Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Yahoo News Periodic Updates, May 8, 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 33 of these mini-essays.


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


ONE:

I remember being surprised, back in 2007, that not one word from an ex-girl friend managed to grace the tabloids. I was also surprised that not one single first-person account had emerged from Obama’s days as a community organizer. Also, nothing from childhood/young-adult days. Then I became convinced that the media were falling in line to avoid embarrassing the anointed one. That conclusion became obvious due to the kid-gloves treatment (“No hard questions allowed”) he was receiving. I’d still like to know – who anointed him?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Who, indeed?”



TWO:

[In response to an article about the US government spying on its own citizens…]

There’s a reason why I “sign” my posts with my real name – and not just some Yahoo handle. I don’t care if the govt knows what I say, for I know this much: They won’t know what to do with it. A friend once warned me not to be too sure, that perhaps I might get “disappeared” some day. I told him, “That would be their mistake.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The sentiment behind ‘though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death’ has absolutely nothing on Karmic Retribution.”



THREE:

“The Europeanization of Obama is a Republican attempt…” Oh well, at least the Pubbers stopped their campaign of Kenyanization. If you want an idea of what makes Romney tick, picture this: An SNL skit showing Crispen Glover as Romney (interesting resemblance that could be pulled off), with his own hair packed tightly under a Romney-style wig. The skit shows an interviewer asking, “Mr. Romney, how do you respond to people who think you’re a bit of a stiff?” Crispen looks perplexed, not understanding the question. “Ah, what do you do to let your hair down?” Then Crispen, a broad smile crossing his face, removes his Romney hairpiece and lets his own long, flowing locks come tumbling down.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“This caricaturizes Romney as someone who would answer such a question literally.”



FOUR:

Behind closed doors, these South American countries’ leaders are laughing at us. “YOU want OUR help? Maybe we ought to ask for China’s help against the US.” As for South America taking over for us in Afghanistan, why should they? We stuck our nose for far too long where it never belonged. And now we want others to become mercenaries for us? How far down we have come that such sentiments are even thought, let alone uttered.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“A bit of advice from me to my brothers south of the border: Don’t get sucked into Panetta’s nonsense.”



FIVE:

All of this sleight-of-hand is just part of a plan to foist Rahm Emanuel on us as a 2016 presidential candidate. Rahm is a sick, evil man – with influential backing. Stay tuned.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“After 4 more years of Obama and 8 years of Rahm, Israel won’t have to worry about the Palestinians any longer.”



SIX:

There is only one sure-fire way to believe [North Korea’s] threats. If the Supreme Greater-than-God Leader himself, Kim Ding Dang Dong, were to publicly declare: “I swear upon my father’s, and grandfather’s names that my kingdom shall destroy South Korea,” then would be the time to worry. Given how much elite North Koreans enforce worship of elite ancestors, that would indeed be a noteworthy declaration. Anything else, especially “unauthored” public service announcements, are not to be taken seriously by any stretch.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Or maybe Kim wants a war which would vastly reduce his population and solve his too-many-mouths-to-feed problem.”



SEVEN:

[In response to an article entitled: “Israel legalizes West Bank settler outposts”…]

It’s pretty obvious to me what’s going on here. Netanyahu is listening to an extraterrestrial voice telling him to do this. And this voice is from the same entity that brought down the walls of Jericho in ancient times. And, no, that voice was not (and is not now) the voice of God. Quite the opposite, actually.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“So much sin to commit, so little time.”



EIGHT:

[In response to an article entitled: “Obama says Afghanistan deal in one where ‘war ends and a new chapter begins’”…]


So, Obama “signed a long-term partnership agreement” with Afghanistan, did he? Hmm…that sounds like a treaty to me. Is POTUS going to bother to obtain Senate approval for this treaty, as called for in the US Constitution? Will he seek senatorial input (read: “advice”) on its contents (which he has not yet done), or is this a done deal? Article II, Section 2 reads:  “[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…” Or maybe Obama will tap into the always-ready pool of White House lapdog lawyers (the kind who write opinions saying “waterboarding isn’t torture”) to rule that the Senate doesn’t have to be consulted in this case.

“A new chapter begins” = “peace with honor” = more lies.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“We have absolutely nothing to be proud of concerning our imperialistic venture in Afghanistan. What we surrendered in terms of our freedoms and dignity wasn’t worth what we ‘gained.’”



NINE:

[In response to Rick Santorum’s tepid endorsement of Romney…]

This is exactly the kind of rigid dogmatism that assured Money[R]’s nomination in the first place. There was a critical point when either Santorum or Gingrich could have withdrawn, thrown support to the only conservative left standing, and given Mitt a much harder run for his money. But, no. Santy and Knute each had his own vision of grandeur that prevented him from dropping out. But maybe CONservatives-in-name-only aren’t very good at sacrificing for the cause.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The only Conservative I truly admired died a long time ago – and, no, that wasn’t Ronald Reagan (sock puppet), it was Barry Goldwater.”



TEN:

“…it is time to focus on nation-building here at home…” Obama’s going to find we’re about as good at nation-building here as we’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’ll find that good intentions aren’t enough – we need systemic change, up to and including a new US constitution, for that to happen. The least we’ll need is the wholesale replacement of Dems/Pubs in Congress (and in the presidency) with unaffiliated independents. Nothing less will do. But I suppose we’ll learn that the hard way – much as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“This wouldn’t hurt so much if I knew we had good men at the top – but we don’t. We have only weasels and self-promoters at the helm. God help us, or at least give us a decent burial.”



ELEVEN:

T.E. Lawrence did indeed say [“…the Arabs…[will be] a little people, a silly people - - greedy, barbarous and cruel.”] However, this is just another example of the pot calling the kettle “black.” The Brits themselves could very well wear that description given their long-duration reign of terror.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“And they still have a queen…fancy that!”



TWELVE:

I would have a lot more confidence in Egypt’s ruling military junta if the leading generals had committed one particular self-sacrificing act when Mubarak was ousted – namely, resign en masse. This would have been one way-cool joint communiqué: “To prevent even the appearance of conflict of interest or attachment to the status quo, we hereby immediately tender our resignations. Long live the revolution. Power to the Egyptian people.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“And if a similar scenario unfolds here in the US, I hope our Joint Chiefs of Staff turn out to be as self-sacrificing.”



THIRTEEN:

[My reply to Tamash…]

I’m not so sure about generals being “one big family.” Like any other hierarchy, there’s bound to be some element of jealousy – especially against those who have been entrenched at the top for decades. Replacing that old blood would have been a nice token gesture to the people that the military would not seek to become dominant. But it would be only a token.

I question your assertion that Egypt’s constitution bars non-military from becoming president. My research indicates that is not a factor.

As for the Muslim Brotherhood, the US is not in a position to oppose them – unless that position is indirect by means of our funding of Egypt’s military. As for preferring the military or the Islamists – I don’t trust military since they seem too worldly and tainted by corruption. I say, give the Islamists a chance.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“A thousand years will not serve to remove the guilt of the US in its assisted suppression of the Brotherhood, and other acts of state-sponsored terror.”



FOURTEEN:

[Another reply to Tamash…]

I do prefer the Islamists to the secularists [in Egypt], for I think the Islamists have earned the right to govern. You (and others) might fear the rise of an intolerant theocracy. That could very well happen, but I happen to have a great deal of faith in the faith and goodness of the Egyptian people. Theirs is an ancient culture with a strong sense of identity – and also of right and wrong. So I believe the people will prevail. And yet, it could still happen that evil men wrapped in clerical robes could come to power. For that matter, even though the US is somewhat of a democracy, that could happen here. As for democracy in general, I don’t think it’s the best form of government. I believe in enlightened monarchy, as do my fellow Buddhists and the Jews of Biblical times, and (surprise?) even Muslims (in the form of a Caliphate).

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I do not fear Muslims, I embrace them and welcome their contributions.”



FIFTEEN:

Back in the day, we wanted someone who could at least act presidential. Voila! We got an actor – a grade B one at that – in Ronald Reagan. Maybe our new zeitgeist calls for someone who can “[embark] on [a] new political balancing act.” Some people would call that “flip-flopping.” Who knows? Maybe that’s exactly what we need.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Karmically speaking, we always get what we deserve – whether we understand or not the whys and wherefores.”



SIXTEEN:

If Chris Christie actually ends up getting elected as VP, he’s going to find out how profoundly he isn’t loved. But…that’s exactly why he’ll never get elected…the lovelessness is already there.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Quickly, everybody – how many want your state to be like NJ?”



SEVENTEEN:

[In response to an article about a US Army nurse who was killed was skyping with his wife…]

You may very well “… [entrust] the military with…finding out what happened…” However, don’t count on them sharing that information with you. You know…national security imperatives and all that rot.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Being immersed in a dishonorable situation does little to bring out the honorable in men.”



EIGHTEEN:

[In response to Leon Panetta’s concerns about certain recent incidents making the US military look bad…]

“… public relations setbacks showed ‘… a lack of leadership,’ [Panetta] said.” Hey, DICK, these weren’t “public relations setbacks,” they were inexcusable acts by professionals. BTW, that “lack of leadership” part must apply to you, most of all. You are in charge, right?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Panetta would rather play the blame game than take responsibility for cleaning up his act.”



NINETEEN:

Mark,

I’ve blogged on this extensively, after concluding that by mindlessly adhering to our current Law of the Land we will hasten our national demise. Change is overdue, and I’m far from alone in my conclusions. You too might change your mind if you google: Cross-Sectional Representation Steven Searle. After reviewing my alternative model, you’ll readily see how woefully inadequate our current document is.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Of course, I have also blogged on how we’ve managed to ignore our Constitution while pretending to honor it.”



TWENTY:

[In response to an American who dropped out of society, gladly has no money, and lives in a cave…]

Suelo is the most dangerous man in this country. If his minimalist lifestyle catches on with even 10% of our citizens, our lifestyle as we know it would cease to exist for the other 90%. And, of course, out the window would go our dreams of empire. We are addicted to an ever-expanding economic growth model. Mere sustainability isn’t enough. No doubt about it, the CIA must definitely be interested in this man.
I would be honored if Suelo were to endorse my candidacy for the US presidency.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Suelo realizes that the only possible outcome of our addiction to cancerous growth is – cancer.”



TWENTY-ONE:

[In response to an article entitled: “Why couldn’t Marissa Alexander stand her ground in Florida?” This concerns a woman found guilty of firing a shot into her ceiling while trying to frighten her abusive husband away. Even though the husband admits she wasn’t aiming at him, this verdict carries a mandatory minimum 20-year sentence.]

The jury should have taken the law in its own hands. They should have intentionally ruled “not guilty,” thereby taking the 20-year sentence option away from the judge. I know that’s not what juries are supposed to do. But when the law doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do, what other way is there? I speak in the interests of justice, since apparently the law doesn’t. Note to members of future juries: If you think of doing what I’m suggesting, do NOT share that with the other members of the jury. They might denounce you before the judge, who will be more than happy to slap you with a contempt of court citation – or worse. In the name of justice, of course.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“As a member of a jury, you have your greatest opportunity to make your vote count. Lord knows, it doesn’t count for much else anymore.”



TWENTY-TWO:

I thought possession was nine-tenths of the law. Sharon Jones possessed the [winning lottery] ticket, therefore she possessed the right to claim the money. This judge (Hughes) sounds like an activist judge to me – or maybe he’s the product of a bad law school – or inbreeding. A more proper judicial decision would look something like this: Jones gets to keep the $1M and Duncan gets to sue the manufacturer of the faulty ticket scanner [that said, “This ticket is not a winner”] that caused her to toss the ticket [in the trash].

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“This isn’t rocket science, Your ‘Honor.’”



TWENTY-THREE:

“But with Kony still around, there are wide ranging fears that the LRA will be able to rebuild.” Let’s get one thing straight: There are no such fears, and saying so is only for the consumption of a gullible public. Kony’s brand of Christian doomsday can’t possibly catch on, even at the grassroots level. And that grassroots hates him for his atrocities.
There are at most 300 of Kony’s fighters operating in an area the size of California. There are more hard-core gangbangers in Los Angeles than that. And yet, you don’t see three international armies bearing down in LA – not even our own US army is involved there.

The only reason we’re there is to ingratiate ourselves with local African military to make sure they see things our way. And to buy our military hardware – you know the old song: “It’s about jobs, jobs, jobs.” [Much as we tried doing in South America – which caught on to our game a long time ago.] We’re so paranoid, we no longer worry about Communists hiding under our beds, but instead we worry about a handful of renegades without any backing whatsoever hiding in the bush thousands of miles from our shores. Are we freaking insane?

I understand the campaign against Kony enjoys bipartisan support. Of course it does and that should scare all of us to death. Both the Dems & Pubbers want to undermine African sovereignty for their own greedy purposes.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“We have to stop playing the role of the Mighty White Man who insists on poking his nose around for noble purposes because we believe the Black Man can’t manage his own affairs.”



TWENTY-FOUR:

“We were trained to kill – forced to kill [as part of Kony’s LRA guerilla army] – otherwise we’d be killed ourselves” – as claimed by a guy who was “forced” to fight for the guerillas for two years. Two years? Most assuredly, he could have turned his weapon on his captors within a two year span.  But, no, he decides to keep on taking innocents lives. Of one thing you can be sure: This man was NOT forced.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I smell a rat in this anti-Kony propaganda scam  – lots of them, actually, including the one in the White House who is trying to capitalize on this boogeyman.”



TWENTY-FIVE:

[In response to an article entitled:  “Wrongly convicted Colorado man set free after 16 years”…]

“They threw me into a dark hole with just a pinhole of light” …Oh, that’s right…we don’t do torture in the United States.

The real problem was the jury. If, as the article claims, “The original DNA analysis had already excluded him…”, then what could the jury have hung him with? It’s simple. The jury system is often a perfect example of We-the-Sheeple at our worst. The default assumption of jurors, even before they’re cowed by the prosecutor and judge – often working like a tag-team of wrestlers – is: “He wouldn’t be on trial if he wasn’t guilty because the cops are always right.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Before the CONservatives get their panties all in a knot because of what I said, think about how you’d feel if this happened to you.”



TWENTY-SIX:

“I hereby endorse for president, Mitt Romney – even though he’s still the worst Republican in the country to run against Obama” – Rick Sans-Scrotum.

“…making sure the folks in the 11 states that voted for [Rick]…have a voice in the Romney campaign.” Why should they have any voice in the Romney campaign, since they had lent their bleating voices to Rick’s campaign? They voted and their man lost – therefore, they get nothing. They will either man up and vote for Romney or they will end up enabling Obama’s reelection. It doesn’t get any simpler than that. Who does Santy think he is to even pretend he can negotiate with Mitt? I would exclaim, “The balls of the man” – but that’s not what the word “Sans-Scrotum” implies at all.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Rick, go away, just go away…write a book if you want or hit the lecture circuit but, please, your clown show is over, so go away.”



TWENTY-SEVEN:

[In response to comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s remark, after seeing a ballroom filled with politicians, journalists and Hollywood celebrities: “Everything that is wrong with America is here tonight.”]

I would have to disagree with Kimmel, who oversimplified with that remark. By the way, oversimplification has a lot more to do with what’s wrong with America than those Kimmel cited. More accurate is this: “Everything that is wrong with America lies in the attitudes and blind support of We-the-People that allow these politicians, journalists and celebrities so much power in our lives.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“My version isn’t very sexy, but it rings a lot truer than Kimmel’s.”



TWENTY-EIGHT:

[In response to CT who wrote: “How did ‘Hope and change’ turn into neverending ‘Blame and Shame’…sorry but it’s disgusting and I won’t be fooled again.]

CT, I will answer your question, ask one of my own, and give you an option to consider:

ANSWER: Personally, I don’t think Obama was sincere with “Hope and Change.” But it was obvious pretty early on that the GOP targeted, rather gleefully and openly at times, Mr. Obama as a “one term president.” Against that backdrop, the GOP doesn’t deserve the presidency.

QUESTION: As to your claim – “I won’t be fooled again” – what are you going to do about it?

OPTION: Since both parties dominate our lives and have immunized themselves against change from within, there is only one way We-the-People can force change: Make a determination to always, without exception, vote against the incumbent. Even if there’s an officeholder you love, vote against him because he’s the incumbent. If his opponent wins, that means he’ll be the new incumbent – so…vote against him as well.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The only reason our representatives are unresponsive to us is, they have job security – safe in the knowledge that incumbents have such huge, built-in advantages. Take that away and you’ll start seeing real change you can believe in.”



TWENTY-NINE:

There are a lot of fools on Yahoo bleating, “Once you join the military, you no longer have First Amendment rights.” Let’s start with the pertinent section of that amendment: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”

We don’t have a right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater – unless, of course, there’s really a fire. And the reason for that lies with the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In essence? This is a case of rights in conflict – the right of free speech and the right (though not enumerated) that people have to be protected against malicious mischief (from the guy who yells “fire”).

How does that apply to the military? Again the Ninth, under the doctrine of “reasonable expectation.” We the People have a reasonable expectation that our military will be well trained and that proper disciple will be imposed. However, the soldier has a “reasonable expectation” (since soldiers are also citizens) that his discipline will not be learned by being forced into acts in violation of common decency. For instance, he can say, “I refuse to kill a slave purchased abroad by my government solely for the purpose of getting the feel of what it’s like to kill somebody.”

As for the soldier’s right to free speech? He has a “reasonable expectation” that not all of that right is forfeited. Suppose his wife were to say, “In the privacy of our bedroom, my husband said bad things about our president.” Should he be punished? Suppose he should say to some of his peers, “This war is unconstitutional and I can prove this by logical argument.” I maintain that, in the name of the oath he swore (to defend the Constitution), he has a right to speak and thereby persuade his fellow troops to honor their oaths and not support that war.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“A soldier doesn’t forfeit all rights of free speech – for without a certain minimum, how could he keep his oath?”



THIRTY:

Military can be used to suppress freedom of speech – if the brass or CINC would so order.

Military can be used to suppress democracy and enforce marital law – if CINC decides that’s necessary.

Tell me, who protects us from our protectors?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Military are expected to open fire on US citizens if so ordered. Does anybody doubt this?”



THIRTY-ONE:

[In response to an article about a leader of a small sect in India that mandates female genital mutilation as an article of faith…]

“…takes an oath of allegiance to the leader…” I thought only Allah was worthy of an oath.

“…even if the practice is a crime against humanity.” The UN should declare female genital mutilation to be a crime against humanity, and put out arrest warrants against these so-called religious leaders.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Why don’t they call it what it is: female castration?”



THIRTY-TWO:

[This was my attempted response to Grandma who wrote: “Castration is removal of the gonads. Female gonads are internal…the ovaries.” Grandma was responding to my post immediately above. I say “this was my attempted response” because Yahoo News censored, therefore it was never posted.]

Grandma, You should have looked a little deeper. According to definition 3 of thefreedictionary.com, to castrate means, “to deprive of virility or spirit; emasculate.” Same source, definition 2 of emasculate: “to deprive of vigor, effectiveness, etc.” So my use of the word “castration” was definitely in the ball park. It’s a pity you decided to restrict yourself to a medical dictionary sense, though perhaps you’d have been happier had I said “amputation” instead of “castration.” These women are feeling real pain, so a little sympathy from you might not be too much to ask. Think you can manage that much?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Too many posters on Yahoo too lazy to look stuff up. Just saying.”


THIRTY-THREE:

[In response to Barack Obama asking, “What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? A pit bull is delicious.]

And how many soccer moms has Obama eaten that would allow him to reach such a conclusion?


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

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

“One US President said, ‘The business of America is business.’ I would replace that with, “The business of America – and of every nation – should be the pursuit of justice.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Conversation with “god” – a fantasy

Conversation with “god” – a fantasy

It’s sweetly warm and humid on my little mesa in the Grand Canyon. My campfire crackles quietly as little embers fly up to greet the moon, a giant among the trillions of stars in the deep night sky. I am so utterly alone here, thinking how true it must be – that there are parts of the Grand Canyon where no human has ever tread.

This is all part of an inspired deal I had made – to come here alone if I should win the lottery. To say “deal” is misleading since I didn’t make any deal with anybody in particular. Isn’t that supposed to be important? I bought the ticket and said out loud, being sure no one could hear me: “I swear this oath: If I win, I will never claim the prize and will destroy this ticket, never to tell anyone I’d won.”

That was part of the deal; the other part was a whimsical afterthought. Spinning a globe of the earth, I declared: “If I win, I will go to that spot my finger lands on and seek ‘god’ – whatever ‘he’ might be – and try to talk to ‘him.’ Who knows? Maybe ‘he’ll’ talk back.” So I had closed my eyes, jabbed my finger, then looked where I was to go if…big IF.

A few days later, big IF became big THEN: I found out I won – in fact, I was the sole winner of $180 million dollars. Then in the privacy of my room, I burned the ticket completely to ashes, rubbing it to dust with my fingers. I had kept my word, then started packing my bag, not feeling any sense of loss at all but hopeful of a very big gain.

That was three weeks ago and here I sit, my spectacular view in all directions simply amazing. “Well,” I speak up, “time to get started.”

I rise and face the moon, clear my throat and begin:

“I don’t expect to hear any answers, but I will speak my piece anyway. Even if I am to hear an answer, how could I know its source? God/god? Devil/devil? Other/other? I’ve often wondered how Mohammed was so sure he knew the owner of the voice in that cave in which he was first told (threatened?) to ‘Recite!’ This doubt finds wording in many forms – including this: How can one know the will of God?

“I myself am an agnostic. I don’t know if You exist or perhaps once existed and no longer does. I don’t know where everything came from, but I am curious. I’ve always asked a lot of questions and I’ve always loved a good puzzle. So, for the sake of argument, I will address the God of Abraham. Here goes…

“Concerning the punishment of sinners: Why subject them to eternal torment? Why not just dis-create them? You created them, surely You can simply give the word (as it were), then they would be no more. But keeping them in existence just to torture them for all eternity, wouldn’t that make You the greatest terrorist of all time?

“Some say, among the powers of God must be the power to create other Gods? What say You of this? Do You leave it for only Yourself to be Godly? Are You wary of competition; are You uneasy about the universes They might create?

“Many believe You created the Universe and are its master, and that You could just as easily destroy it without a trace. Tell me, could You instead leave the Universe intact and will Yourself out of existence, also without a trace? And even more difficult, once You’d will Yourself out of existence, could You summon Yourself back?

“And most difficult of all? Deciding to shift back and forth from existing to not existing? Multiple times? If so, how many? And what would determine how many and how long you’d stay out of existence each time, leaving the universe Godless?

“Was there only one Creation? Did You suffer even one moment of gnawing doubt before You uttered, ‘Let there be Light?”

I pause, draw a deep breath, and say, “That’s all I have to say.” Time passes, the fire crackles, a soft breeze stirs, coyotes howl in the distance, a single eagle soars overhead, I wait but not for long.

I sigh and kick out the remains of my fire, pick up my bag, and turn to go. From behind me, I hear a voice saying, “Wait.” But I do not wait, I do not turn to see the speaker, for I am no longer curious. I already have the answers I seek.


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

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

“It’s okay, it really is, if God speaks and You don’t answer.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Coups d'état, American style

I intentionally used the plural form of coup in this article’s title. For there have been numerous coups throughout US history that served to nibble away at the sovereignty of We-the-People. One of the most egregious examples is boldly inscribed on the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court building itself (talk about “In your face, baby!”):

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Marbury v. Madison 1803”

Ah, Marbury v. Madison! This historic decision was nothing more than a bold power grab by elitists who were afraid of “too much” democracy. Elite thinking went something like this:

“We can’t count on the House, which is elected by the rabble, nor on the Senate, which can fall under the influence of popularly-elected [read: “rabbly-elected”] state legislatures. But we can count more reliably on a select few men who are aristocratically-inclined [SCOTUS judges], who are appointed for life.”

“Count on what,” you might ask? Count of the ability of a handful of men to nullify inconvenient laws by simply declaring them to be “unconstitutional.” Such a latent resource might come in handy some day. Who knows?


“emphatically the province and duty,” you say?

Nowhere in Article III is it stated that (as it is in Marbury),“… the province and duty of the judicial department [is] to say what the law is.” In fact, it’s not stated at all – emphatically or otherwise.

I read the 375 words of Article III very carefully, since III defines “judicial power,” a block of text which opens with: “The judicial power of the United States…”  Somehow, the term “judicial power” got turned into “judicial review” – that is, the right of the Court to review legislation in terms of constitutionality. However, a careful review of Article III, Section 2 undermines that assertion. And I quote:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

(Parenthetical Note: Isn’t it odd that SCOTUS doesn’t have original jurisdiction in cases where the United States is a party?)

It might be arguable that SCOTUS could consider constitutionality in cases where it has original jurisdiction. But what about the other cases (far greater in number), in which it has appellate jurisdiction? Here I refer to the part highlighted in yellow, immediately above:

Suppose Congress were to remove all cases from SCOTUS’s appellate jurisdiction, leaving SCOTUS only the power to rule in cases of its original jurisdiction. That could happen by Congress invoking “such exceptions [to SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction], and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” In fact, to twist the knife even more deeply, Congress could allow appellate jurisdiction while specifically barring SCOTUS from ruling on constitutionality by simply invoking: “under such regulations as the Congress shall make”.

Simply put, Congress has the authority to limit to what degree SCOTUS may exercise its “judicial power.” And why not? Congress was given that power, so why shouldn’t they use it? Judges and Congressmen alike [and the President, of course, without whom laws would be difficult to enact] are bound by oath to “support this Constitution.” Why should the oath of a judge (or his legal opinion) be considered more profound than that of a legislator or the President?

This is what Article VI has to say on the matter:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution…


About this “oath or affirmation” business

Why does Article VI insist that all legislators and judges, at the state and national levels, “…be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution?” Why does Article II insist that the US President-elect must take an oath/affirmation – specifically worded, by the way – before he can assume his office? Why is the US Constitution so zealously guarded that members of US armed forces are sworn – not to protect and defend the people of this country – but to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States?”

The answer to these questions can be found by referring to the Constitution’s predecessor document – the “Articles of Confederation and perpetual union.”
To begin, nowhere in the Constitution is the term “perpetual union” used..and for good reason. Compare these two quotes – one from each document:


From the Articles of Confederation:
“And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”


From the Constitution:
The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
The Articles required the permission of “the legislatures of every State” before any of the articles could be changed. But the Constitution, which sought to not only change the Articles but to entirely replace them, could be considered as being ratified with only nine of the thirteen states in agreement – though binding only on those states that ratified.

Worst case scenario? Suppose only nine states had ratified the Constitution. That would mean those nine would be governed by the Constitution AND, since the union was to be “in perpetuity,” the Articles (in which perpetual union was an oft-repeated theme), whereas the three holdout states would be governed only by the Articles. So how could a union under the Constitution be deemed “perpetual,” when a coexisting union under the Articles claimed that same status?  That’s the historic reason why “perpetual union” isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.

What a mess!

So the authors of the Constitution wanted to ensure that their creation, which was unconstitutional in the “eyes” of the Articles, would never come under a similar assault by those in the future who might wish to generate yet another constitution in replacement. And what better way to ensure loyalty to their instrument than by making officials under its authority swear an oath to it?

Another consideration stems from these words in the Articles:  “…it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World [aka, “God”] to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.”
The Articles invoke God, whereas the Constitution does not – not even once is God mentioned. Could you imagine the awkwardness of this statement had this been included in the Constitution:

“…it hath pleased God even more greatly that we have abandoned the Articles which had only pleased (as opposed to ‘greatly pleased’) Him…”

The Framers of the Constitution couldn’t invoke Divine approval of their handiwork, so they didn’t mention the Deity at all. Instead, they chose to enslave (how appropriate since some of our greatest Founding Fathers were slaveholders) future generations by means of oath/affirmation to their vision of what ought to be the supreme law of the land. Talk about a long-dead generation seeking to impose its will on the living!


Additional coup-like elements

In a further attempt to cement the authority of our homegrown elite, the First Amendment contains this famous, though universally misunderstood, line:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

If you think of, for instance, the Catholic Church being an example of “an establishment of religion,” the meaning becomes clearer. The Founding Fathers (read: “the Elite”) realized what a gold mine they had on their hands, and they weren’t about to jockey with organized clerics for control over this enterprise.


Then there’s the matter of Article V of the Constitution:


QUOTE:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, [Congress] shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress…

:UNQUOTE.


The first item in green merely states that “[Congress] shall call a convention.” But nowhere does it say how Congress can be compelled by the states to do so if it doesn’t want to. Very clearly, Congress was meant to be in a position to deny the states their right to a convention. The Elite felt it was bad enough that the US House was elected by the rabble, but the state legislatures might be even more greatly under their influence. Congress was meant to have even greater control by being allowed to determine the rules under which such a convention could be held.

The second item in green was meant to give Congress a tool by which it could influence the outcome of the state ratification process. Depending on the zeitgeist and whether Congress wanted a Constitutional Amendment Convention to succeed, it could accordingly select which of the two ratification options the states must follow. Congress could even refuse to choose either method, which would leave the states without any legal means to proceed with ratification.

This abusive Article V was nothing less than a coup against the sovereign imperatives of the individual states.


In conclusion

The point of my essay is to emphasize the early origins, characteristics, and motives underlying the various coups in the United States, hoping to sensitize US citizens to other coups in progress or yet to be foisted upon them.

We were never meant to have an Imperial Presidency. The very idea of a one-man branch of government should be repugnant to all of us in this day and age.

We were never meant to suffer under the tyranny of a Two Party System – a system nowhere mentioned in the Constitution but which is very much the single most dominant force in our lives.

The Courts have entirely too much power and are only available to those who can afford the price of costly counsel. I’m in favor of:

·       court decisions being reversible by the elected representatives of the people;

·       juries being allowed to render verdicts by 9 to 3 margins;

·       allowing the unemployed to undergo a modest training sufficient to allow for competence service on juries – at a livable wage;

·       instituting an ombudsman service as an alternative to costly legal representation.

The coups we’ve suffered through and will continue to suffer through are of ancient origin and serve only the purposes of an Elite whose interests oppose those of We-the-People. It’s time to take appropriate action to declare our independence, which starts with taking off the rose-colored glasses through which we view our history.


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

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

“We’ve been screwed so long, we no longer even notice it.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com