Cain for President: It’s all about Me, Me, Me!

Herman Cain reminds me of former Senator Rolland Burris of Illinois in this revealing way:

While both men can claim an enviable record of achievement over a long life, both men seek/sought to stoke their egos by inflating their public resumes.

In Burris’s case, that took the form of the scandal surrounding his appointment to the US Senate; in Cain’s case, he would be satisfied to end up being an also-ran for the US presidency who put up a good fight.

It’s all about Me, Me, Me!

That’s what I believe to be Cain’s personal motivational mantra. My suspicions were aroused when considering his so-called 9-9-9 plan. Briefly, this plan calls for:

·       a 9 percent flat tax on household income (the only allowable deduction being for charity),

·       a 9 percent corporate tax on (from his website) “Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses and all dividends paid to shareholders”, and

·       a National Sales Tax of 9%.

Right off the bat, several things bothered me about this Plan. To start with, on his website, he calls it “Herman Cain’s 999 Plan” [emphasis mine], and in his 9/15/11 opinion piece in the WSJ, Cain wrote:

QUOTE:

“Cain’s Vision for Economic Growth,” also known as the 9-9-9 Plan…” [emphasis mine].

UNQUOTE.

The candidate speaks of “Cain’s Vision,” and of “Herman Cain’s 999 Plan.” On the internet, I encountered this revealing item:

QUOTE:

In an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Mr. Cain declared that “some of the best economists in this country” helped him develop the plan…

But Mr. Cain repeatedly refused to name those bright minds when pressed by the show’s host, Chris Wallace.

:UNQUOTE [source:  http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/09/18/shhhh-its-herman-cains-secret-kitchen-cabinet/ ]

Mr. Cain seems overly eager to claim excessive credit (translation: to give the appearance of being in command, of being a leader) by only referring to anonymous others who had (merely?) “helped him develop the plan.”

Such an attitude speaks volumes of a monumental ego. Cain fancies himself as a motivational speaker. But it must be remembered: After all is said and done, motivational speakers focus a lot of energy telling themselves how great they are – that is, in motivating themselves. NOTE: Beware of the inferiority complexes that gnaw at even the most (apparently!) self-confident men.

As for the 9-9-9 Plan itself

It’s too much of a coincidence (too simplistic?) that all three categories of taxation are at the same level – 9%. Why not 9 -10 - 6? Or 8.5 - 9.37 - 6.235? Or does Cain take only a whole-numbers approach? Or a consistency (all 9’s) approach? And why treat all corporations as if they’re the same – as if all categories of businesses would be equally impacted by that 9% tax? Some types of corporations could and should shoulder more tax burden; others, less. But it would seem Cain paints in broad brush strokes – or deals in the brevity worthy of a sound bite that conjures up a storm of applause from his equally simplistic audiences.

Not to mention, Cain is silent on whether he’ll continue the grand tradition of seeking to borrow to pay our bills. He speaks only of cutting spending, but that would require Congressional cooperation.  In addition, Cain isn’t saying anything about cutting military costs. And that could become important should Cain ever have to ask for a “Supplementary Appropriation” to fight in yet another of our unending series of wars.

A “leader” who wants to have it both ways

From Cain’s website [Cain’s post, dated Oct. 3, 2011]: “With 14 million Americans out of work, an unemployment rate of over 9 percent…we’re facing the worst economic times since the Great Depression.” And yet these unemployed only have themselves to blame, as witnessed by this outburst:

"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself. It is not someone's fault if they succeeded, it is someone's fault if they failed," the ex-Godfather's Pizza CEO [Cain] declared.

On the one hand, Cain wants to blame Obama for “the worst economic times since the Great Depression.” But on the other hand, he’s telling us to “blame yourself” if you don’t have a job. That must sound pretty insensitive to the millions of long-term unemployed who know very well that Wall Street played a major role in their impoverishment.

Aside: I am now going to lecture Mr. Cain about his “Don’t blame Wall Street” remark (above): “Whether someone succeeds or fails in life depends on a multitude of factors. Not everybody who tries hard succeeds, and there are those who exert very little effort who succeed due to family connections or fortuitous circumstances. And in spite of your effort to exclusively blame the little guy for his personal misfortune, there are macro forces at work which exert their influences – for better or worse. Saying stuff like this doesn’t make you sound (only) inarticulate; it makes you sound stupid. So cut it out and stop embarrassing yourself.”

Cain’s greatest failing

Herman Cain’s greatest failing is that same greatest failing shared by all currently active presidential campaigners: He’s trying to convince us that his leadership will save the day. I, Steven Searle, am the only candidate for US President saying, “I can’t do this by myself – I need the help of a Congress filled with independent patriots who aren’t affiliated with any political party. Help me do my job by throwing out all incumbents – that’s where we have to start. All good things will flow from that.”

But…Cain isn’t saying anything like that because, “it’s all about Me, Me, Me.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“If you listen more than casually to what Cain is saying, you’ll agree – he is a bit of a simpleton. Case in point: Just read his website (for very light reading indeed): http://www.hermancain.com/”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

“I’m a class warfare president.”

Today, I hereby announce that I am a class warfare candidate for the US presidency in 2012. If elected, I will use the occasion of my inaugural speech to declare that “I’m a class warfare president.”

I’ll add: “It’s you and me – members of the 95% - against them – members of the 5%. And you know who you are.”

No one should fear I’m urging mobs to take to the streets to smash windows and overturn cars. No one on our side will fire a shot – nor will they come to think that they have to. My version of Class Warfare will have an elegance about it that will earn it the distinction of being Classy Warfare. Winning this war will require finesse, since (and let’s face it) the other side can outgun us.

George W. Bush had once famously declared, “I’m a war president.” That was back on February 8, 2004 during a White House TV interview, in reference to the Global War on Terror.

An even more important war is the one I’m declaring here and now. This war has been going on for a long time, though most people don’t know it. To be sure, the Elite know it. They never trusted the masses (that’s you, my fellow 95-percenters), they interact with us on a daily basis thinking of us as their natural (though dormant) enemy, and they raise their children to think the same way.

My aim is to wake up that dormant 95% and give them a voice, a focal point (my campaign for the presidency) and a strategy*. I stand before you as the recruiter for the virtual army that has to retake the United States from those who believe in minority rule. And if you think the majority rules in this country, just ask yourself: Why does the Senate filibuster still exist, which allows the will of 41 to override the votes of 59?

The Elite knows it doesn’t have the numbers to rule. So they rely on divide-and-conquer tactics, ably assisted by corporate control of the media, party control of public institutions, and Elite control over major corporations. By turning the 95% against itself, that majority can’t focus on the real job at hand – making sure government stops running for the disproportionate benefit of the few.

To be sure, factions within that 95% are dedicated to their various causes and social views. But those factions should join forces to insist on the level playing field which will be to our mutual benefit. We should start with reaffirming our faith in the justice of the “one man, one vote” doctrine, then proceeding to replace all Dem/Pubs in Congress with independents. As I’ve written before, that can’t happen yet since there aren’t many independents on the ballot. However, we can start with an important first step: “If you can’t vote for an independent, vote against the incumbent.”

Many might feel that would invite anarchy, but all it really does is remove us all (especially the politicians) from our comfort zones. As for inviting anarchy, tell me – aren’t we perilously close to anarchy now? As for comfort zones, that, my friends, is the key. If people can’t overcome their brand-name programming – if people can’t stop behaving so predictably – we’ll never obtain the changes that will empower us. Just as there are people who think soft drink choices boil down to Pepsi vs. Coke, there are those who can’t imagine pulling the voting machine lever for any candidate except a Democrat or a Republican.

And they certainly couldn’t imagine (gasp!) sabotaging the system by intentionally voting for someone they detest, simply in the name of voting against the incumbent. But we need more sabotage of this nature. For instance, now is the perfect time for Democrats (or independents, who rarely vote in party primaries) to consider sabotaging the GOP’s upcoming presidential primary season. Go ahead, cast your ballot for Rick Santorum or some other bottom-feeder, just to skew the results. Or vote for Ron Paul. It might be your only chance to do so, since the media seems hell-bent on ignoring him.

Most people don’t realize how vulnerable the primary voting system is. Well, they had better start realizing it pretty quickly and using that insight to their ultimate advantage. Remember: The governing Elite hates unpredictability. Anything you can do to undermine their confidence will force them to make mistakes (as a result of lashing out). And that can only work to our advantage.

Inspired by Bush’s speech**

I was inspired to declare Class Warfare, ironically enough, by these words spoken by George W. Bush:

“This is an impressive crowd – the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the Elite. I call you my base.”

Bush spoke these words back in 2000 at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, basically a fundraising event for a bunch of hoity-toities. To this day, I can’t believe a man who would be our president would have come right out and called the Elite “my base.” Obviously – by those words and subsequent actions – Bush never intended to be a president for all of us. So I’d like to return the favor by declaring myself – not to be a candidate for all of us, but only for the haves and the have-lesses.

Maybe Bush felt pretty good about himself representing the Elite. But I could feel even better about myself representing the 95%.

What could divide us?

There was a time when politicians lined up to swear allegiance to a proposed constitutional amendment to ban the burning or desecration of the American flag. That’s not a hot button issue any more, especially since there wasn’t any coherent way to put such an amendment into words. But rest assured, there are and always will be other issues to divide us:

·       For or against a woman’s choice to birth or abort?

·       For or against gay marriage?

·       For or against building an illegal immigration-proof fence on the border with Mexico?

·       For or against Right to Work laws?

·       For or against separation of church and state?

I’m not going to call any of these issues “petty.” They are important. But they’re not so important as to blind us to the need to unite in order to get that level-playing field that is so sorely missing. They’re not so important that we overlook, because we’re too busy hating other factions, the need to create an environment where Dem/Pub candidates cannot automatically count on our support.

There is one other thing that could divide us: A lot of people don’t identify with the interests of the social class they’re in but, instead, with the interests of the class they’d like to join. I think it was George McGovern who complained (and I’ll paraphrase): A lot of voters didn’t like my tax reform proposals since they thought they would win the lottery someday and be rich enough to enjoy the tax breaks that they should (as members of the class they’re actually in now) oppose.”

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Aren’t you tired of being so shamelessly manipulated?”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

    * http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/general-strike-declared-by-steven.html

   ** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls

“Pudding Face” Candidates of the GOP

Opening query

I wonder what Sarah Palin would look like with a Pudding Face. In case you haven’t seen any of these disgusting & creepy Jell-o Pudding Face commercials, these two clips are worth a licking (I mean, a looking):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyKhP6x0tXE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRWMq32PyHE&feature=related

NEWS FLASH: It has recently been revealed that the Joker in the 1989 film version of Batman did not fall into a vat of chemicals. It was a vat of Pudding or rather an experimental batch of Pudding’s precursor. Happily, many of the bugs have been worked out of that formula, or else we’d all be running around for life looking like Jack Nicholson’s Joker…assuming, that is, that all of us would eat this stuff:

http://www.google.com/search?pq=precursor+definition&hl=en&sugexp=gsis,i18n%3Dtrue&cp=17&gs_id=1m&xhr=t&q=jack+nicholson+joker&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1280&bih=826&wrapid=tljp1315178429109028&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

A Repeated Appeal

I’ve made this appeal to you numerous times before, but I’ll repeat it again: I’m looking for artists and other creative types to transform my scripts/suggestions into commercials or YouTube clips. What follows would support my candidacy for the US presidency in 2012 by caricaturing my GOP opponents. If you, on your own, decide you want to “Pudding Face” Obama via Photoshop, be my guest. But I think your efforts would be better spent on the stable of GOP pretenders. Why? Practically speaking, Obama would be far more vulnerable to a stone-cold sober look at his track record and broken promises.


Short and Long Versions

An easy and brief way to exploit the Pudding Face theme would be to start with a narrator saying: “Now here’s a face you can trust, one that has ‘sincerity’ written all over it.” Then an image of Michele Bachman in full rictus grin appears saying: “Under President Bachmann you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again.* And that’s no laughing matter.”

Or we could feature Governor Perry saying, “I believe Texas has the right, unique among the 50 states, to secede from the union if it wants to.** [Pause] But at the moment, I’m having a problem saying that with a straight face.”

However, I think “Pudding Face” can be better exploited in a longer format. Something along the lines of “The Last Supper.” I’ll explain.


The Last Supper

Scene: A table set for 13 places as in the famous painting by da Vinci, with the middle place unoccupied. Seated at the other 12 places are GOP candidates having assembled for a private, untelevised retreat. This occurs several months into the 2012 campaign season, by which time the candidates have agreed to an informal meeting of the minds. The “Last Supper” format was agreed upon to add an air of seriousness, to help assure that the words spoken would be those suitable for utterance in the presence of the Son of God.

Rationale: The campaign has taken its toll on all of the candidates – they’re tired and they’re crabby. In the name of unity, they decide to speak frankly to each other without aides, advisors, or any kind of audience. They want a Republican to win in 2012, and they know they have to collectively figure out a way for that to happen.

Unfortunately: An aide had the bright idea of leaving each of them a serving of Jell-o Pudding before he left their presence. It doesn’t take long, after they eat their share, for things to take a turn for the worse.

The scenario unfolds: Chaos ensues as each looks at the others and starts laughing, as all except Palin realize s/he too looks like a Joker. Bachmann could even say to Romney, “Better watch out, Joker. I heard Batman’s looking for you.” But she’s quickly admonished by Ron Paul who says, “We can’t be talking that way about each other… seriously.” All heads turn to Paul and say in unison, “Seriously?” And then they burst out laughing as they point at him.

Bachmann holds up a mirror for Paul to see how ridiculous he looks, and he too bursts out laughing.

Palin grabs the mirror, saying, “Give me that.” Before holding it up to her face, she says, “Mirror, mirror in my hand, who’s the fairest in the land?” When we see what she sees – her face in the mirror – she shrieks in disbelief, “Noooo!” – as the others fall silent.

“We’ve got to find a way to lose these silly grins” – Gingrich.

“You’re right. How can we get down to business looking like this?” – Huntsman [speaking in Chinese, subtitled in English].

“Let’s have none of that, China man. We speak English here.” – Perry.

Huntsman bows and says, “So solly.”

“I know how to wipe off these grins. Just say something that will make us serious or angry. [pause, then angrily…] Hey, better that than this [pointing at his own ear-to-ear smile].” – Gingrich.

“I know! In your face: Jesus Christ was a Black man. I heard that from no less an authority than WikiLeaks” – Cain.

“And you are the walking mark of Cain, a stain on the whole GOP” – Santorum.

“Have you ever googled the word ‘santorum’?”– Palin [giggling]. In subtitles, we see this (from google):

Santorum 1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. 2. Senator Rick Santorum.

Bachmann bursts out laughing. Santorum glares at her – still grinning irrepressibly – and says, “What are you laughing at – asshole?”

“Let’s not get into that” – Romney.

“I should hope none of us would ever want to get into that” – Ron Paul says, looking at Rick Perry. Brief silence, then everybody bursts out laughing.

“Wait a minute. Why should we worry? This shit will wear off, right? Then we’ll get down to business” – Perry.

“It won’t wear off until the price of gas goes under $2 a gallon, right Michele?” – Gingrich.

Rick Perry explodes with, “You mean it won’t ever wear off!?”

“Come on, Tex, lighten up. I was just joking” – Gingrich.

“What we should do is pray for guidance.” – Cain.

“I know! Let’s pray for the empty place of honor at our table to be filled by that which is the true spirit of the Republican Party” – Palin, gesturing toward the empty seat meant, symbolically, for Jesus Christ. They all bow their heads and before long, a spirit manifests itself.

[I’m not sure who that spirit should be,

so I’ll offer two possibilities.]

The first possibility – Adolph Hitler

“Are you the true spirit of the Republican party?” – Bachmann.

“That’s a matter of opinion. But I'll give you some advice, which is also what you prayed for” – Hitler. He looks disdainfully at the Pudding on his plate, and eats it. The others try to stop him with words of warning, but to no avail. He briefly breaks out in Pudding Face, which quickly disappears.

“My advice to you: Do what I just did – use a little force of will to overcome any obstacles you might face. Even if that obstacle happens to be your face itself.” [muttering] “You people are too soft to lead a great nation. You totally lack discipline.”


The second possibility – a visitor from a roughly parallel universe

A man appears dressed as a Pope. Perry says, “Who you supposed to be, boy?”

“I am known as Pope Simony Simon the Parsimonius.” [See two definitions below]

DEFN: Simony = the buying or selling of ecclesiastical privileges.

DEFN: Parsimonious = extreme care or reluctance in spending; frugality.

“Your name is really simony?” – Romney asks, incredulously.

“Yes, which just goes to show the true miracle of my elevation. If a guy named Simony can become Pope, anything’s possible.”

“Describe your world, where such a thing is possible?” – Huntsman.

“I come from a place, not so different from this place, where simony isn’t considered a bad thing. Everything is for sale and everybody knows it, the only question being, ‘Is the sale good for both buyer and seller?’ As for me being ‘Parsimonious,’ I may expound ‘extreme care or reluctance in spending,’ but that doesn’t mean I won’t spend at all or even spend greatly if the potential profit is also great.”

“So what is your advice to us, Pope Simony Simon?” – Cain.

“If you – and by ‘you,’ I mean the GOP – want to take the White House in 2012, you’ve got to forge unity among yourselves.”

“What kind of ‘unity’?” – Gingrich.

“The kind of unity that will wipe those silly grins off your faces. Look, counting me, there are 13 people here – that’s enough for a coven. Join hands with me and pray for success. But include a willingness to pay any price. Deal or no deal?”

With a freeze fame of the entire group, this is a good place to end.


Other actors

I only identified 9 of the participants in this Last Supper, but certainly more could be added to make an even dozen. Though undeclared, these three would be good sources of comedic material: Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie.

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

   * Bachmann actually uttered this sentence before a live crowd in South Carolina.

   ** Governor Perry believes this, but didn’t utter these exact words.

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

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

“In the name of comedy, I have no problem pushing the envelope. The same could be said of my determination to explore all ways and means of undermining the Two Party system which is destroying this country.” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The Assassination of Ron Paul

Ron Paul will not even come close to winning the GOP’s nomination for US President in 2012. If he starts winning any more than a token number of delegates as primary season unfolds, if he gains any threatening traction at all, he will be assassinated.

In spite of what you learned in elementary school, not just anybody can be president. At least, not any more. JFK scared the shit out of the CIA when he talked about disbanding that Agency. From that point on, the determination of who shall be president wasn’t left to chance. There was simply too much at stake for the Elite to permit a man they couldn’t control to become POTUS.

What about Barack Obama?

As soon as Obama made it clear he’d play by their rules, he got the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval from the Elite. Not to mention their active support. Consider this checklist regarding that support and what he did to maintain it:

·       Enable his meteoric rise with key financial and political support from the Chicago Democratic Party – check!

·       Make sure no embarrassing stories from his past come back to haunt him – check!  [Ever wonder why no former girlfriends (well, he is good-looking) came forward with “anecdotes?” Ever wonder why there weren’t accounts offered by old friends or people he worked with when he was a “community organizer?”]

·       Give marching orders to the media not to subject Obama to any serious vetting or grilling on policy questions – check!

·       Without any severe domestic backlash, Obama was able to sink us deeper into Afghanistan – even though there was no hint he’d do this during the campaign – check!

·       As soon as he was elected, he (as he’d been ordered to do) “picked” Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff – check!

·       All of his economic advisors (without one dissenting, Devil’s Advocate voice at the table) were the very people responsible for our economic mayhem – check!

·       Even though Obama could at least have tried to bring the insurance industry under the same federal regulatory anti-trust mechanism as all others who deal in interstate commerce, he “chose” not to – check!

Back to Ron Paul

The Elite tolerate people like Ron Paul – in fact, they know they need them. But only up to a point. And even Ron knows how far he can go. But if somehow he gets a little fuzzy on that, he’ll get a “gentleman’s reminder” – which I’ll translate, “Stop or we’ll kill you.”

There is genuine dissatisfaction rampant throughout the land – the natives are getting restless. But as long as those natives don’t have a champion to rally to, there’s really only one danger the Elite face. That is, if We-the-People should ever come to feel that the deck is totally stacked against us, random acts of violence against the system might break out. Kind of like rats lashing out when they know they’re cornered.

And that kind of violence could lead to any number of uncertain outcomes. And that’s one thing the Elite hate – uncertainty.

Enter Ron Paul – and people like him (Ross Perot comes to mind). These gnarly, curmudgeonly old men are lightning rods. They are meant to attract the hot-fevered “lightning” of dissidents and channel it safely and harmlessly to be absorbed by the earth, so that pesky and disturbing thunder of outrage won’t disturb the general public’s slumber.

Without Ron Paul, society would be lacking a valuable means for people to let off steam. If too much steam isn’t “let off,” there could be an explosion.

Ron Paul “quits" the race

Ron Paul is a medical doctor, which he will use to his advantage. If it should ever come time for him to bow out of the primaries – even (read: especially!) at the point when he’s emerging from the pack – he’ll feign a personal medical emergency. He’ll be checked by fellow doctors who won’t be able to comment to the press – due to patient/doctor confidentiality rules. But, truth be told, they won’t find anything wrong with the man.

However, not to let truth interfere, Ron Paul will claim otherwise: “For the good of the country, in view of the uncertainty [good word!] concerning my health, I hereby withdraw from the race for the nomination.”

What about me?

It doesn’t matter to me if I should fail to become the next president – or to even gain any media-recognizable traction. My goal is to communicate my ideas to people – to paint a picture of what could be. Since I’ve already managed to plant some seeds, I can be satisfied with my efforts.

However, just for the sake of argument, suppose I should gain traction. Suppose I get that midnight knock on my door from an agent bearing a message from a “friend.” I would tell them exactly this:

“Not only is my candidacy the last, best chance for the American people, it’s also your last, best chance. However, I won’t waste your time and mine trying to explain to you why that is. But I want you to return to your superiors and give them this message: Even if you should speak of trying to harm me, your entire house of cards will come tumbling down – and you won’t know why. But I’ll tell you why: It is written in the Lotus Sutra:

“If for the space of a [billion-year eon] one should constantly harbor a mind destitute of good and with angry looks should revile the Buddha, he will be committing an offense of immeasurable gravity. But if toward those who read, recite and embrace this Lotus Sutra [that’s me – one among many] one should even for a moment direct evil words, his offense will be even greater [leading to truly ghastly punishment extending many lifetimes].”

Take these words back to your masters with this bit of advice: You would be wise to leave me alone and speak absolutely no evil about me.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“In spite of hype to the contrary, the Elite aren’t especially bright. So even if they might decide to ‘eliminate’ me, they will live to see the destruction of their entire enterprise – much the same as if I were to become the next President. I see that as a win-win.”

Reggie Brown’s Obama impersonation

By now, most of you have heard about comedian Brown’s “debacle” at the Republican National Convention in Louisiana. If you haven’t seen more than a few of these precious moments, here’s the whole thing – lasting about 19 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hfIrag8eXI

Reggie was supposed to be there in a self-parody mode so the Pubber crowd could get a few yucks. And he did lampoon Obama but…he also got in a few licks at his potential opponents – Romney, Pawlenty, etc. That’s when…well, this is how I posted what followed on Yahoo:

QUOTE:

Organizers then cut off Brown's microphone and turned on music. I love this guy! Go Reggie!

I especially loved the little finesse he pulled as he was escorted off the stage. Just as he and his escorter are about to disappear behind a curtain, “Obama” pats him on the shoulder. Wow! Talk about staying in character after getting Ye Olde Vaudeville Hook.

A couple of truly amazing things happened here:

(1) The GOP didn’t screen Reggie’s routine before allowing him to take the stage (I thought they were terrified of loose cannons);

(2) Reggie knew exactly what he was doing with his borderline humor (nice tightrope walking, man);

(3) Someone actually made a decision and walked out on stage and yanked Reggie (a Republican making a spontaneous decision? What next - a demonstration of actual leadership?);

(4) the audience laughed at the Hawaii=Kenya slam at the Tea Partiers (sometimes it’s easier to laugh without taking time first to decide if it’s PC).

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I expect the offers from SNL to start pouring in for Reggie, like now!”

:UNQUOTE.

I really admire what Reggie Brown pulled off. He made fun of “himself,” while refusing to do a minstrel show for the white folks. He managed to roast some of his bosses’ people and got paid for his efforts. If he had only played according to the GOP’s expectations, he would have been totally overlooked by everyone who wasn’t actually there.

Reggie actually did the GOP a favor. Some of his audience laughed in spite of themselves, I’m sure. But then they might have come to realize – through Reggie’s humor – that their current crop of contenders leaves a lot to be desired. I can imagine them thinking, “Well, Pawlenty really could use a spinal transplant.” Ah, humor has a way of letting us consider, possibly for the first time, certain grains of truth. And that’s a good thing – we can build from there.

The lesson to be learned: If Reggie can successfully convince his audience, if only for fleeing moments, that he is the President, Obama’s field of opponents could do something equally drastic – they could convince us that they ought to be the President. It’s not too late for them to reinvent themselves. But to do so, they’ll have to work at least as hard as Reggie did.

A good friend of mine says she doesn’t like comedians. I not only love the good ones, but I cut the bad ones a lot of slack. It’s hard to make people laugh, so I have to respect anyone who tries. And I even applaud efforts that fall short…hey, we all need a little encouragement now and then.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I guess we’d better get in all the laughs we can for the future doesn’t really look all that bright. No matter who becomes our next President, he’ll still have to operate within the framework of our fatally flawed system. And that’s no laughing matter.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

US President’s weekly Yahoo! News updates

[NOTE: No, I am not really the US President. However, by acting the way I think he should act and saying the things I think he should say, perhaps that could change.]

Once per week, I share comments I’d posted to articles appearing on Yahoo News. These were posted between May 29 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.

Posted on Yahoo! News

ONE:

[This is my comment on an article concerning the A-12 stealth spy plane, which featured a photo of that craft taken on the infamous Area 51 military base sometime in the 1960’s. The caption stated that the motionless plane, hovering upside-down maybe ten feet off the ground without any visible means of support, was being “radar-tested.]

"Radar testing?" What bull! Any meaningful "radar testing" takes place while the plane is in flight - that is, if you can see it with your eyes but can't see it on the radar screen, it passes! Anyway, there is no crane holding that plane up - it's levitating. You might call the A-12 a "gift" from above...from "waaay above." We got that kind of technology, back in '63, from the same place the Nazis got theirs. Check out Jim Marrs' intriguing book, The Rise of the Fourth Reich."

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"Careful, gentlemen, when you make deals with the devil, he'll want his due. Tell me, how much are we really in hock for the gifts we were 'given?'"

TWO:

"...cyberattack could result in real-world military retaliation, although analysts say it could be difficult to detect its origin with full accuracy."

We wouldn't even bother to try for anything near "full accuracy." We'd just lash out...you know...based on how we usually react to crises. The anarchists of the 21st century (or our own Black Ops) will go for that cyberattack ... fully hoping for that "real-world military retaliation." Nothing's more pitiful than seeing a blinded giant lashing out, so we'd better get our act together real fast.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"I mean our ethical act - we've got enough of the other stuff."

THREE:

[The article I’m commenting on here was covering a rocket attack by a rival tribe, which ended up wounding Yemen’s president.]

Gee, I wonder where they got the rockets. Maybe on some future date we'll be asking, "Gee, I wonder where they got the mini drones."

Ah, the mini's...Private developers in the US are field testing drones that aren't much bigger than model airplanes with small bombs (2 -10 lbs) strapped underneath. These can be piloted via GPS or by remote control by an operator viewing thru an on-board mini-cam. At first the Pentagon thought: “Great, this will be a quickie way for patrols in Afghanistan to hit targets on their own without having to wait for an airstrike.”

But…this will turn out to be a disaster of the first order, when (as will be inevitable) our enemies buy, bribe, or steal this technology. Case in point: Israel has been lucky so far that rockets launched by Hamas haven't had state of the art guidance systems. But now we have a game changer. These mini drones can target something as small as (say) a school bus. But they can’t be stopped by the missile shield Israel’s trying to install with US help. [Talk about flying under the radar!] What next, in this ever-escalating war of smart technologies?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“This is where Been-Jammin’ Knittin’-Yahoo is badly miscalculating. He thinks there is no new thing under the sun, which will allow Israel to continue running roughshod over the West Bank.”

FOUR:

The operation was aimed at putting "additional pressure on the Gadhafi forces who continue to threaten the civilian population," he said.”

Question: Those “Gadhafi forces who continue to threaten the civilian population” couldn’t also be those very same forces claimed (by this article) to be “trying to hide in populated areas.” Let me emphasize, “trying to hide.” Doesn’t sound to me like they were threatening the civilian population, unless of course by simply being there they were (by NATO definition) threatening the civilian population.

Libyan civilians aren’t the only ones being threatened. British and French civilians, who are being ruthlessly lied to by their governments, are also being threatened. When those governments operate outside the rule of law, they become outlaw governments. Are the civilians of France and Britain okay with that?

Good citizens, here’s what’s really happening: Your countries’ elites are reveling in a power-induced drunkenness so they can relive the bygone days of empire. It felt good back then to bomb the hell out of the heathens; feels pretty good now. But beware: Those “heathens” have long memories.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“We are so addicted to instant gratification, we simply couldn’t wait for events to unfold gradually and under the watchful eye of Libya’s Arab and African neighbors. The Mighty White Man just had to, once again, stick his nose where it doesn’t belong. ‘Protecting civilians” indeed. How many more lies will you accept from your leaders? How much ‘tolerance’ for mayhem do you have?”

FIVE:

"His killing would likely be seen as a huge achievement in the United States ..." [This had to do with a US drone missile strike killing a high-level leader of al Qaeda.]

Mark those words carefully. If that's our idea of a "huge achievement," no wonder we're losing this war.

But that's been one of our weaknesses when fighting insurgents. We tend to think, "If we knock off their leaders, our job will be 90% done." Well, that couldn't have worked during our little adventure in Vietnam. The soldiers who beat us back then weren't famous Mr. Big types. They were a lot of determined though mostly anonymous men.

Our fixation with leader-killing has roots similar to our fixation with celebrities (Dancing with the Stars, anybody?) or (if you happen to be English) with royalty. Think about it this way, “If your willingness to fight for your cause evaporates because your leadership has been killed, that cause couldn’t have been worth the risk of your life in the first place.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Maybe part of the problem is with the people who remotely control those drones. They don’t really risk their lives for their cause, now do they?”

SIX:

“Egypt, for instance, has used the U.S.-supplied funds to replace aging Soviet-supplied equipment with [US made equipment]. So Egypt ends up with weapons — but the money actually goes to U.S. firms and helps create U.S. jobs.”

The money “actually” goes to U.S. firms – which means taxpayer dollars have been funneled to our homegrown Merchants of Death for 30 years, which (almost as an afterthought) “helps create U.S. jobs.” This is nothing more than welfare for arms merchants and creates the kind of jobs we would be better off not creating. If an honest, even-level-playing-field type of economy can’t “create” a job, that job doesn’t deserve to come into being

This is how the Egyptian man in the street views all that weaponry we’ve been providing, mostly to Mubarak. He’d been using that to help suppress his own people! And you’d better believe that man in the street knows this. Think of all the love our money has bought us – NOT! Egypt doesn’t have any enemies that justified us arming them to the teeth. Israel? Only if Egypt starts something. Libya? Never a threat. The Sudan? Give me a break.

Jimmy Carter and every succeeding president has been playing us for fools for 30 years – by giving Egypt (AND Israel) billions annually. Those presidents – every single one of them – were de facto traitors by turning untold millions of Muslims against us for being (again) Merchants of Death.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“No real and sustainable economic recovery could nor should be dependent on arms sales.”

SEVEN:

[This comment is my response to “TomS” who challenged my comment (immediately above).]

@ TomS, Are you trying to say it's alright with you that our taxpayer dollars are being used as welfare payments to our Merchants of Death? That if we don't do this, some other country will? That kind of ethic sounds like a pretty horrible basis for a country's morality. Come to think of it, using that kind of ethic contributed to the downfall of the USSR. As for China? Remains to be seen. As for the US? Remains to be seen.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"Ethics are important - there, I said it. Somebody has to."

EIGHT:

Don't expect Romney to explain how he intends to "fix things." After all, we didn't ask candidate Obama anything even remotely resembling such a hard question. So why pick on Mitt?

If the Pubbers end up giving the nomination to MR (or to anybody else for that matter), it will simply be because it's considered bad form to not even field a candidate. Mitt will lose. But unlike other potential GOP nominees, who would also lose, Mitt won’t suffer grievously – he has a personal fortune to fall back on and no political career to nurture. As for any personal expenses he might incur, not to worry - some way, somehow, he'll be reimbursed. Not in any [publicly] accountable way, to be sure, but a lot of our so-called "public life" really works exactly like that.

As long as Mitt mouths the right platitudes, the Pubber Base will be satisfied. Or as satisfied as that cranky lot will ever be. Though sooner or later, he'll have to confront what a lot of folks consider the 'strangeness of being a Mormon' - he'll not be able to song and dance his way around that one. As long as Mitt doesn’t panic, seem evasive, or claim “Americans aren’t voting for a Preacher in Chief, they’re voting for a CINC,” he’ll do just fine.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If Obama managed to survive his religious test, so will Mitt – unless he reacts badly if a reporter asks to see his underwear.”

NINE:

Why on earth would anybody care what George Will thinks? Why should even George himself care? [And, no George, that question about Palin doesn't "answer itself" - if you want to make the point, you'll have to work a little harder than that.]

As for Palin being entrustable with the nuclear football, who would have thought (and why?) Obama should have been so entrusted? What does one have to do, in Will's mind, to be "ready" to handle the nukeball?

All of this is actually moot, though, since no US president will ever be (nor has ever been) entrusted with that kind of power. People are fools who think otherwise. Think about it…there’s too much at stake to allow one man (actually, it’s supposed to be two) the option of dropping the big one. The beauty of this is, none of the presidents ever caught on to this: If a US nuke ever gets launched, no president will have anything to do with it.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Think about it this way: If a newly-elected president said to his aide “Get that thing [the nukeball] away from me – I want nothing to do with it,” do you really think we couldn’t walk into Armageddon if the [real] Powers-that-Be so decreed?”

TEN:

"...hundreds of millions of dollars backed by frozen assets of Gadhafi's regime."

Wait a minute. Freezing assets is one thing. But is Italy about to seize those assets? By what right? Sounds like blatant theft to me. How can the international banking system be trusted if one nation can just take what belongs to another?

Italy has in effect declared war on Libya. This recent outpouring of Italian support surely sound like acts of war. So I guess Italy shouldn’t be surprised if Libya retaliates – directly (somehow) against Italy...on Italian soil (are they truly ready for this?).

Since the rebels are so keen that Gadhafi relinquish power, maybe he should turn the tables by asking: “If I leave, how will you [the rebel leadership] determine who or what ends up being in charge? For example, will you call for elections? Can anybody run for office? Could I run for office?!! Suppose I am reelected, do you rebel all over again or do you support me?”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Not only is NATO violating its mandate (as any child can see), but not enough people are asking pretty basic questions.”

ELEVEN:

"After previous denials by military officials..." [that Egyptian security forces subjected female prisoners to “virginity checks”].

Why deny what was done? Are they not proud of doing their duty for the good of the state? Surely there must be some kind of military medal in this for the "testers." Let's see, the citation could read, "For courage above and beyond....while in the act of probing enemy territory."

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"If asked to do something you wouldn't want widely known, DON'T DO IT."

TWELVE:

@ Murray... You claim, "And Israel would never use a nuclear weapon except in self defense. Everyone knows that."

Well, I for one, don't "know that." Perhaps by "self defense" you include Ye Olde Pre-emptive strike based on speculation and exaggerated intel? Sorry, but that's not my idea of self-defense. Perhaps what Israel really needs, besides some occasional minister stoking the fires by spouting off his big bazoo, is more prayer. Couldn't hurt.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"No good can come from putting greater faith in nukes than in your Lord."

THIRTEEN:

 “the progress and stability the EU sought in the Arab world would depend on an improved relationship between religions there.”

Is that so? Is that what the … EU … wants? If so, would it matter at all what the locals might want? Or will those same locals start to feel the heavy hand of EU politically-correct colonialism at work in their homelands?

“European Union leaders assured senior religious figures on Monday they would defend the freedom of belief in the Middle East…” Good men and women, it is not your place to “defend the freedom of belief in the Middle East.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The EU has enough problems of its own which these leaders should be attending to – such as, how on earth did the EU get sucked into the US scheme of Libyan regime change?”

FOURTEEN:

QUOTE: Obama hailed Dempsey as "one of our nation's respected and combat-tested [huh????] generals. :UNQUOTE.

Please, somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I have failed to find any evidence that General Dempsey ever saw a single day in combat. Yeah, he had “led” troops as their headquarters commander, but that’s not the same thing. I wonder if this guy had ever been shot at or even had gunfire directed toward his general vicinity.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“You know, one of the reasons we engage in these strategically-unimportant (and expensive) wars is to give desk-jockeys a chance to ‘earn’ some medals. Looks good on the resume. Just saying.”

FIFTEEN:

[This recent story concerned one man single-handedly fighting off 30 Taliban in Afghanistan. Frankly, I found this story unbelievable for two very good reasons (though there were others based on the telling of the story itself): In war time, truth is always the first casualty; the folks on the home front need heroes to glorify. If, however, Corporal Dipprasad Pun of the [Nepalese] Royal Gurkha Rifles really did this deed, one has to wonder how he wasn’t awarded the highest medal for valor – the Victoria Cross. Here’s the link to the news story itself:\

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/865068-gurkha-soldier-honoured-by-queen-after-killing-30-taliban ]

I wish the entire cast of "The Expendables" could have sat down and watched a video of Pun's actions, with a narrator telling them, "THIS is how it's done."

On a more serious note: I wonder what motivates Pun. Does he have any thoughts on the politics of this war? Is he a willing member of an army who places total trust in his Queen that she is doing the right thing? Or what?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"These private motivators are as much of what makes a man as is his physical courage. Without asking about these, then we'd be saying we don't care much about him as an individual - only as an example of courage and good fortune."

SIXTEEN:

"In recent days, [2008 presidential candidate Edwards’] legal team also argued that the secret spending was designed to hide the affair from his wife, Elizabeth, who died of cancer in December, and not to aid his campaign."

Let me see if I understand this: Two wealthy supporters (note the word “supporters”) dished out all this money so that Edwards could “hide the affair from his wife?” Their “support” had nothing to do with protecting Edwards’ image which, if sullied, would have sunk his bid for the White House?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If a former FEC chairman could actually have the balls to say (which he did say) the payments did not violate the law, that shows where he’s coming from – and challenges that body’s credibility.”

SEVENTEEN:

RULE #1: Don't trust any of the Dem/Pubs. Only by voting for independents will we free ourselves from political party infighting.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"Join the New American Revolution: Declare your independence by voting for independents. There is no other way."

EIGHTEEN:

@Miriam, This is precisely how we lose our liberty to the whims of ever expanding executive power. To wit:

The 2002 Resolution included these words [emphasis mine]: “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States AS HE DETERMINES to be necessary and appropriate…”

As for the 2001 Authorization [per Wikipedia, again with my emphasis]: ‘The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom He DETERMINED "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks.’

Suppose the President had decided to use nuclear weapons against (say) three mountain hideouts (just to be sure we "got him"], one of which (though not knowing which one] was where he “knew” Bin Laden was hiding. Since the Authorization allowed all “necessary and appropriate force” as determined by the president, nukes and overkill wouldn’t have been taken off the table. I have a problem with that, and so should have Congress.

And finally we have this, from the Constitution: “The Congress shall have power to…declare war.” It doesn’t say Congress shall have power to grant “authorizations” or “resolutions” – for neither is a declaration of war. Basically, by allowing the president to make sole determination, the Congress passed the buck. Personally, that’s not why I vote for my Congressman – to be a buckpasser.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“We’re still very primitive when it comes to worshipping a strongman and letting him have his way, be it some tinhorn dictator or our own president. We can’t seem to just say NO.”

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

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

“Just for once, I’d like to see some type of cataclysmic world-changing political event take place that would be too overwhelming for the news media censors to spin, minimize, or cover up. Come to think of it, my campaign for the US presidency could become such an event. Stay tuned.”

Contract me a bpa_cinc@yahoo.com