The only viable U.S. reform strategy

There is really only one way to force political reform in the United States: Deny job security to all incumbent officeholders. Translation? Next time you cast your ballot, vote against all incumbents, even those you think are good candidates. [I’ll explain that a bit later.]

Obviously, my proposal will fall largely on deaf ears, as do most unusual proposals – at least in the beginning. Most people are creatures of habit. So getting them to break old, comfortable habits will take a lot of effort by a dedicated few. As those few become many, the task becomes easier but first things first: I have to explain why (according to the title I picked) an anti-incumbent movement is the “only viable U.S. reform strategy.”

The only reason the DC establishment runs roughshod over its constituents is, they have job security. Most incumbents get reelected on a routine basis. And even if (for instance) a certain number of Congressmen get swept from office due to voter anger, that only represents a momentary wobble of the systemic  gyroscope. Balance is soon restored, the first sign being a softening of the rhetoric once the newly-elected Reps assume office. The new guys want to get reelected too, so they won’t want to appear too radical.

In any event, in spite of occasional turns of fortune by one party or the other, the Two Party System itself remains entrenched. That is the source of its power over us, and that is the source of our frustration.

If, however, We-the-People were to send a message that we will not tolerate incumbency, that will set the stage for independents to get elected. Think about it: If an elected official knew there was an anti-incumbent tide rising throughout the land, he’d be less likely to automatically fall in line with whatever the party leadership has in mind. He’d, instead, be more mindful of the voters.

My message to him? “It won’t matter what you do, for once you’re elected, you become the new incumbent. So you will be voted out of office after only one term.” Sounds rather brutal, but (as I’ll explain) this uniform approach to all incumbents will be necessary for us to maintain.

The Fear Factor

I will refine my proposal:

Vote against all incumbent officeholders. If you love Democrats, vote against them anyway if they happen to be the incumbent. If the Republican you vote for wins, then (obviously) he is the new incumbent against whom you should vote in the next election. If you think such a strategy risks anarchy, then don’t vote that way in local elections. Focusing only on the US Congress will be good enough to force a sea change in our national politics.

Anarchy inspires terror. And the Establishment will try to use this as a Fear Factor to urge people to vote the straight-and-narrow (that is, to vote according to whatever motivated them in past elections).

However, there are two good reasons not to fear anarchy, at least not as induced by anti-incumbency:

·        Even if we were to be 100% successful – that is, in unemploying  all incumbents in all future elections for the next dozen years or so – the Elite which really runs this country would not allow a legislative breakdown to threaten the smooth day-to-day operation of this country’s business-as-usual. No matter who gets elected, the Elite will be able to bring sufficient pressure to bear (even by death squad actions, if necessary) to whip newly-elected Congressmen into line.

·        We are already living in a state of anarchy, but our downward slide is so gradual (slow but sure like a glacier) that few notice how surely legislative gridlock and kicking-the-can-down-the-road will induce a societal breakdown – and much sooner than we realize.

A bit later

To repeat one of my earlier statements: “Next time you cast your ballot, vote against all incumbents, even those you think are good candidates. [I’ll explain that a bit later.]”

So why should you vote against someone you “know” is a good candidate? By analogy, when a doctor scrapes out a cancer, sometimes he has to remove good cells. But I believe the real answer is, there are no good candidates because they all, to an unavoidable degree, are victims two irresistible forces:

·        Lobbyists; and

·        The leaders of their own party who can demand at least occasional adherence to the party line – or else.

Besides, even the so-called “good” officeholders fail because they’re habitually tied to the Two Party System. Even Ron Paul, in spite of his unorthodox positions as a Congressman, never came out and said: “We need independents in Congress, since only they won’t be swayed by the demands of their party or by lobbyists.”

More on Ron Paul and Third Party possibilities

Ron Paul was a member of the Libertarian Party once, having resigned from the GOP. Back in 1988, he was even the LP presidential candidate. However, Ron rejoined the GOP, which I think was a mistake – he should have seized the Bully Pulpit as a Congressman in order to promote the Libertarian Party. Instead of promoting the importance of an alternative to the Dem/Pub options, Paul decided to assume the role of resident curmudgeonly crank. “Dr. No,” his colleagues ended up calling him for his routine “no” votes on “unconstitutional” legislation.

Now, apparently, his strategy might change. If Ron Paul does not win the GOP nomination this time around, there’s talk he might try a third party run. Ah, a third party! Apparently none of Dr. Paul’s supporters realize you can’t have a viable third party which only manages to elect one candidate to national office. Even if that office happens to be the presidency. The other two parties would close ranks to oppose such a president.

Activists have spoken for decades about the need for a third party. They are mistaken, since only a Congress full of non-party independents can successfully govern. Instead of a Two Party or even a Three Party System, we need a Zero Party System. Moreover, we need term limits to protect us against the pernicious influence of lobbyists. Since incumbents will never vote for term limits, it is up to us as voters to “vote” for term limits by routinely voting against incumbents.

It’s time to break the programming, people

We are mercilessly hammered with propaganda 24/7. All of which serves to program us. The only reason the Two Party System is so dominant  is due to the efficiency of this programming. We can successfully rebel by doing this little: Stop being so damn predictable! If the Elite can anticipate our reactions to their agenda, they can tailor-make their long-range strategies by pushing our buttons with a lot of little steps along the way.

Or, equally as effective, just change the faces of the players. Case in point: If George Bush had suggested a “surge” in Afghanistan, he would have been roundly denounced. But when President Change-You-Can-Believe-In issued those orders, no problem. Sure, his supporters were disappointed, but so what? They surely wouldn’t vote for his GOP opponent in the next election.

But I feel that people don’t like to be played or made to feel they have no real choice. Right now, we’re at an ideal stage to push this anti-incumbency campaign. Congressional approval ratings are at an all-time low. The GOP has shown itself to be a far-from-loyal opposition – sinking as low as petty and non-ending obstructionism.

 And the beauty of this particular moment in time? We don’t even (much like the Occupy Wall Street crowd) have to present a coherent plan of action such as, “If elected, we will do (this, that, or the other thing).” Instead, we can merely assert that only a Congress of non-party aligned, loyal Americans can put their heads together and come up with practical solutions that work. And this assertion will resonate with voters who are tired of legislative gridlock, rule by supermajority (for instance, the filibuster), and the unending spectacle of each party that’s out of power trying its best to undermine the party that’s in power.

The Founding Fathers never intended for us to be governed by a class of professional, life-long politicians. Their ideal was for men of means (established pillars of the community) to take time out of their business affairs, spend a couple of years of public service as legislators, and then return to their former lives. Or perhaps retired gentlemen of means would like to give a few of their sunset years to such community service. Since the lengthy travel time of the early 1800’s would mandate long absences from home, it was expected that few would even be tempted to serve for more than two or three terms at most.

So our challenge is actually very simple: Just remind people of what they already know – the system isn’t working; we need answers fast; and incumbents under the current set of rules, who have managed to insulate themselves from the wrath of the voters, aren’t sufficiently motivated to create the practical system of laws we need to get our country moving forward again. But we have to remind them more than a few times. Remember: We have quite a wall of propaganda to break down!

Some examples of successful propaganda

Look at the recently-concluded Iowa caucuses. As observed by the Huffington Post*:

QUOTE*:

The numbers tell the story: of the 2,250,423 voters in the state (using the higher voting-eligible population), only 147,255 came out last night. And of those, only 122,255 voted in the Republican contest, for a turnout percentage of 5.4 percent.

:UNQUOTE*:

I had tried to promote (on this blog) the idea of cross-over voting to skew the primary results. In this case, given the low turnout, it would have been easy for independents and Democrats to have voted in the GOP caucuses for (say) Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman. Sabotaging the GOP primaries is a potent weapon, especially since Obama’s supporters can cross-over because their candidate won’t need their support since he’s running unopposed.

But…nobody crossed over. We have been so successfully programmed that we completely overlook obvious and potent strategies to convey our dissatisfaction. Instead, we have completely bought into the notion of how “important” Iowa and New Hampshire are to legitimizing the candidates. Iowa and New Hampshire? Give me a break. These two states are far from representative of America. However, that’s not the point. These two states were chosen on purpose to make it that much harder for a candidate to obtain traction. You don’t think it’s merely a coincidence these two vote first, do you?

It takes a lot of money, time, and trouble to campaign in these two atypical states. So only the best-financed can afford to engage. And “engage” they must, for failure to do so would allow the media to conclude these states were “written off.” That’s a charge that’s hard to beat.

Of course, the purpose of the long build-up to primary season (and the lengthy season itself) is to focus voter attention on this one particularly ridiculous notion:

What matters most – which one man ends up becoming president.

By focusing our attention on one man, the media and the System itself succeed in diverting our attention from what really needs fixing: The Congress itself. But we’re used to this type of mindset:  After all, when a major league baseball team isn’t having a winning season, we expect the manager to get fired in order to “shake things up.” But this view is in violation of our constitutional model. After all, Article I of the Constitution set up our national legislative bodies; Article II, the Presidency; and Article III, the Judiciary. These, I feel, were set up in order of importance.

It’s about time we reasserted that order of importance, insisting that Congress is of the utmost importance – not the Imperial Presidency.

End note:

If we ever reached a point where incumbents had no hope of being reelected (at least, not as Democrats or Republicans), there would be one immediately daunting outcome: Without a seniority system, how would committee assignments and chairmanships be determined? As I’ve written before, I feel that our Congress should consist of coequal members serving without being forced into a hierarchy by a committee structure. We have no problem expecting our president to be knowledgeable on all of the issues (or at least to have his own reliable sources as consultants). So why shouldn’t we expect our Congress to consist of (dramatic pause) – 435 presidents?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“There’s nothing like a loss of job security to throw the fear of God into our arrogant party animals” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

   * Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/iowa-caucus-results_n_1184479.html

The US love affair with its Armed Forces

Objective:

Since many in the US are blindly in love with their military, I feel it’s necessary to inject a bid of sobriety here. Frankly, I do not like military culture for it does not (as advertised) build men. Rather, it focuses on a very narrow range of what it means to be a man, trying to convince us of that range’s overwhelming importance.

My following observations will not earn me many points among active-duty soldiers. And perhaps I should care about that, since I really want to become the next US President – and, therefore, their Commander in Chief. However, I do not care to be loved by our men and women in uniform. I will leave it to others to seek that kind of adoration. All I would expect of our men and women in uniform is that they follow orders – no more than that, no less.

If I should appear on a ship or a base, I would expect adherence to military protocol at all times. When I saw pictures of our troops surrounding President Obama – all smiles with their cameras raised to snap a nice, relaxing, warm-and-fuzzy moment with their President – I nearly gagged. That is not how soldiers should behave in the presence of their CINC. That is not the kind of behavior CINC should himself display or allow in his presence.

I do not expect our troops to love me. However, I will love them – enough not to send them in harm’s way in violation of our constitution and for petty causes. Enough to respect them as something more than props in a publicity campaign. I hope the following incident conveys an idea of my expectations.

Incident:

I objected to Army Ranger Leroy Petry being awarded the Medal of Honor. My posted comment (immediately following) inspired Yahoo News readers to flame me rather rudely – though I would have preferred “more intelligently.”

QUOTE:

Petry should not have received the Medal of Honor. That’s reserved for those who distinguish themselves “above and beyond the call of duty.” Tell me, what else was he going to do when a grenade landed a few feet away? Back in the day, some soldiers jumped on grenades belly first to absorb the blast and save their comrades.

As for Petry’s act being “selfless,” how so? No matter what he did or didn’t do, he was going to at least be wounded by that ordnance. So tossing it had to be in his own best self-interest. True, there are some who might have tried to run or who’d have frozen on the spot, but what Petry did does not even remotely qualify for Medal of Honor.

Remember: “above and beyond the call of duty.” Read some of the historic citations and you’ll see what I mean.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Sometimes it’s necessary to invent heroes.” [NOTE: It would have more accurate to have written this sentence as, “Sometimes it’s necessary to exaggerate relatively minor acts into major acts of heroism.” But…I’ll stand by the original – Steve.]

:UNQUOTE.

The flaming:

So I got flamed:

·       From a US Marine Corps Viet Nam Veteran, you sir, are an idiot.

·       You suck a big one

·       Sgt. Petry has more guts, intestinal fortitude, courage, backbone and balls than every male member of your yellow bellied family combined!!!!!

·       And finally this from “Chris TiaN”:

QUOTE: I hope you are not or were a SM (it will be a waste of uniform). Anyways, go search AR for awards and carefully read the CRITERIA for the MOH. It is written in "black & white"...In addition, a Citation's Narrative has nothing to do with the "meet criteria"?? [Oh? I would disagree with that – Steve] Where are you reading your information from??? I [sic] petty you because you are so lost....so sad, but it is not illegal or a crime to be ignorant or misinformed buddy.:UNQUOTE.

My replies:

QUOTE:

Chris TiaN et al,

Read it and weep: http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_8_22.pdf :

AR 600-8-22 11 December 2006 (pages 39 & 40) clearly shows (in black and white) that Sgt. Petry’s heroism was not of the level to warrant the MOH. I quote:

“The Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguished himself or herself by extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of a Medal of Honor…”

[and]

“The Silver Star is awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Army, is cited for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations”

Come on, people. At a stretch, Petry was eligible for the DSC though most likely the Silver Star should have been awarded.

You can admire Petry all you want for having served 8 tours of duty. But we have to look at the facts of the case. Basically, he picked up a grenade and tried to throw it away. Having been shot in the legs, he wasn’t in any shape to try to run away, so he had to do something. So his instincts kicked in, but in such a way as should have been expected of any soldier in his situation. I don’t see any “extraordinary heroism” here.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

     “Do your homework and read about Audie Murphy’s MOH action [detailed at the end of this essay – Steve]. You’ll see what I’m driving at.”

:UNQUOTE.

QUOTE:

To my legion of detractors,

First of all, if you re-read my post carefully, you’ll see I did not address (one way or the other) Sgt. Petry’s courage. For the record, I will say here and now: “He was very brave.” As for “above and beyond” brave? No.

All I said earlier, was he did not deserve the MOH – and anyone in the military (if they really think about this) must agree with my assessment. And, yes, I was in the military – served in the USAF in Thailand during the US War of Lies and Aggression against the Vietnamese People.

As for RetiredVeteran, I am campaigning for the presidency (this is my second go-round). Why don’t you use a little initiative and google my name? You’ll easily find my website. If you can get past your kneejerk response of "seeing red," you might actually like what I have to say.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

     “You might not personally like me (and I don’t care) but I’m the only candidate that can save this country. My blog will show you what I have in mind.”

:UNQUOTE.

Closing remarks:

There are a lot of intolerant, ignorant fools in this country. It pains me to bear witness to this incredible decline of our culture. As much as I admire men of action, I admire many times more men of honesty and spirituality who can think clearly.

The gist of my comments on Yahoo News had to do with an honest evaluation of the degree of heroism exhibited by Sergeant Petry. If you don’t think “degrees” matter, consider this bit from Wikipedia, speaking of Audie Murphy:

QUOTE [of Murphy’s MOH citation]:

Second Lt. Murphy commanded Company B, which was attacked by six tanks and waves of infantry. 2d Lt. Murphy ordered his men to withdraw to a prepared position in a woods, while he remained forward at his command post and continued to give fire directions to the artillery by telephone.

Behind him, to his right, one of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. 2d Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire, which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, 2d Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy.

He was alone and exposed to German fire from three sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back. For an hour the Germans tried every available weapon to eliminate 2d Lt. Murphy, but he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad that was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank. Germans reached as close as 10 yards, only to be mowed down by his fire.

He received a leg wound, but ignored it and continued his single-handed fight until his ammunition was exhausted. He then made his way back to his company, refused medical attention, and organized the company in a counterattack, which forced the Germans to withdraw. His directing of artillery fire wiped out many of the enemy; he killed or wounded about 50. 2d Lt. Murphy's indomitable courage and his refusal to give an inch of ground saved his company from possible encirclement and destruction, and enabled it to hold the woods which had been the enemy's objective.

:UNQUOTE.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I do not suffer fools gladly – especially those who exaggerate the exploits of others. Time to rebuild US culture.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Internet Censorship and CIA Collaboration

The long title of this article is:

Internet Censorship and CIA Collaboration: Yahoo!, MySpace, Facebook, and Daily Kos?

CIA Collaboration

I was rather amused when I heard about Facebook’s violations of user privacy (all quite “unintended” – wink, wink). However, I’m sure the problem runs deeper than merely selling our personal info to advertisers. I have absolutely no doubt that Yahoo!, MySpace, Facebook, etc. funnel all of our posts to the CIA, complete with our real names. I don’t have any proof of this, but keeping in mind the history of our intel agencies, I have to ask: How could they pass up the opportunity to lean on these web sites to sell us out?

I wasn’t surprised to learn that Daily Kos founder (and “owner” – let’s call a spade a spade, here) Markos Moulitsas had all kinds of good things to say about the CIA. He had even applied to become an agent but claims he decided instead to “kinda join the Howard Dean campaign.” Thesis: It’s entirely possible that Moulitsas was able to set up and finance the Daily Kos website with the support of the CIA. Of course, that kind of support doesn’t come free. There’s a price to pay [words to this effect]: “We’ll make you a very wealthy man, but we want the names of your subscribers.”

I took due note when Daily Kos blocked me from continuing to post on their site. They were not alone in this: MySpace also blocked me (also without notification). An amazing thought occurred to me: Both sites wanted to eliminate any possible threat to the Obama candidacy. Barack preached “change.” I did more than preach; I posted a written contract saying what I’d do if elected. My threat was slim to non-existent but I’m sure the Obama campaign decided to leave nothing to chance. I mean, what if major media caught wind of what I was posting and decided to run an “underdog candidate” human interest story?

Translation? There was no way the Obama campaign or complicit media would allow for anything to detract from the Obama “phenomenon.” [Early in the primary season, I had even e-mailed candidate Obama (and Clinton and Edwards) suggesting they follow my lead by posting at least some of  their campaign promises in the form of a written contract, stipulating loss of office should they violate those promises.]

On to Yahoo!

I have posted comments to various news articles on Yahoo! But I’ve noticed they exercise a degree of censorship. I mean, if I tried to post, as many people do, “Obama sucks” or “f**k Obama” [fully spelling out the F-word], no problem. Yahoo permits this type of posting. But I’ve noticed they seem to have a sensitivity to postings critical of the Tea Party. Again, are we seeing media trying to protect a source of good copy or even engage in unethical promotion?

Here’s an example of what I tried to post today:

QUOTE:

Dear Archie,

It's the rank and file of [Tea Party] supporters who don't understand the TP. Just like it was the rank and file Obamaniacs who didn't really understand he'd just dig us deeper in Afghanistan. The rank and file is always the last to wake up and smell the coffee.

The fat cats who have been financing and promoting the TP don't care about:

·       American history (BTW, we have a lot of innocent blood on our historical hands)

·       our Constitution (which, BTW, is only selectively interpreted by backers of various agenda AND desperately needs to be replaced)

·       our forefathers (“the dead you’ve left behind, they will not follow you” – Bob Dylan)

·       our Christian roots (the flinty old bastards who underwrite the TP are really atheistic, self-worshippers to the max).

The TP is about private business, alright – the private business of Daddy Warbucks types who want to deregulate everything so they can make all the rules.

The TP isn’t about the republic – it’s about protecting the interests of GOP types (another kind of “Republican”).

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“A lot of people confuse socialism with fascism. Maybe the confusion started when Hitler called his movement 'National Socialism' instead of the more accurate 'National Fascism.'"

:UNQUOTE.

A Closing Comment concerning the Gaia website:

For over four years, I was able to post to a blog, which was part of the Gaia website. That blog was the main vehicle of my campaign for the US presidency. But even after the 2008 campaign was over, I kept posting – mostly to compare Obama’s performance to what I would have done if elected in his place. My first post was dated 9/28/06; my last, 3/22/10. In other words, my 4.5 years of posting was only a bit shorter than Gaia’s entire lifespan.

I couldn’t help wondering why Gaia went out of business. The owner didn’t sell the website – she simply closed it down after about a month’s notice. So of course all of my posted material, critical of Obama, is no longer available on the internet. Those postings would have been equal to a 500-page book, if published in hard cover. That was a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. Lost forever to the general web surfer.

I can’t help but wonder.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“After a while, you have to stop using the word coincidence.”