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. 28 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:

When I saw the headline – "Turkey says it will challenge Gaza blockade" – I thought the Turkish navy was going to try to bust the [Israeli] blockade. Whew…glad that wasn’t the case.

“He said the Turks apparently intended to raise tensions with Israel for its own reasons.” Let me guess: “Because we’re Jewish.” [Hey, if all else fails, trot out that old excuse.]

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Actually, it’s because they’re Zionists which means ‘Never having to say you’re sorry.’”

TWO:

There’s no way the GOP will do anything that will help Obama win in 2012. And that includes sabotaging jobs/recovery programs (by pretending to offer alternatives) which might lower the unemployment rate.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The GOP knows if the jobless rate sinks below 7% by October 2012, they won’t win the White House. Therefore…”

THREE:

[This is in response to former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder talking about how the EU might evolve, when he said: "We will have to give up national sovereignty."]

There are two steps for achieving a United States of Europe or, as I prefer calling it, simply “Europe.”

ONE: Totally integrate the armed forces of all member states. That is, no longer allow a separate German Army, a British Navy, an Italian Army, etc.

TWO: Disband all national legislative assemblies.

THREE: Replace those assemblies with one mega assembly whose members are elected from Cross-Sections. Each Cross-Section will be created by compiling a master list of every eligible voter in Europe and dividing that list into 500 Cross-Sections, each containing an equal number of voters randomly-selected from that master list.

Each Rep, when compared to any other Rep, will have the same ratio of rich vs. poor, Catholic vs. Protestant, and Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, etc. Therefore, legislators won’t have to worry about trying to appease constituents living in one particular area or who happen to be of one dominant religious persuasion.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I developed Cross-Sectional Representation in 1976 (the Bicentennial) as a replacement Constitution for the US. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Europe adopted CSR first?”

FOUR:

"Never has there been in Israel a committee that held an open and serious discourse with thousands of citizens." – Netanyaju. Hmm…that speaks volumes of the level of democracy in the (so-called) only democracy in the Middle East.

Somehow, I can’t manage to conjure up much sympathy for the Israeli social justice protestors. They kvetch against the cost of living, skyrocketing rentals, rising poverty rates. But, really, the only “social justice” at issue here is for the Jewish (esp middle class) citizens of Israel. If increasing the number of illegal settlements in the West Bank would lower their cost of living, the protestors would say “Right on.” But they wouldn’t think twice of the impact that would have on the Palestinians living there.

As for protestors pitching a tent city in Tel Aviv, where’s the IDF? Why isn’t the military clearing out these squatters, maybe roughing them up a little in the jailhouse to “teach” them a lesson? IDF  would have done exactly that had Palestinians in the West Bank tried squatting in the settlements? Oh, well, I guess “social justice” applies only to me and mine, and not to you and yours – especially if you’re not Jewish.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“These protestors are going to have to man up by realizing the truth: Israel is not a democracy – it is a de facto theocracy, complete with the attendant costs and limitations. Love it or leave it.”

FIVE:

[This is in response to the US ambassador [Mr. Crocker] in Kabul claiming the US must stay in Afghanistan or risk more attacks.]

“…as expensive as this has been in blood and treasure, it has cost a lot less than 9/11 did."

What about the cost in terms of our lost prestige and dishonorable conduct (waterboarding, WMD, special rendition)? I hope Crocker isn’t only considering our costs in Afghanistan, for we would not have entered Iraq (which was and still is being) costly enough without the 9/11 pretext.

[Crocker] described building a stable Afghanistan as "the ultimate guarantee that there will not be another 9/11."

B*llsh*t! There are no guarantees of any kind in life. What tree is this guy living in? All we’re doing by staying in Afghanistan is making the Taliban stronger. If we leave and Taliban ends up (re)seizing power, they will find it harder to govern a country than to resist imperialists. Besides, why limit our nation-building to creating a “stable Afghanistan?” I’m sure Somalia will need to be dealt with, not to mention those recently “liberated” countries of North Africa.

NOTE: Fighters in Afghanistan (thanks to US “funding” for their training) are becoming a stream of rebels fanning out to Libya, Algeria, and Egypt (surprise!). How much will we end up fighting those insurgents? Will we end up finding out it would have been much cheaper (read: cost-effective) just to pull out now?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Ryan Crocker = career diplomat = now serving in Afghanistan. Tell me, are you really that surprised he’s spouting this nonsense? There are times when well-meaning patriots become our worst enemy – worst than the Taliban.”

SIX:

[This is in response to an article about a proposed public policy change in Germany.]

“…policy is likely to be increasingly hijacked by incumbent firms hostile to competition from start-ups.” Translation: Policy will always be determined by the interests of the haves vs. the have nots.

“Some politicians resist reform because they are captive to interest groups.” Uh, huh. And, as I’ve posted numerous times before, the only way to bust out of this captivity is to rewrite your constitutions so as to allow for Cross-Sectional Representation. Just google these words for more details: Cross-Sectional Representation Searle.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“We can’t afford to dick around anymore; the time to reform is NOW.”

SEVEN:

“…and it remains a stain on the record of the American intelligence services that they cooperated with these very abusive intelligence services [like the one in Libya under Gadaffi]."

“A stain,” you say? US intel doesn’t see it that way at all. They see it as “intel, as well as politics, makes strange bedfellows.” And they congratulate themselves for their ability to tap in to unlikely sources of cooperation. But I must disagree with that “strange bedfellows” claim. More accurate would be: “Birds of a feather flock together.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“As for that horse manure about CIA asking Libya to respect al-Sadiq’s human rights, they were laughing so hard, they could barely see straight enough to type those words.”

EIGHT:

I cheat at Sudoku. I solve as many squares as I logically can. Then I’ll find a 3x3 with two squares, not on the same row or column (that’s important), missing (for instance) a 1 and a 4, those being the only possibilities for those 2 squares which I mark with a small “reminder” pencil dot. It doesn’t matter if there are other unsolved squares within that 3x3. After I arbitrarily assign that 1 & 4, writing those numerals smaller than those in squares I’d already solved, I proceed to try to solve the remainder of the puzzle using my meager repertoire of techniques. If I reach a point where I’ve broken a rule (e.g., two 6’s in the same row), then I’ll erase all my mini digits, reverse the 1 & the 4 in the original 3x3, and proceed to solve the puzzle. This has worked for me 90% of the time with puzzles I’d struggled with for hours.

NINE:

“…withdrawal of the smog regulation [by Obama] was a good first step toward removing obstacles that are blocking business growth.”

Business doesn’t seem to understand (1) the concept of “the cost of doing business,” and (2) if we continue removing health-related “obstacles” to business growth, we won’t have anyone left alive to buy their products.

“…the science behind its initial decision needed to be updated, and a new standard would be issued in 2013.” Why issue a new standard in 2013? We need to be really, really, really sure we’ll have good science backing this, so let’s wait till (oh) 2025 – being sure to check with the lobbyists first to see if that would be too soon.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Businesses and their lobbyists are waging war against the United States. Even if ‘only’ using pollution as a weapon, wouldn’t this qualify as treason?”

TEN:

"By Saturday, if there are no peaceful indications for implementing this, we will decide this matter militarily. We do not wish to do so but we cannot wait longer," Mustafa Abdel Jalil…

Dear Mustafa, you cannot wait any longer? Pray tell, what’s the rush? Do you think NATO will level Sirte simply if you ask? Who knows what NATO is capable of (since it seems they cannot even keep their word), but I certainly hope not this.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Say, Mustafa, you wouldn’t happen to have an Enemies List you're trying to cross names off of, would you?”

ELEVEN:

“[Dominique Strauss-Kahn] apologized to the institution's staff…”

If he didn’t do anything wrong, why did he apologize? Unless of course his “apology” wasn’t sincere. Then it wouldn’t matter if it referred to any particular incident.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Or maybe it was a politician's apology rendered in advance for something he plans to do, as in ‘I’m sorry to have to do this but…’”

TWELVE:

@ Britt & IMHO,

Actually, it would appear you’re both wrong. I checked this article from France 24 International News, which had this to say: “Strauss-Kahn told staff he had come to ‘apologize to those who have been hurt’ by the scandal, and said he was sorry that the sensational case had had a negative impact on the IMF, according to a Fund employee at the meeting.”

Sounds a bit too indirect and self-removed for my taste.

He could have said, should have said, but didn’t: “I apologize for my personal misconduct and lack of judgment. What I did was wrong and I promise never to do anything like this again.” [That promise should be part of any apology.] Of course, since he’s still in the States, he couldn’t publicly add, “I paid $50 for a blowjob, which was a violation of my sacred marriage vows and…[well, you get the idea].”

DSK’s legal staff “indicated” [I love that word] that had this case gone to trial, DSK would claim the sex was consensual. Maybe it was as “consensual” as $50 (guessing at the amount here) would buy. But still, soliciting for prostitution is illegal in NYC, so admitting he paid for sex could have been used against him, even if the rape charge was taken off the table.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I wish someone at the IMF listening to his statement would have yelled out, ‘Stop with the weenie, man up, and give us a real apology.”

THIRTEEN:

"People are the most important ingredient in life," Bachmann [who recently snagged a book deal, her book scheduled to come out in November] said.

So that’s what we are, eh? Ingredients? Maybe she wasn’t really born here. Maybe she was born where cannibalism is practiced (hence, human “ingredients” being important). I demand to see her birth certificate : )  If, however, she meant to say, “People are the most important aspect of my life,” I’d have to ask where God fits in. Probably a bit above being “obedient” to her husband.

I wonder if her contract with the publisher has a secret clause: “You can’t drop out of the race until at least 2 months after publication.” Of course, if her poll numbers don’t stop sliding, that won’t matter.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“My ‘book’ is on line and it’s free.  Just google my name.”

FOURTEEN:

@ Michael,

You say, our problem is that we are not adhering to the Constitution. That must mean we have a Constitution that can be easily circumvented and not adhered to. How is that possible with such a flawless document? Let me turn this around and ask you: “How can we change things so the Constitution isn’t so easily ignored?”

Why do you claim it’s “simply ridiculous” to start all over again? We Americans are an innovative bunch of trailblazers unafraid to face the future and change if we have to. [If we refuse to change, we'll become extinct.] Why do we insist on clinging to that which no longer serves us? To that which is doing us far more harm than good.  I’ll tell you what is “simply ridiculous”: To refuse to consider alternatives while the Ship of State is sinking.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Google my name for a more detailed description of my proposed changes, especially concerning Cross-Sectional Representation.”

FIFTEEN:

“Rebels have been converging from the east and west on Sirte…to battle Gadhafi loyalists.”

And of course NATO will bomb the rebels to prevent them from harming innocent civilians in Sirte. Riighhtt! [Somehow, "you're either for us or against us" will fit into this unfolding chapter.]

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“There’s a special place in h*ll for Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy for their undeclared war on Libya.”

SIXTEEN:

“The American people have done everything they can” – candidate for US President, Michele Bachmann.

No they haven’t, not even close. Karmically speaking, we get exactly the kind of government we deserve. The culture of corruption in DC was aided and abetted by the American people who kept voting Dem/Pub/Dem/Pub…ad nauseum.  And they STILL won’t seriously consider voting for independents because they’re too stuck on Brand names. This lockstep stuff has got to stop or we’re seriously fewecked.

Irene might have been an Act of God but far be it from someone as mean-spirited and self-loving as Bachmann to figure out what that means. It’s hard to divine (pun intended) the meaning of natural phenomenon but I’ll give it shot:

Irene and that earthquake were the products of karma. Sure, DC felt the quake but the karmic retribution was greatest at the exact spot where the quake occurred. And the most direct recipient was the earth itself – yes, the earth has good and bad karma. Other direct recipients were the people who died or whose lives were impacted by either event. People who try to glean the will of God from natural events will always end up frustrated, since it’s not His will being manifested – it’s a product of the combined karma of a lot of players.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Even God [one of many such Gods] suffers/benefits from karmic retribution/reward and will continue to do so until He attains enlightenment and becomes a Buddha."

SEVENTEEN:

[My response is to this quote, furnished by Itiswhatitis.]

"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world."

- Daniel Webster (1782-1852), US Senator

@ Itiswhatitis

Daniel Webster was an unrepentant blowhard with a very large opinion of himself. The only way there will be “anarchy throughout the world” is if the world abandons God. The US Constitution has nothing to do with any impending international breakdown.

The real danger lies, not in the Constitution failing, but in We-the-People failing as spiritual (especially, honest) human beings. Constitutions come and go, and there’s always room for improvement. Anyone who thinks otherwise is hopelessly stuck in the past. “American – forget not your proud heritage – that of innovator and trailblazer” – Steven Searle.

"[Daniel Webster] was a thoroughgoing elitist, and he reveled in it," says Robert Vincent Remini, Daniel Webster: The Man And His Time (Norton, 2009) p 352; also pp. 429, 636 [source: Wikipedia article on DW].

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I don’t give a rat’s behind what Daniel Webster thought. I’d much rather hear, in his/her own words, what Itiswhatitis thinks.”

EIGHTEEN:

@ K

ONE: I won’t sink to your level by name-calling (REF: “idiot”); I’ll just respond to your points.

TWO: ALL of us – those of at least average intelligence – “know more than the Founding Fathers.” There’s no way they could have known what the average school child [now] knows.

THREE:  Yes, they created a unique system – but not one that should be expected to live forever (even if laden with amendments).

FOUR: Why don’t you admit it can be replaced and not merely amended? The Preamble states, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union… do ordain and establish this Constitution…” If We had the right to “form a more perfect union” back in the day, We have the right to form an even more perfect union” now & may do so by ordaining and establishing a replacement Constitution. Isn’t that what we innovative Americans are all about – ever in search of perfection?

FIVE:  You’re only guessing in your last sentence – “probably just ideas.” When people over-generalize, they run the risk of overlooking some genuinely good options. My concept of Cross-Sectional Representation has not been “proven to fail.” What is proving to fail is our outdated Law of the Land mostly upheld by unthinking, sentimental, “loyal” Americans – the kind of whom it is said, “With friends like them, the country doesn’t need enemies.

SIX: I take it you’re in favor of legislative gridlock and the anti-democratic Senate filibuster rule, which are slowly grinding this country to a halt.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I can’t help but be awestruck by your ‘open’ mind.”

NINETEEN:

[These last three entries are responses to AWFULLLLLL.]

AWFULLLLLL wrote, “Do you believe that life begins at conception?”

Maybe the key question should be: When do you believe the soul enters the unborn's body? Can't remember my source on this, but many Japanese (Shintoists?) believe the soul enters 4 months after conception. Therefore, abortion prior to 4 months hasn't destroyed a soul, though it has destroyed a life.

I can feel the pain on both sides of the pro-Choice divide. Maybe we need a constitutional amendment outlawing (most) abortions. But that amendment should also include this provision: “Any woman leaving the US [vacation, business, whatever] must submit to a pregnancy test before leaving. If she’s pregnant, she must either still be pregnant when she returns or have her newborn babe in arms.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I find it hard to encourage anti-abortion legislation knowing how easy it is for the wealthy to simply cross the border to fix their ‘problems.’ Actually, they cross the border to fix a lot of their other problems as well, but that’s for another post on another day.”

TWENTY:

[These last three entries are responses to AWFULLLLLL.]

AWFULLLLLL,

When you wrote, “Sounds like a political answer,” were you referring to my words concerning the amendment I suggested? I’m kind of surprised you didn’t respond to that – the silence was deafening.

As for, “Scientifically the point of conception is the only non-arbitrary point!”… That depends. If someone “knows” [and I would rank religious “knowledge” as no better or worse than scientific “knowledge”] that the soul doesn’t enter the body until 4 months after conception, then there wouldn’t be anything “arbitrary” at all concerning the decision of a woman to abort prior to 4 months. “No harm [to a soul], no foul” as the old saying goes.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“This isn't an easy issue, which is exactly why I would tend to favor each individual woman making her own choice. The wealthy would only do that anyway, so why discriminate against the poor?”

TWENTY-ONE:

[These last three entries are responses to AWFULLLLLL.]

AWFULLLLLL,

If you don’t want to amend the Constitution, you may be missing your best chance to impose your moral view (which I’m sure you feel is the correct view) on the country at large. And frankly I don’t see why you would choose to decline this perhaps historic opportunity.

Your argument may indeed be moral, but if it is to be more than just “your [theoretical] argument” (instead of a means to change the law of the land), you’ll have to take some kind of political action. Otherwise, the status quo (Roe vs. Wade) will prevail. Remember what they say about enough good men doing nothing.

I have already commented on my belief: “…I would tend to favor each individual woman making her own choice.” But to expand on that: As a Buddhist, I believe each soul reincarnates at particular times, which are a direct consequence of its karma. If a fetus is aborted, that death is not permanent (as, say, the Christians believe) since it can later be reincarnated (born) to different parents. If a fetus loses its life, that’s a product of its karma but not the end of the world. However, by losing that life, its negative karma has been reduced to a point which would allow for birth under more favorable circumstances in the future.

As far as when the soul enters the body, I really don’t know nor have I any belief. But that’s irrelevant to whether I think a woman has a right to abort before the third trimester.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If you really think it would be murderous to abort (say) within a month of conception, then you’ve got to get political to eliminate that state of affairs. Merely being moral isn’t good enough; merely being moral, when you could do more than sit on your hands, would make you an accomplice to this kind of murder, would it not?”

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I strongly suspect Yahoo News! routinely censors my posts or isolates them somehow so as not to be available to the general public, but there’s not much I can do about that.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Governor Perry’s anti-gay marriage amendment

QUESTION: How did four GOP candidates for US president manage to shoot themselves in the foot – using the same bullet? [Five candidates, if you count Tim Pawlenty who has withdrawn from the race.]

ANSWER: All of them signed the [Anti-Gay Marriage] Pledge** written by the National Organization for Marriage. That “same bullet” I referred to above was their willingness to sign the Pledge as worded by NOM instead of signing a version in their own words. Their personalized pledge(s) would have spared them the deadly consequences that await once the more astute among us tell the rest of the electorate exactly what this Pledge means.

For instance, item #4:

I, ___, pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will: Four, establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.

If citizens have been “harassed or threatened” for any reason, there are already laws on the books to protect them. We don’t need to “establish a presidential commission.” That is, we don’t need to unless Perry et al want to spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars to needlessly duplicate existing institutions.

But I guess the GOP frontrunners aren’t as interested in saving money, allowing current laws to provide the “protections…needed,” or in resisting the temptation to pass new (& unnecessary laws) to increase our “protection” as they are in pleasing the ever-voracious base.

For instance, item #2:

I, ___, pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will: Two, nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning of the Constitution, appoint an attorney general similarly committed, and thus reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution.

What is meant by “committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning?” What is it our judges should restrain themselves from doing? The pledge should have used these words instead, “committed to applying the original meaning of the Constitution.”

Question: Why was the word “restraint” inserted?

Answer: There was no good reason. If judges were to apply “the original meaning of the Constitution,” then we would not need to worry ourselves about “restraint.”

What about “the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution?” Nobody is claiming the Founders did any such thing. And I don’t see how any presidential candidate could sign his name to a pledge containing such a silly assertion. By the way, there’s no mention of marriage anywhere in the Constitution. So are we, then, to assume that marriage is unconstitutional? Of course not, as a casual glance at the Ninth Amendment reveals:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The people have a right to marry, even though that right is not explicitly stated in the Law of the Land.

For instance, item #5:

I, ___, pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will: Five, advance legislation to return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote on marriage.

This is assailable two ways: Item #5 claims the people of DC have a “right to vote on marriage.” But item #1 seeks to take away that right:

I, ___, pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will: One, support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification.

So much for the “right” of the people of DC to determine the standards suitable for their community. I thought the GOP wasn’t in favor of the feds running our lives. Oh wait, I forgot: We can’t ignore the power of pressure-groups like NOM, now can we? Makes me wonder: What other pressure-groups will make their demands known?

The second assailable way: This issue of the right of the people of DC to vote on marriage has already been decided – in court. According to Wikipedia*:

QUOTE:

Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr… sued the District after the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics refused to approve a ballot initiative on the issue of same-sex marriage. The Board stated that such an initiative would violate D.C.'s Human Rights Act. In January 2010, the D.C. Superior Court upheld the board's decision.

On May 4, 2010, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals heard an appeal of the Superior Court decision. … On July 15, 2010, the Court of Appeals upheld the Superior Court's decision in a 5-4 decision.

The United States Supreme Court on January 18, 2011, rejected Jackson's appeal without comment.

:UNQUOTE.

Perry et al don’t care about the rights of the people of DC. Sounds to me like this GOP Gang of Four wants Congress to pass a law overriding the law enacted by the duly-elected representatives of the people of DC. And if such a law were to be passed and, supposing, the people of DC would vote to accept gay marriage, President Perry would cackle: “It won’t matter what the people of DC want, once we get our Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment on the books.”

Conclusion

This Pledge signed by the Gang of Four consists of only 158 words. That’s it! If the four leading candidates for the GOP nod can stumble so badly by having blindly signed on without even thinking – without even considering signing their own, more carefully-worded version – why shouldn’t We-the-People question their basic intelligence?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“The willingness of the leading GOP contenders to march in lockstep according to the dictates of some pressure-group is highly disturbing but not entirely unexpected.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

   *  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_District_of_Columbia#Legal_challenges

   ** Word-for-word, here’s the entire 158-word Pledge as it appears on NOM’s website:

QUOTE:

I, ___, pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will:

One, support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification.

Two, nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning of the Constitution, appoint an attorney general similarly committed, and thus reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution.

Three, defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act vigorously in court.

Four, establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.

Five, advance legislation to return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote on marriage.

:UNQUOTE.

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. 7 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 16 of these mini-essays/comments.

ONE:

[My response to Angie, who had posted something rather unintelligent concerning the recent riots in Great Britain.]

@ Angie,

First of all, there are often huge differences between what a person (literally) says and what he means. I feel sorry for anyone who can’t see past the literal in order to see the pain the other is feeling.

As for what Freddy literally said: “Nobody is doing nothing for us,” a reasonable translation would be: “Everybody is doing at least something for us.” You are of course wrong to translate that as “he’s being cared for in the fullest.” And perhaps that’s the gist of the problem: There are too many people who believe that “at least something” means “in the fullest.” It most certainly does not. If everybody is doing “at least something,” perhaps that “something” is too little – even if truly everybody is doing it.

And perhaps that’s what the young man is really driving at.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Sometimes the words do get in the way of the meaning.”

TWO:

“… Patrick Leman, a University of London professor who researches 9/11 theories. ‘It stops us from having to confront the unpredictability of life.’”

Some things, however, are very predictable - like stooges from academia trying their hand at debunking. I think David Ray Griffin would blow this guy out of the water.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I still don’t buy the official 9/11 cover up.”

THREE:

“…the basis of our marriage is respect” – Bachmann [for US President]

Hmm…even deadly enemies can respect each other. So using the word “respect” tells us absolutely nothing about their relationship. Besides, isn’t the basis of marriage supposed to be love? Just saying…

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Oh, and the words ‘submission’ and ‘respect’ are not synonymous.”

FOUR:

“But everybody should have the right to be in a union.”

Actually, everybody should have a Right to Life without being victimized by special interest groups – and that’s what a union is.  What? You don’t think they go out on strike for YOUR benefit, do you?

As long as we insist on having a polarized, advocacy type of society (glaringly manifested by the Dem/Pub monopoly), we will always have various groups clawing and scratching for a larger share for themselves, at the expense of the larger society.

The only way out? Replace Congressional Districts (which are geographically based, therefore having a built-in territorial bias) with Cross-Sections. Each CS, having a constituency drawn at random from a list of all eligible voters nationwide, would not have a territorial bias.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“In order to create a government truly representative of We the People, we need a replacement Constitution that would allow for Cross-Sectional Representation. Without that, no true democracy (which is a word that does not appear even once in our current Constitution – go figure).”

FIVE:

“…take a final decision on buying Italian paper after Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi announced…”

Whoa, you don’t have to say any more after having said, “Silvio Berlusconi.” You can tell an awful lot about the political cultural (if not the soul) of a country from the kind of people in charge. Silvio Berlusconi? With him at the helm, the ECB would be fools to buy Italian paper.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Whatever happened to the quaint notion of actually having great leaders? On actually insisting on having great leaders?”

SIX:

This whole bond rating business is nothing more than a scam. How is it that New Zealand and Finland have a better rating than Saudi Arabia and China? And what in the hell is the Isle of Man doing on the elite AAA list? Oh, that’s right…part of the Queen’s club (RHIP). I can see why Switzerland made it – still riding high on Nazi money and, oh the secrets that government could spill!

Looking at this triple-A club, a certain word comes to mind – cartel. I can see that the interests of the master race are very well secured indeed.

As a side note: A friend of mine said, “You are aware that the US lost the War of 1812 and has been a British colony ever since.” No, I don’t buy that, but the behavior of our leaders is rather suspect and shows they don’t have our best interests in mind. If not ours, whose?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Neutral bond rating agencies, indeed! Who invents this nonsense?”

SEVEN:

Foreigner 427 responded to my post (SIX, immediately above) by writing:

"Saudi Arabia and China?"

How open are those nations to international agencies? Not very. How open are these nations to free market forces? Not very. How much are businesses in those countries subject to the whims of a totalitarian gov't? Very much.

So they get a lower rating.

"Isle of Man doing on the elite AAA list?"

You seem to be confused. It's not a rating of how rich you are, it's a rating of how stable the country is, how open it is to free market forces, etc, which ultimately determines the likelyhood that repayment of debt could face a problem.

[My answer to Foreigner 427’s text, cited immediately above.]

Well, Foreigner427, the nitty-gritty of the bond business is, “If I buy your bonds, will you pay me back?” It doesn’t matter if the issuing nations are “open to international agencies..or free market forces,” or if the countries are totalitarian. What matters is, “will you pay me back?”

When trying to gauge likelihood of payback, the fact that both countries are very much integrated into the international monetary system assumes huge importance. China and Saudi Arabia will play by the rules because they have too much to lose if they don’t.

As for what determines how rating agencies issue their verdicts, I doubt there’s a lot of science behind that – witness the behavior of these players as they issued dubious ratings during the subprime mortgage crash.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I’m not confused at all – this is still a scam. The question is, how pervasive is it?”

EIGHT:

“Turks have grown less enamored of the prospect of joining the European Union.”

As I have written in the past, the heart and soul of Turkey does not belong in the EU. Turkey would do well to position itself as the pivotal (even capitol) state of a resurgent Caliphate. Though perhaps that would be better known as an Islamic Union.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I would welcome an Islamic Union, headed by Turkey, into the international community.”

NINE:

I will blow Mitt Romney out of the water, when the time is right, with a YouTube clip I scripted.

This clip will show him being sworn in as the newly-elected president, concluding his oath with: “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. [pause] I do so solemnly swear upon THIS, The Book of Mormon, the most correct book of scripture known to man.”

As he says “THIS,” he takes the Book, upon which his left hand is resting, and lifts it over his head for all to see. As the camera zooms in on the cover, we see these words: The Book of Mormon. We also hear a buzz of commentators’ voices saying stuff like: “This is an outrage,” “Impeach the sonofabitch,” “The ballz of this guy,” “Who does he think he is?”

As for that last question, he knows exactly who he is, who he has always been – a descendant of a Mormon apostle who really believes what he just said, “The Book of Mormon [is] the most correct book of scripture known to man.” If that is what the newly-elected President of the United States believes, why should he swear his oath on the Bible? Why shouldn’t he say exactly what he feels, for all the world to hear?

I’m really going to enjoy the howls from the Religious Right once this YouTube clip goes viral.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“All I need now is an actor who looks enough like Mitt Romney. Maybe the guy who played Herman Munster…oh wait…he’s dead…as dead as will be Romney’s candidacy when…”

TEN:

[My answer to Mitt Romney who said, “Corporations are people.”

“Corporations are people?”

Hmm…did Romulus mean, “Corporations are legal persons?” Or “Corporations employ people who have feelings too?”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Or maybe we should ask his twin brother REAM-US.”

ELEVEN:

My response to WM, who posted: “Tax all political contributions at a 50% rate...let the lobbyist pay their fair share.” [WM got a lot of thumbs-up for this. Go figure.] 

My response: At first blush, WM's idea sounds good, but it wouldn't really raise much revenue. I suppose that's not the point, though. The real point is to suggest something (anything!) that will make We-the-Sheeple feel good about ourselves.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Okay, now that we’re done jacking off, when will we get really serious by voting all incumbents out of office and giving independents a chance?”

TWELVE:

If all political contributions are taxed at 50%, corruption won't be lowered [as claimed by one poster]. What it will do is diminish the effectiveness of contributions made to third party and independent candidates, since they don't attract deeply-pocketed donors. The fat cats won't have any problem beating a 50% tax; they'll just double (easily double) their "contributions" - being more than willing to pay the tax. But the non Dem/Pub candidates will be the ones who will suffer, since their donors can't as easily up the ante.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"The only way to beat these bastards is to vote all incumbents out of office - even if that means voting for the party you loathe...or (if one is available) you could vote independent (hint, hint)."

THIRTEEN:

From the article posted on Yahoo:  “An experimental unmanned hypersonic glider has been launched from an air base on the central California coast…The U.S. military is trying to develop technology to respond to threats around the globe at speeds of Mach 20 or greater.”

My response: (sigh) And how much is this going to cost us? Actually, there will be two costs:

ONE: The cost of building and maintaining a fleet of these things;

TWO: The “cost” which will result from our temptation to use them by sticking our noses into every little nook and cranny in the world.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“It’s that second cost that will be the zinger.”

FOURTEEN:

 “Governments had to step in to provide liquidity in droves through low interest rates, bank bailouts and injections of cash into the economy.”

Actually, that is false – governments did not have to step in. Yes, there would have been pain had they not stepped in, but relative to what? Nothing was really solved and bad companies (supposedly too big to fail) should have been “allowed” to do just that. Their assets would have been snapped up by other companies, and their bad management would have been fired. But…those who sing the praises of unfettered free market capitalism would have none of that. Their refrain would have been the same, “Where’s my bailout?”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Bailout is just another way of saying ‘Kick the can down the road.’”

FIFTEEN:

“…massive…invasion of the Japanese home islands that was being actively planned [before the A-bomb was dropped].”

It wasn’t at all necessary to invade Japan. We could have nickeled and dimed them to “death.” The US had total air and naval superiority, so the solution should have been, “Surrender or we’ll starve you out by bombing your crops.” If not that, then we could have picked and chosen where on the Japanese islands and when we could have invaded.

The thing that’s so often glossed over is the fact the Nagasaki bomb was dropped a mere three days after Hiroshima was leveled. We didn’t care that it might have taken the Japanese high command more than 3 days to give up a war they’d been fighting for years. [Could we make such a decision in three days? Look how long it took for us to work out our debt-increase deal.] We knew Japan would eventually surrender (and sooner than later), so it didn’t really matter when (what’s the rush?).

We nuked Japan to send a message to the Russians. And if that doesn’t qualify as an act of terrorism, what does?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“It kind of hurts to think of ourselves as the world’s first nuclear terrorist, but if the shoe fits, wear it.”

SIXTEEN:

[The four words highlighted in yellow (below) are the opening words to 4 sentences posted by one of my responders. My response follows each of his sentences.]

“Air power has never won a war without a ground attack of some sort.”

The war against Japan was already won, so your point about air power is irrelevant. While it’s true their ground forces still occupied huge tracts of Asian land, the Japanese islands were without an air force, without a navy, and without a land force that could do anything but stay put. The Japanese islands were sitting ducks which could have been “persuaded” to surrender by means of a war of attrition. We could have, in effect, quarantined them. A lot of mouths to feed with the prospect of no means to feed them is a mighty powerful persuader.

“the definition of terrorism is vague…”

Oh really? The killing of innocent civilians in great numbers would certainly qualify – especially if there was a viable alternative. The Japanese High Command could have been given an ample demonstration of the power of the nuke without us having to drop them on two heavily-populated areas. For instance, blowing one high over Tokyo harbor would have made the point. Or maybe over sacred Mt. Fuji.

“Another thing not really considered was using it as a veiled threat against the Soviets.”

Are you kidding? That was exactly the point – the major point.

“So if both sides of an armed conflict agree that use of such weapons is acceptable, how is it terrorism?”

Doesn’t matter what both sides “agree” or if both sides do it – terrorism is terrorism, except if one happens to have a legal mind.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“There’s no way around this – The US was the first country to engage in nuclear terrorism. And there’s no way to song-and-dance around this conclusion. And I'm not terribly sorry if that offends anybody.”

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“It won’t matter who is elected US President in 2012, if it’s anyone other than me. The Elite’s agenda will not be challenged. “

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com