Saturday, April 14, 2012

Yahoo News Periodic Updates, April 14, 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 23 of these mini-essays.


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


ONE:

I saw a guy wearing a black hoodie with this magic-markered in white across the front:

Tray von Attitude

Crude but effective - speaks volumes.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"And mercy is still spelled m-e-r-c-y."



TWO:

[In reference to the “legality” of the recent (failed) North Korean rocket launch.]

“…[U.N. Security Council] Resolution No. 1874 … applies to both military and civilian launches…” No, it doesn’t. I read 1874 and it doesn’t ban civilian launches at all. No wonder this Russian official, who spouted this blatant falsehood, wished to remain anonymous. Americans have been propagandized into thinking Russian officials tell lies; so what’s our excuse when we make exactly the same claims?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“If we can’t all agree that telling the truth matters, we might as well stop pretending we’re so noble.”



THREE:

I am an angry God. I am a jealous God. I am…Abraham!

[Post script: What follows is what I wish I had added to the 13 words above:

“Before the Creation, there was only God and since God is perfect, that means only perfection existed. After the Creation, imperfection was brought into being. And that was true, even before God got around to creating living beings.

“How so? How could God’s creation be anything less than perfect? Simple! Even though it was created by God, the Creation itself was not God and since only God is perfect, anything “not God” must be considered less than perfect.

“It was only after the Creation that God could have said, “I am an angry God. I am a jealous God,” since before the Creation, God had nothing to be neither jealous about nor angry at – since there was only God. So it could be said that the Creation brought God down, since it brought out certain base and out all-too-human traits in this otherwise (formerly) Perfect Being.

“As for the last part I wrote – “I am…Abraham!” – my suspicion is that Abraham created God – or, at least, created Him as we understand Him.”]



FOUR:

[This was my response to an article about (currently) Roman Catholic Marco Rubio, potential Mitt Romney running mate.]

Out of one side of his mouth, Marcus Rubix-Cubio says, “I’m not a theologian.” Out of the other side of his mouth, he says, “I consider [Mormons] Christians.” OK, Marcus, let’s try this one out of size: “If your Roman Pope were to weigh in and say, ‘I don’t consider Mormons to be Christians,’ what would you say?”

Lest you wish to conveniently “forget,” Marcus, I (a Buddhist) shall remind you: “Your Pope is infallible in matters of faith and you are religiously bound to follow his teachings.” You might not be a theologian, but when someone (say, like me, for instance) asks you how you’d respond if your Pope were to deny the Mormons, you must also state that you’d also deny the Mormons.

I’m not a theologian either, but I discovered this much on line (it’s on google; ever hear of that?): “On June 5, 2001, the Pope declared that Mormon baptisms aren’t valid.” Say, we might be on to something there. I have to wonder, though, why the Pope doesn’t come right out and say, “Mormons aren’t Christians.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“It is written: Politics make strange bedfellows. It should be written: And so do ‘popes’ and Popes.”



FIVE:

[The following came out during an interview of Rick Warren, well-known senior pastor of Saddleback Church and author of The Purpose Driven Life.]


“…the greatest compliment that Jesus ever gave…[:] ‘I've never seen such faith in all of Israel.’” Maybe, just maybe, Jesus wasn’t complimenting that soldier as much as He was condemning the state of faith “in all of Israel.” Pretty much the same could be said of today’s Israel – very violent, very intolerant, and lacking in faith.

“…but God loves every soldier.” Hmm…so that means God loves the soldiers of the Taliban and al-Qaida?

Most soldiers are not agents of peace nor do they think of themselves that way – at least not as agents of universal peace. More likely, “Peace for me and mine, and screw you and yours.” [Yeah, I'd heard these sentiments when I was in the service.] My idea of a Godly warrior is one who doesn’t carry a weapon, fights for peace with his God-given talents, and knows God is on his side whether he succeeds in his mission or not.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Rick Warren, I think you better give up your day job.”



SIX:

“The interesting thing is, [Mike Wallace] never mentions '60 Minutes.' It's as if it didn't exist.” Well, he was in good company. For millions of Americans (who aren’t We-the-Sheeple) “60 Minutes” was irrelevant and assiduously avoided. It never fails to amaze me how we’re so satisfied to get our “news” from a handful of “icons.” There’s way more to the world than “60 Minutes” will deign to share with you. But then again, they are corporate media, aren’t they?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
     “The only thing I remember about Mike Wallace? He had a commanding voice. SFW.”



SEVEN:

The biggest miracle connected to the name of Jesus? That He died for our sins.

Consider:

·       If somebody else works extra hard, do you get a raise in your paycheck?

·       If somebody else murders somebody in Atlanta, do you in Chicago (at the time of the murder) go to jail?

·       If somebody else said, “Let me make love to your wife instead of you; it will be the same as if you did it,” wouldn’t you slug the SOB?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“What a scam!”



EIGHT:

“But, Land said, ‘as his friend I would say to him…” If Land was any kind of a friend, he would have said these words face-to-face, in private, to Santorum. But, no, Richard Land takes the weenie way out and urges Rick to drop out in a nationally-broadcast interview. Had it been in private, maybe Santorum could have argued a case (you know, friend-to-friend) as to why he should stay in the race.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“This is one of many reasons why I’m not too keen on either evangelical Christians or Pubbers; this episode is rather representative of their conduct.”



NINE:

The only reason I saw Hunger Games was Jennifer Lawrence, who I thought did a good job in Winter’s Bone. Truth be told? I thought Hunger Games was terrible. I couldn’t get over how the name “Katniss” sounds uncomfortably like “catnip.” Yup, catnip for the masses. Come on, people, we can do better than this.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Or maybe we can’t (sigh).”



TEN:

What the UN has banned are ballistic missile tests. So why don’t we define what that is?

From Wikipedia: “A ballistic missile…follows a sub-orbital ballistic flightpath with the objective of [my emphasis – Steve] delivering one or more warheads to a predetermined target.”

Since the North Korean spacecraft will have an observation satellite as its payload, I don’t see what the problem is.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Maybe we’ll start telling countries like Brazil (you know, since it’s so close to the US) that they can’t launch satellites into orbit. Our protestations are nothing more than a measure of our fear.”



ELEVEN:

Pinstripes,

Ford took his own chance away by pardoning Nixon. He didn't have to do that and he shouldn't have done that. But he did and for the world's worst reason - a reason shared by too many Americans: We don't think, but instead make decisions based on our programming.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"And if you think about it, most of the responses on this thread are prompted by programming. All I'm asking is that people actually read and think about what the military oath of enlistment actually says."



TWELVE:

“another grave provocation?” How is [North Korea] launching a satellite a “grave” provocation? Every country has the right to launch satellites, since the New World Order hasn’t yet gotten around to a total ban (except for countries already in the Club of Rome). The UN resolution banned ballistic missile launches only.

As for digging a tunnel, if NK wants to dig dirt, even if it’s in preparation for a nuke test, who are we to take offense? That would be the pot calling the kettle black, since we had plenty of turns at “dirt digging” in the 1950s. Worse than what the North Koreans are doing is what this report is doing to the plain meaning of words.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“You may rank ‘another grave provocation’ with ‘arbeit macht frei’ in terms of linguistic abuse.”



THIRTEEN:

I went to Zimm’s website and clicked a link he calls “The Facts.” However, Zimm [defendant in the Trayon Martin murder case] doesn’t offer any. Instead, he says he “cannot discuss the details of the event on Feburary 26th,” and “the facts will come to light.”

Well, George, I suppose some fools will donate before you make a publicly available statement to the cops. I say “fools” because who in their right mind would donate without any kind of statement from the (potential) defendant?

Tell you what, George, I’d rather donate money to Trayvon’s family who will need all they can get to hire a good lawyer to take you to court based on a wrongful death lawsuit.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I’d feel better about Zimm’s plea for cash if he would have included a statement that, should he be ultimately absolved of any wrongdoing, he’d donate any excess money collected to Trayvon’s family.”



FOURTEEN:

“It would have not been unlawful or even improper for [George Zimmerman] to follow [Trayvon Martin]. You can even follow me home if you want to," [attorney] Uhrig said. Well…Uhrig is giving his permission, whereas Trayvon didn’t give his. And following is one thing; stalking with a weapon is quite another. Also, what else is a lawyer going to say? That he thinks his (former) client is guilty as hell? Where on earth do these pinheads come from?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The lawyers probably dropped Zimm because he couldn’t pay their retainer.”



FIFTEEN:

Wouldn't it be funny if everybody Romney asked [to be his running mate] turned him down? Of course, that wouldn't really happen. Someone would step up to the plate for the good of the party. But not because Money(R) has any chance of winning. Sorry, folks, it is what it is. The Dems thought Dubya would be a one term prez. Now the Pubbers are about to learn what that feels like.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"Part of the reason for Romney's wealth has to do with his Mormon Connections. But...they won't be enough to help the entire country."



SIXTEEN:

“…[being forced to buy insurance as mandated by ObamaCare] is a requirement to engage in commerce which the constitution does not allow.” The uninsured are already forcing the rest of us to “engage in commerce” by having to cover them. So, it could be argued, ObamaCare is an attempt to regulate that bit of commerce.

Of course, Congress could have just flat out made it illegal not to have insurance, but it realized that wouldn’t accomplish its mission under Article I, Section 8:

“The Congress shall have power to…provide for the common defense and general welfare…”

Nobody quibbles about the “common defense” part, so nobody should protest about Congress’s power to provide for the “general welfare.” Team Obama should have focused, not necessarily or exclusively, on the Commerce Clause, but also on the “general welfare” clause.

[Side Note: In my state, Illinois, people are forced to engage in commerce by having to buy auto insurance in order to legally drive. So this whole notion of being forced to engage in commerce is something we’re all used to, to some degree or another, anyway.]

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Our choice on how effectively we can engage in commerce (above and beyond "mere" regulation) is already dictated to us by our debt burden and income taxes; not to mention how the military draft in its day had affected the ability of soldiers to engage in commerce.”



SEVENTEEN:

Sounds like Allen West [GOP Congressman saying (about) 80 Congressional Democrats are card-carrying Communists] is trying to answer a question, since the crash-and-burn of Herman Cain, “Who’s gonna fill dem shoes?” The CPC should sue West for defamation, since it’s doubtful that even one of their members is a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. West sounds like another pol who doesn’t understand and can’t use plain English.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Where do we find these people and why do we keep electing them?”



EIGHTEEN:

[This response is to an article about Jews pleading for the release of Jonathan Pollard, a Jew who spied on the US for the benefit of Israel, from a US jail where he’s been a “guest” for the last 25 years.]


There are two notable words missing from this article. Let me reword this sentence from the article using those two words: “Peres, a Nobel Peace laureate, responded by appealing to Israeli authorities to grant MORDECAI VANUNU unrestricted freedom as a humanitarian gesture.”

Back in 2008, when I first ran for US President, this was included in my written contract: “I will immediately release federal prisoner Jonathan Jay Pollard.” That was electoral promise #40, followed by this (#41): “I will award to Mordechai Vanunu the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our nation's highest civilian award. I will also attempt to arrange for Mr. Vanunu's release from Israel and for the granting of asylum in a country of his choice.”

Please note: I didn’t make make #40 dependent on Israel granting peace of mind to Vanunu. I don’t believe in trading in human flesh; just in trying to do the right thing not contingent on what others do.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I was then (in 2008) and am now (in 2012) the only presidential candidate in the history of this country to offer a written contract in exchange for election, forfeiting the presidency should I violate any of my contract’s 47 promises.”



NINETEEN:

[I posted the following five words to an article about two US Marines who were killed in a helicopter crash while participating in joint military exercises with Moroccan forces: Why are we in Morocco?]

Then I responded to these three who had tried to answer my question:

@GaryL,

The third paragraph? And just what does that tell us besides the name (without any elaboration) of a military exercise? Are you always that satisfied with the content of the news reports you read?

@ Silly Walk,

The article doesn’t tell us anything, hence my question.

@ Bubba,

Of course we had excellent relations with the Moroccan government, though you really can’t (at least now) say the same concerning their people. Our role (then and now) is to prop up yet another absolute dictator. And he fully appreciates our services.

@ all who didn’t really grasp my simple question:

Arab Spring never came to Morocco, though the many Moroccans I know in the States say “The Moroccan people are not happy.” Our continuing role in countries like Morocco is similar to what our role was in various South American countries. And that was for our military to ingratiate itself with local militaries to keep the local oligarchs in power. A lot of them caught on to our scam, which is why we’re not much loved south of the border.

Our workings in Morocco dovetail with our other infiltrating activities (for instance, the campaign against the LRA) throughout Africa. And these are the activities of a dying imperial empire trying to dominate an entire continent strictly for its own advantage.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I have often found that it is the members of our active duty military who are the most clueless about our grand strategic designs. It must be great not to have to think: "Sir, yes, sir!'”



TWENTY:

It might have helped Santorum's chances of getting Mitt's nod for VP if Santy had bothered to endorse Mitt upon dropping his own bid.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"Why didn't Rick endorse the only other conservative remaining in the race, Newt Gingrich? Why do so many ranking Pubbers have a problem endorsing Mitt?"



TWENTY-ONE:

[This is in response to James C, who had replied to my post which read: “I wish this article had bothered to mention whether the Syrian government had actually given its OK for these observers to enter their country.”]


James C,

I’m not as concerned about “these people” as I am about the encroachment of the NWO. If the UN can vote to send unarmed forces into a country against its will, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to claim the UN has the authority to send ARMED forces into a country against its will. And, when the time comes (and it probably will) that the US decides it doesn’t need the UN any longer, it might decide it has the sole right to send armed forces into any country it wishes – with or without the backing of or permission of anybody. And that should concern everybody.

James, you are a bit of a simpleton, aren’t you? Seeing that I’m from Chicago somehow empowered you to draw all kinds of conclusions about me. But if you had taken a few moments to google my name, you would have discovered I had actually run against Obama in 2008 (and am running against him now). Since my campaign never caught on, you may be somewhat forgiven for never having heard of me. But you can’t be forgiven for jumping to conclusions.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I am profoundly concerned about the downward spiral in the common sense of too many of our citizens.”



TWENTY-TWO:

I loved this new [Three] Stooges movie. I'm glad 3 relative unknowns got this chance at Stooge greatness.  They didn't disappoint.  And it was a nice touch at the end, when it was explained to the kids in the audience never to eye-poke anybody and that the hammers used were rubber. A demo, with and without sound effects, made the point.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"Yeah, it's okay for a presidential candidate to love the Stooges."



TWENTY-THREE:

[Ricardo responded to my post (immediately above) by writing: “Hahahhahahaa is Searle the 4th long lost Stooge? Keep dreaming on that 2012, kiddo.” This is my answer to him.]


Ricardo,

I don’t know where you come from, but in the good old US of A, anybody can run for president. Now, do I have a realistic chance? Of course not. So why do I bother? The answer to that can be answered by people who have actually gone on line and read my material. That is, “You’ve got some great ideas, especially the one about offering a written contract in exchange for votes.”

That’s my innovation; I’m the only presidential candidate (in 2008 & 2012) to have ever offered a contract listing my campaign promises, which (were I to fail to keep every single one) would forfeit my office.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Ricardo, it’s programmed people like you who can’t give independents a chance, relying instead on rigid Brand X vs. Brand Y (Pubber vs. Dem) thinking.”


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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk? Why cointainly!”


Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Yahoo News Periodic Updates, April 7, 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 23 of these mini-essays.

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


ONE:

3 reasons America will fail:

The two-party system, the two-party system, the two-party system.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"I once asked a US soldier what he thought the biggest threat to our security was. He responded: 'The Terrorists. Why? What do you think it is?' When I replied, 'The Two Party System,' he thought about that and slowly nodded."



TWO:

So, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states want to fund the Syrian rebels, eh? Someday, these states might find some foreign power returning the favor by funding their rebels. Or maybe Assad won’t wait for that to happen. He might decide to use his air force, or covert ops, to start blowing up some Saudi oil pipelines. You know…just to get their attention. Careful, boys, this internal affairs meddling stuff is contagious.

As for paying members of the Free Syrian Army, how much? It shouldn’t be more than Assad is paying. If it is, then you might as well call the FSA by another name – mercenaries.

Don’t you just love Hillary’s line: “We are discussing…how best to expand this support.” Translation? The US is still at the stage of not going it alone. But it won’t be too long until we do go it alone, not even pretending to seek international support. Then you may officially welcome the New World Order.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“If we don’t stop sticking our noses in other people’s business, they won’t mature and we’ll never lose our paranoia.”



THREE:

Ron Paul is so transparent, he once thought of accepting the GOP nomination wearing only a suit made out of Saran Wrap. But he thought better of it when he realized Bruno (Sacha Baron Cohen) might be in the audience.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"Actually, SBC would make a better VP choice than any of the oft-mentioned possibles in the Pubber stable."



FOUR:

[The following deal with the ongoing story of the circumstances of the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman]:

What a relief! I thought Taffy was going to say, "My house was being robbed, but George didn’t just watch this burglary in progress. After calling the [police], he went in my house with his gun drawn just in case the cops didn’t show up on time.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Sorry, Taffy, one foiled robbery doesn’t raise the dead.”

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

When the cops brought GZ to the station, I can understand why they didn’t take a formal statement. He had a head injury and might later claim he wasn’t in his proper frame of mind, so the statement could be tossed out of court if it came to that. Apparently, GZ didn’t ask for a lawyer to be present – further proof of temporary mental incapacitation. What I don’t understand is why the cops didn’t keep him in custody until his head cleared and then sought to take a statement.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“We pay an awful lot for police protection and THIS is the best they can do?”


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

I want to know why Zimmerman, when calling dispatch about Trayvon, said it looked like Tray was on drugs. MT wasn't on drugs - that much has been settled. So, why did Z say he was? I also don't buy the part that Z had to check an address to see where he was, which was when (Z says) Trayvon confronted him. If Z had been the neighborhood watch captain for years, how could he not know where he was? Not to mention, since GZ wanted to be a cop and he thought he was following a dangerous suspect, how on earth could he have allowed Trayon to get the drop on him?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"Personally? I think George Zimmerman is a liar."



FIVE:

[In response to Mr. P's commentary of an article, concerning Obama’s “claim” that the Supreme Court can’t overturn federal legislation]:

Mr. Poupard may well be (as he claims) “a political scientist,” but he’s profoundly guilty of exaggeration, which is a scholarly no-no, by writing: “…[Obama] made comments to make people think he has no idea how the Constitution works.” Why would these particular words of Obama “make people think he has NO IDEA how the Constitution works?”

Perhaps Obama should have said (although I had managed to understand his overall gist made clear by other comments made in this same speech): "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress; a majority that has been subsequently backed by a majority of the opinions of legal scholars."

Obama attacked the notion of judicial activism, while noting the “political” nature of the Court’s objections. Maybe the president was trying to say that his “strong majority” has a pretty good idea of what is or is not constitutional; at least an idea as good as that of the Court, some of whose members can scarcely disguise their bias.

I am, though, disheartened that Obama’s legal team isn’t making use of its strongest argument. Why invoke the Commerce Clause, when elsewhere in Article I, Section 8 we have this: “The Congress shall have power to…provide for the…general welfare of the United States…”? Sometimes it's necessary to exercise broad powers to assure "general welfare."

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Mr. Poupard, you should strongly consider giving up your day job.”



SIX:

“…the 1803 Supreme Court case that established the courts' right to strike down laws. ‘Courts have final say.’” So, back in 1803, the Supreme Court gave itself the “right” to strike down laws. Doesn’t that strike you as rather odd? Perhaps the first instance of judicial overreach? The only reason that 1803 decision has stood so long is that Congress has never bothered to move against it.

Actually, though, courts don’t have the final say. Even Supreme Court justices can be impeached. There is a reason why Congress gets top billing in the Constitution (RE: Article I); it’s meant to be dominant. Our two-party system, highly unconstitutional by the way, has severely dissipated Congress’s power. Anyone who really thinks we have three separate co-equal branches of government should take due note of this: Congress can impeach members of the other two branches. That sounds pretty dominant to me.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The only way out is to adopt an attitude: No matter what, always vote against the incumbent. Pave the way for independents.”



SEVEN:

Wrdsmth,

The nation you described has never existed. We’ve always had factions – and had a War Among Two Blocs of States to prove it. Most people are too lazy to educate themselves to the point where they can actually “honor facts.” For how can one honor what one does not know? For if facts were honored, we certainly never would have had a Depression in the first place, let alone have had to face up to it. But we did, didn’t we, simply because too many people were too ignorant and not politically involved.

As for your use of the word “intelligence,” that has nothing to do with it. The “me first” attitude dominant in this country will override any consideration of intelligence (and, for that matter, compassion).

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“We will reach a point where we will start taking what we can from others (to a greater extent than we already do) – specifically, foreign others – throwing out all the rules of decent conduct…simply because we can.”



EIGHT:

[This wasn't posted to Yahoo News (yet?) because the source article didn't accept comments (yet?)]:

“Mayor Emanuel points out that Wrigley Field is a private entity…” So far, so good. So why does this sentence continue by saying: “and his job is to represent the taxpayers in talks with Cubs owner Tom Ricketts...”?

If Wrigley Field needs improvement, let the Cubs deal with it. The Mayor’s job is NOT “to represent the taxpayers in talks with…Tom Ricketts…” Everybody talks a good game about how private enterprise should function within the free market. But then the capitalist sticks his hand out asking for public cash. The Cubs are LOSERS, and I as a Chicagoan don’t like backing LOSERS. But even if the Cubs were world champs, let them fund their own expansion.

As I wrote on my blog on Nov. 15, 2010: “I fully expect that, somehow or other, the people of Illinois will be sucked into [paying for a Wrigley Field upgrade].”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I also fully expect that, somehow or other, Rahm-bomb will end up with a ton of cash in exchange for his facilitation.”



NINE:

"Does the [Department of Justice] recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes…?" [a federal judge asked]. If I were the attorney to whom this question was directed: “Your Honor, I can’t answer that question because I am only one attorney in the employ of the DOJ arguing this specific case; I am not its spokesperson.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“A better answer would have been: ‘Your Honor, by asking such a stupid question, you’re engaging in exactly the kind of judicial activism the president was criticizing.”



TEN:

 “… that the Justice Department would comply with the Texas judge's DEMAND for a letter of explanation.” Wow, earlier in this article (scroll up), the claim was “Smith…ASKED the Justice Department for a three-page, single-spaced letter…” Demand vs ask…oh well, what difference does a word make?

I’ll answer my own question: This is an example of judicial overreach. The judge is “asking” for something that has nothing to do with the case he’s trying. Do the words “immaterial,” and “irrelevant” mean anything to this judge? I’m sure they’re within his daily, operational vocabulary. He’s demanding of the Executive Branch that it issue a statement of policy. The Executive would be making a big mistake by complying with this hick. [My, the little dogs love to bark, don't they?]

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Yes, I said ‘hick’…I seriously wonder where he got his law degree from.”



ELEVEN:

"[Israel is] the only state in the world whose right to exist is publicly doubted".  Well, “the world” doubted the right of Gadhafi’s Libya to exist, and doubts the right of Kim’s North Korea. What Israel really wants is to be the only regional nuclear power so that it can force its claim to what the Zionists believe God gave them: an Israel far larger than its current borders, as defined in the Bible. Once the Zionists win their war of attrition against the Palestinians (read: encroachment by settlers), then they’ll feel confident enough to press their territorial claims against their neighbors. That’s the long-term plan no one dares mention out loud. But I will.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Israel cannot tolerate a militarily powerful Iran and will do everything in its power to get the US to do its dirty work for it.”



TWELVE:

[This is 1 of 8 posts concerning a Marine sergeant in trouble for maintaining a Facebook page critical of President Obama]:

This is an amazing sentence, starting with: “Military experts have said that by associating the name of his Facebook page with the Armed Forces…” Instead of “military experts,” perhaps this was meant: “Military law experts?” How did [Sgt. Stein] associate his page with the Armed Forces? Would there be anyone stupid enough to read his “Armed Forces Tea Party” blog and conclude, “The US military has an official Tea Party affiliation?” Taken as a whole, one might conclude that the Tea Party has an armed forces component – a militia.

The rest of the sentence is also a stretch: “…Stein was essentially putting himself in the position of publicly expressing his personal political opinions while in uniform…” That’s an assumption. For all these “military experts” know, Stein might have been blogging buck naked.

This is no way to treat our troops – as second-class citizens. They have as much right (if not more!) to express their “personal opinions” as any other citizen.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“From this outrage, it’s not much of a stretch for the DOD to come right out and say, ‘Soldier, not only can you NOT express your personal opinions, you will not be permitted to have any.”


THIRTEEN:

[This is 2 of 8 posts concerning a Marine sergeant in trouble for maintaining a Facebook page critical of President Obama]:


Son of Liberty,

You open with “…a relatively low ranking…” Whatever happened to “All men are created equal?” We are equal in the eyes of the law.

That Marine Sgt. swore an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” I know he also swore to “obey the orders of the President,” but even during basic military training, that is explained to mean “all lawful orders.” Not even the President can order a soldier to break the law. [Are you understanding any of this, so far?]

As for your concern about who “gets to decide…whether [those] orders are ‘lawful’…” – the question to that must be obvious. The one who “gets to decide” is the one who swore the oath. We’ve already suffered from White House legal authorities deciding it was “lawful” to waterboard, even though it is not. And We the People can’t count on the authorities - like the perennially divided (along 5 vs 4 lines), very political Supreme Court - to tell us what is lawful and what is not. We the People don’t need vested interests to dictate to our common sense notion of what is lawful or not. Some “Son of Liberty” you are – NOT!

[SIDE NOTE: It’s interesting to me that nowhere in the oath of enlistment does it say that soldiers are sworn to protect the people of this country. You might want to think about that.]

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“With friends like you, the US doesn’t need enemies.”


FOURTEEN:

[This is 3 of 8 posts concerning a Marine sergeant in trouble for maintaining a Facebook page critical of President Obama]:

Son of Liberty,

You ask a good question by bringing up the example of Bush v. Gore. The simple answer to your question is: “Correct.” The key part of your question, though, is in this wording, “…because they didn’t agree with the Supreme Court’s decision…” If they really thought SCOTUS was wrong (or, as was most likely the case, not just wrong but knowingly wrong), then how could they follow a President who was basically an usurper [“elected” by the Supreme Court]?

As a practical man, though, I would have cautioned any such soldier to “pick your battles and your reasons.” Far better would have been the fact that this was an illegal war. I had arrived at that conclusion myself, which is why I haven’t filed an income tax return for nine years. Yes, I could go to jail, as could any soldier refusing to fight in an illegal war, but I would gladly be a prisoner of conscience than a party to corruption.
And, I’m sure you’ve noticed, I proudly sign my own name to my posts.

I am Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The biggest problem in the US these days:  too many people who are cowed by authority. We weren’t always like that, you know.”



FIFTEEN:

[This is 4 of 8 posts concerning a Marine sergeant in trouble for maintaining a Facebook page critical of President Obama]:

Son of Liberty,

I’m not as concerned with what is “no way to run a military” as I am with following the law and the oath that’s being sworn. I believe words are important; when words are ignored or “redefined” into meaninglessness, then we no longer have a society based on the rule of law. If we should ever reach that point, then we might as well hang it up.

As for “if you can’t support the [CINC]…,” if a soldier would do as you suggest (that is, “leave the military at the first opportunity”), then he would be violating his sworn oath, wouldn’t he? I mean, if he’s swearing to defend the Constitution but feels his CINC threatens that Constitution, he’d be duty-bound to “foment dissent” to help protect that document. As for your concern that that would aid “the enemy in the extreme,” having a CINC who violates the Constitution would be a far better example of aiding the enemy in the extreme. As always, the greatest enemies we face are within – and sometimes that means “within our borders.”

I’m not so sure unlawful orders haven’t been issued – for example, orders to waterboard were considered lawful by the Bush administration; but…Bush lied in the name of expediency. As for putting the CINC on notice, why not? The gentlemanly thing to do is to give fair notice. If enough of our servicemen did that, CINC et al might think twice about what is really lawful and what is not.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I sense, Son of Liberty, that you are a well-intended individual though that’s not good enough, for as is written: ‘Good intentions pave the way to hell.”



SIXTEEN:

[This is 5 of 8 posts concerning a Marine sergeant in trouble for maintaining a Facebook page critical of President Obama]:

SonoftheMorning,

We can suppose a lot of things and a lot of people do. And sometimes we become victims of those who suppose incorrectly. That’s a chance we all have to take. But tell me, how likely is it that one of Stein’s PFC’s is going to reach that conclusion [that Stein is a Muslim usurper]? Sure, stuff like that happens but rarely, I dare say. As for some President, either now or in the future, being an usurper, the odds on that fall well within the realm of consideration.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I fully support what Sgt. Stein is trying to do; I only wish there were more patriots like him.”



SEVENTEEN:

[This is 6 of 8 posts concerning a Marine sergeant in trouble for maintaining a Facebook page critical of President Obama]:


Sonofthe Morning,

George Washington said it best: “When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen.” Stein doesn’t have to be “given an avenue,” since he has his right of free speech and his duty to defend the Constitution. Just because he became a soldier, doesn’t mean he’s any less of a citizen.

As for your concern about “[encouraging] dissent…within the military,” that’s exactly what DOD is doing by trying to take away Stein’s rights. Of course there are limitations to free speech while in uniform, but that doesn’t mean a soldier has no right to free speech at all. Besides, if the military has to come down so hard on Stein for what are really paltry reasons, that alone shows they’re more afraid than they’ll publicly admit. But that’s the nature of the oppressor, isn’t it? To “come down hard.” The only problem is, they create more rebels than if they’d done nothing at all.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“But isn’t this something we’ve known for a long time – that our leadership is arrogant, over-reactive, and not that intelligent?”



EIGHTEEN:

[These are 7 & 8 of 8 posts concerning a Marine sergeant in trouble for maintaining a Facebook page critical of President Obama]:


[Mikek wrote: "general eisenhower said that one of the cruel ironies is that the liberties and rights a soldier is sworn to defend, must, due to military necessity, discipline and order, be denied or abridged those same soldiers who may die fighting for them.”]

@ Mikek:

That’s what Ike said, eh? Try this one out for size: “When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen” – George Washington. If we have to deny basic rights to our soldiers, in the name of enhancing discipline, then we have (in the words of GW), ‘[laid] aside the citizen.’

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“If we’ve truly come to that, we’ve come a long way down since the heady days of the early republic, haven’t we?”



@ Paul R [who had responded to Mikek’s post, immediately above]:

You wrote, “When I raised my right hand, I swore to obey orders, not interpret their legality.” Actually, when you (and I, for that matter) raised our right hands, we swore to “support and defend the Constitution [and that we would] bear true faith and allegiance [not to persons but] to the same [that is, the Constitution]…” It is the obligation of every serviceman to “interpret their legality” when it comes to deciding whether to follow orders being issued so as to insure they aren’t in violation of the Constitution. Otherwise, how could one truly support the Constitution?

When I was in basic training, that oath was explained as meaning we had to obey “lawful orders.” However, I find it interesting that the literal wording of the oath was never changed to include the word “lawful” – and I can tell you why.  Arrogance: Congress just couldn’t let it be even remotely considered that the President or the military brass would ever issue an unlawful order. But that does happen, doesn’t it?

You might find it interesting that the oath of enlistment for officers doesn’t say anything about “following orders,” which is in sharp contrast to what the grunts have to swear:
“I will obey the orders of the President…and the orders of the officers appointed over me…”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Most of those who serve (even in the officer corps) don’t even think about what this oath really means nor do they know much about the Constitution. I, however, take my oaths (and Constitution) very seriously. Sorry if that turns out to be an inconvenient truth.”



NINETEEN:

I know the GOP would love to squelch the democratic process by pressuring Santorum to quit. But why should he? The longer he stays in, the more he shows grit and determination. Not to mention the possibility of inducing yet another Romney gaffe. With Gingrich and Santorum staying in, that will show Mitt can't win more than 50% in a primary state. Then they'll be able to lay claim to a GOP that was tempted by a flip-flopping moderate with a lot of money. And that temptation was fueled by a sense of "It's his turn." It's that kind of seniority system the GOP's got to break free from. No, I think Rick and Newt know what they're doing by staying in.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"Besides, if those two dropped out now, public interest in Romney would sink to zero."



TWENTY:

[This was posted in response to a story about a watch worth $30,000 worn by Kirill, the Russian Orthodox Church’s patriarch. That watch had been “photo shopped” out of a photo, but the “editor” failed to “remove” the reflection of that watch which was clearly seen from the patriarch’s desk]:

“The patriarch's press service responded, saying, ‘The person [did something] not agreed with superiors.” Well…how would you know that before your “thorough investigation” has been completed? Of course, some “thorough” investigations are more thorough than others.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Just another case of a worldly religious figure…nothing new here…move on but this time, ignore the collection plate.”



TWENTY-ONE:

Tim,

Let’s start with what Scalia actually said: "Everybody has to buy food sooner or later. Therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore you can make people buy broccoli?" Scalia lost it with his second “therefore” – with what might be called “judicial overreach.”
People will always be in the market for food – there’s no choice there. But they might not want to be in the market for insurance (in that area, there is a choice), being satisfied instead with having others carry their burden if they get sick.  Isn’t that part of the role of government – to weigh in when groups of citizens have opposing interests? You know, legislating for the greater good?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“In any event, Scalia wasn’t being very articulate.”



TWENTY-TWO:

"LOVED being in the National Guard…LOVED being a soldier…LOVED being a leader of soldiers." That’s a whole lot of love, but I wonder how much love Rozanski had for peace-related concerns. Yes, we’re a nation at war, alright. But much of that is directly due to our own overreaction and past heavy-handedness.
Not to disrespect the slain Captain, but I’d like to read more about people who love peace so much they’re willing to die for it. And, yes, they are out there and their contributions are every bit as important as those of our warriors, if not more so. Those are our truly unsung heroes.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I know I’ll get flamed for this post, but that will just go to show how many couch-potato warriors are out there blindly cheering us on without knowing why. And not really caring why.”



TWENTY-THREE:

[This is in response to D, who thinks the current rush to buy firearms will save Americans from the Apocalypse. He also thinks the fact I live in crime-ridden Chicago might be a problem for my unarmed self]:

D,

Sometimes the most prepared people fall victim, and the least prepared are left completely unscathed. Don’t worry about my location; worry about your karma. That’s what will decide who becomes a victim and who doesn’t. Piling up an arsenal is one way to protect yourself. Practicing compassion and loving kindness is a better way.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“And that goes double, concerning our national karma. Having built up the biggest arsenal won’t save us in the end.”


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

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

“There’s an old saying about not being able to see the forest for the trees. By having the public’s attention riveted to highly-charged individual public interest stories, that public scarcely has the energy to consider larger issues of public governance. And by having, I mean: The Elite might well be guilty of doing all it can to stoke those fires by encouraging media focus on same. Trayvon Martin, the soldier accused of killing 17 Afghan civilians, the Marine sergeant whose Facebook page says he won’t follow Obama’s unlawful orders…and on and on. Kind of hard to tread water with all this going on, wouldn’t you say? Say, what are the Kardashians up to?”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com