Savior of the Tea Party

Thesis:  I have a suggestion that will save the Tea Party. Oh, it will also help me.

Current situation

A lot of GOP candidates are trying to tap into the Tea Party’s energy, support, and sense of outrage. But those same candidates also have a problem: The pending vote on whether (or under what circumstances) to raise the national debt ceiling. If legislators who enjoyed Tea Party support are tempted to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling, they risk being excommunicated.

Those same legislators are hoping for some kind of face-saving compromise: They’ll vote to increase the ceiling but only alongside massive budget cuts. And they must be massive and they must take place now. Tea Party won’t be satisfied with promises of cuts to be negotiated later – preferably after the 2012 election. Tea Party won’t want to wait that long.

A Solution – thanks to yours truly

I suggest the Tea Party back a candidate for President who makes the following campaign pledges:

If elected, I will veto any bill that contains an increase in the debt ceiling. I will also veto any bill containing new spending, new taxes, or new fees.

Oh, I forgot two small details. This same candidate would also pledge:

(1)  My campaign pledges will be in the form of a written contract.

(2)  If I were to violate that contract, I would forfeit my office by means of inviting an uncontested impeachment against me. This, too, would be a provision of my written contract.

Tea Party might actually endorse this

Tea Party activists are bound to be angered by candidates they’d supported – candidates who’d promised fiscal conservatism and budget cutbacks – who end up voting “yes” to an increase in the debt ceiling. And these legislators will lamely respond to that anger by saying, “But we got a promise from the Democrats to really talk seriously about budget reduction – at some vague time in the future. And look at the token cuts they’ve already granted – if you squint just right, they’ll look huge!”

Yeah, right! And how will Tea Party react to that? Oh, they can fuss and fume all they want. But the problem is, there’s really nothing they can do. Besides, their 15-minutes of fame are just about up. So if they don’t (quickly) grab onto something novel (and enforceable, I might add), they might as well give up.

Not to mention: Barack Obama looks unbeatable. The 2012 election is his to lose, since no outside force appears ready to deny him. Desperate times call for desperate measures. So why shouldn’t the Tea Party embrace my idea of enforceable, written contracts for presidential candidates?

Side note: I’ll make that much clear right now: This is my idea, as first introduced when I was a candidate in the 2008 election: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/written-political-contracts.html

If TP is interested in beating the “values” drum, what better way than by being able to boast their candidate not only values his word, he’ll put it in the form of a written contract? Maybe that’s about as good as swearing on a stack of bibles. Hmm…I wonder if any candidate had actually ever done that.

Stealing my thunder?

Suppose the Tea Party decides to back a GOP candidate during primary season, one who offers such a contract as I’m suggesting. Would that bother me, since they would be trying to win an election by using my original idea? I freely admit that mainstream media would fail to acknowledge my brainchild. They have a way of defining what (and who) is newsworthy. Bottom line? The general public would never be the wiser that I was first in this realm, and that I am seeking the presidency myself in 2012.

[To be sure, they might offer some few, condescending sentences on page 38 about some ridiculous Don Quixote tilting at windmills, but that would be about it.]

But…all that would be fine with me. Even if folks like you (the few who read my posts) would decide to rally to my defense (and support), We-the-People will never fully appreciate the role played by Me-the-Person. Again, I’d have no objection. Even if I end up gaining little recognition and support for my efforts, I can work wonders with even that little. I will fully appreciate any name recognition I would gain and will continue to work with that. Got to start somewhere, knowing even a small gain will be much more than I’ve managed to conjure up so far.

How ironic would that be?

Imagine Newt Gingrich seizing my initiative by offering his own Steven-Searle-type-Contract? [Yeah, I’ll boldface & italicize that.] The irony would lie in the fact that Newt was instrumental in promoting a concept called Contract with America back in 1994. Anyone reading Newt’s contract and mine, side-by-side, would see that mine is light-years ahead. Simply put, my version has teeth – for nowhere in the old GOP version is any mention made concerning consequences for failing to deliver. Also, my contract contained (during the 2008 election) and contains (for this upcoming election) provisions which only the president can unilaterally deliver.

That last is important, since I would not be able to claim, “I couldn’t deliver on my contract’s promises because Congress didn’t support me.” One example: I wouldn’t need Congress’s consent to immediately withdraw all US forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Or suppose Sarah Palin decides to write her own contract. She might opt to toss in some provisions that I wouldn’t approve of – for instance, promising to order US army to aggressively patrol the US/Mexican border. As far as I’m concerned, it’s her contract so she can include anything in it she wishes. I might not like her provisions but if a national figure like her can help popularize these types of contracts, who am I to complain?

I guess it’s true what they say: “Politics make strange bedfellows.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“The really important task is to defeat every single Dem/Pub for Congress, replacing them with independents. All in due time.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

To thank a soldier, Sarah Palin style

There are a lot of ways to thank a soldier; to name a few:

·         Mom style: Seeing your son or daughter come home safely from a war zone opens up a well of gratitude rare in this world.

·         Best buddy style: “Welcome home, dude…Let’s get smashed…I’m buying.”

·         Small town style: When seeing their favorite sons in uniform just off the Greyhound Bus with duffel bag slung over one shoulder, friends and strangers alike hail or nod their approval in his direction.

·         Steven Searle style: [More on that, later, but in the spirit of “ladies first,” I give you:

·         Sarah Palin style.

Sarah Palin has gotten a lot of mileage out of her attempts to ingratiate herself with our men and women in uniform. We’ve all seen footage of her mingling and cooing with our soldiers in a variety of settings. On one level, I can appreciate her sincerity since she herself has a son who served in Iraq. On another level, though, I can’t help but feeling she’s exploiting our soldiers. To be sure, she thinks she’s doing this for a greater purpose – but it’s still exploitation.

Here’s something I had posted over a year ago on the now-defunct Gaia website. You can just as easily substitute “Sarah Palin” for “Barack Obama,” which makes my point:

QUOTE:

I have seen several photos showing Barack Obama surrounded by his smiling, adoring troops after making a speech and then mingling with his soldiers. They were informally gathered around their Commander in Chief, with some of them even raising their cameras above the crowd to snap a better picture.

Frankly, that's a bit too loosey-goosey for my taste. I don't care if we have a volunteer military. Here's what I would say to these soldiers:

"That man is the supreme military leader of this country. You do not smile in his presence. You do not shuffle and gawk and say ‘Aw shucks, sir.’ You do not kick back and chill out in his presence. You are always to be at attention, staring out into space with firm, determined, and unemotional resolve. You are never, ever to lose your military bearing. What do you think this is, some kind of warm, fuzzy, family gathering? Your loose behavior sends messages, including this one to the President himself: It's okay to use troops as props in support of your political posturing.

"No, it is NOT okay. Soldiers, you have a job to do and how you carry yourselves - at all times - is part of that job and is of the utmost importance. Do not forget this."

:UNQUOTE.

The Essential Sarah Palin

I don’t know who Sarah Palin is or who she thinks she is or who she wants to become. In saying this, I do nothing more than simply admit my ignorance. I have found, in this life, that most people – especially politicians – do their damnedest to hide themselves from the public at large. However, that being said, I believe we can (and should) look for certain clues. And what better place to look than in a book written by such a person?

Even if this book is ghostwritten or severely vetted by campaign staff, we must conclude (rightly, I believe) that such material was at least approved by the candidate (yeah, this late in the ball game, I’ll call her “candidate”).

I’ve only read one book by Palin, but I’ll be bold enough to claim that within its pages (page 230, to be exact) is a clue to the essential Sarah Palin. The book:

America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag

QUOTE [from page 230]:

Another of my favorite prayers is also a poem (or is it a poem that is also a prayer?) by Emily Dickinson. It’s a simple, logical explanation for a faith that is as deeply felt as it is unproved – and unprovable.

I never saw a moor,

I never saw the sea;

Yet know I how the heather looks,

And what a wave must be.

I never spoke with God,

Nor visited in heaven;

Yet certain am I of the spot

As if the chart were given.

:UNQUOTE.

For the record: That’s it – that’s the entire poem (or, more accurately, Palin’s paraphrased version), and it’s entitled “I never saw a moor.”

The first four lines speak volumes of Sarah Palin’s lack of experience in and awareness of the larger world. And they also speak of a presumptuousness bordering on the profound. How can anybody “know” about moors and the sea without having made direct, personal, physical contact? Knowledge of God can be obtained by a wide variety of indirect means. But of moors and waves? Aye, those are entirely different creatures altogether.

To Mrs. Palin (as well as to Emily Dickinson): “If you think you know anything about waves, especially never having even seen one, you’ll have quite a shock when you ride a 40-footer, should you ever happen to sail around the tip of South America.”

And we’re expected to believe she “knows” these things – and what else, I dare ask?

And of that “certainty” expressed in the last four lines…from whence did it come? And is her “certainty” to be valued above, say, Mitt Romney’s? For he must surely be considered one of her chief rivals for the GOP nomination. And I dare say, the “certainty” of a Mormon must be quite a bit different than a Generic Christian’s. Oh, did I use the “G” word, just now? See for yourself what I mean from this interview*:

QUOTE [with a few parentheticals of my own]:

Where do you see yourself going? Staying on in Alaska. Washington?

You know, I don’t know. I knew early on that the smartest thing for me to do was to work hard, do the best that I can, make wise decisions based on good information in front of me. And then put my life, get myself on a path that could be dedicated to God and ask Him what I should do next. That will be the position I will be in as long as I’m on earth — that is, seeking the right path that God would have laid out for me.

What’s your religion?

Christian.

Any particular...?

No. Bible-believing Christian. [Which version? Followers of the KJV, for example, are rather picky on this point.]

What church do you attend?

A non-denominational [read: “generic”] Bible church. I was baptized Catholic as a newborn and then my family started going to non-denominational churches throughout our life. [What turned your family from Catholicism?]

Anything else you want to add?

You know, I can’t think of anything...

:UNQUOTE.

I’ve reworked the poem mentioned above to help clarify how I think it applies to Sarah Palin. I call it, “I’ve never been in battle:”

I’ve never been in battle,

I’ve never seen starvation,

Yet I know what they must be like,

Enough to serve the nation.

God never spoke to me,

Not a whisper in my ear,

Yet I know exactly what He wants,

Of that I am quite clear.

Steven Searle’s style of thanking soldiers

I will first and foremost clarify my approach by saying, unlike Sarah Palin, I don’t believe in making blanket profiles of groups – be they soldiers, Republicans, churchgoers, etc. In Palin’s eyes, if she sees one soldier, she sees all soldiers rolled up into one – all sharing common characteristics and infallibilities. This is an important distinction, which I hope the following short story conveys:

Curtis LeMay

When I was in the Air Force, I heard an anecdote concerning General LeMay, when he was in charge of the USAF Strategic Air Command.

He was waiting in line to board a nuclear bomber, having to wait while the Military Police reviewed boarding passes. This brief procedure was necessary to assure that only authorized personnel could board the plane. When it was LeMay's turn, the sentry didn't ask for his papers but instead saluted and waved him through.

The General asked the sentry why he didn't follow protocol and review his boarding pass. The sentry said, "But I recognize you as General LeMay, Commander in Chief of this entire command."

The General snapped, "Young man, for all you know the President of the United States might have just fired me and voided my pass. We have security measures in place for damn good reasons."

  * * * * * * * * * *

I liken Sarah Palin to that starry-eyed sentry mentioned above. Like that sentry, Palin fails to see beyond reputation and background. She fails to appreciate context – that is, General LeMay exists and only has status and authority depending on context, as the General himself explained to the sentry. I have a bad feeling that Sarah, if elected, will need to have a great deal explained to her about such contexts.

I don’t share any such illusions. I know not all of our servicemen are brave and that many of them serve for somewhat less than patriotic reasons. I also have an idea of their limitations and will not unduly glorify them. Again, I fit them into contexts. For example, on page 43 of Palin’s book, she cites this tribute:

QUOTE:

It is the veteran, not the preacher, who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the veteran, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the veteran, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the veteran, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to assemble.

It is the veteran, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the veteran, not the politician, who has given us the right to vote.

:UNQUOTE.

First of all, Palin ignores something she’d emphasized earlier in her book: All of our rights [at least in her world view] are God-given. So it’s interesting that she makes the leap from “God-given rights” to “veteran-given rights.”

Palin also fails to make a distinction that I would immediately embrace: It’s a bad idea to give too great a portion of credit to one group, for all of these freedoms she cites have evolved over the centuries due to the efforts of a lot of people from many walks of life.

Only the veteran who is no longer in the military:

·         becomes the preacher who brings our freedom of religion to life and gives it meaning;

·         becomes the reporter, who tests the limits of and expands the definition of freedom of the press;

·         becomes the martyr who speaks truth to power, although to be fair – some active duty soldiers do speak out, which is (by the way) highly discouraged within the ranks;

·         becomes a leader of people who assemble on behalf of various causes and sometimes get clubbed by policemen (many of whom are ex-military);

·         becomes a lawyer who knows how to navigate our unwieldy system of jurisprudence to give defendants the best possible chance for the fairest trial…under the circumstances;

·         becomes an independent politician trying to prevent his Dem/Pub colleagues from running roughshod over the few remaining rights we have.

It’s more than pretty words…

Saying “Thank you” to anybody should be more than just pretty words or a sound bite for photo ops. I would thank our servicemen by not having them fight needless wars – wars that actually undermine our national security. For instance, our current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I would thank our soldiers by not putting them in harm’s way while lying about how they are “defending U.S. soil.”

When a civilian becomes a soldier by enlisting, he signs a contract to do so. I would return the favor by signing a contract, just as I did when I ran against Obama in 2008. I don’t believe in slogans (“Change you can believe in” – give me a break) or empty promises. I would be elected, if at all, on the basis of a written contract listing my campaign promises. Should I violate any of those promises, I invite loss of office by means of impeachment.

You might find the following three promises from my 2008 contract to be of interest:

QUOTE:

ONE: If I violate any of the terms of this contract, I will be removed from office by means of impeachment. I hereby affirm, in advance, that I will not defend myself nor authorize any other party to defend me against any impeachment activity in the House or trial by the Senate. I further agree to a speedy trial - within less than 10 minutes, if deemed necessary by the Senate.

TWO:  Within 90 days of my inauguration, all U.S. military forces will be completely withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of the "situation on the ground." This withdrawal also applies to any covert operatives currently operating in Iran.

THREE:  I will urge Congress to retroactively raise to $5,000,000 the payment to next-of-kin (or other designees) of all U.S. soldiers (and members of Private Military Companies) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan - and make that tax free. In addition, I will urge Congress to increase disability benefits to $1,000,000 per lost limb, also retroactively and tax free. All this with an apology to our troops who've sacrificed so much: "We - made - a - mistake - and - we're - sorry."

:UNQUOTE.

Take a careful look at that last point. Do you think President Sarah Palin would mount the bully pulpit on behalf of our killed or wounded warriors, as suggested by point THREE? Or would she just mouth platitudes as she does a whirlwind tour through a VA hospital? Do you think she would be brave enough to suggest such a large degree of compensation or would she be too mindful of the Tea Party urging her to cut the budget (at the expense of veterans, if necessary)?

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party

“It’s a whole lot easier to say ‘thank you’ than it is to do ‘thank you’” – Steve.

   * Time Magazine’s Jay Newton Small interview with Palin is dated Aug. 29, 2008 and is on-line at http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837536,00.html

American Exceptionalism

I actually bought Sarah Palin’s $26 book: America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag.

More than “bought” it, I read it. More than read it, I gave it the deep think.

Today, I will address a topic to which Palin dedicated that book’s entire third chapter, entitled America the Exceptional – consisting of about 30 pages. [All quotes below are from this book.]

QUOTE:

But what do we mean when we say America is an exceptional country? We’re not saying we’re better than anyone else, or that we have the right to tell people in other countries how to live their lives.

:UNQUOTE [page 63].

My response: Actually, that’s exactly what we’re saying. Sarah certainly isn’t fooling anybody by saying otherwise. Oh, to be sure, in our public speeches and printed materials, our leaders won’t come right out and say anything like that. But, especially among Sarah Supporters, they make no bones about this. They say stuff like, “God made us better than anybody else and He gives us His divine favors,” and “Hey, hey, get out of our way, we’re the mighty USA,” and “It’s our way or the highway.” I could go on, but you get the general idea.

QUOTE:

When we say American is exceptional we’re saying we are the lucky heirs to a unique set of beliefs and national qualities, and that we need to preserve and value those beliefs. We’re saying America is a model to the world, not a bully to the world, or responsible for the world.

:UNQUOTE [again, page 63].

My response:  Ah, “lucky heirs,” you say? To a profound extent, those “unique…beliefs” were foisted off on us by the Founders and enforced by succeeding generations of authoritarians who refused to change with the times. As for “unique…national qualities,” those were not uniformly shared by even the earliest Americans. Basically, you had a bunch of propertied & moneyed intellectual fancy-talkers communicating in a manner barely intelligible to a sizeable, rowdier, uneducated, and disadvantaged portion of our citizenry.

In another chapter (page 191), Palin states: “He also personified what John Adams meant when he said, “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” This dovetails neatly with Palin’s assertion that we have “unique…national qualities.” Or does it? The Founders must surely have realized (and were leery of) the Great Unwashed – those among the great mass of citizens who did not own land, were a little rough hewn, and among whom dwelt (shall we say?) persons of ill repute or even scoundrels.

Any claim about what a “moral and religious” people we are surely doesn’t take into account how badly we treated native Americans. It also turns a blind eye to the fact that pious, churchgoing Negros weren’t allowed in White Southern churches. Not to mention that some of those White congregants donned white robes and burned crosses in the name of the KKK. In short, the Founders were trying to create a narrative to impress the rest of the world and create a national identity.

As for any need to “preserve and value those beliefs,” the greater need is to move on. The current generation can be Founders of a greater spirituality and can create their own Constitution, for which there is a crushing need. One of the greatest faults (though not of their own choosing) of our Founders: They indeed had a spirituality, at least to some extent, but that was a product of the religious turmoil in Europe. What they lacked, in all seriousness, was any grounding in Buddhist teachings, notably the Lotus Sutra. However, this hadn’t even been translated into any Western language until 1852, well after the US independence literature had been written.

This last bit is important because I, through the vehicle of my candidacy for US president in 2012, hope to use the teachings of the Lotus Sutra as the basis for a new American revolution.

And finally, that bit about “America is a model to the world” needs only one comment: Not as much now as it once was.

Other Exceptionalisms

I have a problem with claims concerning how “exceptional” America is. Especially with people who speak often of those claims, in bragging and demeaning tones, forgetting that modesty, too, is a virtue.

There are many noble examples of exceptional cultures – there are even some based on ideas. You’d have to look awfully hard to find a greater per-capita concentration of genius than existed in BCE Athens, Greece. Not to mention modern day Israel. Though I believe Israel has lost its way, it’s not entirely too late to right itself. Here, though, you can’t help but wonder how a people who had suffered so much during World War II managed to find the grit to try to reclaim an ancient legacy – return to their Biblical homeland.

And World War II itself provides many examples. Let’s use the USA as a basis of comparison, by noting that less than 1% of the US population at the time died in the war – combined civilian and military fatalities. In fact, only one-third of 1% had died. Not to mention that US cities and infrastructure had been virtually untouched.

The Soviet Union lost over 14% of its population, not to mention huge loses in its agricultural and industrial base. And yet they recovered sufficiently and quickly enough to mount a serious challenge to US international dominance.

Poland lost 16%. A special “hats off” to Poland here for having not only recovered but for having survived Communism by means of a strong sense of national identity. One can only wonder if the US, if ever suffering anything similar, would have the guts of the Poles or if our perennial partisan bickering and culture wars would prevent the US from ever rising again.

Moving on from WW II’s considerations, we have China. What amazing courage the Chinese leadership must have had to send a huge army against UN/US forces during the Korean War. This at a time when the US possessed the only appreciable nuclear arsenal in the world. And, yes, there was serious discussion at the highest levels concerning use of US nukes against North Korean/Chinese forces.

Conclusion

There are people who need to cling to the notion of American Exceptionalism. My response is: “Whatever floats your boat.” But I must direct to them a challenge: Instead of boasting about how great we are/were, what have you done lately? Have you examined your suppositions to decide how best to move forward or are you living in the past?”

These are good questions, though I fear the Palinians don’t do the deep think too often or well. However, I can promise them (and everybody else) this much:

I am going to re-read Sarah Palin’s book and post a lengthy rebuttal. All I ever ask of my potential presidential opponents is that they put their thoughts in writing. Then, for me, the rest is easy. I easily shredded Obama, McCain, and Hilary Clinton during the 2008 campaign. I shall have no problem similarly disposing of Sarah Palin.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I suppose my last two sentences (above) must sound awfully conceited. However, I do not believe in false modesty, and that sentence happens to be the truth.”

Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney

Intro: For the 2012 election, the Republicans might end up nominating Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, though not necessarily in that order.

Yes, by all means, write a book:

I was skimming Sarah Palin’s new book and came across two interesting sections. From America by Heart:

Palin relates an anecdote, from our Wild West days, which climaxes in a woman firing a pistol through her hotel room door into a hallway. On the other side was a man who claimed she was in his room. She threatened to shoot. He dared her. She shot but didn’t hit anybody. Sarah didn’t bother to condemn this woman who could have hit an innocent passerby. The shooter didn’t know if there was anyone on the other side of that door, besides that man of course.

So it seems Sarah endorses “shoot first, ask questions later.” Or she just plain doesn’t think about the potential consequences of deadly force. [Not a very good trait in a President.]

The last 10 pages of this book are entitled “Commonsense Constitutional Conservative.” Which is brief and says nothing about any of those 3 C’s. But that’s not the point, I suppose. The point is to use buzzwords with no follow through.


Sarah/Mitt or Mitt/Sarah?

But the good news is: Sarah Palin is not the overwhelming favorite among the GOP rank-and-file. At this time, Palin, Romney, and Huckabee are pretty much running neck and neck to see who will oppose Obama.

So why do I consider this “good news?” Maybe, just maybe, Sarah might pave the way for Mitt Romney, who might end up offering her the VP slot. In America by Heart, Palin makes heroic efforts to define the US as, since the beginning, a devoutly religious republic. Moreover, she’s obviously trying to spin the 2012 election in terms of moral values and religious sentiment.

I’m not a Romney supporter, by the way. I’m a candidate who will oppose him as an Independent should he be nominated. However, Mitt Romney as GOP standard-bearer will benefit me immensely, which I’ll make clear in a moment. Palin’s book speaks well of Romney and says we don’t need a new political party. That will pretty much invalidate the Tea Party, which I refer to as the National White People’s Party. [You won’t see many Blacks or Latinos at their rallies.]

Of course, Palin will serve the useful function of bringing Tea Party activists into the GOP fold. This will happen when it becomes painfully obvious that TP doesn’t have a platform or a chance – just a litany of complaints. [Just what could it possibly mean to say, “We’re here to take our country back?”]

Sarah will also serve by making Mitt Romney more acceptable to the US Protestant denominations’ more conservative members. These folks harbor deep suspicions about Mormonism, which is Mitt’s lifelong faith. Who knows? Maybe a wink and a smile from Sarah will assure them that Romney’s an okay guy.


What Mitt means to me?

I’ve been looking for a bridge that connects my Buddhist beliefs to Christianity, and I believe Mormonism is that bridge. Consider the following:


QUOTE: "I am going to tell you how God came to be God," declared Joseph Smith [founder of the Mormon faith] in his "King Follett Discourse" of 1844..."God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man...If you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form [What color, asks Steven Searle?]...We have imagined and supposed God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea..." ... fifth president of Latter Day Saints Church Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God once was. As God is, man might be." UNQUOTE*.


Ah, those last two sentences: “As man is, God once was. As God is, man might be.”

My personal belief: What Westerners call “God” is actually one of untold trillions of Bodhisattvas (inferior to many, superior to some), who practice Buddhism with the goal of becoming fully enlightened Buddhas. That’s right: I’m saying God is less than a Buddha (of which there are also untold trillions, by the way), but He’s working on it. And He’s been working on it for a long time, but He still has a long way to go.

I have reasons for making these claims about God, which I’ll discuss in greater detail as election 2012 draws nearer. But it will be interesting to hear how Mitt Romney deals with “those last two sentences.” He or his handlers might try to dismiss my challenge by saying, “The US Constitution doesn’t allow a litmus test, involving religion, for higher office.”

True enough. However, I will insist based on two grounds:

·       As the great-great-grandson of Parley Pratt, who was one of the original Twelve Apostles of Mormonism, I don’t see how Mitt Romney can stay silent. Especially since he himself had promoted his faith as a missionary in France for 30 months.

·       Even though, of course, there shouldn’t be any “litmus test” for higher office, the American people should be given the opportunity to hear Romney speak on “God was Man, and Man can become God.” They have a right to obtain a sense of how Mitt thinks, as reflected by how he’ll address the implications of this doctrine.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Things are about to get interestinger and interestinger as election 2012 draws ever closer.”

* Footnote: All material above, marked QUOTE/UNQUOTE, came from Hugh Hewitt's book, A Mormon in the White House?