Beware of the best and the brightest

One of the best and the brightest happens to be Ilya Shapiro. With his sterling credentials, surely he must qualify. At the end of my piece today, I will compare his credentials to mine. But for now, I’ll concentrate on two paragraphs of a scholarly article he’d published in the John Marshall Law Review, which were quoted in the Chicago Tribune on 12-22-11. In their entirety:

QUOTE:

While it’s true that corporations aren’t human beings, that truism is constitutionally irrelevant because corporations are formed by individuals as a means of exercising their constitutionally protected rights. When individuals pool their resources and speak under the legal fiction of a corporation, they do not lose their rights.

It cannot be any other way; in a world where corporations are not entitled to constitutional protections, the police would be free to storm office buildings and seize computers or documents. The mayor of New York City could exercise eminent domain over Rockefeller Center by fiat and without compensation if he decides he’d like to move his office there. Moreover, the government would be able to censor all corporate speech, including that of so-called media corporations. In short, rights-bearing individuals do not forfeit those rights when they associate in groups.

:UNQUOTE.

Now, I will copy, interspersing my comments [NOTE: All highlights in this post were added by me]:

QUOTE:

While it’s true that corporations aren’t human beings, that truism is constitutionally irrelevant…

COMMENT:

Actually, corporations are constitutionally irrelevant, for nowhere – not even once – within the text of the constitution itself (or in its amendments) does the word “corporation” appear.

QUOTE:

…because corporations are formed by individuals…

COMMENT:

…”formed by individuals” who must apply to the state for a corporate charter, risking revocation if found in violation of that charter.

QUOTE:

       ..as a means of exercising their constitutionally protected rights.

COMMENT:

Really? I thought corporations were “formed by individuals as a means of” making money. The Constitution (and here I personify) didn’t think it was necessary for corporations to be formed as a means for individuals to exercise their constitutionally protected rights. That’s why a checks-and-balances system of federal government was set up, with pertinent amendments added later.

If anything, corporations are formed by groups of individuals in an attempt to override the wishes, desires, and competitive effectiveness of other individuals or groups of individuals. To limit abuse of this focused power, our system opposes monopolies.

QUOTE:

When individuals pool their resources and speak under the legal fiction of a corporation, they do not lose their rights.

COMMENT:

I’m surprised Mr. Shapiro would use the term “legal fiction” – for that is a term I would have used. Truer to his intentions, Shapiro should perhaps have written “legal entity” or “legal umbrella.” By using the term “legal fiction” (remember, the word “fiction” means “false”), this author undermined his own case. For how could anyone possibly argue that something which is false is worthy of constitutional rights?

Ilya Shapiro chose to overlook the obvious point that, “When individuals pool their resources and speak under the legal fiction of a corporation, they… [in reality, do] lose their rights.” There could very well be shareholders or even (minority) members of the board of directors who (for instance) might be Democrats who would be having their own right to political preference overshadowed by a corporation deciding to support a Republican presidential candidate.

QUOTE:

It cannot be any other way; in a world where corporations are not entitled to constitutional protections, the police would be free to storm office buildings and seize computers or documents.

COMMENT:

Ilya Shapiro is guilty of overreach here, to make his point (which I believe to be a silly point, indeed). As a lawyer, Shapiro must surely know the falsity of such a claim – “It cannot be any other way”…indeed! It can “be” whatever the courts or the Congress deem it to be. His claim is simply from a lawyer trying to laughingly dismiss even the thought of a challenge.

It’s not necessary to cite violation of corporate rights to prevent such seizures. The shareholders of that entity could rise up in a class action lawsuit, under the terms of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, by claiming their property was taken from them “without due process of law.” The corporation may well own that property directly, but the shareholders (as owners of the corporation) own that property albeit indirectly.

QUOTE:

The mayor of New York City could exercise eminent domain over Rockefeller Center by fiat and without compensation if he decides he’d like to move his office there.

COMMENT:

This wasn’t a very good choice for an example, since Shapiro felt he had to make the mayor’s action truly despicable by adding “by fiat and without compensation.” In addition, I have to wonder why Shapiro feels the need to “ridiculize” his scenario by suggesting the mayor could take over the entire Rockefeller Center simply because he felt it necessary to move his office, an office which doesn’t require the whole Center.

First of all, at issue isn’t a “world where corporations are not entitled to constitutional protections.” By saying “world” where he meant “country,” I must conclude Shapiro lapses at least occasionally into sloppy writing.

Second, if the mayor were to seize that Center, he’d be seizing assets belonging to individuals. Yes, the corporation would be taking a hit, but so would its stockholders. The defense against the mayor here should be to invoke the individuals’ rights to their property instead of the corporation’s.

QUOTE:

Moreover, the government would be able to censor all corporate speech, including that of so-called media corporations.

COMMENT:

Let’s take the example of media corporations. “Speech” generated by a media corporation is a commodity produced by that entity. That commodity was prepared with the idea of maximizing profits. Should the government try to censor that speech, it would in effect be seizing that commodity and substituting its own of dubious value.

However, it’s not necessary to cite violation of corporate rights to prevent such a seizure (and, therefore, loss of value). The shareholders of that entity could rise up in a class action lawsuit, under the terms of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, by claiming their property was taken from them “without due process of law.”

QUOTE:

In short, rights-bearing individuals do not forfeit those rights when they associate in groups.

COMMENT:

Rights-bearing individuals should not have to forfeit their rights or have them diminished due to the machinations of groups of other rights-bearing individuals. That’s why we have social mechanisms in place to level the playing field. But, somehow, I don’t think Ilya Shapiro is much interested in leveling the playing field.

Additional Analysis

“A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members” - *

This is a good starting point, for it makes clear that corporations are not simply (in Mr. Shapiro’s words), “…formed by individuals as a means of exercising their constitutionally protected rights.” These individuals already have rights which they can exercise to their hearts’ content, with or without being incorporated. But, as cited above, the corporation has rights “that are distinct (therefore, different) from those of its members.”

The Tenth Amendment doesn’t deal with the powers, rights, and relative standing of various “groups” of people (including corporate groups). It states quite simply: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Tenth deals with three entities:

·       “the United States” – referring to the national government;

·       “the States” – referring to local governments;

·       “the people” – referring to all US citizens (please note: no further subdivisions are mentioned – corporate or otherwise).

I could even segue from the Ninth Amendment, which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Mr. Shapiro believes that “corporations are…entitled to constitutional protections [that is, ‘rights’].” But (again) corporations are not mentioned at all within the Constitution nor are any rights enumerated for them in particular.

Corporations can’t share the same rights as human beings who are US citizens, simply because corporations cannot be citizens. And not even Mr. Shapiro is pretending that they are – thank God! The Supreme Court was long ago persuaded to declare that corporations are persons under the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. But so far, SCOTUS has never pronounced this death sentence upon the Republic: “Corporations are citizens…therefore they can vote in elections.”

And why not? If a corporation is to be deemed a citizen, why shouldn’t it have the right to vote? Indeed, why not allow wealthier corporations to have a vote in proportion to their wealth? Not all people are treated equally in this country, anyway. For instance, the retarded and felons are denied the right to vote. So why should corporations (which are really just another form of citizen) be denied the maximum exercise of their powers?

But of course I digress

In my last paragraph, I played the role of Devil’s Advocate – that is, arguing as I suppose Ilya Shapiro might. And this turns me to the subject of Mr. Shapiro himself.

QUOTE: Ilya Shapiro: Senior Fellow in constitutional Studies and Editor-in-Chief, Cato Supreme Court Review…He holds an A.B. from Princeton University, an M.Sc. from the London School of Economics, and a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School (where he became a Tony Patiño Fellow). Shapiro is a member of the bars of New York, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Supreme Court. He is a native speaker of English and Russian, is fluent in Spanish and French, and is proficient in Italian and Portuguese.:UNQUOTE.**

Wow! What can I say? Ilya Shapiro appears to be a very intelligent fellow indeed. Which isn’t to say, though, that he’s intellectually honest or moral in any way. In fact, he seems exactly like the type of apparatchik who could have written the Torture Memos for the Bush Administration; the kind of man who, if followed with any degree of seriousness, could lead this country into a wide variety of messes.

The fact that he’s part of the Cato Institute, a fascist front if ever there was one, is also cause for concern. Groups like Cato exist to lend an aura of respectability to genuinely loathsome ideas and people. Billionaire Charles Koch, much in the news, comes readily to mind:

QUOTE: [Charles] Koch provides financial support for a number of libertarian organizations, including the Institute for Humane Studies and the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He also co-founded the Cato Institute.:UNQUOTE.***

According to its website, the Cato Institute promotes “individual liberty, free markets, and peace.” This is what I think they really mean:

·       We promote individual liberty, while holding fast to the idea that superior people must hold power, unrestricted by common men;

·       We promote free markets, which means a cut-throat capitalism unaccountable to anyone but its own barons;

·       We promote peace, until it becomes time for the occasional necessary war to boost profits and thin an overpopulating herd.

Who are these people kidding? Like we don’t really know what they’re up to?

Such silk-gloved villainy begs to be countered by plain-spoken folks like me who are willing to think through their bull shit. Unlike Mr. Shapiro, who speaks six languages, I only speak one – but I speak it plainly and honestly, with no ulterior motives, no master to serve, no hidden agenda. I do not have an advanced degree, having only an Associate’s degree to my credit. Frankly, I found college to be boring and a colossal waste of time.

But that doesn’t mean I can’t think or see through lies and deceptions. For I am a very patient person – that is, until I figure out how I’m being lied to. Then I become not so patient. As should you.


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

“We must stand united against the Best and the Brightest who think they’re so much better than we are.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

  ** http://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro

   *** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Koch

US President’s weekly Yahoo News 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 Aug. 14 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 9 of these mini-essays/comments.

ONE:

Let’s see…[TX governor] Perry’s supposed to have this animal magnetism, right? Or drawing power…something like that? Last week, Perry’s day of prayer in Houston claimed 30K in attendance. Uh, huh…pretty paltry, considering this particular stadium (Reliant…kind of ironic, eh?) seats 71K. But since a turnout of 30,000 is much higher than the 8,000 organizers were predicting, I guess Perry can claim some kind of a moral victory. [NOTE: If you can't win outright, claim a moral victory.] But come on, people, only 30,000 showing up in mega-city Houston? Maybe God was telling people to stay away from this guy. Just saying…

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The Lord works in mysterious ways…and has a sense of humor with which to belittle the Mighty Pretenders among us.”

TWO:

[In response to this article: “GOP hoping for the ideal candidate”]

I want to see independents and Democrats flood the GOP primaries and vote for Ron Paul. Wouldn't it be hilarious if that strategy derailed all the other Pubber candidates and RP walks away with the brass ring? Even funnier if he managed to beat Obama. But...tragic if he became president because the Pubbers would collude with the Demoncrats to deny him a Congressional partnership. The lesson? No matter who becomes POTUS, we'll still need an independent Congress to represent the real interests of America.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"And that's a lesson that Ron Paul still fails to realize."

THREE:

"This kind of massive cut across the board…would have devastating effects on our national defense…," Panetta said. Our national DEFENSE would not be affected; however, our ability to lay siege to hapless countries around the world for extended periods would be.

I hope Panetta doesn’t get it in his head to conspire with the generals, whispering in their ears: “Guys, you’re sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and we’re not being given the means to do so, therefore, gentlemen, you know what we have to do…”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Panetta would do well to remember Rumsfeld’s response to Army Spc. Thomas Wilson who had asked about the lack of vehicle armor in Iraq: ‘You go to war with the army you have – not the Army you might want or wish to have…’”

FOUR:

[This is in response to “Seven Ways Governor Perry would change the US Constitution.”]

       ONE:  Abolish lifetime tenure for fed judges? That’s EZ, and u don’t have to amend the Con. For any vacancy, Prez Perry could say, “I’ll only nominate u if u sign 2 sworn statements: u will resign after 5 years on the bench, and that failure to resign will be grounds 2 impeach due to lack of ‘good behavior’ (i.e., violating this sworn promise to resign).”

       TWO:  I agree with Perry’s #2 [override SCOTUS decisions by 2/3 of Congress] BUT…this will be most viable if we have a Congress without a single Dem/Pub member – independents only.

       THREE:  I disagree with Perry’s #3 [repeal 16th amend]. The problem isn’t having an income tax. It’s having an inequitable taxation system. But only a Congress of independents elected without special interest help could assure this.

       FOUR:  I understand Perry’s #4 [to repeal the 17th amendment], since our current system guts states’ rights. However, I support Cross-Sectional Representation which would give rise to people power at the expense of the states by cutting across state lines, so to speak. All eligible voters nationwide should be randomly assigned to 435 Cross-Sections. Each would still vote for a Rep (the Senate being abolished), but the CS would replace the geographically-based Congressional District.

       FIVE:  Balanced budget amendment? Don’t go there. Any Dem/GOP Congress will find a way to circumvent this amendment, which no Supreme Court would dare enforce. Only a Congress composed of independents elected from Cross-Sections would have the integrity and wisdom to know when the budget should be balanced and when it should not.

       SIX:  Anti-Gay Marriage by federal dictate? We’re too far gone for that. Let’s see if gay marriages can work, before “we” define what should be a marriage. As for “between one man and one woman,” if some Muslim/Mormon male (with four wives) from another country applied for US citizenship, far be it from me to interfere with his religion by saying, “he’s got to get rid of 3 of those wives first.” We’re supposed to have freedom of religion here, right? RIGHT??

       SEVEN:  Anti-Abortion amendment? The “traditional values [of] [at least some of] our founding fathers” permitted them to personally own slaves. So much for “traditional values.” What’s important for the “soul of this country” is for the federal government to get out of the business of running our personal lives. I’m sure Perry would support an amendment to monitor wealthy women who travel abroad by testing to see if they’re pregnant before they leave and testing again when they return – and they d*mn well better still be pregnant when they return or have a new born babe in arms. Let’s pass that amendment first.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“We need a new constitution based on Cross-Sectional Representation that includes a provision for a new ConCon every twenty years.”

FIVE:

I don’t have any problem with what Governor Perry said about Bernanke. He didn’t, as some fantasize, imply a physical threat. His exact words were: “we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas.” As for “treasonous, in my opinion,” absolutely – the printing of more money makes war against our future generations. It’s pretty obvious Perry’s getting gangbanged by people who want to knock him down. People who don’t care much for the truth of what he has to say.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“As for the Fed being independent, it has no right to exist at all.”

SIX:

“Eric Zorn [who writes for that pitiful rag, The Chicago Tribune] agrees: ‘… [Ron Paul] is not a plausible contender for the GOP nomination…”

Early in the campaign, a lot of people thought Obama-of-the-Thin-Resume didn’t have a chance either. But he was helped immensely by mainstream media that refused to ask him any hard questions and bent over so far backwards in their fawning it was embarrassing. [Anyone remember that awful Steve Kroft interview?]

But, really, the Bilderberg Group had its reasons for favoring Barack over Hilary. Just as it did for favoring Obama over McCain. But you won’t find “reporters” like Zorn saying squat about the Bilderbergs.

Ron Paul could have made much more of a difference by having renounced the GOP years ago. He could make a difference now by leading a Bully Pulpit campaign to vote incumbents out of office. But he’s such a believer in the Two Party System, he couldn’t then and he won’t now.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Besides, if Independents and Democrats flood the GOP primaries and vote for Dr. Paul, he will be assassinated before the Bilderbergs will let him come close to being nominated.”

SEVEN:

Ron Paul says he believes in the Constitution. However, he wishes to ignore the 14th amendment, where it states: “All persons born [NOTE: this excludes the unborn, since it clearly says “all persons BORN” and the unborn are those who haven’t been born yet] or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States…[and] No state* shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”

The unborn are not citizens, therefore they (by means of any law passed or enforced by a state) cannot trump the rights of citizens – one of those rights being a woman's right to control her own body. So if Ron Paul thinks he can use the power of Big Government to overturn Roe v. Wade, he’d be doing so unconstitutionally.

  [* And the Fifth Amendment effectively bars the feds from doing what the 14th prevents the states from doing.]

Ron says, “I believe in a very limited role for government.” Then he throws in a “but” or two: “But…government exists…to protect liberty…[and] life. And I mean all life.” We’ll leave out for a moment that Ron enjoys a good hamburger every once in a while. The main point, you simply can’t “protect liberty…[and] life [presumably including “quality of life”]” with the “very limited” government Paul has in mind. Such a government can’t meet our minimum expectations, which include the regulations necessary to level the playing field and protect us from the Oligarchs.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Sorry, I’m sure Ron Paul is a very nice guy whose mother loved him tons and bunches when he was growing up, but that’s not good enough to be president.”

EIGHT:

@ MisesKnowsBest,

I’m assuming no such thing [God, where do people get this stuff?]. The 14^th [Amendment], for the most part, addresses what the States can’t do. And one of those things states can’t do is “abridge the privileges…of citizens,” especially on behalf of non-citizens. How would you like it if your rights were trumped in favor of illegal aliens?

According to the 14th, a state can’t tell a woman, “We, acting on behalf of the unborn (who aren’t citizens, so how does a state get to 'represent' them in the first place?), get to deny your Right to Choose by ordering you to give birth, even though you are a citizen.” If citizens don’t have a Right to Choose when it comes to their own bodies, then none of our other rights really means a whole lot. But we (or more pertinent to my argument “women”) do have a Right to Choose, due to Roe v. Wade.

Since the unborn aren’t citizens, it doesn’t matter [though you seem to think it does] when “life begins.” That’s irrelevant to the issue of citizenship. What matters, constitutionally, is who is a citizen and who is not?

By the way, the 14th says nothing about blacks at all. It does, though, (see Section 2) give states the right to deny the vote to “any male inhabitant..twenty-one years of age,” the penalty being that such states must suffer their “representation” (for example, # of reps in Congress) to be reduced by the same proportion.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Section 2 is odd in that it only specifically targets 21-year-olds, whereas I think the intent was to target 21-and-older. But…that’s not what it says.”

NINE:

[Headline of article: Michele Bachmann’s bodyguards developing reputation for bullying reporters]

This is nothing but a load of “he said, she said,” which won’t matter in the long run. Bachmann’s biggest worry will be how badly Obama will maul her during the debates…assuming she gets that far. Unfortunately, her bodyguards won’t be able to help her, nor will her husband. Sorry, MB fans, she just doesn’t have the chops, not ready for prime time, and all that. Not to mention, she doesn’t actually have a program. So far, her entire campaign is all about “me, me, me.” Which will get tiring soon enough.

 Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If nothing else, she can always fall back on her vast foreign policy and executive experience.”

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“                   ”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

US President’s weekly Yahoo News 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 July 31 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 21 of these mini-essays/comments.

ONE:

No pain, no gain. The only language people understand is money, which doesn’t just talk – it screams. Once the Dow falls to (oh, say) 5,000, maybe people will be ready to vote out all of the Dem/Pubs and elect Independents. By that time, however, it will be too late, since the Elite will have imposed martial law and suspended the Constitution under a State of Emergency.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Nasty habits are hard to break. But if we don’t break our nastiest – that of robotically electing Dem/Pubs to office – we’ll have only ourselves to blame as we peer out from behind the fences of FEMA concentration camps.”

TWO:

As scripture, the Bible has some strong points. But if George Washington had access to the Buddhist scripture known as the Lotus Sutra, he would have cast the Bible aside. But...the Lotus had not been translated into any of the Western languages at the time of the American Revolution. Our Revolution would have had a much firmer basis in the truth if it had.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Ah, timing is everything: Karma 101.”...

THREE:

“Do you want to share the world with the Chinese or with nuclear-armed Iran?” he says. “The only thing worse than Americans running the world is someone else running the world.”

In the first sentence, Donnelly of AEI (barf!) talks about sharing the world. In the very next sentence, he talks about “someone else running the world” – as if we, at present, are “running the world” (which is truer than it should be). I wonder if Donnelly himself was aware of what had just come out of his mouth.

Why not share the world with the Chinese? Haven’t they tolerated Western domination for centuries? And, no, they’re not going to rape your women – they just want to know what it feels like to be a Superpower. We’d be hypocrites to blame them.

As for the Defense budget – even if you cut it in half, Special Ops would find ways to illegally finance military “needs.” If we’re serious about reducing defense spending (which we aren’t, by the way), we would pass a law barring all lobbyists from even entering the Pentagon, & preventing all retired generals from going to work for civilian defense contractors.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“In spite of this so-called historic bipartisan debt compromise, we still accomplished only one thing – kicked the can down the road.”

FOUR:

“… petition for divine assistance to help the nation emerge from its financial woes and other crises” – [quote from Texas governor & possible presidential candidate Rick Perry]

I heard some Native Americans (aka Indians with feathers, not dots) offered to teach [Texas Governor] Perry how to do a rain dance. Texas could use some of that heavenly elixir. Perry declined their offer since these heathen redskins weren’t Christians and besides, “I’d look pretty silly prancing around like that!”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Beggars can’t be choosers.”

FIVE:

My response to another poster who had written, “Our 2 party system is not working! I wish that the politicians could understand that” follows:

It's not the politicians - it's We the People who have to understand that AND do something about it. I'm waiting!

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"Out of 300M people in this country, why do we allow ourselves to be forced to choose between Two Party mediocrities?"

SIX:

[RE: Ralph Nader’s comment that he expects Obama to be challenged in the Democratic primaries.]

I wonder how much the GOP is paying Nader to make such noise.

There’s one very good reason why Obama will not have a serious challenger during the primaries – a reason that scares the daylights out of the GOP. If Obama isn’t challenged during the primaries, the Dem strategists will quietly (or maybe not so quietly) spread the word to their rank and file: Don’t vote in our primaries, ask for a GOP ballot instead, so you can vote for Michelle Bachmann.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Such cross-over voting is legal and has happened in the past, but 2012 offers a golden opp for really screwing the GOP’s primary results.”

SEVEN:

Oh, I’m sure Obama will be faced with some gadfly irritant of a [Democratic primary] opponent who has no chance and isn’t really a serious candidate. But such “candidates” are useful to allow angry primary voters to let off steam. But as for real change you can believe in? Well, you’ve already got that. His name is Barack Obama…yuck, yuck, yuck.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“We’re too scared of our own shadow to create an independent, third party. So we’ll fall back on our knee-jerk Brand X (Dems) vs. Brand Y (GOP) thinking. Oh, well…so much for our spirit of independence.”

EIGHT:

“Scientists expect the payoff to be well worth the long journey.” It’s always easy for a project to be “well worth” it to scientists, when taxpayers are footing the bill.

"What we're really going after is some of the most fundamental questions of our solar system — how Jupiter formed, how it evolved [and how it managed to exert such an influence on us that we spend money we don’t have to get there].”

"My biggest hope is that all of our predictions about Jupiter are wrong, and that we find something completely different than what we expect. [That way, we can play the Fear Card, asking Congress for more money since they always cough up when faced with Fear of the Unknown.]”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If elected, I will veto NASA's funding, saying, ‘If these space projects are so valuable, then let private enterprise partner with universities to pay for them. Or, how about a Coalition of the Willing? That scam worked with our wars so…’”

NINE:

[The “outcome” mentioned in the next sentence is the possibility of even greater cuts in the military budget.]

"It is an outcome that would be completely unacceptable to me as secretary of defense…”

Well, Mr. Secretary, either man up and deal with it or tender your resignation. If I’m elected in 2012, I’ll simplify that with, “You’re fired!”

Mr. Panetta worries about the ability to “project our power.” But tell me, sir, if the Chinese wanted to project their power by intervening in South America with joint training exercises (all in the name of “defense” of course), how could you object? We have no qualms about projecting our power (again, in the name of “defense”) in China’s back yard.

We still outspend China at least three-to-one in terms of defense, not to mention the decades of head start we've had. Good God, man, how much “defense” is enough? As for the US asking questions of Beijing, a proper Chinese response would be, “What part of 'None of your dam business' do you not understand?” Which is exactly what we would say should Beijing “question” Washington.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If elected, I would fire at least 10% of the top officer corps. Most people don’t realize how dangerous to our national security are generals who are too comfortable in their positions. But…no one talks about that!”

TEN:

[Mystery companies, before disbanding, donating to Romney's PAC.]

Being as connected as he is to the Mormon elite, there will be a lot more money than that magically appearing.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“You DO believe in magic, don’t you?”

ELEVEN:

@ Zeke199,

You’re not asking the right question: “how chummy do you want to be with a [Muslim] religious system…?” One does not get “chummy” with systems; one gets chummy with people.

The few Muslims I’ve encountered have been admirable people. Do they secretly wish me a nasty death? Maybe, though I have had nasty Christians tell me to my face I’m going to burn in Hell. I have problems with the narratives of all of the Abrahamic  faiths, which is exactly why I’m a Buddhist.

I’m sure a lot of militant Islamic rhetoric would tone down once we stop oppressing their people and occupying their lands. Most people, I strongly suspect, aren’t really very well steeped in their own theology. [For instance, my Muslim friends are stumped when I point out that Mohammed didn’t receive his revelations directly from God (and why not?) but from Gabriel.]

But Muslims do know this much: They want good things for their families, and don't look kindly on those who would deny that.

TWELVE:

@ Pete

So “True Christianity” doesn’t believe that Jesus Christ is the literal son of God? How interesting! As for Catholics being polytheistic, they would deny that of course. The Trinity is called a mystery, which is how Catholics get to embrace monotheism. Think of it this way: Is light a wave or a particle? It exhibits both wave and particle characteristics; so, it is both and neither, yet it is fundamental, unique, and indivisible – kind of like a Trinitarian God is supposed to be, yes?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I hope you all don’t cherry pick certain Quranic scriptures, since you might not like it if others were that selective with the Bible.”

THIRTEEN:

J,

The Dem/Pubs have already shamelessly trashed the Constitution by decades of gnawing away at its meanings and protections. I aim to replace it (not just amend it, but replace the whole thing) with a new Law of the Land based on Cross-Sectional Representation. If we insist on hanging on to this antiquated relic, I assure you that will be the end of the United States. It’s that serious.

As far as NASA is concerned, I personally would like to see a transfer of its programs to a consortium of universities and private companies. But I would leave that decision to a Congress composed entirely of Independents.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Save the Republic from the ravages of the runaway Two Party System – vote Independent.”

FOURTEEN:

Government spending which creates jobs is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. If government expenditures would decrease, that would free up more money for taxpayers to spend or invest in the economy. And that would create jobs for the best of reasons – due to an increase in economic activity. Government is not a very efficient spender, so the less it spends, the better. Leave spending up to those who know how – We the People.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Too much reliance on government-as-employer leads to a lazy welfare attitude.”

FIFTEEN:

“[The asteroid] Vesta is ‘so rich in features’ that it will keep scientists busy for years…”

Well, at least those folks have jobs.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“No need to scuttle projects like this in the name of balancing the budget…just keep moving along folks and mind your own business.”

SIXTEEN:

So (almost) all the GOP prez candidates are against the debt deal. But does that mean, if they were in the Congress, would they have voted against it? [NOTE: We already know Bachmann & Ron Paul voted “no.”]

Interestingly, as many Dems voted for it as against it: 95 each. And more Dems voted “no” than did Republicans: 95 vs. 66.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The saddest thing? Voters will forget how close we came to disaster (and will fail to realize we're still not out of the woods on this) and will continue to re-elected Dem/Pub incumbents. Yea, they’ll be mad at them but…they’ll still vote for them.”

SEVENTEEN:

“… I think it is safe to say…neither Congress nor anyone else may prevent [outstanding US bonds] from being paid. That seems fairly clear.”

“I think?” “Fairly clear?” These words don’t convey much strength of conviction, do they?

Professor Sheppard makes certain leaps by claiming: “I think that [Obama] …is absolutely required to pay the bonds. The whole point of the 14th Amendment's section four was to make sure that the public debt would be above politics, that there could never be a question of the full faith and credit of the United States.”

Is Sheppard taking money under the table from foreign holders of US bonds, making him say stuff like this? Section four simply states: “The validity of the public debt of the United States… shall not be questioned.”

Professor, nobody was questioning that debt’s validity nor do the words “full faith and credit of the United States” even appear in the amendment. The issue before Congress was the manner and conditions under which that debt is to be paid. In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t even state that our public debt must be paid; it only says that debt “shall not be questioned.”

To put a finer point on the matter, Section 5 of the 14th states: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article [that is, “amendment”].” It doesn’t say “Obama shall have the power to enforce by raising the debt limit without authorization by Congress.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If Obama would have listened to Professor Sheppard, he might have ended up being impeached. Just saying…”

EIGHTEEN:

“… would be affected, as would payments to doctors and other Medicare providers.”

Much is made of the fact that individual benefits would not be affected but providers would get the shaft. But no one has made it clear that providers couldn’t deny services or demand supplementary payment from patients. A little more clarity is needed here.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Look at the bright side: Our Bombs for Libya program wasn’t cut back.”

NINETEEN:

Maybe a Constitutional amendment would be too much, but sooner or later the feds will have to deal with a “half slave, half free” situation. Meaning: If a gay couple from New York gets married (in New York) and then decides to move to a state which doesn’t allow for gay marriage or civil unions, would or should that marriage be recognized by that second state?

Suppose the partners decide, in that second state, to get a divorce. Would they have to do so in NY? Could wills be tied up in probate if relatives decided to challenge the legality of that marriage in that second state?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“It never gets any easier, does it?”

TWENTY:

[My response to Bob, who had responded to the questions I asked in NINETEEN (above).]

Bob,

I’m not so sure about my questions having been “legally decided.” I hear what you’re saying about “legal contract,” but some might argue that marriage is more than just a legal contract (or it’s unique enough to require “special” consideration). If that argument were to prevail, that would open doors to a sweeping judicial scrutiny.

Your second sentence raises a question: If that second state does not have laws governing the contract, then couldn’t that be construed as a form of (de facto) invalidation? I still see a need for the feds to get involved, in the name of “equal protection under the law.” I’ve seen contracts that are considered iron-clad end up before a judge – with sometimes surprising results.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The marriage contract is going to come under severe pressure, if from no other source than activist judges.”

TWENTY-ONE:

Not so fast on “the Senate will never convict [Obama on an impeachment charge].” Conviction wouldn’t actually be necessary for the GOP to savage Obama for this transgression. Picture this: Presidential candidate and US Rep Michelle Bachmann leading the charge by filing a motion to impeach Obama. The House will pass this motion but – and this is the important part – not right away. There will be much prolonging of the proceedings with a lot of theater and testimony and rabble-rousing. This will be the opening and sustaining shot of Campaign 2012.

The 14^th Amendment states: “The validity of the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned.” Nobody is questioning it – what is being questioned are the circumstances and conditions under which it will be paid and under which future debt, in order to be considered valid, will be incurred. And those “circumstances” could involve default (which the Constitution doesn’t specifically bar), which would lead to a restructuring of our debt among our creditors. Again, no one is questioning this debt’s validity. Just as when individuals go to bankruptcy court – the debts are acknowledged as valid. What remains is for the court to decide how to proceed.

Another thing, not fully appreciated: The Fourteenth Amendment was passed under duress. The Southern States, where the Tea Party has a lot of room for growth, know this. Obama would be unwise to use the Fourteenth [to increase our debt limit under his own (and only his own) authority], unless he wants to start a new Civil War. Steven Searle for US President in 2012 “The GOP would have no choice but to impeach Obama, even if the Senate wouldn’t vote to convict.”

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“If it seems that I push the envelope with some of my pronouncements, that’s only in the spirit of ‘the mail must go through.’”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com