Mitt Romney as US CEO?

Thesis: Mitt Romney as US president will be able to do for the US what he did for Bain Capital when he ran that company.

Anti-thesis: Romney will not be able to do this simply because the United States is not a corporation, is not run like one, nor is the US presidency comparable to a private CEO.

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

Today’s game plan

I’m going to present a brief quote, restate it with my comments, and offer some guidelines on how to evaluate the Mitt Romney in the proposed POTUS-as-CEO role.

First, the quote:

QUOTE:

Private equity firms are not lovable, but they forced a renaissance that revived American capitalism. The large questions today are: Will the U.S. continue this process of rigorous creative destruction? And more immediately, will the nation take the transformation of the private sector and extend it to the public sector?

For while American companies operate in radically different ways than they did 40 years ago, the sheltered, government-dominated sectors of the economy – especially education, health care and the welfare state – operate in astonishingly similar ways. The implicit argument of the Republican campaign is that Mitt Romney has the experience to extend this transformation into government.

:UNQUOTE: source: David Brooks, The New York Times, as quoted in the Chicago Tribune on May 28, 2012.

Quoting again, with my indented comments:

QUOTE:

Private equity firms are not lovable, but they forced a renaissance that revived American capitalism.

Could this renaissance have come about any other way? Was this renaissance flawed, which in turn flawed that revival? For something as profound as a revival of American capitalism, one has to ask: Why did it need reviving in the first place, and did our lawmakers play any role in something this profound?

The large questions today are: Will the U.S. continue this process of rigorous creative destruction?

How “rigorous” was this – “rigorous” in the sense that duly-appointed government regulators were doing (and were expected to be doing) their jobs? “Creative destruction?” Perhaps whether that is good depends on whose ox is being gored.

And more immediately, will the nation take the transformation of the private sector and extend it to the public sector?

I find it hard to believe, on general principle, that the private sector was transformed without enabling legislation. Or, if you prefer, the termination of previous and unduly cumbersome law. The larger point, and perhaps the fatal one, is who in “the nation” will extend that transformation to the public sector? [More on that in a bit.]

For while American companies operate in radically different ways than they did 40 years ago…

They were deregulated, which didn’t turn out to be the world’s greatest idea after all.

…the sheltered, government-dominated sectors of the economy – especially education, health care and the welfare state – operate in astonishingly similar ways.

By “the welfare state,” I hope David Brooks includes the defense industry, which enjoys a very generous form of welfare indeed. Oh, wait…he couldn’t have meant to include them, since that’s private enterprise we’re talking about. And they’re the good guys here, right?

The implicit argument of the Republican campaign is that Mitt Romney has the experience to extend this transformation into government.

Why “implicit?” Why not unabashedly, unashamedly trumpet this argument? I’ll tell you exactly why: No one man, not even one with the greatest “experience,” could arrange this extension. Only with the cooperation of Congress could Romney work his (alleged) magic – and they’re not going to cooperate. Too much inertia; too many vested interests; too many oxen needing to remain ungored. And this is something that Romney knows as well as David Brooks, who wrote such nonsense.

:UNQUOTE.

Evaluating Mitt Romney in a POTUS-as-CEO role

Voters are notoriously bad at understanding economic issues, so they will be hard put to evaluate Mitt Romney as a businessman. Yes, he made a lot of money – but was there anything extraordinary about Mitt that allowed him to earn that money? I ask that question, while harboring the same suspicions about how Rahm Emanuel “earned” his money. According to the Wikipedia article on Rahm:

QUOTE:

After serving as an advisor to Bill Clinton, in 1998 Emanuel resigned from his position in the Clinton administration and joined the investment banking firm of Wasserstein Perella, where he worked until 2002. Although he did not have an MBA degree or prior banking experience, he became a managing director at the firm’s Chicago office in 1999 and, according to Congressional disclosures, made $16.2 million in his two-and-a-half-years as a banker.

:QUOTE.

So the question – How did Rahm do it? – makes me wonder, “How did Mitt Romney do it?” Did Romney have any help, perhaps in the form of insider information and support provided by his church? LDS is a very well-known money-making enterprise, so this speculation is not at all unreasonable. I duly note that Romney, far from being the hyped, risk-taking investor much beloved by the GOP in fact avoided risk, which I highlight below:

QUOTE:

Romney was restless for a company of his own to run, and in 1983, Bill Bain offered him the chance to head a new venture … [Romney] initially refrained from accepting the offer, and Bain re-arranged the terms in a complicated partnership structure so that there was no financial or professional risk to Romney.

:UNQUOTE [source: the Wikipedia article on Mitt Romney].

The hell, you say? Yes, I’m suspicious and so should be the American voter.

I was tempted to say: “Since we have many world-class colleges of business and management in this country, you’d think at least some of them would be busy cranking out analyses of how successful was Bain Capital, at what cost, and how much of that success was due to Romney’s brilliance.” However, I won’t. I’m sure too much of the story behind Bain Capital’s success and Romney’s role therein is hidden behind the curtain of proprietary secrecy. Besides, would anyone in academia in a position to critique Romney do so, knowing the risk of angering some very powerful people?

Romney’s Management Team

All good corporate leaders want to have their team in place before they even think of initiating policy changes. The problem in Romney’s case is, the Congress can’t ever be part of the kind of team that businesses rely on. Congress could even be considered that “loose cannon” corporate types fear.

Perhaps the GOP is hoping Mitt Romney could restructure the public sector into greater efficiency. But that would take far grander government intervention than Obama has been accused of in his efforts at health care reform. And the question remains if Romney could resist conservatives in his own party who would insist on an immediate and draconian reduction in the size of government – a reduction for its own sake, rather than for any perceivable and systematically forecast gain.

Mitt Romney has been characterized as a rational, analytical man. Such a man could succeed if he had a Congress composed of independents who were totally divorced from any political party affiliation or lobbyist’s influence. But Mitt Romney won’t have such a Congress – nor is he campaigning to obtain one. His thinking is so much “in the box,” that he can’t see how absolutely necessary such a Congress would be.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“But…I can see that necessity.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Mitt Romney, Polygamy, & what’s important in Mormonism

I am thankful a Mormon is running for the US presidency. This has inspired a variety of turns in my research which I would not have otherwise explored. In light of that research, it bothers me when mainstream media grossly oversimplifies and understates certain key points [why? what’s their agenda?], as in this article:

“Mormons! The Least You Should Know”

By Gregory J. Krieg ABC OTUS News,

May 25, 2012

Scroll to the end of this post to find a link to Krieg’s complete article as well as to selected quotes. These quotes were the inspiration for my response which follows this paragraph. However, it’s obvious to me that Yahoo News censored both of my attempts to post this. I highlighted these four words below – “protection from evil spirits” – for emphasis. I just can’t believe anybody would believe that wearing magic underwear would grant “protection from evil spirits.”

QUOTE:

“Magic Underwear” is an apt name for something that would bestow “protection from evil spirits.” I thought faith in God/Jesus would grant all the protection needed.

For an article that claims to share the “least you show know” about Mormons, why doesn’t it say anything about the importance of revelations from God which are periodically granted to LDS leaders, which then become doctrine? That’s how polygamy was formally “disembraced” – a revelation from God to a leader.

As for drinking, Mormons would do well to remember that Noah was a drinker. Just saying.

It doesn’t take much googling to come up with this: “The Mormon teaching that Jesus and Satan are brothers is based on their concept of God being the Father of all pre-existent spirits.” Don’t, as the article urges, just go to mormon.org for info. There are other, dissident sources – tons of them – including from former Mormons.

Mormons are not Christians simply because the Jesus they worship is not the same Jesus worshipped by the rest of Christendom.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Mormonism is an invention, pure and simple, born in the land that believes, ‘There’s a sucker born every minute.’”

:UNQUOTE.

Polygamy: A Pragmatist’s Questions

The “pragmatist” in question is me. I don’t understand how a fledgling religious movement with few members, which it was in the 1830s, could embrace polygamy. And I mean this in a practical sense, for how could a man be allowed (say) four wives unless 80% of the community were female? With the usual male-to-female ratio of roughly one-to-one, if some men have many wives, other men couldn’t have any. And some Mormon men had way more than four wives.

I’m trying to wrap my mind around how the plural marriage concept was sold to Mormon women. When men court women, they try to make them feel special. Once a couple gets married, it’s hard for me to imagine how a Mormon man goes about meeting other women – especially within the confines of a small, insular group. Not to mention: “Hi sweetie, I’d like you to meet my wife,” or “Hi sweetie, I’d like you to meet my new girlfriend [who could become an additional wife].”

I’d also like to know what happened to those marriages based on polygamy once that practice was banned by the LDS church in 1890.

Reynolds v. United States

I’m going to quote sections from the Wikipedia article about this case on which the US Supreme Court ruled in 1878. Within the quoted material are my indented comments.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

QUOTE:

Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.

The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.

I highlighted the last five words to emphasize a point. As you will read (in a bit), the Court claimed that actions could be legislated while opinions could not. I disagree. Religious beliefs are a source from which actions flow and those actions are protected by the First Amendment, which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” When one “exercises” his religion, he takes action. What part of “the free exercise thereof” did the Supreme Court not understand?

However [the Court] argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law, upon which United States law was based.

US law was based on English law, but not so as to be totally dominated by it. That’s why we had a revolution.

Although the constitution did not define religion, the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions."

I’ll interrupt this paragraph here to say Jefferson’s treading on dangerous ground here. He is wrong when he claims religious belief “lies solely between man and his God.” What happens when men make their beliefs public and (gasp) try to spread them? Then these beliefs are not “solely between man and his God.”

With this in mind, Jefferson’s next contention is downright scary. When he says “the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,” what happens when opinions are well-publicized and reach a point that cause people to take action? Could the government claim a right to legislate a preemptive strike -  to nip those opinions (and the propagating of same) in the bud before they have a chance to cause actions by a large group of people? I can see our current Congress, in the name of national security and public safety, making such a move.

I want to take a moment to reiterate one of my harshest personal opinions: Much of what Thomas Jefferson had to say finds itself tainted in my mind because he owned slaves. I absolutely do not forgive Jefferson this sin. And that’s exactly what it is – it is now and it was then – a sin.

The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

I’ll interrupt this same paragraph again. You know, sometimes it amazes me to what degree SCOTUS judges come across as real dumb asses. Even if someone were to argue that human sacrifice is permissible under the First Amendment, any potential victim would also have rights under the Constitution which would shield him from harm. Honestly, I have no idea where judges come up with this stuff – human sacrifice, indeed!

In addition, there are limits to the reach of the law of the land, as stated in the Constitution itself in its Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Each individual in this country has a residual personal sovereignty which the government cannot touch.

The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion, but could legislate against action.

That’s how this paragraph ends. However, let’s take the case of a Conscientious Objector. It is his opinion that he ought not to fight in an unjust war. You’d better believe, though, that Congress would, in effect, “legislate against [that] opinion.” And our CO friend would not be helped by the existence of this particularly evil doctrine: “The state can do no wrong.”

:UNQUOTE.

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I think Obama’s Super Pac supporters would be making a grievous mistake by failing to unleash merciless exposure of the doctrines of the LDS Church to the light of day.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

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

Here’s the link to “Mormons! The least you should know,” followed by selected quotes from that article:

http://news.yahoo.com/mormons-least-know-155434487--abc-news-politics.html?bcmt=1337965668828-ef6a0d16-0676-43b1-bf37-061ea700b297_00011b000000000000000000000000-bba461bf-00ca-4cf4-af0b-75fb68804469&bcmt_s=u#ugccmt-container-b

QUOTE:

Mike Huckabee … reportedly asked [in 2007]: "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" The answer is no; Mormons do not believe that, nor does Mormonism teach it. …

… here is the least you should know about Mormonism:

- Are Mormons Christians? Or put it this way: "Do they worship Jesus Christ?" Answer: Yes. Mormon doctrine goes in lockstep with the Christian creation myth, including and especially Christ's crucifixion and subsequent rising (it veers away later, in the Book of Mormon, where it is written that Jesus took a trip to America, post-Resurrection).

-  Drinking alcohol, coffee, tea, and smoking (anything that can be smoked) are official no-no's for church members. …

Ah yes, T he Magic Underwear, so easy to make fun of until you consider their actual meaning, which is really kind of boring. Little more than purposefully designed cotton shirts and knickers, they're meant to be worn day and night (by those who choose to wear them) and symbolize a holy covenant with the church, along with protection from evil spirits. …

For more resources on the history of Mormonism (violent and dangerous at times, like the rest), the details of its doctrine (often-debated and constantly evolving, like the rest), and how it might or might not effect a President Romney (like any other politician), check out the user-friendly mormon.org. Or go the library or a bookstore. Open a book. Talk to a person. Just don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

:UNQUOTE.

Yahoo News Periodic Updates, May 24, 2012

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 34 of these mini-essays.

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

ONE:

Romney doesn’t have to knock himself out to gain the active, energized volunteerism of Christian conservatives. All he has to do is count on the Almighty to whisper in their ears as they pray, “Listen up, chump. If you don’t light a fire under your butt for Mitt, I’ll go all Old Testament on you – angry God and all.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Yesiree, Bob. God will tell his flock what to do, so what’s to worry about?”

TWO:

“Trayvon Martin was shot through the heart at close range.” If that’s true and if Tray was on top of Zimm when that happened, why wasn’t Zimm sprayed with a fountain of Tray’s blood? Both sides would do well to present their version of events as rendered by computer animators.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Or maybe one side wouldn’t do as well…”

THREE:

“…market unrest fuelled by the euro zone debt crisis could last another year or two.” This is what politicians peddle to the rubes who vote for them. This is the beginning of the end, ladies and gentlemen, for Greece will go its separate way and, moreover, will make serious noises about not repaying a dime of its bailout money.

Of course, there will be an unpublicized summit. The Greeks will tell the Germans:

Give us some serious help in terms of investing in our economy and building German factories here. We can’t stabilize our economy without your outside help, and we refuse to die a slow death waiting for some kind of miracle. If you won’t help us, we’ll publicly disavow our indebtedness. Then you’ll find how just how “strong” the euro is after the ripple effect knocks down Spain and Italy.

As for us? We’ll go into hyper-austerity mode, allowing our poorer citizens to live in government buildings and declaring low ceilings on rent. Somehow, we’ll make it. But you won’t – at least, not in the style to which you’ve become accustomed. Think about it.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Such a Greek threat – stated or implied – sounds like major league leveraging to me.”

FOUR:

Extinction [of Japan to occur] in 1,000 years? We (as in “all of us”) won’t have anywhere near that long at the rate we’re going. My best guess: Civilized life as we know it will cease to exist within five years. And the apocalypse will be induced by the Elite.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“This really is a war of the .001 of 1% against everybody else. They surely look at it that way.”

FIVE:

What a scam. We don’t intend to leave Afghanistan any time soon. If Obama wins, that buys our occupation force four more years.  After that? You think the Pubbers, if elected, will leave? If Obama loses, Romney will keep our forces in place “indefinitely” – another way of saying, “depending on the situation on the ground, as ascertained by our generals.”

When I ran against Obama and McCain as a totally unknown independent, I put this in my written contract:  “Within 90 days of my inauguration, all U.S. military forces will be completely withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of the ‘situation on the ground.’ This withdrawal also applies to any covert operatives currently operating in Iran.”

I’m proud of the fact that I am the only candidate for US President, in the entire history of this country, to have offered a written, enforceable contract to the voters, which contained my campaign promises.  Were I to violate any of those promises, I’d forfeit my office (and that, too, is in my current contract).

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“And we’re still in Afghanistan – how’s that for change you can believe in?”

SIX:

Article: EU carries out first strikes on Somali pirates [“against pirate targets on shore.”]

“The EU is the main donor to the Somali transitional government.” “Main donor,” you say? We’re not talking “donor” status here; we’re talking “investor” status. An EU drowning in debt with a sluggish economy is desperate for a way out. Africa is that way out.

Look forward to an increased “presence” and future “operations” there. All in the name of stabilizing Africa against threats such as Joseph Kony. It won’t take long before the EU and US transition from subtle measures to a bald-face land and resources grab. And all under the stewardship of a black US president. How ironic!

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I wish Africa would rise with one united voice and order all foreigners out.”

SEVEN:

I had a dream. Obama was standing in Madison Square Garden speaking [about his support for same-sex marriage] in front of thousands of ministers, who at first listened politely. But then one stood up and shouted, “Leviticus!” Another shouted, “Abomination.” Then a third, “Obamination.” That one caught on, and soon all were chanting, “Obamination! Obamination!”

Personally? I think God doesn’t care one way or the other. This whole Leviticus stuff was very much a man-made invention which probably goes back as far as Abraham himself.

I AM an angry God…

I AM a jealous God…

I AM…Abraham!

Any questions?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Let’s take a vote: It’s all Abraham’s fault.”

EIGHT:

[My response to an article on the Senate blocking a vote that would have extended the current low 3.4 % interest rate on Stafford student loans.]

If Obama wanted to “go nuclear” because the GOP blocked this vote, he could instruct the Justice Department to bring the Senate to court for the unconstitutional filibuster. And, yes, it is unconstitutional, being a big, fat, pink elephant in the living room nobody talks about.

The filibuster is unconstitutional because it violates the Seventeenth Amendment: “…each Senator shall have one vote.” That means that each senator’s vote must be equal in weight to any other senator’s vote; allowing for minority cliques to block votes denies this equality. And that segues to the larger concept of “one man, one vote.” Obama could really energize his base by tackling this archaic, undemocratic device.

Say, do you suppose the Tea Party would support an attack on the filibuster? Naw, I didn’t think so.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Tea Party is very selective in what it considers constitutional.”

NINE:

Obama’s “coming out” on gay marriage will prove to be a political masterstroke. For one thing, he has the benefit of supporting a position that could not become a national reality short of a constitutional amendment. And that’s not going to happen.

“…the [US Supreme Court] justices in 2003 struck down state anti-sodomy laws as an improper intrusion on private activity.” What about striking down laws (or even state constitutional amendments) that seek to be an “improper intrusion on the ability of private parties to form their own [marital] contracts?

A House divided against itself cannot stand. You cannot have half of the states opposing gay marriage and the other half in support. Sooner or later, one way or another, we’re going to have to have national consistency on this issue.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“There was a time, as late as 1965, in which most states had anti-miscegenation laws on their books. That changed, as will the anti-gay marriage laws.”

TEN:

Also in this speech, Money[R] said, “The best advice I know is to give those worldly things your best but never your all…” Hmm…maybe he should have said, “The best advice I know is to give your best to God, though of course He did put us on this earth to enjoy its bounty. Therefore, there’s nothing evil in material pursuits.”

Personally? I believe we should each give our best efforts to live up to our own moral imperatives – whether or not that involves “God.” In case it doesn’t, I’m sure He wouldn’t mind. In fact, He’ll get angriest at those who pretend to act in His name.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Long ago, it must have occurred to Mitt that his religion is in error; but he’s trying his personal best to be moral anyway.”

ELEVEN:

The GOP will knock itself out trying to beat up the President over something he can’t enact [a law allowing gay marriage]. And that will make people forget the other, far more important stuff: How he snookered us deeper in Afghanistan, ObamaCare, a stubborn economy, no major legislative achievements, and legislative gridlock.

He’ll also gain by (finally!) looking decisive – like a man of principle unafraid of taking a chance. That will help to overcome a sense that he’s aloof and wishy-washy. If I were Romney, I would absolutely not make this an issue. If he does, he’ll find out what a Tar Baby he’s tangled with. I'm referring, of course, to the issue, not to Obama.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Memo to Romney: Think large, not petty.”

TWELVE:

Of course the GOP is uncomfortable about Obama’s support of same-sex marriage. A lot of them are opposed to, not only the end result of Obama’s “evolving” position, but to evolution in general.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Birds of a feather…lose elections together.”

THIRTEEN:

Air Force 1 is the president’s private jet, in a virtual kind of way. As for soldiers “fighting on my behalf,” that’s exactly right. Every war we’ve been in during my 60 years on this planet has been a One Man War. If Obama wanted to pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately upon his inauguration, he could have done so without Congressional approval. As soon as he was sworn in, those wars were his.

In fact, we would not have invaded Iraq were it not for the desire of one man to do so – Dubya Bush. The way we conduct ourselves, war is the sole prerogative of our One Man Branch. And, please, don’t give me any jive about “checks and balances.”

“We…live in a country where presidents don't conduct themselves like kings…” And why shouldn’t they conduct themselves as kings? They’ve always had a kingly aspect attached to their offices. I mean, we’re supposed to have three co-equal branches of government, but no one thinks it odd that the Executive Branch is a One Man Branch. And no one seems to mind that the presidency has only gained power (at the expense of us and the Congress), especially since WWII.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“We love our king, but only as long as we don’t have to call him Your Majesty or bow to him; although all the other trappings are there.”

FOURTEEN:

“…[Obama] hasn't kept his promise to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay…” Hah! That’s a good one. Back in 2007, I was a completely unknown third party candidate running against Obama & McCain. According to my innovative written contract:  “Within 90 days of my inauguration, I will order all US personnel out of all facilities located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This will allow Cuba to reoccupy that land, as is its sovereign right.”

My promise about Gitmo was in writing – along with dozens of others which (each of which had I not fulfilled) would have caused me to forfeit the presidency. (sigh) But lamestream media was far more interested in glorifying rock star Obama than me – the only presidential candidate in US history with a written, enforceable electoral contract.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“How’s that rock star Obama thing working for you now?”

FIFTEEN:

[Here are two of my responses to a poster who challenged me on FOURTEEN (above).]

Hey Baby Spittle,

According to our treaty with the Cuban government, there are two ways for Gitmo to revert to Cuban occupation: 1) If both governments agree, 2) if the US abandons Gitmo. As CINC, all I would have to do is order all the personnel home (which I can do without Congressional approval)  – thereby abandoning Gitmo. There’s no need to “fund gitmo’s closing” – we simply leave.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I can always count on at least one ignoramus to show off his stupidity – thanks for stepping up to the plate on this one, Baby.”

Baby Spit,

It doesn’t matter what Congress wants when it comes to moving the troops. The prez is the CINC. If he wants to totally withdraw from Gitmo, he can do so while abandoning all of our infrastructure there.  That might be where Congress has an arguable point about funding to enable systematic and orderly withdrawal, including decommissioning or removing the infrastructure. I would bypass Congress on that point, simply ordering all personnel to leave.

Now, if Congress were to object, I would say, “Fine, then fund for an orderly and systematic withdrawal. If you don’t want to do that, then I can claim to have the mandate of the American people on my side since they elected me based on my contractual promise to (among other things) abandon Gitmo.” Baby Spit, try to think outside the box a little bit instead of mindlessly quoting conventional wisdom.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Oh, BTW, you might want a different handle than ‘Baby Spit’ – kind of hard to take you seriously with that. Just saying.”

SIXTEEN:

“Lynn also rejected the suggestion that Romney has repressed the memory [of forcefully cutting off that kid's hair when they were both in high school].” But that’s exactly what happened – Romney did suppress. He had to because that incident was a contradiction to what he, years later, came to believe in – that he was a virtuous exemplar of his faith.

Makes me wonder what else he’s suppressed – for instance, his own logically-created arguments against the plausibility of the faith of his fathers? Men who suppress too much run the risk of exploding. Are you ready for that possibility?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Romney admits – much as did Robert McNamara – an affinity for numbers. Men who suffer crises of faith often go there.”

SEVENTEEN:

"We still have very, very strong things that we can accomplish by continuing this [the Ron Paul for President] campaign..."

“Very, very,” indeed! Like what?

“…influencing the nominating process…”

How?

“…those delegates are obliged only for the first round of voting.”

But there will only be one round of voting, so what’s the point?

“Romney has what is very likely to be an insurmountable delegate lead…” and “we’re very, very unlikely to be able to block [Romney’s] nomination.”

“Very likely?” “Very, very unlikely?” What, exactly, are Paul’s people counting on? Surely Mitt’s people won’t be too happy that Paul isn’t yielding gracefully, so there will be no reward from them.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I think of Ron Paul as the Crypt Keeper overseeing the demise of the GOP. That’s why he’s hanging on. He gets to have the last laugh.”

EIGHTEEN:

This is just further proof the states don’t have much if any sovereignty left any more. Nevada’s case is even worse – with the feds controlling a whopping 87%. Tell me, how can a state claim sovereignty (or self-respect – same thing, I guess) if someone else controls the majority of its land?

Even controlling more than 10% is too much.

The Fourteenth Amendment started the ball rolling by denying states the right to determine who is or is not a state citizen. Brewer was wrong to veto this. By signing into law, she could have made a statement.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“When state sovereignty started to crumble, so did ours as individuals. But I suppose you already suspected as much.”

NINETEEN:

[This is my response to a particularly silly poster.]

Money[R] on marriage: One man and several women, as soon as I’m elected and can overturn the unconstitutional anti-polygamy laws.

BTW, this is an issue, not so much of gay marriage, as it is of the right of sovereign citizens to form binding contracts with each other.  As for your foolishness about “one woman and one horse [etc],” in order for contracts (including martial ones) to be binding, there has to be mutual consent. Last time I checked, we haven’t been able to talk to the animals. Unless you’ve been places the rest of us can only dream about.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Mr. Ed?”

TWENTY:

Memo to [potential Mitt Romney running mate] Jindal,

You said, “This job's too important for on the job training.” You could have said that with far more impact during the last election. That election, by the way, forever removed from the national discourse any thought that experience matters. It didn’t matter to Hillary, Obama, or for that matter McCain who was so consumed by his alcoholic thinking, even his modest claims regarding experience became irrelevant.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Much as Romney would like to make this claim, he can’t: ‘What I did for Bain, I can do for the entire country.’”

TWENTY-ONE:

News Flash: In a bold and truly un-GOP move, Mitt Romney vowed to start by cutting the annual defense appropriation in half. Speaking before the Board of Directors of Lockheed Martin, Romney announced, “Gentlemen, it’s time for you to diversify. The party’s over.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“This is the pink elephant in the living room no one is talking about: We have way more ‘defense’ than we need, but not quite enough to conquer the world.”

TWENTY-TWO:

[This is my response to an article entitled: “Federal debt threatens what it means to be an American”]

Either Money[R] doesn’t get it or he’s lying. Being in debt is precisely what it “means to be an American.” This country was built on debt. You got a problem with that?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“May God please save the United States or at least give US a decent burial.”

TWENTY-THREE:

Ricketts? I thought that was a bone disease. Oh, wait…that’s spelled with only one “t.” But still, that disease personifies such a spineless individual. He’s been trying to finagle state Democratic chieftains to authorize a public payment to rehab his pet property, Wrigley Field (home of da Cubs). But he has no problem with blatantly supporting the opposition. That's a Pubber for you, drunk with power and a sense of entitlement.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“And I’ll bet he doesn’t appreciate the irony of this.”

TWENTY-FOUR:

[RE: Article: “Ultra-Orthodox [Jewish group] plan huge NYC meeting on Net risks” in New York Mets’ stadium”]

 “…social media undermining ‘our ability to pray uninterruptedly....’” Doesn’t taking time out to attend a mass feel-good-because-I’m-Orthodox rally “[undermine] our ability to pray uninterruptedly?” Do they pray “uninterruptedly” while having sex with their wives? I don’t think God put us on this earth to “pray uninterruptedly,” but instead to enjoy His blessings. Not even Adam “pray[ed] uninterruptedly.” Unless there’s something about the word “uninterruptedly” I don’t understand.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The Orthodox are about as far from God as you can get.”

TWENTY-FIVE:

[Here, I reply to three posters who took exception to what I wrote immediately above.]

@ Jeff,

No, they are not “just people,” for these are not just any people, but people who think they’re closer to God than anyone else. Truth is, it takes a certain amount of arrogance to call oneself “ultra-orthodox.” Imagine the brawling that ensues when such creatures bump into the “super-duper ultra-orthodox.”

@ Yoyoyo,

Their God is real enough, but what they really worship is their particular eccentric traditions, their learned rabbis (cults form around such charismatics), and their Jewishness. Clinging to tribal identify is about the surest way to stray from God’s will. For God’s will is that we integrate as a human community instead of finding ways to isolate ourselves into bands of exclusive, woman-hating weirdos.

@ Jeff,

Believing or not believing in God may well be (as you claim) “no one else’s business.” But if someone claims to have a belief in God so profound it renders the beliefs of others as irrelevant (why else to you think they call themselves “ultra-orthodox?), then I have a right to call such a man a liar.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Besides, I think their mothers dress them funny.”

TWENTY-SIX:

Take a good look at Ken Bennett’s photo above. There are a lot of guys locked up in nut houses who look that deranged. Of course, many of those guys (also!) don’t know the difference between right and wrong. For instance, how appropriate is it that Bennett, as Arizona’s secretary of state, can be in a position to deny Obama a place on the ballot, while also being one of Money[R]’s campaign co-chairmen? Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Money[R] should take a principled stand here and kick all such people out of his campaign. But somehow, I don’t think he’ll do that.”

TWENTY-SEVEN:

“Those steps include Bennett proving that he legitimately needs confirmation…” Bennett could claim “I hold this truth to be self-evident.” And he could therefore accept Hawaii’s answer as a denial of his request. From there, he could keep Obama’s name off the ballot. Sounds like this thing could go to court. That is, unless Obama doesn’t care to have his name on Arizona’s ballot.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The Hawaiian answer is lame and opens doors – they could have done much better.”

[UPDATE (5/24/12): Hawaii recently decided to comply with Arizona’s request in this matter after all. Fascinating how quickly this matter was put to rest.]

TWENTY-EIGHT:

[One poster disagreed with my urging all US voters to vote against all incumbents all of the time, by saying this: “LOL, for every incumbant we boot, the establishment has 2-5 more puppets to replace them with. You need to learn how things work.”]

My response:

Instead of laughing out loud, try thinking. The “establishment” isn’t a monolith but consists of several power-sharing centers. Each of these centers needs the assurance that it will always have at least a competitive share of the pie. And that’s where our predictability as voters comes in. If we were less predictable, then the two power centers we call Democrats and Republicans couldn’t rely on reelection to their reasonable minimum share of legislative seats.

So if, for instance, you really hate Democrats, vote for one anyway if the incumbent is a Pubber you'd prefer as the lesser of two evils. Next election, (again) vote against the incumbent whoever he might be. Of course, for this to work enough people would have to participate with exactly this goal in mind – to destabilize the system by denying them our predictability. As things stand now, incumbents have a built-in and unfair advantage in their reelection efforts. Take that away, and things start to get a lot more interesting.

One thing all of them hate is the idea of losing their own reelection, which would bring into doubt the very viability of the so-called professional politician. And that's exactly what we need to get rid of.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“We would need only a determined minority to make this work. Think about it.”

TWENTY-NINE:

[I tried to post this to Yahoo News twice, but was censored. I assume that to mean corporate US media want to promote this woman as the next Tea Party messiah.]

There’s nothing new in what Mia Love is – she’s simply an opportunist. Another Herman Cain, another Sarah Palin. And she will be exploited by the Tea Party or whatever GOP/Mormon forces back her. Oh, I don’t deny her accomplishments (I’m sure she was a very good flight attendant), but I also don’t trust her promoters.

At this point, there’s simply not enough known about her. But one very important thing is known: The fact that she’s a Mormon, and that’s a deal killer. I will come right out and say: No person of at least average intelligence who really thinks about the Mormon narrative could embrace that faith. It’s patriarchal, it’s materialistic, it’s hierarchal, it’s clannishly exclusive, and it’s just plain false. Oh sure, there are a lot of nice Mormons out there. But that doesn’t mean their faith is valid.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"Mia Love is just another willing tool waiting to be used. Maybe she’ll make as much on the lecture circuit as Palin – with the right [wing] agent.”

THIRTY:

“Israel was one of the few countries that maintained strong ties with South Africa's apartheid government…” Somehow, I’m not surprised. And this, from a nation which God had deemed should be a “light unto all nations?” Israel still stands, but Judaism within its borders is dead.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“In that sense, Israel’s enemies have already won.”

THIRTY-ONE:

“An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.” Hmm…sounds like Owens didn’t think this out very carefully before making this statement. There is no such thing as “eternal” law, since we can only talk about laws since the Creation. Before the Creation, there was only God and therefore only Perfection existed. In that case, there was no need for Law, since laws are made to govern and there was no one around to govern.

Besides that, could a human law be rooted in eternal law but not natural law or vice versa? Could those two law types be occasionally exclusive?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Maybe Owens should stick to God’s work instead of distracting himself as a union (of priests’ in a pressure group) organizer.”

THIRTY-TWO:

It doesn’t matter if “most” would currently call high school escapades off-limits. If a Super Pac decides to focus on such hijinks, and saturates the airwaves accordingly, then “most” will end up changing their minds about what is off-limits. That’s how effectively advertising works on We-the-Sheeple.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Like anybody believes Romney doesn't remember cutting off that kid’s hair.”

THIRTY-THREE:

[Concerning Pakistan sentencing one of their citizens to a life sentence for treason for helping the CIA kill Osama bin Laden.]

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. How would we like it if a US citizen provided information that resulted in aircraft from a foreign power illegally and clandestinely entering our airspace to conduct a military operation?

It’s just plain silly to say, “By considering this treason it makes it clear that Pakistan was knowingly harboring Bin Laden.” This statement is illogical, given the sense of my first paragraph. And yet, this got 199 thumbs-up versus 3 down.

All nations have laws against treason, which each defines in its own way.  In our case, even though the crime of treason is constitutionally defined, it’s unconstitutionally vague.  Especially the part about giving aid and comfort to the enemy. A citizen denouncing US involvement in a war could be considered giving comfort to the enemy. An extreme example: A US soldier giving medical assistance to a wounded enemy soldier.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“It’s time to replace our constitution.”

THIRTY-FOUR:

I’m not convinced Romney’s all that smart, even though he made all that money. I suspect he might have had some help from a Mormon web of influence. As a religious organization, they seem unduly interested in and good at acquiring wealth. Time Magazine even ran a cover story about that in their Aug. 4, 1997 issue. I wonder if Time will update us or has that story been squelched?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Or maybe Money[R] is a savant – good at making money but sorely lacking in other aspects.”

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I’m still betting Obama, who will generously spare Israel from participating, will order an attack against Iran’s nuclear installations to take place around Labor Day. Mark your calendars.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com