Navy SEALs

Intro

Navy SEALs have been very much in the news lately because of the recent killing of Osama bin Laden. Their successful mission has inspired such an outpouring of hero worship, I feel it’s necessary to add a sobering commentary. The following essay, which I had posted on January 29, 2008 should add a bit of much needed perspective.

To anyone who reads this and thinks I’m about to bash this elite squad, I have only this to say:

There are real heroes in the world and among their number are a certain number of SEALs. There will always be efficient, government-sanctioned killers distributed among the various powerful nations of the world. And they are proud to do their country’s dirty work, though too often they’re just plain proud. They see themselves as some kind of superior being – better than others simply because they are physically stronger and can tolerate a lot of pain. And they will always have their admirers, though not always for the best of reasons.

But there are other types of elites and heroes which the world needs now more than ever before. If people want to focus only on the violent ones, the other type might come to be seen as unnecessary. But that’s not true – we desperately need the solid, spiritually-grounded peacemakers. Men of violence are plentiful; saints are not.

My Jan. 29, 2008 essay entitled:

19 Goddmans too many!

Intro

Marcus Luttrell, a former Navy SEAL, wrote a book concerning his exploits in Afghanistan: Lone Survivor. I am about to lay into that book, perhaps heavy-handedly. Some might compare my blows to those of hunters clubbing baby seals to death. However, as Marcus himself said in his book, "A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do." So I know Marcus will understand.

About all those goddamns...

I counted 19 uses of the word goddamn in Marcus Luttrell's book. And 19 is where I stopped counting. It surprises me that Luttrell, who describes himself as a Christian, would indulge in this blasphemy. And, please, let us call it that - blasphemy. For this word was not uttered in the heat of battle but was deliberately used in a book, which was written long after the battle was over. So, no excuses please.

I'm not sure who should shoulder the greater responsibility here: Marcus Luttrell (the lone survivor) or Patrick Robinson (established writer of fiction, whose name as coauthor appears on the cover of Lone Survivor). But I am sure of at least one thing: As a former Navy SEAL, Luttrell wouldn't shirk by saying, "This was my coauthor's fault."

I asked a Christian friend of mine about the propriety of a Christian flinging goddamns around like there's no tomorrow. Her eyes widened and she said, "It is forbidden. I wonder what kind of Christianity he's practicing." Maybe that's no small question these days.

A few details about the book itself

The complete title of this 400-page book is:

Lone Survivor:

The eyewitness account of Operation Redwing and the lost heroes of SEAL Team 10

The price listed on the book's jacket is "$24.99" - which I'm proud to say I did not pay. I read it while hanging around one of the Border's Book Stores in Chicago - specifically, in the in-store coffee shop.

During the summer, a lot of people bought it - jacking it up to the #1 slot for Best Selling Non-Fiction(?) [I'm getting to that.]

Apparently, this book will become a movie [please, don't let Sylvester Stallone anywhere near the set!]

Historical Background

On June 28, 2005, Luttrell's Navy SEAL team was deployed to capture or kill a top Taliban leader holed up in the Hindu-Kush Mountains of Afghanistan. This leader's location was known to U.S. military intelligence, which is why the stealth four-man SEAL team was sent in. There was a great expectation of success for this mission, of which Luttrell was the leader.

However, once close to the target area, the SEAL team was stumbled upon by several goat herders, who had taken their 100 goats out to forage. They were quickly and quietly taken prisoner by the SEALS, who then had to decide what to do with them. And to make this decision, they took a vote. That's right, they voted on whether to kill the goat herders or let them go, knowing that release would likely compromise their mission.

In Lone Survivor, Luttrell recounts several factors weighing in their decision:

·         Being convicted of murder once the Taliban communicated to the rest of the world what the SEALs had done. [How interesting that any Westerner would believe any such claim by the Taliban.]

·         Being discovered anyway, once the goat herders were killed [There was concern that their flock of 100 goats couldn't be quietly dispersed and that any villagers coming to look for the goat herders would be drawn to this flock - and therefore to the SEAL team’s position.]

·         Murdering these civilians in cold blood would be wrong - which Luttrell claims bothered his Christian soul.

Luttrell cast the deciding vote - to let the goat herders go - and soon thereafter a combined Taliban/Al Qaeda force numbering some 150 guerillas attacked the SEALs. All except Luttrell were killed, including a rescue force of 16.

To kill or not to kill [the goat herders], that is the question

It strikes me as rather odd that an elite military team would not know immediately what to do if discovered. This is why contingency plans are drawn up in advance. More to the point: If U.S. military intelligence knew where this top Taliban target was (located in one of a cluster of houses, surrounded by his army), why bother to send in the SEALs in the first place? Send in the bombers, instead.

If some argument could be raised that capturing this leader was the preferred option, then (once discovered, thereby nullifying that option) Plan B goes into effect - send in the bombers.

Why should Luttrell's group have worried about murder charges? How on earth would anybody find out? And even if the murders were discovered (in a provable way), George Bush would surely have given our heroes a presidential pardon. Of this, Luttrell could not have had any doubt, since he writes so glowingly of Bush as being a great president who understands our military.

Any necessary murders could have been explained this way: "Balance the lives of these four goat herders against giving up our mission. Failing to kill them would have compromised our position, causing mission failure. Moreover, knowing their position to be compromised, this army would have sought another hideout and their leader would be free to kill many more hundreds than he already has."

Is Lone Survivor a true story?

I read Luttrell's description of the battle and of his subsequent attempts to reach friendly forces. Personally, I found Luttrell's account to be an unbelievable glorification. How much is true and how much was embellished? That's hard to say, simply because I wasn't there. However, neither were any of this book's reviewers who speak so easily of this being a "true story." Luttrell has a definite advantage here, in terms of being the "lone survivor" - he's free to tell the story as he sees fit.

It is with good reason that skeptics speak of truth as being the first casualty of war. Is Luttrell a liar? Or was he guilty of only marginal embellishments? Or was he a white liar? Or, more to the point, was he a "red, white, and blue" liar? He certainly had good reasons to "over-write" and exaggerate his story, perhaps even being encouraged by our military to do so.

I might have more confidence in Marcus Luttrell's honesty and overall quality of character, if it weren't for all those goddamns. Why is it that I, a Buddhist, am bothered by this? Why aren't Luttrell's fellow Bible-belt Texans raising any voice of protest?

Or maybe God doesn't really matter to those who decided that a counterbalance (in the form of this book, complete with all its scarcely-noticed goddamns) to the embarrassment caused by the Pat Tillman episode was needed.

Reminder: Pat Tillman was a pro-football player who gave up a promising career in the NFL in order to enlist in the U.S. Army, becoming a Ranger. His enlistment was inspired by the 911 terrorist attacks, though he later became critical of US involvement in Iraq. Tillman was accidentally(?) killed in action by friendly fire. [The jury's still out on that one.]

Quotes from Lone Survivor, and my comments

QUOTE [from the book's jacket notes]: ...Luttrell fought off six al Qaeda assassins who were sent to finish him...  [Luttrell] crawled for seven miles through the mountains before he was taken in by a Pashtun tribe, who risked everything to protect him from the encircling Taliban killers.

COMMENT:  These six "assassins" were trying to kill Luttrell, who himself was sent in to assassinate a top Taliban leader. Let's be very clear about this: Though his orders were to "kill or capture" this man, could there be any doubt that capture was out of the question? Also, it's a bit disingenuous to describe "the bad guys" as "killers" - all members of all militaries the world over are either killers or are expected to be when called upon. So let's stop it with the "they're killers" routine.

QUOTE [page 9]: In general terms, we believe there are very few of the world's problems we could not solve with high explosive or a well-aimed bullet.

COMMENT: This type of delusional thinking has to be called on the carpet. If I am elected US president in 2008, thereby making me Commander in Chief, I fully intend to do just that.

QUOTE [page 312]:

...The enemy is prepared to go to any lengths to achieve victory, terrorizing its own people, if necessary, and resorting to barbaric practices against its enemy, including decapitating people or butchering them.

We are not allowed to fight them on those terms. And neither would we wish to. However, we could fight in a much more ruthless manner, stop worrying if everyone still loved us. If we did that, we'd probably win in both Afghanistan and Iraq in about a week.

But we're not allowed to do that. And I guess we'd better start getting used to the consequences and permit the American liberals to squeak and squeal us to ultimate defeat.

COMMENT:

That's right, Luttrell really wrote: "...we'd probably win in both Afghanistan and Iraq in about a week." A week?!  That sounds too much like a set-up line, to be followed by: "We lost in Afghanistan because we were stabbed in the back by liberals and their concerns for international law and following Rules of Engagement (ROE)." Oh, well, it's nice to have a scapegoat ready for sacrifice.

QUOTE:

It wouldn't have been much good if I'd been blasting away through the window at Taliban down the street when a couple of those sneaky little bastards crept through the front door and shot me in the back.

COMMENT:

"Sneaky little bastards?" What exactly were Luttrell and his team of assassins, if not sneaky? Or do we prefer to use the more elegant word stealth to describe our sneakiness. A rose by any other name...

Liberals, liberal media, and ROE

Luttrell takes a few swipes at liberals in his book. You know who liberals are - the kind who say goddamn a lot. The kind who don't share "our values" - which include virtual worship of our Commander in Chief because he's a fellow Texan. The kind who denounce waterboarding, and remind us that we had convicted Japanese war criminals of exactly this offense, calling it what it was then and still is now - torture.

As for following the Rules of Engagement, all U.S. military personnel are under orders to follow these Rules. These Rules have the force of orders issued by military command. Since when do following lawful orders without hesitation and without question become a problem for a US Navy SEAL?

Post Script

I know we all need heroes - someone to believe in, someone to emulate, someone of almost mythical proportions. History is full of them - on both sides of all conflicts. Even among the Taliban killed by Luttrell and Company. These guerillas had no way of knowing whether American helicopter gun ships were on the way, ready to blast their ragtag group to Paradise. They certainly did not have the training, pay and benefits, and superior weapons of their four American battlefield adversaries.

I find it fascinating that this militia band would have been so willing to suffer so many casualties, when they could have cut their losses fairly early on. Their commander must have been aware of the possibility that his whereabouts had been communicated to American reinforcements just over the horizon. Especially, why persist in tracking down one last remaining (though badly wounded) opponent [Luttrell], who was no longer a threat though could still kill if pressed?

Marcus Luttrell describes the rigors of his training in Lone Survivor. However, I wish that even a small fraction of that effort would have gone toward eliminating some simplistic and fuzzy thinking.

I know that some might think of me as being disrespectful or unduly harsh in this essay. However, I expect much more from members of our military than what I've seen in this book.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

"These words are part of the ethos of U.S. Navy SEALS, ‘My word is my bond.' My sentiments, exactly, which is why I codify my word in the form of a written contract with America's voters. I am the only candidate daring to do this. My word, unlike George Bush's [then, and Barack Obama’s now], is no small thing." - Steven Searle

Contact me at: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Part V - Presidential candidate's Yahoo News postings

Once again, I share comments I’d posted to articles appearing on Yahoo News. These were posted between April 18 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:

"[The Afghan military officer who killed 9 Americans] was under economic pressures and recently he sold his house. He was not in a normal frame of mind because of these pressures," said the brother…

Economic pressures? Was he a heroin addict who got cut off because he couldn’t keep his part of the bargain? And what kind of bargain might that have been?

Do economic pressures rank up there with combat stress? What causes a decorated veteran who had suffered bodily several times during his career to kill his comrades-in-arms? Or had he been converted to the Taliban cause, in spite of his brother’s denials? That would be gravely alarming since he, unlike a raw recruit, should be the last person to go ballistic. If he could turn against his military oath, anybody could.

Or was he such a patriot he couldn’t stand what the scourge of drug abuse was doing to his country (there was none of that when the Taliban ruled)? Maybe some of those Americans he killed were engaged in that trade.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“With so many questions, this will not be investigated but will be thoroughly covered up.”

TWO:

There is no Chinese Communist Party – there is only the Party of I’ve-got-mine-so-screw-you. Also known as the Neo-Mandarins. If the Neo-Mandies are so afraid of Christians, then they must be terrified of their own shadows. Believe me, a Christian is not a thing to be feared – only to be laughed at or debunked.

This deep-seated fear is the kind of thing that squelches creativity, which is why Chinese nationalism will fail. Simply because the ruling class refuses to utilize its greatest resource – the genius of its own considerable people. However, since I oppose all national sovereignties, I consider this to be a good thing. I only hope that when implosion occurs, there won’t be any outwardly-flying shrapnel. Same goes for our implosion as well.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“In spite of media black out to the contrary, we really are in the midst of a divide-and-conquer, winner-take-all class war.”

THREE:

This mind-boggling escape [of nearly 500 Taliban prisoners] will prove to be the pivotal event in this conflict. After this war eventually ends and the US and NATO find a way to pull out “with honor,” the history books will show this escape as the nail in the coffin. How ironic would that be – that it won’t end up being a pitched battle between equally determined forces or anything else equally bloody or spectacular?

If you think about what this escape implies, you’ll realize we have no allies among the Afghans. We have lost the battle for their hearts and souls.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“When the Taliban eventually win, they won't give Karzai and his cronies time to escape to Switzerland. They’ll hang them from the highest tree.”

FOUR:

Abbas called on … Washington to pressure Israel to restart negotiations, saying that "if Israel shows a serious willingness to negotiate…”

The Israeli government is practical and therefore won’t negotiate but instead will continue to grab as much land and move in as many settlers as possible.

My suggestions: (1) The US should void diplomatic recognition of Israel; (2) The US should unilaterally grant diplomatic recognition to Palestine (including all of the West Bank settlements illegally occupied by Israel); (3) Invite the Palestinian Authority to invite a token US military force for joint military exercises on its land; (4) Permanently eliminate the $3B per year in welfare payments (each) the US makes to Israel and Egypt.

I don’t think the Zionists could easily ignore these kinds of overtures. Under Obama, you will not see any change for the Palestinians – and that was the game plan from day one.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“As your next President, I can (on my own authority) implement items 1 thru 3 above. In fact, I will be obligated, under the terms of my written contract, to do so.”

FIVE:

Suppose Gaddafi tries an end-run around our "protecting civilians" excuse. Suppose he issues this declaration:

"We will stop shelling Misrata for one week. And we will guarantee safe passage and relocation to any and all civilians in that city. After one week, though, we will level the city to the ground."

What could the Western opportunists (I mean, "powers") do? Anyone left in Misrata would be presumed to be rebels (not civilians) and therefore would be legitimate military targets. [NOTE: I'm pretty good at reducing the excuses of petty bureaucrats to rubble.]

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"Did anyone actually buy into that 'protecting civilians" line of bull?"

SIX:

Robert Gates is one of those poor souls who tried so hard all his life to ingratiate himself with the “real” rulers of this country. He desperately wanted to not only be accepted and trusted by these people, but to be loved by them. He will tell any kind of lie he thinks the Illuminati want us to hear. He would even launch us into nuclear war if they told him to “do it.” But the sad truth is – they laugh at poor Robert behind his back and (on occasion) even right in his face. But Robert just sucks it up – because he thinks that will make them love him or at least pretend to. And at this late stage in his life, Robert will be satisfied with feigned affection.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“You guess it – I don’t think much of Robert Gates, but even I think more of him than he thinks of himself, truth be told.”

SEVEN:

"It concluded that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate a violation of any applicable legal or ethics"

I don't remember hearing McChrystal crying foul at the time. "Mr. President, I didn't say those things" - those words never crossed his lips. It may well be that the "evidence was insufficient" to hang a general. But there are guys who were sent to Gitmo based on far flimsier evidence. Equal justice for all? Oh, that's right...the Gitmo guys aren't US citizens...nor are they generals.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"What gives? The general is gone, no report is going to bring him back, and, no, this army report doesn't clear him of wrongdoing...it merely says the 'evidence was insufficient.' Why waste taxpayer dollars to generate a report that's basically meaningless?"

EIGHT:

Suppose Trump is richer than Romney. So what? Some of the world’s greatest leaders weren’t rich at all. Besides, it’s entirely possible that Mitt has hidden financial resources that would put Trump to shame. I’m talking about the kind of network contacts that a secretive Mormon, descended from an apostle, might have access to. You see, Donald, it’s not what you know or even how much you have that matters – it’s who you know.

Besides, why should anyone believe that it’s going to take a businessman to get this country back on its feet? Trump has been awfully good at looking out for number one – hence his wealth – but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’d even care to look out for anybody else.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Trump as a leader couldn’t hold a candle to my personal hero in terms of sheer ability – Joan of Arc.”

NINE:

In "honor" of Trump's hair, I hereby dub him the candidate of the "Whig" Party.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"I wonder if Trump will put his campaign promises in the form of a written contract, as I've done. Contracts are the lifeblood of the business world, so perhaps in this he'll follow my lead."

TEN:

It doesn't matter if Trump wants to blow smoke. Nor does it matter who the GOP picks, and they know it. Obama's going to win again, so all the GOP can do it try to position itself for 2016. Even though I know Obama's going to win, I will do my best to oppose him with my own candidacy. And with the novelty of the written political contract.

All of my campaign promises are in writing. If I violate any of them, I lose my office (that stipulation is in the contract). That's change you can believe in. Actually, you don't even have to believe in it – it’s all in writing. If my innovation catches on, with other candidates starting to offer their own contracts, I will have won in a far more important way.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“One of my written promises: I will not sign any bill into law the increases the debt limit.”

ELEVEN:

"So is a conservative tide sweeping the nation?"

Not really – most people are either resigned or confused. It’s not that conservatives are gaining, it’s that the “other side” is losing ground. GOP gains don’t constitute a vote of confidence, since most of this new support is really a vote against the other side. As long as we’re polarized into thinking libs vs. cons, Dems vs. Pubs, us vs. everybody else, we won’t think clearly enough to arrive at practical solutions. Those are the ones not driven by ideology or triumphalism.

We won’t get any fresh thinking in govt until we get fresh (that is, independent) legislators. Until we throw every last Dem & Pub out of office, we’ll always end up being ping-ponged by party-driven agendas.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The answers are out there. But the current crop of elected officials (Dems & Pubs) are loyal only to what will increase their chances for reelection.”

TWELVE:

Dear Obama Supporters: Here, I'll spell it out for you: He lied to you, and he's cynically counting on your support "knowing" you won't vote for his GOP opponent.

Now I'll remind you of the roots of your idealism: You grew up in an era of cynical and lying politicians, and you got sick of it. Isn't that exactly what Obama has become? What to do? Dump Obama. He didn't "compromise" anything. All of his moves, from day 1, were well thought out and intended. He's always been far more bipartisan than you dare imagine.

The only answer is to oust all the Dem/Pubs from all offices and vote for independents. Wake up...there is no other way. BTW, did I mention I'm an independent running against Obama Inc in 2012?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"Join the New American Revolution: Declare your independence by voting for independents."

THIRTEEN:

“As she spoke, eight other soldiers from countries including Iran, Haiti, Australia and Bangladesh celebrated and showed friends and family their new citizenship papers…”

How sad that we’re selling our citizenship to the brown people of the world who will, as US citizens in the US army, be paid to make war against, well, other brown people of the world. I hope the cynics who developed this option are prepared for the possibility that some of these new “citizens” may well turn out to be members of sleeper cells. Great! Just what we need. Enemy agents imbedded among our troops. There’s a certain poetic justice in that, don’t you think?

More to my way of thinking: Grant citizenship to those who will become members of a far more necessary army – an army of peace and goodwill. Not much popular demand for that kind of army I’m afraid. Too bad.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Keep in mind: You get what you pay for.”

FOURTEEN:

@ Vince

16 minutes ago, you wrote, "Regardless what you believe about freedom of information, stealing classified data [for example, Wikileaks] is just wrong."

Hmm...suppose a do-gooder stumbled upon classified info that proved Dubya was behind the 9/11 downing of the Twin Towers. Would you still say, "...stealing classified data is just wrong?" That's where we run into trouble, assuming we aren't supposed to think but instead just blindly follow certain rules since doing otherwise would be "just wrong." What good are our freedoms if we don't exercise our judgment?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"I'm sorry to report that we have so many thoughtless citizens out there."

FIFTEEN:

“at least 5 dead” should not be used in the same sentence as “Syria uses army to crush uprising.”

When the current president’s father crushed the insurgency in Hama in 1982, that (mostly civilian) death toll was between 20K and 40K. Now that’s a proper use of the word “crush.” [Of course, that was in the days before the GWOT.]

So at least one Syrian rebel is asking for foreign intervention. How would he feel if Israeli warplanes took out a couple of dozen of Assad’s tanks? Would rebels cheer the Star of David flying overhead or would that unify the nation against a common “enemy.” The very best way to send a message to established orders (like Assad’s) would be to immediately cut off the $3B each in military aid we give annually to Israel and Egypt – the ripple effect from that would be enormous and wouldn’t involve any American boots on the ground.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Sometimes, to cause a reaction in one place, it’s necessary to act in another (though remote) place.”

SIXTEEN:

(sigh) And there are still fools out there who believe in the Big Bang. Unbelievable.

The biggest problem with our ability to create theory (and that's exactly what we do, create theory) is the limitation imposed by our point of observation. Which is, for all intents and purposes, one single solitary point, since earth can't be much more than that, relatively speaking. Since all science starts with, and is confirmed by, observation, and all we have is one point of reference, our science has a truly fatal limitation to overcome.

If things that need to be observed don’t happen to cross our field of observation, or are too distorted or faint to register, then those things can’t ever figure into our theories. So we evade that limitation by assuming that all that is important enough to be seen actually is seen. Or, put another way, what’s way out there isn’t any different than what we can readily observe. That’s a huge assumption. But I encourage science to proceed in its quest, since that should keep scientists happy enough until they stumble upon the insights to be obtained from Buddhist practice.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Science is a good thing but not the only thing – or even the most important thing.”

SEVENTEEN:

There's a saying - "Every dog has his day." Right now, Assad's private army is riding pretty high and mighty. But one day you'll read a small blurb on page 38 of your daily news rag - "Explosion rips army barracks in Damascus - scores killed." A lot of people won't see the cause and effect relationship though, since their grip on events doesn't extend very far back.

Such tit-for-tat is typical when the head of state personally controls the military. I was never clear on why anybody thought that was such a great idea. But even in the US, the emphasis in the military is to follow orders. I know, I know…it’s supposed to be to follow all “lawful” orders. But that “lawful” part was always just an afterthought, which doesn’t get much emphasis in basic training. Come to think of it, that “lawful” part doesn’t get the emphasis it deserves in our civilian lives as well. Let's work on that before we even dream of telling the Syrians how to live their lives.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“As for Syria, there’s really nothing the US can or should do – except hope for the best.”

EIGHTEEN:

Trump is keen on Obama giving proof (“let him show his records”) but not so keen on revealing his sources (“I heard he was a terrible student”). At least Obama seems to present himself intelligently – which is a far cry from Dubya’s public persona. And yet, Bush II was a mediocre student at best, who still managed to pick up an MBA from Harvard (though maybe that says more about Harvard and the decline of American scholarship than it does about Bush).

As far as Obama’s records are concerned – as any university students knows, transcripts of grades can only be shown with the student’s permission. And if that student doesn’t choose to reveal his records, that’s his business and he’s breaking no law or social norm by so withholding. Same goes for Obama’s long-form birth certificate. There are morons out there who think “he must be hiding something” by not showing us this certificate. Fact is, that’s his choice and the law is on his side.

My personal philosophy in life: As long as someone isn’t breaking the law, his choices are his business and I won’t think any the less of him as a human being.
Trump is engaging in character assassination since he doesn’t really have any solutions to offer.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I have a solution: Declare your independence by voting for independents.”

NINETEEN:

"Authorities have biometric data on each prisoner, which aids in their identification, the governor's office said."

Hmm...I wonder if these prisoners had been chipped.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"Those insiders who helped the prisoners escape must be supremely confident that, even if their identities become known, they won't suffer any consequences. And what does that say about our long-awaited 'light at the end of the tunnel'"?

TWENTY:

"The president, I know, has some issues to deal with here. He can solve this whole birth certificate issue pretty quickly," Graham said.

Actually, during the summer of 2009, the House of Representatives had already dealt with this issue – decisively. That’s when they passed a Resolution in honor of Hawaii’s 50th anniversary as a state. Included in that Resolution was this language: “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii…” The final vote? Unanimous – 378 in favor, no nays, 55 did not vote (of which 35 were Democrats).

Nuff said, Reverend Graham, let’s get back to praying, shall we – or risk losing your tax exempt status for blatantly politicking?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I’m sure Graham is a wonderful preacher – so he should stick to that.”

TWENTY-ONE:

I'm saddened that Obama decided to release his long-form birth cert. He had every right to keep this private document to himself. But why release it now? The issue was more divisive a year ago, but now Obama releases it so we can "move forward?" I doubt the president caved in to the a-holes who bleated, "If he ain't showin' it, he must have something to hide." You know them, the repeat-something-often-enough-and-people-start-to-think-it’s-true crowd.

Maybe, just maybe Obama got a little nervous about what Trump's investigators might find. Of course, one can always say, "Wouldn't the GOP have had its own team trying to dig up dirt?" Not really...when you consider they're pretty much on the same page. Ah, but the Trump Squad might not be part of the Plan. Loose cannon, anybody?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I didn’t buy into the birther nonsense, but I often wondered why none of the rank-and-file whom the Prez worked with as community organizer stepped forward with any testimonials. Not one stepped forward. The silence was deafening.”

TWENTY-TWO

"If I had my druthers, I would rather be representing Berkshire in this matter than Sokol in a Delaware court."

Yeah, I rather expected something like that in such a corporate-beholden state. I wonder if it would be possible for Sokol to have his trial (if it comes to that) moved to another state or out of the country. Yeah, I know...sounds pretty terrible to suggest a fair trial in such a matter could not be obtained in a US court. But you know the old saying: Money doesn't talk in this country - it screams.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"We need to look at how these 'safe haven' states operate in terms of 'and freedom and justice for all.'"

TWENTY-THREE:

Once upon a time, we had investigative journalists who would have jumped at the chance to tell us: "What is the quality of life of the peoples of Syria? Are there economic reasons underlying the protests? Or are people chafing under a one-party system, having been inspired by the protests in other parts of the Islamic world?" It's true that specific information on the protests is hard to come by. But how hard can it be to give us a glimpse of how things are going for the Syrian man in the street?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"I guess we don't do journalism any more."

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

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

“Join the New American Revolution: Declare your independence by voting for independents.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

A Soft Power strategy to win the new Cold War

Millions of Americans share these sentiments concerning the Democratic Party:

QUOTE: The central political task of a progressive movement in America is to transform or replace the Democratic Party, both organizationally and in the realm of policies, programs and values. Toward this end, people need to build mass, democratic membership organizations...END QUOTE [source: David Friedman in his article, "The U.S. Needs a Second Political Party"].

Actually, David Friedman made his first mistake in his choice of title. What we should aim for is a Second Political Force, since the First Political Force and its exclusionary ground rules work only for the benefit of the Dem/Pub combine. Even better would be a Zero Party System, since our current polarizing arrangement is directly to blame for our lack of legislative innovation. This Zero Party concept is a great example of the "soft" approach which can successfully destroy the Dems and Pubs. And it's my proposal for creating a non-party (called The Independent Contractors’ Party, or ICP for short), which can move with the surety and stealth necessary to oust the Oligarchs.

I underscored and boldfaced eight words above, which typify the traditional (or "hard") approach favored by US political reformers. This hard approach will fail. Why? The FBI and the major parties themselves will do their utmost to infiltrate and undermine such a movement and intimidate its leadership. Of course, these potential saboteurs won't have to bother with any new party stupid enough to have any of these words in its name: Peoples, Socialist, Workers, Masses, Labor, Solidarity, or Liberal. Even "Progressive" is borderline.

A Soft-Power Strategy

It's important to avoid trying to build a traditional opposition party, complete with leaders and members and physical assets. These can be too easily compromised. The only way to fight a Shadow Government is with a Shadow Opposition "party" or force. Right now, the Independent Contractors Party (ICP) is the only entity that fills this bill. It's the only one that has any chance of success, simply because it exists only as an idea and doesn't have to exist in any other way (that is, no infrastructure is necessary).

[More on this at: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/zero-party-system-for-us-politics.html ]

Talk this thing up, and it will come to life. Please don't assume, as a friend of mine once claimed: "We've got to have a revolution to force any kind of real change."

My reply: "You'll never win that way. They've got more guns than you do. Only a soft power approach will work."

How We-the-People Lost the Cold War

Ever since the U.S. won the Cold War, its intelligence community has been primarily concerned with potentially dissident U.S. citizens of the (generally) liberal persuasion. You'll be surprised at the lengths our government goes to in keeping the domestic front under control. Have you ever wondered why American Nazis, Survivalists, White Nationalists and other fringe groups haven't been in the news since 9/11? Those organizations have been so thoroughly infiltrated by the FBI that they are no longer a threat.

Many Americans are okay with that. The problem is, the FBI and CIA don't know where to stop. [Remember the old saying about absolute power corrupting absolutely?] Back in the early ‘70s, when I was in the military, I was under investigation as a possible security risk. One night, I was alone in the Headquarters office catching up on some paperwork. While sorting through some files, I found a 50-page FBI report which I wasn't supposed to see...on me. Certain sections were blacked out, and it didn't take me long to figure out why.

[Side note: I wasn’t an officer – just an ordinary enlisted man.]

I had attended a number of anti-war rallies and meetings prior to enlisting in the USAF, though I was never a leader or a financial contributor. I was just one of many who wanted to hear why so many opposed the Vietnam War. The blacked-out portions on my report were the names of the FBI informers in the groups who had collected names and taken notes of the proceedings.

If the FBI could manage to compile a 50-page report on a Mr. Nobody like me, imagine what they might have on you! Actually, it's a pretty fair bet they've got a dossier compiled on every US citizen, having been at this work for decades. In the eyes of our intelligence community, each and every US citizen is a potential enemy – and that’s exactly how they feel about us as they go about their day-to-day tasks. We are the enemy!

Conclusion

The ICP’s most profound advantage is that it doesn't have an ideology. Any candidate can run as an ICP candidate as long as he offers a written contract to the voters, mandating loss of office if he is elected and then violates his contractual provisions. The aim of the ICP is to elect candidates who are beholden to their contracts (therefore, beholden to the voters) and not to a "hard" political party.

We can do this.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Join the New American Revolution: Declare your independence by voting for independents.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com