely the case, not just wrong but knowingly wrong), then how could they follow a President who was basically an usurper [“elected” by the Supreme Court]?
As a practical man, though, I would have cautioned any such soldier to “pick your battles and your reasons.” Far better would have been the fact that this was an illegal war. I had arrived at that conclusion myself, which is why I haven’t filed an income tax return for nine years. Yes, I could go to jail, as could any soldier refusing to fight in an illegal war, but I would gladly be a prisoner of conscience than a party to corruption.
And, I’m sure you’ve noticed, I proudly sign my own name to my posts.
I am Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The biggest problem in the US these days: too many people who are cowed by authority. We weren’t always like that, you know.”
FIFTEEN:
[This is 4 of 8 posts concerning a Marine sergeant in trouble for maintaining a Facebook page critical of President Obama]:
Son of Liberty,
I’m not as concerned with what is “no way to run a military” as I am with following the law and the oath that’s being sworn. I believe words are important; when words are ignored or “redefined” into meaninglessness, then we no longer have a society based on the rule of law. If we should ever reach that point, then we might as well hang it up.
As for “if you can’t support the [CINC]…,” if a soldier would do as you suggest (that is, “leave the military at the first opportunity”), then he would be violating his sworn oath, wouldn’t he? I mean, if he’s swearing to defend the Constitution but feels his CINC threatens that Constitution, he’d be duty-bound to “foment dissent” to help protect that document. As for your concern that that would aid “the enemy in the extreme,” having a CINC who violates the Constitution would be a far better example of aiding the enemy in the extreme. As always, the greatest enemies we face are within – and sometimes that means “within our borders.”
I’m not so sure unlawful orders haven’t been issued – for example, orders to waterboard were considered lawful by the Bush administration; but…Bush lied in the name of expediency. As for putting the CINC on notice, why not? The gentlemanly thing to do is to give fair notice. If enough of our servicemen did that, CINC et al might think twice about what is really lawful and what is not.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I sense, Son of Liberty, that you are a well-intended individual though that’s not good enough, for as is written: ‘Good intentions pave the way to hell.”
SIXTEEN:
[This is 5 of 8 posts concerning a Marine sergeant in trouble for maintaining a Facebook page critical of President Obama]:
SonoftheMorning,
We can suppose a lot of things and a lot of people do. And sometimes we become victims of those who suppose incorrectly. That’s a chance we all have to take. But tell me, how likely is it that one of Stein’s PFC’s is going to reach that conclusion [that Stein is a Muslim usurper]? Sure, stuff like that happens but rarely, I dare say. As for some President, either now or in the future, being an usurper, the odds on that fall well within the realm of consideration.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I fully support what Sgt. Stein is trying to do; I only wish there were more patriots like him.”
SEVENTEEN:
[This is 6 of 8 posts concerning a Marine sergeant in trouble for maintaining a Facebook page critical of President Obama]:
Sonofthe Morning,
George Washington said it best: “When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen.” Stein doesn’t have to be “given an avenue,” since he has his right of free speech and his duty to defend the Constitution. Just because he became a soldier, doesn’t mean he’s any less of a citizen.
As for your concern about “[encouraging] dissent…within the military,” that’s exactly what DOD is doing by trying to take away Stein’s rights. Of course there are limitations to free speech while in uniform, but that doesn’t mean a soldier has no right to free speech at all. Besides, if the military has to come down so hard on Stein for what are really paltry reasons, that alone shows they’re more afraid than they’ll publicly admit. But that’s the nature of the oppressor, isn’t it? To “come down hard.” The only problem is, they create more rebels than if they’d done nothing at all.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“But isn’t this something we’ve known for a long time – that our leadership is arrogant, over-reactive, and not that intelligent?”
EIGHTEEN:
[These are 7 & 8 of 8 posts concerning a Marine sergeant in trouble for maintaining a Facebook page critical of President Obama]:
[Mikek wrote: "general eisenhower said that one of the cruel ironies is that the liberties and rights a soldier is sworn to defend, must, due to military necessity, discipline and order, be denied or abridged those same soldiers who may die fighting for them.”]
@ Mikek:
That’s what Ike said, eh? Try this one out for size: “When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen” – George Washington. If we have to deny basic rights to our soldiers, in the name of enhancing discipline, then we have (in the words of GW), ‘[laid] aside the citizen.’
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“If we’ve truly come to that, we’ve come a long way down since the heady days of the early republic, haven’t we?”
@ Paul R [who had responded to Mikek’s post, immediately above]:
You wrote, “When I raised my right hand, I swore to obey orders, not interpret their legality.” Actually, when you (and I, for that matter) raised our right hands, we swore to “support and defend the Constitution [and that we would] bear true faith and allegiance [not to persons but] to the same [that is, the Constitution]…” It is the obligation of every serviceman to “interpret their legality” when it comes to deciding whether to follow orders being issued so as to insure they aren’t in violation of the Constitution. Otherwise, how could one truly support the Constitution?
When I was in basic training, that oath was explained as meaning we had to obey “lawful orders.” However, I find it interesting that the literal wording of the oath was never changed to include the word “lawful” – and I can tell you why. Arrogance: Congress just couldn’t let it be even remotely considered that the President or the military brass would ever issue an unlawful order. But that does happen, doesn’t it?
You might find it interesting that the oath of enlistment for officers doesn’t say anything about “following orders,” which is in sharp contrast to what the grunts have to swear:
“I will obey the orders of the President…and the orders of the officers appointed over me…”
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Most of those who serve (even in the officer corps) don’t even think about what this oath really means nor do they know much about the Constitution. I, however, take my oaths (and Constitution) very seriously. Sorry if that turns out to be an inconvenient truth.”
NINETEEN:
I know the GOP would love to squelch the democratic process by pressuring Santorum to quit. But why should he? The longer he stays in, the more he shows grit and determination. Not to mention the possibility of inducing yet another Romney gaffe. With Gingrich and Santorum staying in, that will show Mitt can't win more than 50% in a primary state. Then they'll be able to lay claim to a GOP that was tempted by a flip-flopping moderate with a lot of money. And that temptation was fueled by a sense of "It's his turn." It's that kind of seniority system the GOP's got to break free from. No, I think Rick and Newt know what they're doing by staying in.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"Besides, if those two dropped out now, public interest in Romney would sink to zero."
TWENTY:
[This was posted in response to a story about a watch worth $30,000 worn by Kirill, the Russian Orthodox Church’s patriarch. That watch had been “photo shopped” out of a photo, but the “editor” failed to “remove” the reflection of that watch which was clearly seen from the patriarch’s desk]:
“The patriarch's press service responded, saying, ‘The person [did something] not agreed with superiors.” Well…how would you know that before your “thorough investigation” has been completed? Of course, some “thorough” investigations are more thorough than others.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Just another case of a worldly religious figure…nothing new here…move on but this time, ignore the collection plate.”
TWENTY-ONE:
Tim,
Let’s start with what Scalia actually said: "Everybody has to buy food sooner or later. Therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore you can make people buy broccoli?" Scalia lost it with his second “therefore” – with what might be called “judicial overreach.”
People will always be in the market for food – there’s no choice there. But they might not want to be in the market for insurance (in that area, there is a choice), being satisfied instead with having others carry their burden if they get sick. Isn’t that part of the role of government – to weigh in when groups of citizens have opposing interests? You know, legislating for the greater good?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“In any event, Scalia wasn’t being very articulate.”
“In any event, Scalia wasn’t being very articulate.”
TWENTY-TWO:
"LOVED being in the National Guard…LOVED being a soldier…LOVED being a leader of soldiers." That’s a whole lot of love, but I wonder how much love Rozanski had for peace-related concerns. Yes, we’re a nation at war, alright. But much of that is directly due to our own overreaction and past heavy-handedness.
Not to disrespect the slain Captain, but I’d like to read more about people who love peace so much they’re willing to die for it. And, yes, they are out there and their contributions are every bit as important as those of our warriors, if not more so. Those are our truly unsung heroes.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I know I’ll get flamed for this post, but that will just go to show how many couch-potato warriors are out there blindly cheering us on without knowing why. And not really caring why.”
TWENTY-THREE:
[This is in response to D, who thinks the current rush to buy firearms will save Americans from the Apocalypse. He also thinks the fact I live in crime-ridden Chicago might be a problem for my unarmed self]:
D,
Sometimes the most prepared people fall victim, and the least prepared are left completely unscathed. Don’t worry about my location; worry about your karma. That’s what will decide who becomes a victim and who doesn’t. Piling up an arsenal is one way to protect yourself. Practicing compassion and loving kindness is a better way.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“And that goes double, concerning our national karma. Having built up the biggest arsenal won’t save us in the end.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“There’s an old saying about not being able to see the forest for the trees. By having the public’s attention riveted to highly-charged individual public interest stories, that public scarcely has the energy to consider larger issues of public governance. And by having, I mean: The Elite might well be guilty of doing all it can to stoke those fires by encouraging media focus on same. Trayvon Martin, the soldier accused of killing 17 Afghan civilians, the Marine sergeant whose Facebook page says he won’t follow Obama’s unlawful orders…and on and on. Kind of hard to tread water with all this going on, wouldn’t you say? Say, what are the Kardashians up to?”
No comments:
Post a Comment