I hope you enjoy all fourteen of these mini-essays.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ONE:
This article mentions a 1.65-million barrel-a-day [pipe]line [which hopes to take off the pressure should the Iranians blockade the Straits of Hormuz]. Tell you what: One missile strike and that’s gone. Next!
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“If Iran is attacked, why should they spare the Saudis?”
TWO:
“[Chris] Christie [possible running mate for Mitt Romney] angrily replied that it was ‘none of your business.’” Actually, Christie wasn’t responding to the question that was asked (“…why [do] you think it’s fair to be cutting funding to public schools?”). He was responding to the first eight words out of her mouth: “You don’t send your children to public schools).”
What probably happened is, when Christie heard those first 8 words, he got so angry he couldn’t hear the question. That’s not, in the words of Mitt Romney, “an extraordinary leader” – that’s just another guy with anger issues.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“We can say at least this much – Chris Christie is a whale of a man.”
THREE:
I’d like to know what kind of oath the [clique of ruling Egyptian] generals took that allowed them to seize power. Even more interesting: How does the ruling council of generals make decisions? Do they vote, with (say) a 14-star general getting 2 more votes than just a run-of-the-mill 12-star general?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The days of the generals are numbered.”
FOUR:
[I posted this on July 3, 2012, regarding this website.]
Kyle,
I humbly and gratefully thank you for having been one out of (at most) 6,800 people who had actually clicked on my website since its inception on Sept 19, 2010. As you can see, given that rate of response, I have my work cut out for me. But I’ve always felt that winning [the US presidency] isn’t the point; contributing to the dialogue is.
It took me a while to figure out which of my 305 posts you read, but once I did I can respond to some of your concerns:
[NOTE: It’s this one, which was the very first I’d posted on 9/19/2010:
As for “6. Hate it,” regarding diplomatic recognition of Palestine. I’m surprised you’d base a decision to vote against me on this one point, especially since I might only grant that recognition for [only] a day. Presidents can do that, and I have my reasons (as expressed elsewhere on my site) for proposing something so radical.
As for 7: Ronald Reagan didn’t have any qualifications either. But he managed to surround himself with well-qualified advisors, and he listened to them. My biggest qualification for running a military is not to “run it” into the ground by engaging in an endless series of wars. I do like the fact that you appear to have done some thinking on the issue of who runs the military. We need more people offering more ideas about these fundamental concepts.
As for 8 – “what happens to the prisoners [once you close down Guantanamo]?” – I’m going to ask you to read the June 17, 2011 posting on my site entitled “End the Nightmare at Guantanamo.”
Please remember, the post you read stated that (what you read) were “Sample elements of my contract for 2012.” There is much more, as developed elsewhere on my blog. But I, again, thank you for having taken the time to check out part of my platform.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“It’s really hard for an unfunded underdog to get noticed – but I do appreciate those 6,800 who did so.”
FIVE:
So Chris Christie thinks, “If it were easy [to lose weight], I’d already have it fixed.” It’s not that “easy” but it’s doable. It's well within the range of do-ability. But think about how this remark could become the foundation of his political philosophy should he ever become President: “If it were easy to reduce runaway spending and the deficit, I’d already have done so.” This sounds like a man who’s spent a lifetime making excuses for himself, which he hopes others will believe.
…
“But I have to lose weight and I get it” translates to, “But we have to have an effective foreign policy and I get it.” No, obviously he doesn’t get it. But if saying he “gets it” and actually “getting it” are one and the same, then he’s good to go. But…it isn’t the same.
Christie said he's "doing the best I can" and will "continue to." The end result of doing his best obviously hasn’t been good enough. So he’d better do more than “continue to [do that kind of 'best'];” he’s got to redefine what his best is. Leaders do that, pretenders just, well, pretend.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I’m sure he didn’t mean to be so transparent, but Christie’s weighty comments reveal much more than he intended.”
SIX:
[On the passing of actor Andy Griffith's passing…]
I had this weird dream, where Andy goes to the Pearly Gates and asks to see God. Turns out God is Black. Andy shrinks back in terror and swan dives into Hell, where he finds the Devil is even…blacker.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“It doesn’t matter what we believe – death is still the great equalizer.”
[Next, I respond to Tom Pelikan, who didn’t like what I had to say about Andy Griffith (above).]
@ Tom Pelikan,
And who are you to designate these as “mourning comments?” The article isn’t titled, “Let’s mourn the passing of Andy Griffith.” It’s simply, “Actor Andy Griffith dies in North Carolina.”
I opened my post with, “I had this weird dream.” But you must have had an even weirder dream (or grand delusions) if you think Andy was a “great entertainer.” He was mediocre at best. But that’s okay, there’s plenty of room in this world for the mediocre. There’s even plenty of room in heaven for them. What there didn’t seem to be any room for was black people (not even one) in Andy’s Mayberry. Just saying.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Was he a classy gentleman? Can’t say, didn’t know the man, can say he acted that way. But then again, he was an actor, wasn’t he?”
SEVEN:
Why doesn’t the House take off the kid gloves and vote to impeach Obama? If they managed to find Holder in contempt and Obama, via executive privilege, is backing Holder, then impeachment of POTUS is the next logical step. However…Congress better be careful about labeling people as being in Contempt of Congress. A lot of us voters hold Congress in such low esteem, we could be said to be contemptuous of Congress. What will the House do about that? Cite all of us for Contempt?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The voice that’s noticeably silent in all this is Mitt Romney’s. He is the leader of the party, right?”
EIGHT:
"We might not out-raise Mitt Romney…But I am determined to keep the margin close enough that we can win this election the right way." So says Obama.
The “right way” to win should be based on his record vs. what Romney has to offer. Obama has the incumbent’s advantages – including the use of Air Force One to fly to fundraisers [is this included under Obama’s definition of “the right way?”]
But that’s only the way it “should be.” Tell you what: If we’re stupid enough to elect the “wrong” man simply because he spends more, then we’re too stupid for self-governance. That being said, even though I think Obama will win by a landslide, I frankly hope he loses. He did not prove to be a man of his word and said only what was good enough to elect him in 2008. He deserves to lose.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“And if Romney wins, he’ll turn out to be as ineffective as Obama. Heads, they win; tails, you lose.”
NINE:
“I never…thought the chief justice would go beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause debate and into taxation” – Bill O’Really(?). There’s so much fundamentally wrong here.
To illustrate, I rephrase: “Not only the Chief Justice but the entire Court should, for each and every case, consider the entire Constitution instead of cherry-picking the so-called ‘obvious’ elements like the Commerce Clause and taxation.” Under no circumstances, should the Court make decisions based on concerns about its image (funny...I don't remember seeing that in the Constitution).
In case you think I’m nitpicking, consider Section 8 of Article 1, which states: “The Congress shall have the power…to PROVIDE for the…general welfare…” – emphasis mine. Like it or not, that’s the basis for the welfare state. But I mean that in a good way: Why shouldn’t our government (our elected reps) care about our welfare? I guess the sticking point is, to what degree should Congress “provide?” But the way SCOTUS proceeded, that question never got asked.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I’m always amazed at people who bleat ‘read the Constitution,’ who really mean, ‘focus on the few words that I deem important. Chief Justices can fall into that trap, too.”
TEN:
“This is government taking over the entire health insurance industry,”… More exaggerated rhetoric from [Speaker of the House] Boner. Well, it is an election year after all. ObamaCare gives insurers millions of new customers, and that’s a takeover? The real takeover is how the health insurance industry has taken over our government. This is in terms of how effectively their lobbyists buy friends in Congress.
The Party of No will take its sweet time passing ObamaCare’s replacement. But first, they’ll want to check with their lobbyists to find out what they’ll want in the new law.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Boner and the other Pubbers are beyond disgusting.”
ELEVEN:
"The prestige of the [US Supreme] court is the source of its authority…” Kind of, but not in the way meant by Moran. As long as the Court behaves well enough to avoid being impeached, then it doesn’t matter whether We-the-Sheeple like it. What matters is the willingness of the Executive to use all means, up to and including the military, to enforce the Court’s will.
"The role of an umpire and a judge is critical.” So says Chief Roberts. Tell you what. If the rules of baseball were as vaguely written as was our Constitution, you’d have the equivalent of 5-4 decisions in major league ball parks. You might even see umps engaging in fisticuffs to “prove” their point – which isn’t that far removed from the attitudes held by some of our Justices.
Face it, folks. The Constitution is vaguely and, in some places, actually badly written. That’s why you’ll see so many 5-4 decisions. This has way more to do with a lack of clearly written English than ideology. It’s about time to cast this document to the dust bin of history and replace it.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I’m not such a nice guy – so I can come right out and say stuff like this; stuff that happens to be true.”
TWELVE:
@ Hurryup2012,
… As for “read the Constitution,” I’ve done so, noting something that the Court didn’t bother to take into consideration (nor did Obama’s lawyers argue):
According to Section 8 of Article I of the US Constitution: “The Congress shall have power to…PROVIDE for the…general welfare of the United States…” I emphasized the word PROVIDE, since that is key here. Some people might argue that “’to provide’ sounds like an open invitation to create a welfare state.” However, I take it mean, “to provide a means.” The state sometimes has to compel certain behaviors from its citizens or else it can’t get anything done. Even though the Constitution lists enumerated powers (and “to provide” is one of them), those powers can’t all be narrowly defined.
Obama’s better argument, based on Section 8, would have been: “How can the government fulfill its Constitutionally-mandated role of providing for the general welfare without somehow being able to stimulate those who are unwilling to go along?”
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Hurryup2012, If you’re going to urge people to ‘read the Constitution,’ you have to prepare yourself for the possibility that they might read more than just the parts you cherry pick.”
THIRTEEN:
[Woman arrested when holding up a sign in Houston warning of a speed trap.]
I don’t suppose the cop [that arrested her] has a video showing Natalie was [illegally] standing in the road. But wouldn’t it be great if some bystander had taped her, showing her to be on the sidewalk at all times? Then the cop would be busted for making a false arrest. Or maybe not. Does Texas have a law forbidding citizens from taping policemen without permission?
Police have definitely misused their authority in the past, with the help of judges who look the other way. [Both of whom will continue to do so.]
In Chicago, our Mayor decided to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Now, instead of jail, it’s a fine of at least $250 for possession of 15 grams. I can see it now: Cops busting protestors and then planting grass on them. Hey, why not? They’ve been known to plant guns on unarmed men they’ve shot.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Sometimes, all you can do is pray that you don’t get someone in authority pissed off at you.”
FOURTEEN:
“Opponents cast the individual mandate as the government forcing Americans to enter a market and buy a product against their will…” I see. And how many of these opponents have a problem with states forcing people to buy auto insurance in order to drive?
“Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes..." Would Roberts have said this if the tax was (say) 40% [or 2000%] instead of 1%? Taxes are imposed for a purpose. If the purpose, in the case people who don’t have insurance, is to collect money from them in order to funnel it back to health care providers who would otherwise be taking a financial hit by caring for the indigent, fine. Personally, I’d like to know if this was the reasoning behind imposing the 1% tax or if the taxing power was being misused as a bludgeon to force people to buy something they otherwise wouldn’t.
Perhaps the Commerce Clause is the source of disagreement. It says, “The Congress shall have power to…regulate commerce…among the several states…” That should mean Congress can only set the rules for interstate commerce [which is a “commerce” that only Congress gets to define]. Does the power to “regulate commerce” mean that Congress can exert dictatorial, monopolistic, and exclusive control over commerce, to the point of being able to (by fiat) declare what brands of merchandise we can buy? And how much and how often?
Perhaps there’s a conflict between the Constitution’s Preamble and Section 8 of Article I:
Section 8 says, “The Congress shall have the power…to PROVIDE for the…general welfare…”
The Preamble says, “…in order to…PROMOTE the general welfare…”
If we choose Section 8’s version (which uses the word “provide”), then that would be the basis of a welfare state, yes?
I’ve argued for 20 years or so that we need a new Constitution to entirely replace (not merely amend) the current one. The points I made above and the frequency of 5-4 SCOTUS decisions should be persuasive on this point.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Yes We Can…and Must.”
“Yes We Can…and Must.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“In honor of the USA’s Fourth of July (Independence Day) celebration, I propose: Declare your independence by voting for independents. If that’s not possible, vote all incumbents out of office.”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment