Dick Sans-Scrotum

What’s in a name?

I know, I know…his name is Richard John “Rick” Santorum. But ex-Senator Santorum has managed to raise my ire so much as to inspire a pun name. I hereby dub him “Dick Sans-Scrotum.” I explain:

·       Another name for “Rick” is “Dick” – that’s how Richard Daley (former mayor of Chicago) is often called Dick Daley.

·       “Dick” of course refers to the male sex organ or refers to a guy who is a jerk or an asshole.

·       The words “sans” means “without,” therefore “Sans-Scrotum” would mean “without scrotum.”

·       Put together, this name refers to a man who is “all dick but no balls.” Frequently, it is guys who never served in the military but manage to beat on war drums (like Santorum) who lack balls.

The essential Dick Sans-Scrotum

I don’t generally make a practice of punning a person’s name, especially in a sexual way. But this guy really deserves it, as I’ll make clear.

Here’s a short snapshot of the essential Sans-Scrotum:

·       He was basically a professional student before becoming a lawyer;

·       After 5 years of lawyering, he served in the US House of Representatives for four years;

·       Then Santy served for 12 years in the Senate before his constituents bounced him out of office;

·       Having a wife and six kids to feed, and a lifestyle to maintain, he decided to reinvent himself as a Conservative Champion in order to further his political career. Since he’s now 53 years old, it was either that or get back into lawyering as a washed-up political has-been.

·       Besides, even if he doesn’t get the GOP nod this time around, he can ride the coattails of his fame to enrich himself for the next four years, should he decide to run again (which he will).

The following quote from Bloomberg Business Week amplifies that last point:

QUOTE*:

Since his 2006 re-election defeat, the former Pennsylvania lawmaker has gone from being one of the poorer members of the U.S. Senate to earning $1.3 million between January 2010 and August 2011. In 2007, he spent $2 million to buy a 5,000-square foot home in Great Falls, Virginia, according to property records.

Santorum’s financial rise was powered by consulting contracts with fuel producer Consol Energy Inc., faith advocacy group Clapham Group and American Continental Group, a Washington consultancy, as well as media engagements.

“If he’s claiming he’s not an insider, this is the thing that insiders do -- after public office they cash in,” said Kent Cooper, a campaign finance expert and former Federal Elections Commission assistant staff director.

:UNQUOTE*.

From Dick Sans-Scrotum’s website

I will now quote from the ex-senator’s website, interspersing those quotes with my own comments.

QUOTE:

Coming from Pennsylvania, a state with a rich heritage of hunting and fishing, Senator Santorum understands firsthand the importance of preserving our constitutionally protected rights found in the 2nd Amendment. Senator Santorum fights to preserve this tradition, and will work to ensure these rights are not infringed upon.

COMMENT:

There’s a reason I highlighted rich heritage and preserve this tradition. Is Sans-Scrotum really saying the rich heritage (of hunting and fishing) is this tradition? If I were from the great state of Pennsylvania, I would be ashamed that “Senator Santorum [came to understand] …the importance of preserving…the 2^nd Amendment” because of our rich heritage of hunting and fishing. Huh? Say what?

Most of the 2^nd Amendment freaks I’ve encountered believe their guns will prevent the US from surrendering its sovereignty to a UN-based New World Order. Hunting and fishing have nothing to do with this! So if Sans-Scrotum really believes in the Second Amendment as the best way to ensure our freedom, why doesn’t he just come right out and say so? Why blather on about “huntin’ and fishin’?” Unless, Santy simply doesn’t have the balls to take such a bold stand.

QUOTE:

Santorum Administration’s Response to Iran:

• Would work with Israel to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat immediately; and developing a potential plan for military action if needed.

·       Any nuclear scientist proven to be working for Iran’s nuclear program would be treated as an enemy combatant.

·       Help create Strike Funds to help organizers on the ground publicly protest and overthrow the regime.

·       Economically target Iran by sanctioning Iran’s central bank coupled with opening all forms of energy production in the U.S effectively devastating Iran’s only economy

COMMENT:

I will restate each bullet point and follow with a comment:

• Would work with Israel to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat immediately; and developing a potential plan for military action if needed.

This makes no sense. Maybe he intended to say, “Would immediately seek to work with Israel to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat; and develop a potential plan for military action if needed.” In its original wording, one has to ask: “How could we even think to eliminate that threat immediately without having first developed a military action plan?”

Finally, does Sans-Scrotum really think we haven’t already developed at least several military action plans?

COMMENT (next bullet point):

·       Any nuclear scientist proven to be working for Iran’s nuclear program would be treated as an enemy combatant.

Maybe Santy meant to write “Iran’s nuclear weapons program” instead of what I had yellowed above. Details, details…and this guy’s a lawyer? Where’s his command of the language?

If Santy means (as he wrote) to treat such nuclear scientists (even if not working on a nuclear weapons program) as enemy combatants, isn’t he equating such people with soldiers who actually bear arms against us in a declared war? I hope Santy bothers to at least inform Congress in advance before he starts bombing Iran. Heaven forbid he would actually seek a declaration of war. If he were to seek such a declaration publicly and formally from Congress, that could be persuasive enough for Iran to allow international inspectors within its borders.

A man with a brain would seek alternatives to war. But a man who’s all dick and no balls might be too afraid of seeming insufficiently macho.

COMMENT (next bullet point):

·       Help create Strike Funds to help organizers on the ground publicly protest and overthrow the regime.

How would we like it if a foreign power tried that against us? The goal is supposed to be to persuade Iran to abandon any possible nuke weapons program it might be contemplating. How did regime change suddenly become the goal? The Iranian government could point to this bullet point and accuse all of its citizens on strike of being US puppets. That government could also conclude: “If Sans-Scrotum is willing to publicly state that he wants to “help [strike] organizers…overthrow the regime,” he wouldn’t be too shy about covert ops against our sovereignty.”

COMMENT (next bullet point):

·       Economically target Iran by sanctioning Iran’s central bank coupled with opening all forms of energy production in the U.S effectively devastating Iran’s only economy

This is just plain stupid, since Iran doesn’t depend on energy exports to the United States. Even if we were to become totally independent of all foreign energy sources, Iran wouldn’t suffer. Sans-Scrotum is trying to inject his support for removing all barriers to our domestic energy exploitation (the environment be damned) as a flimsy part of a strategy to undermine the Iranian economy.


And then there's this to consider:

Besides, what if Iran would suddenly reverse course by saying:

“We hereby invoke our right to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as stated in that treaty, and start building nuclear weapons. We cite the belligerent rhetoric of politicians like Sans-Scrotum.”

As noted in Wikipedia**: “Article X [of the NPT] allows a state to leave the treaty if ‘extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country’, giving three months' (ninety days') notice. The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT in this notice.”

In reference to my highlight above, “The [Iranian] state could legitimately leave the NPT by giving as reasons the threat to its security as undeniably confirmed in the public statements and writings of self-serving pols like Sans-Scrotum.”

Someone should ask Santy what he would do if Iran were to invoke its rights under the NPT and declare its intention to build nuclear weapons. In that case, Iran wouldn’t be in violation of international law. The question is, would Santy go along with that or would he decide to attack anyway – thereby putting the US in violation of international law?

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Considering that the US has 300M citizens, how is it the GOP can’t do better than the likes of Rick Santorum, shameless self-promoter, as a candidate for US President?” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

  * http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-06/santorum-becomes-millionaire-in-six-years-after-u-s-senate-loss.html

   ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Leaving_the_treaty

Obama’s Recess Appointments – January, 2012

Title of article recently posted on The Blaze:

“Obama Uses Executive Authority to Make Recess Appointment – While Senate is Still in Session”*

This is what nobody’s pointing out – an inconvenient truth if ever there was one: Even if, as Obama claims, the Senate was not in session, he would still have been wrong to make these 4 recess appointments: 3 for the NLRB and 1 (Richard Cordray) to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Obama claims to be making recess appointments but nobody is pointing out that these can only be made in the case of “vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.” According to the Constitution:

Article II, Section 2: “The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”

None of these vacancies “happened” (that is, “occurred”) during “the recess of the Senate;” they “happened” when the Senate was, by universal agreement, in session. All four appointments had been pending in the Senate (Cordray’s, since July 2011), only to be held up by the GOP. If any of these positions had become vacant during a senatorial recess, only then would Obama have been within his rights to make a recess appointment.

The only way Cordray’s confirmation had failed was due to (you guessed it) a filibuster. Why do we allow the Senate to cling to this highly unconstitutional device? Rule by supermajority is the surest way to get nothing done.

My view of recess appointments, in general

Back in 2008, I had run for the office of US President under the terms of a 47-point contract. I was the first presidential candidate in this country’s history to offer such a revolutionary document. This is point #34 from that contract:

“I will not make any recess appointments. Also, I will ask for lists of recommendations to ambassadorships from the ten leading universities in the U.S. with programs in international studies. I will submit names to the Senate from those lists.”

[NOTE: Think about it. If I had been elected instead of Barack Obama, we would have all been spared the ignominy of an Imperial President trying to thwart the will of the elected representatives of the people.]

Detractors will object to my point #34 by claiming: “What if Congress isn’t in session and it would be imperative that a position be filled immediately?” For one thing, I can’t imagine such an imperative arising. But if a particular position should be filled quickly, I would simply use my power under Section 3 of Article II: “…[the President] may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses…” Then I would invoke the usual process for filling such a vacancy.

Even though recess appointments are allowable under the Constitution, I find them repugnant to the notion that Congress should be regarded as the supreme of our three branches of government. For that reason, under a Searle presidency, there wouldn’t be any recess appointments.

I base my Congress first philosophy on at least three grounds:

·       Congress outranks the President simply because it can impeach him for any reason whatsoever (or none, should it so choose) and the courts would be powerless to interfere.

·       Though there is a provision to enable the removal of any sitting president (again, by means of impeachment), there is no counterpart in terms of the president being able to dissolve the Congress. Some countries grant that power to their chief executives; we don’t.

·       The President should be regarded as beholden to the Congress since he must report to that body according to Section 7 of Article I of the Constitution: “Every bill…shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated…” In other words, the President can’t just say “no” to a bill, he’s got to say why he objects.

More on the idea of Electoral Contracting

This is from the Preamble to my 2008 contract, posted on-line September 19, 2008:

QUOTE:

 The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle

Candidate for US President in 2008

Preamble:       I, Steven Searle, am the only candidate running for the office of US president in 2008 who is offering a binding contract in exchange for your vote. The following 47 points comprise this contract, which is now presented to you in its final form….

I will not be shy about claiming this to be an historic document, on a par with the Magna Carta and the U.S. Declaration of Independence. I hope my creation will serve as a model for future candidates (for national and local offices) who wish to follow my lead by offering themselves as alternatives to the Democratic and Republican parties which are ruining this country.

:UNQUOTE.

Suppose a candidate for the US Senate would want to offer such a contract. He might want to include a provision like this:

“If elected, I will vote to end any and all attempts to filibuster any business before the Senate.”

The Senate as an institution will never willingly get rid of this anti-democratic device. However, individual senators might hasten its demise by “contracting it out,” as it were. As soon as individual senatorial office-seekers oppose the filibuster in their contracts, perhaps that might generate the public outcry needed to finally terminate this practice.

There is another provision I’d like to see in (again) a Senate candidate’s contract:

“If elected, I understand that my constituents are sending me to Washington DC to be a senator who is to be the equal of any other, regardless of seniority. Toward that end, my constituents are instructing me to be a member of the Senate but not a member of any of its committees.”

I’m very keen on reigning in the power of the Imperial Presidency by redesigning Congress, as indicated in my essay, “The Long Arm of the Law,” posted on April 12, 2011. After clicking the following link, scroll to the part that’s yellowed –

How a Congress without committees would work:      

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5696907376473242750&postID=3382380853699079953

Enforcement Mechanism: Such a contract would be easy to enforce against a sitting President – he could simply be impeached for non-compliance. Even though Congressmen can’t be impeached, they can give their contracts teeth by (in effect) posting a compliance bond. For instance, Senator So-and-So’s contract could identify in advance a panel of 12 volunteers to monitor his compliance. If, for instance, 8 out of 12 would determine him to be in violation of his contract (for instance, by voting against cloture, thereby enabling a filibuster to continue), So-and-So would be given the option of either resigning his office or forfeiting a bond held in trust by that panel, which would consist of (for instance) 12 faculty members of a leading law school.

What I wrote in the preceding paragraph are only my suggestions. I’m sure if an office-seeker really wanted to commit to an Electoral Contract, he would come up with his own contractual provisions and enforcement mechanisms. I have no doubt that such Electoral Contracts will find their way into our campaigns. Perhaps they’ll be offered by candidates who are desperate enough to try anything. In that spirit, I had sent several of the current GOP presidential candidates a suggestion that they, too, submit their own contracts to the voters. Michelle Bachmann was one whose campaign I’d contacted. Either she didn’t believe she was desperate enough or the whole concept of contracting didn’t fit into her strategy.

One of these days, though, my approach will sound viable enough to attract a mainstream candidate’s attention. One desperate enough. Newt Gingrich comes to mind, for I had contacted his campaign as well several months ago. We’ll see.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I wonder if Ron Paul would have made such ‘recess’ appointments if he happened to be president right now.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

  * http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-uses-executive-authority-to-make-recess-appointment%e2%80%94while-congress-is-still-in-session/

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

Yahoo News Weekly Updates

Once per week, I consolidate comments I’d posted* to recent articles appearing on Yahoo News. I share my views, written as if I actually were the US President. [I’m working on that.] The following were posted between Dec. 26 and today, though appear below in no particular order. As is my usual custom, if I open with a quoted item, that’s from the article itself.

I hope you enjoy all 10 of these mini-essays/comments: But first, a comment:

RE: I’d posted* - Starting with the following ten, I’ll have to change “I’d posted” to “I’d attempted to post.” Yahoo has blocked me from posting any more comments to its news articles. Yahoo did this without any type of formal notification. I only found out the hard way – by trying to post without success. I couldn’t even thumbs-up (or -down) any posts from other contributors. If a behemoth like Yahoo deems it necessary to block a minor player like me, it would seem the tolerance for dissent in this country has reached a new low.

My God, what are they so afraid of?

ONE:

This is a test. Trying to see if Yahoo will censor my comment posted to a sports article. So far, they've banned 4 of my post-attempts today. Hmm...maybe if I pretend to spike to stop the clock....

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"OK, I'm guilty as assumed - I post on Yahoo to help my presidential campaign. At least I'm not asking anyone for any money."

[Observation:  This article was posted and then quickly deleted. Maybe I offended Yahoo by admitting I post to help my presidential campaign. Makes me wonder if any of the other candidates or their supporters squawked.

The only notice I got from Yahoo was when I tried to update my profile a few days ago. Their message said I would be blocked from updating since I was guilty of using profanity. What!?? I see the F-word all the time on Yahoo’s posts, though the closest I ever came was an occasional “hell” or “damn.” Beware of when the skin of Corporate America starts getting this thin!]

TWO:

“The former House speaker said Sunday that the most accurate part of the [Iowa] survey was that 41 percent said they could change their opinion.” With Iowans scheduled to vote within a few days, to say that 41% could change their opinion is astounding. That says, “No matter who wins, much of his support would have to be considered wishy-washy.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Whatever happened to believing in a candidate? Oh, that’s right. The Change-You-Can-Believe-In candidate really polluted those waters, didn’t he?”

THREE:

"I would be saying to the Iranians, you either open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will degrade those facilities through air strikes," [Rick Santorum] told NBC.

Maybe this is what Santorum meant to say: “I would be saying to the Iranians: ‘If you don’t open those facilities up to international inspection or, if you do open them and the inspectors determine your nuclear program has illegal aspects you don’t take immediate steps to remediate, we will bomb those facilities.’”

Of course, his particular choice of wording (as follows) makes no sense: “…begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors…” Why on earth should the Iranians be expected to dismantle them as they make them available to inspectors?” Former-with-good-reason Senator Santorum seems to be a rather sloppy speaker. Not a good thing, considering the importance of what he is saying.

Of course, it would have been more humane to add: “Before we bomb those facilities, we will give you 24-hours to move all personnel to a safe location.” But, somehow, I don’t associate the name “Santorum” with the word “humane.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Way to go Santy, beatin’ on them thar war drums to scare up some votes!”

FOUR:

“… the editorial said ‘the whole Party, the entire army and all the people should possess a firm conviction that they will become human bulwarks and human shields in defending Kim Jong-un unto death.’” [Who writes this crap?]

I don’t get it. North Korea is supposed to be this communist pure land, which even old-hand Chinese reds idealize. In such a pure land, all comrades are supposed to be equal. I suppose it’s okay to have a “first among equals,” but even that sounds a little too much like “some animals are more equal than others” – as written in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. But to come right out and say that the entire nation’s population should perish to protect one man is about as far from ideal communism as you could get.

Therefore, the North Koreans aren’t really embracing a communist ideal as much as they’re embracing a greedy, narcissistic little man. I’m especially astounded that their military didn’t rise up in indignation when Un was promoted to the rank of 4-star general by his dear old dad. I heard a rumor that when this was announced in NK’s military barracks, all the grunts made a hasty exit to the latrine so they could puke their guts out. [There is still such a thing as military pride.] But state media was able to spin that story to read: “These soldiers wanted to purge in order to purify themselves in order to be fit cannon fodder for our Living God.”

The only way this human shield strategy could work is if Kim were to never leave North Korea. So I propose that no nation allow him entry within its borders or even to fly over its airspace. We want him to stay in NK so his ever-loyal comrades could be close enough to protect him, since obviously that’s their burning desire.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I strongly urge South Korea to break all ties, even informal ones, with their misguided kinsmen to the north.”

FIVE:

[In response to Romney saying he’d veto the Dream Act, something he said in an article which included this: “Under the Dream Act, which was brought up in the Senate in May, young undocumented immigrants who have lived most of their lives in the United States and graduate from U.S. high schools would be eligible for a conditional six-year ‘path to citizenship’ if they earn a college degree or serve two years in the military.” – Yahoo article: “Romney would veto immigration “dream” act.”]

"For those that come here illegally, the idea of giving them in-state tuition credits or other special benefits, I find to be contrary to the idea of a nation of laws," Romney said.

This whole concept of “law” is a bit slippery. For instance, there are de facto and de jure considerations. The “fact” of the matter is, many illegals have been here for decades. They are breaking the letter of the law (“de jure”). But if the spirit of the law (“de facto”) says we won’t vigorously enforce the law and deport them, then they can’t really be said to be violating the law, can they? If we have laws we’re unwilling to enforce, then we don’t really have those laws.

It’s easy for Romney to say we shouldn’t give the children of illegal aliens certain benefits. But I don’t see how that translates into why he’d veto the Dream Act. Unless…he’s just speaking to a bunch of yahoos who want to hear such things.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“It’s so easy to rouse the rabble, isn’t it Willard?”

SIX:

“North Korea vowed Sunday to make an all-out drive for prosperity as it unites behind new leader…”

North Korea should be totally shunned by the world community. That is, no special trade concessions, any type of response to its rhetoric, or even any food aid. NK has a practical problem trying to grow its own economy while having neighbors with vigorous interlinked economies. They don’t need NK, and NK couldn’t really compete. NK would always be the poor relation with its hand outstretched.

North Korea’s only hope would be to form some kind of economic partnership with China, including jointly-operated enterprises. And everybody knows this. The US and its allies in the region make the biggest mistake by responding to NK’s belligerent rhetoric and saber-rattlings. I say, let them make all the noise they want. If we totally ignore them (again, not even any food aid), they’ll be forced to seek linkage with China. Which is, again, their only real possibility for salvation. [BTW, China just loves it when NK’s neighbors get all bent out of shape when Fearless Leader starts spouting off.]

If NK proceeds with its nuke program, we should openly encourage Japan to seek nuclear weapons – and give them assistance in this endeavor. Of course, China wouldn’t like that. But so what? Maybe China would whisper in our ear: “If you stop encouraging Japan to nuclearize, we’ll make economic overtures to NK in exchange for their promise not to expand their nuke program.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I’d like to see the day when China summons Kim Jong Un for a private meeting, telling him, ‘If you launch a nuke against another country, the first retaliatory missile strike won’t be from the US – it’ll be from us. Have a nice day!’”

SEVEN:

Don’t let anyone fool you by saying the US lacks good intel about the goings-on in North Korea. They know well enough. Actually, the Pentagon War Games wonks are hoping beyond hope that NK tries something stupid. Then Glorious Splendiferous Leader will find out just how thoroughly planned that reaction was. In fact, we have an understanding with China about this. The first retaliatory missile against NK will come from…China.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Yeah, like we don’t know what’s going on over there…rigghhtt!”

EIGHT:

[These comments were inspired by a story about a Marine who tried to sell a gold necklace to two men, in response to a Craig’s List ad, who tried to rip him off. They fled with the necklace; he chased; one of them shot him several times.]

"I can't believe this. I go to Iraq, I go to Afghanistan and here I am at home, shot," Trenker said. "It's inconceivable. I don't know how that they can put so little value on life."

“…put so little value on life?” I hope Trenker reflects on those words, given the large numbers of civilian casualties we inflicted in Iraq. When we fired those missiles at Baghdad from our ships, we didn’t care about collateral damage (dead civilians). We wuz too busy a whoopin’ and a hollerin’ from the safety of our TV sets.

That and spray-and-pray might have been tolerable if our troops were truly there to “protect our freedom.” But let’s get this straight, once and for all: That’s not why they were there; it was all about regime change and taking Iraqi oil off  the market so prices could skyrocket (which they did…thank you, very much…Mission Accomplished). But our freedom was not even remotely at stake.

Lt. Colonel Trenker doesn’t know it yet, but there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between his relative “safety” in Iraq vs. his apparently random victimhood in the States. Karma knows no boundaries and is All Powerful – even stronger than our military! As for his wounds, I am thankful Trenker survived. But I hope he comes to see those wounds for the teachers they really are. Lt. Colonel Trenker knows full well: “He who lives by the sword, shall perish by the sword.” What he doesn’t know – yet – is that a sword can sometimes be a teacher more profound than any gifted orator.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“As for our adventure in Iraq, Barack Obama knows there’s still time for things to go terribly south there – in time to spoil his reelection chances.”

NINE:

I am tempted to say, “Rick Perry is hoping for activist judges to allow him on the ballot.” But I won’t…instead, I’ll just note: it’s unfair to disallow write-ins. But you know the old saying, “There’s a world of difference between what’s fair and what’s legal.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I have to congratulate Ron Paul for getting on the Virginia ballot; this might portend well for (what could be) the eventual success of his campaign.”

TEN:

There is one weapon which Iran could use successfully against its detractors. All they would have to do is declare their intention of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, saying they intend to develop a nuclear arsenal.

By remaining bound by the NPT, Iran risks being declared in violation of international law. However, it’s perfectly legal for any NPT nation to withdraw from that treaty and then proceed to openly build nukes. If Iran were to do this, they would acquire the moral high ground. They would be acting within the parameters of international law. Those nations which would consider bombing Iran could then only do so by acting illegally.

I don’t have any doubt as to what the Israelis would do. But it would be interesting to see how the US government could attack Iran and claim to be following international law. And we always like to at least pretend we’re in the right. Of course, the Iranians know all this already and are contemplating pulling out of the NPT. Before they do so, though, they want to tweak their enemies in order to fire up their own base. And of course we fall for this by issuing statements from the Fleet and State Dept.

However, timing is everything, so I urge the Iranians not to delay quitting the NPT for too much longer.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If I am elected US President and Israel were to attack Iran, then I declare here and now that Israel would be entirely on its own.”

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I have to laugh at all those poor people who think Yahoo represents some kind of Free Speech forum” – Steve.


Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com