The USA’s [NOT!]Civil War, and guns for felons

Today, I’m going to address the issue of guns for felons. From there, I’ll turn to the grossly misnamed Civil War of the USA’s past and the possibility of a genuine Civil War in the future.

The Source

As always, it’s a good idea to start with the source. In this case, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Based on this, by what authority are felons barred from owning guns? My question stems from my conviction that, once a felon serves his sentence (that is, after he has paid his debt to society), he shouldn’t continue to be punished. But in fact he is, for under our legal system, there is no such thing as an ex-felon. Even after release from prison, such a person is marked for life; he continues to be treated as a criminal.

Such “disenfranchisement” bears the US Supreme Court’s approval based on three words in the 14^th Amendment. Those three words, which I’ll highlight in yellow below, are contained in Section 2, which in part reads:

But when the right to vote…is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

In a nutshell, this section simply allows states the right to deny the right to vote, but must pay the consequence of reduced representation in Congress, the only exemption concerning those who rebel or commit an “other crime.”

Now, the 14^th Amendment is odd for a number of reasons, two of which I’ll cite here:

ONE:

I’m amazed that the Supreme Court could give to state authorities the “right” to disenfranchise (I’ll call them) ex-felons based on something as unconstitutionally vague as the words “or other crime?” That is to say, someone can lose their right to vote for a crime such as…loitering!? Not even the Constitution itself is of much help here; I’m thinking specifically of Article II, Section 4 which states:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

I’m amazed that two serious crimes are mentioned (treason and bribery), only to have follow (in the same breath, as it were) “OTHER [my emphasis] high crimes and misdemeanors.”


TWO:

[I will quote the following from this source, inserting my own comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Acts .]


QUOTE:

After the end of the American Civil War…the United States Congress passed four statutes known as Reconstruction Acts. … Fulfillment of the requirements of the Acts were necessary for the former Confederate States to be readmitted to the Union.

[COMMENT: I find it hard to understand why these states had to be readmitted, since the position of the Union during the war was that secession was illegal (in other words, it wasn’t recognized as having taken place). To “readmit” these states must therefore imply that they had been in fact lawfully seceded.]

[AND]

In addition, Congress required that each state draft a new state constitution, which would have to be approved by Congress. The states also were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution…

[COMMENT: As for the 10 words highlighted in turquoise: How can an Amendment be considered legitimately ratified if a state was forced to vote for its ratification? Even more to the point, since such a state (apparently) needed to be readmitted to the Union, by what right could it have voted for ratification in the first place?]

:UNQUOTE.


Undermining the Second Amendment

One well-publicized intention of the Second Amendment was to provide for an at-large militia which, if granted the right to bear arms, could serve as a check on the possibility our government would ever take a turn toward tyranny. Such a tyrannical force could, conceivably, decide to disarm potential malcontents. People incarcerated as felons (especially for crimes of violence) would be exactly the type of persons who would be most willing to take action against a government they feel to be unjust.

So, from the government’s point of view, it would be useful to disarm such persons. But that same government would market this policy to the general public as a means of insuring public safety, though I hasten to point out – no such considerations were incorporated into the Second Amendment itself. That’s how fundamental the Founding Fathers considered to be the right to bear arms.

But of course times change, and those who were once the revolutionary Founding Fathers have been replaced by those who are far more interested in keeping (and expanding) their own personal power.

You would think that the NRA and the GOP would be at the forefront of the battle to restore gun ownership rights to ex-felons. But you would be wrong by so thinking. Those two groups have been tied to the so-called Law and Order rhetoric for so long, they couldn’t support the rights of others who are overwhelming marginalized by everybody else.

[NOTE: I don’t know what the Tea Partiers think of felons and guns, but I doubt they would boldly champion the cause of the ex-felon. Doing so would detract support from their other agenda items.]

It’s interesting to see how the GOP seeks to divide us on this issue. There are 291 words in the GOP’s 2012 platform under the heading, “Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” I will quote from (and comment on) some of those words:

QUOTE:

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right …solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense.

[COMMENT: The term “law-abiding” citizen is a euphemism for non-felon. Why shouldn’t a felon have a “God-given right of self-defense?”]

[AND]

Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities.

[COMMENT: This last sentence is almost too funny. Since felons are denied the right to own guns, is the GOP saying that felons are no longer citizens? If “gun ownership is [supposed to be] responsible citizenship,” then how can the GOP tolerate the disarming of ex-felons who would be more than happy to rebel against a tyrannical government? For the potential for such a rebellion to be successful must surely be part of what is meant by “to defend…their communities.”]

:UNQUOTE.

Comparing The Battle of Athens, Tennessee in 1946

to the (misnamed) American Civil War

There are a lot of Second Amendment enthusiasts – that is, the kind who think our guns will protect us against our own government – who cite the case of the Battle of Athens, Tennessee in 1946. They see that “Battle” as an example of the power of unregulated guns to beat the Establishment. Keep in mind, as you read the following quote, that the “Battle” was fought against sheriff’s deputies, holed up in a jail with uncounted ballots, in order to release those ballots to determine who the [are you ready for this?] next sheriff should be.

QUOTE [including my comments]:

SOURCE: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm  ]:

As Recently As 1946, American Citizens Were
Forced To Take Up Arms As A Last Resort
Against Corrupt Government Officials.

[AND]

On August 1-2, 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force as a last resort to overturn it.


[COMMENT: No such thing happened. The “county government” wasn’t overturned. What happened? Ballot boxes were liberated, which denied election to a candidate for sheriff representing an oppressive cabal.]

These Americans wanted honest open elections. For years they had asked for state or federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud (forged ballots, secret ballot counts and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies) by the local political boss. They got no help.

:UNQUOTE.

Unbelievable! Homegrown militia types tout this as a great victory for citizens bearing arms. However, they conveniently overlook the greatest example in our history of citizens taking arms against the federal government in a struggle which they lost. I’m referring of course to the USA’s 1861 – 1865 War of Secession.

Simply put, there were 11 states which no longer wished to remain part of the United States of America. And, Constitutionally-speaking, they had every right to withdraw from that Union. Even our Declaration of Independence, in its very first sentence, speaks of when “…it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth [their status as an independent nation].”

To be sure, the Confederates didn’t lose quickly. Against an army that was twice their size, they inflicted twice as many killed as they themselves suffered. They had guns and even an organized and very effective army. But in the end, their right to bear arms did not do what it was supposed to do – act as insurance against a tyrannical government. [“Tyrannical” in the sense of being forceful in its insistence that the 11 seceding states remain in the Union.]

Reflections on the True Meaning of

the USA’s War of Secession

I passionately and thoroughly disagree with calling this war, a Civil War. For it was not, simply because it doesn’t fit the universally-accepted definitions of what comprise civil wars. It was a War of Secession. In fact, I would like to see an Act of Congress officially naming this conflict as such a war.

I am a firm believer in the truth and, also, in truth in packaging. It’s about time we saw this conflict for what it was. I’ve often wondered why the Union was so insistent against secession, though it didn’t take long to realize that the issue of slavery was only of modest importance.

The fact is, the South wasn’t really integrated into USA society as a whole. And that’s simply because, there was no such thing at the time. The Unionists weren’t as much opposed to secession as they were to what that might bring about. And the primary fear was, the possibility of the various European powers vying for influence (and investment opportunities) in the newly-minted Confederacy. And that, in turn, could mean competition, something the industrial North could not tolerate.

Why we need a New Order of New Leaders

I’m going to cite one more quote of interest to show the cynicism of our lawmakers, who are far more interested in making exceptions for the sake of business than in enforcing the pure intentions of the Second Amendment (not to mention, other laws which they choose to enforce only at their own whim).

QUOTE:

Under federal law, those convicted of a felony are forbidden from purchasing or possessing firearms and explosives. Yet as the result of a 1965 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, convicted felons were allowed to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) for "relief" from the "disability" of not being able to buy and possess guns.

The "relief from disability" program was established as a favor to firearms manufacturer Winchester, then a division of Olin Mathieson Corporation. In 1962 Olin Mathieson pleaded guilty to felony counts stemming from a kickback scheme involving Vietnamese and Cambodian pharmaceutical importers. Under the law as it existed at the time, Winchester could no longer be licensed as a firearm manufacturer. The "relief from disability" program allowed Winchester to stay in business.

SOURCE: http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm

:UNQUOTE.

Why, oh why, do exceptions to policies so often come into existence only for the benefit of the well-connected?

The Civil War of the Future

After you’ve read this post, I hope you’ll see how futile would be armed insurrection against the US government. For what was true at the time of the War of Secession is certainly more true now: The feds can outgun, in terms of quantity and quality, any conceivable militia which, by no stretch, could be as organized and omnipresent as the feds. The best such militias could hope for would be to serve as an irritant, much as street gangs are to municipal police departments. The risk of such an approach would be to bring down the awful specter of martial law and a further consolidation of federal power.

And that would serve to squelch any possibility of a sympathetic mass uprising by the general public.

The Civil War of the Future will be intelligently fought – and won – without firing a single shot. Elsewhere on this blog, especially in my earliest postings, I’ve described how that might be accomplished, which I’ll leave it to you to pursue. But I will say this: Our greatest strategy involves educating the public to the necessity of voting against all incumbents, at all times, for all offices on a consistent basis for at least ten years. Only that can work to pave the way for non-party aligned, independent office seekers to get elected.

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

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

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Yahoo News Periodic Updates, July 29, 2012

On occasion, I consolidate comments I’d attempted to post in response to articles appearing recently on Yahoo News. I share my comments with you here hoping to reach an audience immune from Yahoo’s periodic attempts to block or censor. My posts are written as if I actually were the US President. As is my usual custom, if I open with a quoted item, that’s from the article itself.
I hope you enjoy all twenty-three of these mini-essays.

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

ONE:

"My [Romney’s] understanding is the policy of our nation has been a desire to move our embassy ultimately to the capital (Jerusalem)”… Actually, that’s wrong and he knows it – or else he’s simple beyond belief.

His claim that [the timing of] moving our embassy to Jerusalem would be up to “the government of Israel” is jaw dropping. What nonsense! At any time over the past two decades, if the US had quietly asked the Israeli government “Is it okay with you if we move our embassy to Jerusalem and recognize that as your capital?”, the Israelis would have leapt at the chance. Does Romney think we’re so stupid as to believe otherwise?

That’s almost as good as, “I’ll base my foreign policy decisions on what the commanders on the ground have to say.” Talk about the tail wagging the dog – in both cases.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Maybe Romney will bend over backwards to make the Zionists happy by building a summer home for his family in one of the illegal West Bank settlements. OMG, how far will this guy go?”

TWO:

I overheard Romney telling his staff how to vet the VP potentials. He said, “Among other things, be sure they commit to denying their past income tax returns to the public.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“For surely it wouldn’t look too good if his VP was that transparent and he wasn't.”

THREE:

[This is in reference to the shooting in a Colorado theater during a showing of the latest Batman movie.]

"He was diabolical, demonic," [Governor] Hickenlooper said. "… He wanted to take away…”

With all due respect to the Governor, there’s no way he knows anything about what Holmes “wanted [to do].”

As for “diabolical, demonic,” well…of course there is such a thing as demonic possession. And there’s such a thing as government experiments in mind control. And, before the Yahoos beat me up on that last bit, there’s such a thing as just plain crazy. But…given the extent and duration of the gunman’s preparation, I wouldn’t be so quick to label him PLAIN crazy.

As for the mind-control possibility, it might be worth looking into the fact that he was one of six on his campus who got a federal grant in neuroscience. How did he get the grant? Was an interview required? If so, with whom? Was he a participant in any experiments or have contact with researchers who ran secret experimental programs on campus? Does the DOD or CIA have any contracts with this university?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“As far as the Joker is concerned, I think Holmes (especially around the mouth) looks more like the Guy Fawkes mask worn in the movie V for Vendetta.”

FOUR:

“Kenya would get eight ‘Raven’ unmanned aerial systems…” You know what’s going to happen, don’t you? Those Ravens, or at least their technology, will end up in enemy hands. And then they’ll be used against us. This Kenyan connection is just part of the US’s attempt to ingratiate itself with yet another African military. And that’s part of a larger plan to re-colonize Africa. And to think, we have a black president making major contributions to such an effort. The irony!

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Africa for Africans. Kick out all foreigners, for they’re up to no good.”

FIVE:

Could there be anything to this rumor: Romney is becoming a tad remorseful about the negative effects of what he did during his Bane years. So he decided to put a plaque on his desk if he beats Obama. No, it’s not the one that says, “The buck stops here.” It’s the one that says, “I would rather lose than win like – that.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Remorse rarely runs that deep.”

SIX:

Kim Ding Dang Dong [North Korea’s God King] will never be secure in office as long as others have the power to award him titles (or demote him). He’ll have achieved the highest earthly glory if he can promote/demote himself. [Now there's a goal worthy of pursuit!]

The article, when it mentions “…as he makes key changes to the million-man force,” doesn’t bother to say what those changes are.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I laugh at this silly little punk.”

SEVEN:

It won’t matter if Romney outspends Obama 10 to 1, if (and it’s not that big an “if”) Obama’s ads are creative enough. For instance, some spoofy material with Crispin Glover (or a Herman Munster look-a-like) starring as Mitt. Or maybe Dean Winters doing his shtick as a “Mayhem like me” Romney. Stuff like this can go viral and render as irrelevant the need to spend on advertising.

[Personally, I like the seemingly inoffensive tag line: "He's a Mormon and, yes, it matters."]

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Remember: Humor is the key. If you can people to laugh at your opponent, it won’t matter if in reality he can actually walk on water.”

EIGHT:

"Do we believe in an America that is great because of government or… because of free people…?" So asks Romney, to which I answer:

“You can’t really separate the two as polaristically as you’re doing. Government can’t do anything without the support of the people. And people by themselves can’t do anything without rules, without a structure that best focuses their creative energy….”

As for the US being created by “God’s will,” Romney would do well to consider these words from the Declaration of Independence:

“… all men are created equal [and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

In short? The Creator endowed us with [God-given] rights, but it was only by means of the “consent of the governed” that our particular form of government was established by “the consent of the governed.” The US might very well have been Divinely inspired and Divinely protected, but it was most certainly NOT Divinely created. Romney, as a quasi-Christian and therefore familiar with the concept of free will, should know this.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“There’s a great deal of danger in speaking imprecisely in an attempt to rouse the rabble, for the rabble becomes drunk with the prospect of being able to egg their leader on to greater depths of folly.”

NINE:

“Harry Reid… has vowed not to put [Ron Paul’s “Audit the Fed” bill] to a vote.” Translation? One man can stop the rest of the Senate from voting. I keep telling you, the only way to stop these kinds of tyrannies of the minority (another being the filibuster; and yet another, the presidency itself) is to replace our current Constitution. Google for more info: Cross-Sectional Representation Steven Searle.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Time to move on, people.”

TEN:

"This bill would ... jeopardize the Fed's independence by subjecting its decisions on interest rates and monetary policy to GAO audit”… What you mean, Old White Guy who’s been “serving” for 30 years (term limits, anyone)? The Fed would still be independent but it’s the RESULTS of its decisions that would be audited. Now if We-the-Sheeple didn’t happen to like what such an audit would turn up, then the Fed might be more sensitive to popular pressure the next time it makes its decisions. That, however, doesn’t threaten the Fed’s independence as much as threaten its impunity.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Even though Steny Hoyer is trying mightily to deny transparency, I can see right through him.”

ELEVEN:

[At this point, I’ll insert a shameless self-promotion – that you scroll down to read the blog I posted yesterday entitled, "How I killed the Second Amendment."

To all of the supporters of the Second Amendment (and to the NRA, in particular), I direct this question: Why not lobby for private citizens to be able to own bazookas, RPGs, tanks, fighter aircraft, etc? Don’t we have the right to bear arms? Those are arms, right? If the intent of the Second was to enable citizens, as a last resort (of course), to rise up against a tyrannical central government, we surely can’t do that with low-level shootin’ irons, now can we?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If our high tech weaponry had existed at the time the Constitution was written, surely Thomas Jefferson et al would have thought nothing of the average citizen being able to keep a bazooka under his bed – just in case – right? Right?”

TWELVE:

Tearless,

…I refuse to let the dead (the Founding Fathers) continue to rule the living (that’s us). Too much has changed to make our Constitution meaningful any longer. And, no, merely amending it won’t work. The whole thing’s got to go. I developed, back in 1976, a suggested replacement based on Cross-Sectional Representation. If you’re not too close-minded to do a little reading (gasp!) google these words for more info: Steven Searle Cross-Sectional Representation….

  

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I get a good laugh out of people who claim the Constitution can’t be replaced.”

THIRTEEN:

Cheney is NOW saying he doesn’t “think [Sarah Palin] passed that test…of being ready to take over.” Presumably, Cheney had figured that out from the get go. So why didn’t he come out publicly and condemn the choice before the GOP confirmed her nomination at the convention? Suppose McCain had won and then died in office. Then we’d have someone whom Cheney doesn’t “think” is ready to take over. Or…maybe Cheney didn’t bother to sound the alarm because he knew McCain would lose.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“It must be nice to know such things in advance or not care who ends up taking over.”

FOURTEEN:

[This is my response to Happily Retired, who had written:  “And Oba...manure will go down the history being the most inept, stupid president.”]

Well, Happily Retired, if what you're saying comes to pass, what will that say about the people who elected him - especially if he wins a second term? Aren't we the ones who rallied round the Chief since the end of WWII and usurped the Constitution by embracing the concept hailed by both parties - the Imperial Presidency? Everybody seems too eager to ignore the fact that it’s the Congress that’s supposed to be pre-eminent, which is why that’s the first branch the Constitution defines (under Article I).

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If Obama is, as you claim, so ‘inept, stupid,’ then why hasn’t the House even brought up the possibility of impeaching him?”

FIFTEEN:

[The following is a response I posted to this quote by Thomas Jefferson: “"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” ]

@ Speyside_Single_Malt,

… Now let’s turn to the text of the [Second] Amendment itself to underscore how wrong Jefferson is about this:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Let’s reword the Second so it includes what TJ calls “the strongest reason for the people to [bear arms]”:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the STRONGEST REASON being the necessity to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

My question here is (to quote the Declaration of Independence) "self-evident" - but I'll ask it anyway: Why wasn't the "strongest reason" made part of the Second Amendment?

In one of my previous incarnations, I tried to point that out to Thomas Jefferson but – hey – he wasn’t much of one to listen once his mind was made up. Oh well!

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“In his own way, Tom Jefferson could be quite tyrannical himself.”

SIXTEEN:

The Second Amendment is the only one that gives a reason for its being. Once the reason ceases to be valid, the Amendment itself ceases to be valid. [Scroll down to the blog I posted yesterday which explains why this “reason ceases to be valid.”]

To quote the Second:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

… It wasn’t even necessary to repeal it since it had, in effect, language built in that rendered it self-repealing. That being the case, guns and ammo can be regulated like anything else the government has a mind to regulate. Of course the NRA, with its huge redneck following, will insist otherwise. Be that as it may but, Constitutionally speaking, the NRA would be wrong.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If we had proper oversight, someone along the line could have denied to the Colorado Batman shooter the ‘right’ to build an arsenal.”

SEVENTEEN:

“…much of the public will not truly start paying attention until after Labor Day.” And that’s precisely when (soon after Labor Day, I’m predicting) that Obama will unleash a quick strike against Iranian nuke facilities.

I’ve blogged on this prediction quite extensively, but here I must add one more reason why Obama feels he must do this. As close as this race for president is, Obama realizes that he’s got to do something to prevent the GOP from taking Congress. If he can’t do that, then we’ll have four more years of the Party of No doing everything it can to deny to the Democrats any possible record of achievement as they set their sights on the 2016 election. And this time, knowing they won't face an incumbent or Biden, the GOP will pull out all the stops. You ain't seen nothing yet.

For their part, the Democrats sense that some kind of drastic action is needed to help their nationwide ticket and take the wind out of the GOP/Tea Party’s sails. Hence, the attractiveness of a strike against the Iranian mullahs. Frankly, I don’t see how Obama can resist. Anti-Iranian sentiment in this country is very high, and I can’t see even the GOP base ranting against the President for this hit – which I feel is inevitable. If Obama smacks ‘em good and quickly with no involvement of ground forces, by the time the October debates roll around, Romney will be irrelevant.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I’m proud to post this prediction using my real name. Actually, I hope I’m wrong but I’ve got an overwhelming feeling I’m not.”

EIGHTEEN:

Back in 2007 when I ran as a third party candidate against Obama and McCain, I made the following pledge: “I will veto any bill presented to me by Congress if it has any provision for any type of aid or loan to Israel or Egypt.” Now, how is that different from this pledge made by Obama on Feb. 23, 2009: “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office?”

Obama’s “pledge” was just another non-binding oral contract made by a politician which, as everybody knows, can’t be enforced in a court of law. My pledge was one of 47 listed in my written contract (the first ever offered by a presidential candidate) which also isn’t enforceable in a court of law.

However, this was also in my contract which makes it enforceable, though still not in a court of law: “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.”

You can’t get much more ironclad than that – especially since I, as an independent president, would be heavily scrutinized by the Dem/Pub Congress for any contractual violation.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“But…as long as the voters kneejerkingly continue to pull the Dem/Pub lever in the polling place, we’ll never get any independents in office and we’ll never get any ‘change you can believe in.’”

NINETEEN:

“We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage”…

No, but we know better than the president of some chicken shack, no matter how much money he wants to throw into the mix.  [Better he throw his money into charitable acts that save lives, yes?] A marriage is a contract, and adults who are not legally impaired) may enter into contracts as an expression of their free will (remember what that is?). We don’t need a patriarch to foist his views upon us as to what is proper or not. That’s so Abrahamic (he’s dead, you know).

People are evolving in terms of how they feel about themselves, how they feel about others, and what kinds of contractual relationships they wish to pursue with others.  Society is (hopefully) trying to keep up with these changes. And this is good as long as people really care about each other. And from what I’ve seen of the gay community, they seem to care more about each other than some of the hardcore fundamentalists who try to force their views on others.

This Dan Cathy guy, who I hope doesn't decide to run for President someday, sounds like another Herman Cain. The day that Chicken Man hears a voice from God saying he should run for president, will be a bad day for…the chicken business.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Fast food and fast theology seem to have this in common – the end result often turns out to be half-baked.”

TWENTY:

We have President Calvin Coolidge to thank for these mission statements:

·       “After all, the chief business of the American people is business.” [I’d like to see that become, “The chief business of the American people is the pursuit of spiritual perfection – that is, to become better people.”]

·       “The man who builds a factory builds a temple. The man who works there worships there.” [I don’t care much for the God of such a man who builds or of such a man who worships – which is why I’m a Buddhist.]

·       “The chief ideal of the American people is idealism. I cannot repeat too often that America is a nation of idealists.” [We have lost any trace of any bit of truth those words might once have conveyed. We have become petty and self-absorbed.]

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“So, who do you want to elect as your High Priest – Obama or Romney?”

TWENTY-ONE:

I hope Romney sticks to his guns - even if some Madam Voodoo managed to conjure up the Gipper Himself in a séance and he were to say, “Mr. Romney, tear down that wall; release those tax returns.” If We-the-Sheeple are so shallow as to let this “issue” sway our vote, then we’re dumber than a ventriloquist’s dummy.

If any law has been (claimed to be) broken, I’m sure Mitt Romney will be more than equal to the task in rebutting any charges.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Frankly? I think there’s a bit of the sadist in too many jealous people who just like to see a rich guy squirm.”

TWENTY-TWO:

·       “…giving help to struggling borrowers is also a legitimate use of eminent domain….” Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is still stealing.

·       “a city or county would sign on as a client of Mortgage Resolution Partners, then condemn certain mortgages.” This sounds like the very definition of conflict of interest.

·       “…so it could pay back the investors who funded the seizure…” Yup, that’s exactly what this is – a seizure.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“So much for due process of law.”

TWENTY-THREE:

“…[George] Will said. "Therefore, [Romney] must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing [his tax returns]." Or maybe Romney just decided to act within his rights by withholding these returns simply because doing so would be within his rights.

There are a lot of Americans who don’t like sharing personal information for the simple reasons: “I have a right to my privacy and it’s none of your business.” I’m starting to doubt George “the Kardashian” Will’s conservative credentials, so maybe he should publish all his tax returns.

"Come on, George, how about it? Eh? Eh? Eh? What are you trying to hide? [nudge, nudge] Come on, man, come clean. Everybody wants to know so, therefore, everybody has a right to know. Isn’t that what you’re saying? Huh? Huh? Come on, man, speak up. I can’t hear you. Say again. What was that? Stop mumbling. Why are you running away? You got something to hide?"

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Will’s statements here just go to confirm my decades’ old belief: When push comes to shove, there really isn’t any such thing as a conservative – just a bunch of conmen serving themselves.”

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

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

“With only 100 days to go until Election Day, I don’t have much time to stave off the disaster of a Romney/Obama win; hope my campaign catches fire fairly soon."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com