The accused “Batman” killer and the Death Penalty

I oppose the death penalty under all circumstances. In fact, if I were to be the Governor of Colorado in the case cited below, I would commute the death penalty to life imprisonment – that is, assuming such a penalty is decreed by the court.

I will start my version of a Pro Life defense by responding to this recent editorial by Jonah Goldberg: “Death penalty foes won’t take a stand in Colorado.” It was in Aurora, Colorado that James Holmes shot and killed 12 people (wounding many more) during a midnight showing of Batman: The Dark Knight Rises.

Within the following quoted material, I offer some bracketed comments.

QUOTE [I only quote the last portion of Goldberg’s essay, since that’s where he discusses the death penalty]:

These are good questions. But you know what debate seems conspicuously absent? Should we execute James Holmes?

[Perhaps this debate will take place when (if?) Colorado decides to seek the death penalty in this case.]

Death penalty opponents are fairly mercenary [yeah, Goldberg really wrote “mercenary,” which is borderline demagogic, though “calculating” would have been more appropriate] about when to express their outrage. When questions of guilt can be muddied in the media; when the facts are old and hard to look up; when the witnesses are dead; when statistics can be deployed to buttress the charge of institutional racism: These are just a few of the times when opponents loudly insist the death penalty must go. [If “these are just a few,” that must mean there are many more times when perhaps opponents are more upfront in their condemnation.]

But when the murderer is white or racist or his crimes so incomprehensibly ugly, the anti-death-penalty crowd stays silent. [Always? That’s quite a claim.] It's the smart play. If your long-term goal is to abolish the death penalty, you want to pick your cases carefully. [Of course you do, since your goal is to at least move those whom are rabidly pro-death-penalty to reconsider their position.]

[Goldberg is guilty of trying to group all opponents of the death penalty into a “crowd.” As you’ll see in my following comments, I will echo views which can be reasonably expected to be shared (at least in part) by many who absolutely oppose the death penalty.]

But the simple fact is, if the death penalty is always wrong, it's wrong in the politically inconvenient cases too. [I agree.]

The standards of newspaper writing and civic discourse require that we call Holmes the "alleged" culprit in this horrific slaughter. That's fine, but if the facts are what we've been told they are, then we know this man is guilty and the jury will not have a hard time saying so. [If I were to be on that jury and the death penalty was on the table, I would vote “not guilty.”]

We don't know whether he's mentally ill, but odds are he isn't. [The one possibility that Goldberg doesn’t mention: Was Holmes under some kind of mind control, not only when he (allegedly) did the deed but during the preceding time when he bought his guns and body armor, and booby trapped his apartment?]

Indeed, criminologists and psychiatrists will tell you that most mass murderers aren't insane. But the public debate is already caught up in a familiar tautology. [Goldberg’s next three sentences would be irrelevant if Holmes was acting under mind control.] What Holmes did was an act of madness, therefore he must be a madman. And if he's a madman, we can't execute him because he's not responsible for his actions. And if he's not responsible, then "society" must be. [Perhaps he and “society” are co-responsible, especially if part of that society (e.g., the CIA) had anything to do with the mind control possibility mentioned above.]

And we can't execute a man for society's sins. So: Cue the debate about guns, and funding for mental health, and the popular culture. [As for “funding for mental health,” the more important issue is: What are we going to do to make this country a better place in which to live so as to better nurture, on a broad scale, mental health?]

Well, I say enough. I favor the death penalty. I don't support killing insane or mentally disabled people who are truly not responsible for their actions, but I don't believe that committing an "act of madness" necessarily makes you a madman. But committing an act of wanton evil makes you an evil man. [Or it makes evil those who programmed someone to act under mind control.]

Evil and madness are not synonyms. Societies that cannot distinguish between the two are destined to get more of both.

If the death penalty is always wrong, let us have an argument about James Holmes, a man many Americans are aware of, informed about and interested in. [I’m about to give “us” that argument.] Let us hear why the inequities of the criminal justice system require his life be spared. Fight the death penalty battle on this battlefield. [No, Mr. Goldberg, not on “this battlefield,” for I believe the best arguments in this case have nothing to do with even mentioning the “inequities of the criminal justice system.”]

That won't happen. It won't happen in part because nobody on the Sunday talk shows wants to debate the death penalty when the case for it is strong. They like cases that "raise troubling questions about the legitimacy of the death penalty," not cases that affirm the legitimacy of the death penalty. [There are no cases that affirm the legitimacy of the death penalty, but (believe me) those “Sunday talk shows” wouldn’t dare have someone like me speaking my piece.]

But it also won't happen because death penalty opponents understand that when the murderer is unsympathetic, the wise course is to hold your tongue until the climate improves. [I disagree. I would never hold my tongue, instead preferring to try to educate my audience no matter how much (at least, initially) they might disagree with me. Who knows? The shock might help wake them up.]

It remains an open question whether Colorado will seek the death penalty. Prosecutors know that doing so would add years and millions of dollars in extra costs because opponents have so gummed up the legal works. [Those “opponents” didn’t gum up the works by themselves; they had plenty of help from lawmakers whom passed the enabling statutes.] That way they can complain about the outrageous costs of a mechanism they themselves have worked to make prohibitively expensive.

I say, let us give Holmes a fair trial. If convicted, execute him swiftly. [How about, “If convicted, execute him with as much deliberate speed as allowed by Colorado law?”] If you disagree, explain why this man deserves to live. [Here, I’ll drop a hint of something I’ll return to below: “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.]

[Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.]

:UNQUOTE: [NOTE:  I didn’t revise Goldberg’s sentences, though I introduced breaks in some of his paragraphs for ease of reading.]

A Judaic perspective

Since Jonah describes himself as Jewish, I’ll highlight the example of Israel as one that perhaps he can appreciate. But first I want offer an impression of his essay (above). The man who wrote that might have been “Jewish” – that is, vaguely religious – but he is certainly not a Jew. The difference? Jonah seems to be more of a fierce defender of his tribal identity rather than of the tenets of his faith. The thrust of his essay is polarizing and seeks to inflame rather than invite honest answers to the issues he poses.

The following link to Wikipedia points out that only two executions have taken place in Israel since 1948 – Adolph Eichmann and Meir Tobianski. Meir was shot by a firing squad for treason, an offense for which he was posthumously exonerated!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Israel

This link also mentions this: “…in 1954 Israel abolished the penalty during peacetime with the exception of convictions of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against the Jewish people.”

[A brief aside: I find it unusual that Israel would cite “crimes against [only] the Jewish people” as being worthy of the death penalty, especially since a sizeable minority of Israel’s citizens aren’t Jewish. I mean, why aren’t “crimes against the Islamic people” covered as well?]

I had no idea that Israel’s rate of execution for capital offenses was so low. Especially in view of the following from this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_punishment_in_the_Bible

QUOTE:

Only in the case of premeditated murder was there the added stricture of 'Do not accept a ransom for the life of the murderer who deserves to die' (Num 35:31). . . . Traditional wisdom, both in the Jewish and Christian communities, interpreted this [Biblical] verse in Numbers 35:31 to mean that out of the almost twenty cases calling for capital punishment in the Old Testament, every one of them could have the sanction commuted by an appropriate substitute of money or anything that showed the seriousness of the crime, but in the case of what we today call first-degree murder, there was never to be offered or accepted any substitute or bargaining of any kind: the offender had to pay with his or her life.

:UNQUOTE.

Even though, as cited as the last words in the preceding paragraph, “the offender had to pay with his or her life,” that hasn’t been the case in Israel for over 60 years. This is because the rabbinical tradition has come down increasingly strongly in opposition over the years starting at least as early as Maimonides. It seems the idea is to avoid the death penalty unless absolutely sure of guilt – and then the rabbis got more conservative than that!  But apparently not conservative enough soon enough to save Meir Tobianski’s life in 1948.

Given that half of Israel’s (two) executions since 1948 were a mistake, I’m surprised Israel doesn’t come right out with an absolute ban on the death penalty under any and all circumstances. “But surely,” you might ask, “didn’t Adolph Eichmann deserve to die?”

I answer that with an emphatic “No! Killing him won’t bring back the dead. And keeping him alive, though in prison for a life sentence, could have yielded certain benefits. The most obvious among these: a prolonged opportunity to obtain detailed information from Eichmann about his deeds and who else was involved.  And, hopefully, once he realized he wouldn’t be executed, a chance to learn how someone like him thinks. A more subtle benefit, though perhaps the most profound, Israel could claim:

“‘On the battlefield, we will kill you. As a helpless prisoner of ours, you have only to worry about what God will do to you. And we gratefully leave that in His hands.’”

Of course, sparing Eichmann would have required of Israel a tremendous leap of faith. But perhaps not so at this time. Considering Israel’s long-standing official policy on executions versus the number actually executed, this leap if taken now would be relatively small. And it would serve to contrast that country nobly against its enemies which seem all-to-ready to execute for the smallest of reasons.

Not a bad deal, which I urge Israel to strongly consider.

In a more Christian vein

Here I cite: “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.” That’s a common paraphrasing of this, as quoted from the New International Version (© 1984) of the Bible (Romans 12:19): “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.’”

I like the part about leaving “room for God’s wrath,” which could be a subset of “leave room for God.” But we don’t do that very often, since our overinflated egos and senses of self-righteousness virtually demand that we do God’s work instead of Him – and not leave Him any damn room at all.

Even if James Holmes isn’t under mind control and isn’t insane, if the court finds him guilty it should still not kill him. Yes, put him in prison for life if you wish. And perhaps even parole him if the Colorado governor, who has that authority, happens to be a Christian who comes to believe that Holmes embraces Jesus while incarcerated and becomes saved. Such a governor would have to be very sure and also have a great deal of political courage to free such a man. But isn’t salvation in this life supposed to be more than just a possibility – that it’s supposed to be guaranteed?

Imagine this: Wouldn’t it be something if James Holmes (say, 10 years down the line) were to be pardoned and, in an act of homage, go to the theater he’d shot up in order to see a midnight revival screening of (you guessed it) Batman: The Dark Knight Rises?

At present, though, judging from the bile spewing forth on the web, there mustn’t be very many forgive-and-forget type of Christians out there.

A Buddhist’s point of view

The “Buddhist” I’m referring to here is me. However, take that with a grain of salt since I am a solo practitioner who comes from a “sect” containing exactly one member (me) with no teachers except the book known as the Lotus Sutra. I’m sure, though, that mainstream Buddhists would embrace what I’m about to say.

This link connects to the interesting story of Angulimala, a mass murderer (999 victims) who lived in India during the lifetime of Shakyamuni Buddha:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angulimala

Named at birth Ahimsaka, he became known as Angulimala (“necklace of fingers”) due to his habit of taking a finger from each of his victims and stringing it on a necklace which he wore around his neck. His goal was to collect 1,000 such fingers. This quote from the link describes what happens after the Buddha converted Angulimala:

QUOTE:

Later, King Pasenadi (the king of Kosala) set out to find and kill Angulimala. He stopped first to pay a visit to the Buddha and his followers at the monastery where they dwelled. He explained to the Buddha his purpose, and the Buddha asked how the king would respond if he were to discover that Angulimala had given up the life of a highwayman and become a monk. The king said that he would salute him and offer to provide for him in his monastic vocation. The Buddha then revealed that Angulimala sat only a few feet away, his hair and beard shaven off, a member of the Buddhist order. The king, astounded, offered to donate robe materials to Angulimala, and then returned to his palace.

[AND]

However a resentful few could not forget that he was responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. Unable to win revenge through the law, they took matters into their own hands. With sticks and stones, they attacked him as he walked for alms.

With a bleeding head, torn outer robe and a broken alms bowl, Angulimala managed to return to the monastery. The Buddha encouraged Angulimala to bear his torment with equanimity; he indicated that Angulimala was experiencing the fruits of the karma that would otherwise have condemned him to hell...

:UNQUOTE.

Ironically enough, if someone had managed to kill Angulimala when he had attained the stage of arhat, that person would have committed one of the Five Cardinal Sins of Buddhism – killing an arhat. The penalty for that would be an extremely long stay in the Hell of Incessant Suffering. Buddhists believe that karma will take its course, which is one reason why they don’t believe in capital punishment.

They had it coming to them

Karmically speaking, there is no such thing as an innocent victim. That must mean that all of the people killed by James Holmes had it coming to them. Of course that’s hard to accept in the case of the youngest victim, six years of age. But a Buddhist believes in karma, which means that nothing happens without a reason – even though that reason might have occurred many lifetimes ago. For instance, that six-year-old, in a prior life, might have committed a murder for which she now paid the price. By dying a premature death, a great deal of negative karma can be erased which will allow the person, after being reincarnated, to pursue the path of enlightenment with that much less of a karmic burden.

I would have to conclude that the patrons of that theater must have had really great karma, since only twelve people died. I do not say “only” in any attempt to trivialize this massacre; but when compared to what the death toll could have been had Holmes’ gun not jammed, I’d say the audience got off very lightly.

Practical Reasons for sparing James Holmes

I will leave it to the courts to determine if James Holmes is guilty as charged. If he is found guilty, then we would have much to gain by keeping him incarcerated for life. I am highly suspicious when people urge (as Jonah Goldman has) that Holmes be executed swiftly. That smacks of a desire to hide the evidence. For if Holmes killed all those people while under the influence of a (for example) CIA mind control experiment gone wrong (or gone right, as the case may be), that evidence would vanish upon his death – especially if he were to be cremated (and, I am predicting, that is exactly what will happen).

It is extremely rare to actually capture a mass murderer. I feel we should take full advantage of his captivity to learn as much as we can about why he did what he did, and to see if someone like that can actually be rehabilitated.

As for the Death Penalty in general

I’ll open here by quoting this article by Amnesty International (Friday, June 19, 2009) as linked here:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/states-without-death-penalty-have-lower-murder-rates

QUOTE:

Scientists agree, by an overwhelming majority, that the death penalty has no deterrent effect. They felt the same way over ten years ago, and nothing has changed since then. States without the death penalty continue to have significantly lower murder rates than those that retain capital punishment. And the few recent studies purporting to prove a deterrent effect, though getting heavy play in the media, have failed to impress the larger scientific community, which has exposed them as flawed and inconsistent.

:UNQUOTE.

Insistence on the death penalty contributes to an increasing level of meanness in our culture. Sure, we’re at war and that helps harden people, but it’s more than that. National politicians routinely and rudely snipe at each other. Anti-Muslim sentiment is rampant. Kids post YouTube videos of beatings that they and their friends participate in. And there’s a marked decline in the appreciation of finesse and subtlety – yielding to the love of brute force and immediate gratification.

I have no problem boldly defending my stand against the death penalty. Even though Jonah Goldberg challenges us with, “If you disagree, explain why this man deserves to live,” I challenge him right back by asking, “And who are you to explain why anyone ‘deserves’ to die?”

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party

“We don’t need to concern ourselves with who should die as much as with how we can go about improving the spiritual quality of life for everybody – and I don’t just mean for Americans only.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

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 Nov. 13 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:

I hereby dub thee – Newt Gettin’Rich. Actually, Newt’s biggest sin was his Contract with America, which I hear he’s thinking of resurrecting for this campaign. If so, I have a piece of advice for Speaker Gettin’Rich:

“Your Contract was fatally deficient because it didn’t have any built-in provisions governing non-performance. In other words, no teeth, just a lot of promises. My contract has teeth. If I fail to deliver on any of my campaign promises, I lose my office. Are you willing to match me on this, Mr. Speaker?”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The Contract with America served only to disrespect the venerable American tradition of the business contract. How ironic, coming from the GOP. What a sham!”

TWO:

"Talk about Jordan as a Palestinian state damages Israel."

I know what Avigdor [Lieberman] was thinking when he said that. Here’s the complete version of his thought: “Talk about Jordan as a Palestinian state damages Israel because that would complicate our ultimate goal of annexing Jordan, which really isn’t Jordan at all but was part of the land God gave the Jews.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Which is exactly why the Palestinians will never be allowed to have their own state – Israel wants to formally annex all of it.”

THREE:

“Israel stopped transfer of tax funds [to the Palestinian Authority] as punishment [for seeking to attain statehood by means of direct UN action]…”

A: Judge not that ye not be judged.

B: Thou shalt not steal.

QUESTION: Do you know what would happen if the US ever really pissed Israel off?

ANSWER: Detonate the nuke they buried in DC.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Think I’m kidding?”

FOUR:

“…a [proposed] constitutional draft…which would give the [Egyptian] army exclusive authority over its internal affairs and budget.”

If I am elected president in 2012, I will do all in my power to end the $2 billion in (mostly) military aid the US gives to Egypt on an annual basis. [Same goes for US aid to Israel.] There’s no good reason on God’s green earth to have been giving $2 billion annually since 1979 to these SOBs. All that did was stoke their arrogance.

Oh, by the way, you might not fully appreciate this, but we have a military arrogance problem of our own. If elected, I promise to sack at least 10% of the generals, forcing their early retirement. They don’t yet know who I intend to sack – but I know…and they’ll find out soon enough.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I will sack these generals for much the same reason J. Edgar Hoover should have been sacked way earlier in his career - as a general (pun intended) threat to our democracy."

FIVE:

One of the prime traits of an effective leader is delegating authority. We don’t need the gargantuan military we’ve got unless our real goal is to conquer the world. [Which it is, in my humble opinion.] We could do quite nicely with a lot less by delegating. For instance, why is Willard Romney saying he’ll take no option off the table to deny Iran nuclear weapons? We don’t have to do anything! The EU, Russia, Israel, and India are in the immediate neighborhood. Let them take care of business.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The sooner we get that conquer-the-world stuff out of our system, the better.”

SIX: 

“John” took exception to my immediately preceding sentence, by writing: “From Loss t loss to loss is not conquering the world.” So I responded:

John,

That depends on what you mean by “loss.” As long as the US is still in Afghanistan and Iraq, our Elite don’t chalk those up as losses. Yes, these might well turn out to be expensive wins or stalemates. But that “expensive” aspect is very much a part of the plan. If we didn’t have these wars, our people might prosper and decide to challenge the status quo. So keeping us in a state of high unemployment and low productivity discourages any uppitiness on the part of We-the-People.

The grand strategy also involves keeping the troops busy and on their toes for (shall we say) the real missions of the future. The ones we can’t afford to lose or stalemate…especially in Africa. Google these words to read my analysis of Obama’s secret African strategy: Lords Resistance Army Searle

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“There are many subtle parts to our conquer-the-world plan, but make no mistake about this: That is exactly our intention.”

SEVEN:

The following post was based on this article, which I’ll partially quote:

 HONOLULU (AP) — The Army on Thursday [11-17-11] conducted its first flight test of a new weapon [AHW: Advanced Hypersonic Weapon] capable of traveling five times the speed of sound.…The weapon's "glide vehicle" reached Kwajalein Atoll — some 2,300 miles away — in less than half an hour…[AHW] is part of the military's program to develop "prompt global strike" weapons that would allow the U.S. to strike targets anywhere in the world with conventional weapons [my emphasis] in as little as an hour....The objective of Thursday's test was to collect data on technologies that boost the hypersonic vehicle and allow it to glide.…

My response:

Too many of the Pentagon’s R&D boys were hooked on Flash Gordon as kids. And we’re paying for their masturbatory fantasies. Stop this nonsense now. Why do we keep looking for newer and faster ways to stick our nose where it doesn’t belong (aka, “projecting American power”)? The more we assert ourselves as the world’s policeman, the less other nations will come to rely on their own resources. And their own capacity for forming alliances – for peace and protection.

Not to mention: This AHW won’t work. No matter how fast it goes, it’s still got to slow down to reach its target, especially if the idea is to land troops who will be using these conventional weapons. Ample time to shoot it down. Not to mention: Where’s it going to land once it reaches enemy territory? [“Tehran Control Tower, come in. Requesting permission to land.”]

And maybe, just maybe Russia or China might mistake multiple launches of these things as a disguised nuclear first-strike attempt. Did Congress bother to set up criteria for deploying AHW – or did they just decide to leave it to the President’s discretion?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“We need to put the Pentagon’s hi-tek thinkers to the task of reducing our dependency on foreign energy sources.”

EIGHT:

Two readers objected to my post, immediately above. So I answered them:

@ College Park,

It has to slow down because the idea is to land it to deploy troops. The article itself says “The objective of Thursday’s test was to collect data on technologies that … allow it to glide [glide = slow down]." Besides, it also says the Army conducted the tests. That’s because the Army is interested in means of transporting troops quickly without the need for deploying slow-moving, sitting ducks – I mean, US Navy troop carriers.

As for “we inform people about weapons tests beforehand,” I was referring to the time in the future when we’re done testing and we start deploying. Are we going to tell Russia and China “beforehand” about our intended use against a third nation, which might be one of their allies?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“There’s way more to this than meets the eye.”

@ Girred,

We have enough missiles in quite a wide variety, so the reason the ARMY is testing this device is for suitability as a troop carrier [not, as you claim, as another missile].

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Time to beat the swords into ploughshares and stop acting stupid and spending like there's no tomorrow. Well, maybe not all the swords but we sure don’t need to build stuff like AHW because we can.”

NINE:

I post this in honor of Newt Getting’Rich’s ascendancy in the polls:

Now is a good time to alert you to a blog I wrote back on Oct. 24, 2010: “EMP threat: Our latest bogeyman.”

In that, I wrote: “Today’s blog will focus on the novel One Second After and the ‘threat’ of terrorist attack by means of EMP: Electromagnetic Pulse. Also, I will have some unkind-but-wholly-accurate words for the author of One Second After (William R. Forstchen, Ph.D.) and that shameless snake oil salesman who wrote its foreword, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (also a Ph.D. – believe it or not).”

I believe One Second After, viewed through the lens of my blog, will become Newt’s Achilles’ Heel.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Google these words: EMP threat bogeyman Gingrich Searle. I’ve been waiting a long time to spring this.”

TEN:

“France warned Iran to defuse world fears that it is working on nuclear weapons…” Why doesn’t France put the world at ease by getting rid of its 300 nukes?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Here, I’ll answer my own question: Because France then (much like Iran and Pakistan now) wanted to have the same toys (and therefore be in the same league) as the Big Boys. What price glory?”

ELEVEN:

Some of my readers didn’t like my description of the United States as “the world’s first nuclear terrorist state.” So I cite two sources who would agree with me.]

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender … My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Come on, you Yahoo yahoos, man up and admit we made a huge mistake dropping those bombs.”

TWELVE:

All this talk about first strike is kind of silly, since first strike can’t be decisive. Too many people overlook the sub-launch capability. Even more overlook the fact that both sides have buried nukes in the other side’s major cities. So what’s the point of first strike if it can’t be last strike?

Actually, the US and the (former) USSR owe each other a debt of gratitude for the other’s existence. Without one, the other would try to take over the world. No, wait…it's the rest of the world that should be grateful for that.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Don’t forget: The US was the world’s first nuclear terrorist state – Hiroshima/Nagasaki.”

THIRTEEN:

Dennis said I had no proof that “both sides have buried nukes in the other side’s major cities.” My response:

@ Dennis S,

Come on, man, use your common sense. Tactical and highly portable nukes have been around for a long time. Since smuggling them into the US would have been easy (and into the USSR, difficult but doable), I don’t see how either side would have overlooked this option. Especially in the early decades of the Cold War, when the US had such a huge nuke advantage.

I admit, though, I wasn’t a fly on the wall watching this unfold, so I can’t give you the proof you seek. But war planners have to proceed on the very great possibility that this is exactly what transpired. Why else do you think both sides decided to also work on biological weapons? They knew they couldn’t rely solely on nukes, so they had to expand their options. It’s all really very elementary if you stop to think about it.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"Quite often, it's not necessary to find proof in the form of a smoking gun - not even in US courts of law."

FOURTEEN:

But it isn't a capital offense. However, I suppose there are some folks who would like to change that. And then hang Sandusky (after being found guilty in court "of course") based on that change of law. Even though he committed his offenses before that change. Oh, well. No one cares much about such a hanging being unconstitutional. Any Tea Partiers out there want to leap to Sandusky’s defense here? Sarah, what about you? Oh, that’s right. You want to bring the rope.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Looks like Sarah just hung herself.”

FIFTEEN:

I see 18 people gave Skydiver a thumbs-up on his comment: “Death by lethal injection with battery acid.” Yo, listen up you 18: Any of you happen to be Tea Partiers who bleat about restoring the Constitution? There happens to be a provision barring "cruel and unusual punishment."

You might want to check out a movie by Herzog (“Into the Abyss”). This features an interview with a former Death Row executioner – a captain of the guards, no less. He quit after participating in 125 state-sanctioned slayings, saying “capital punishment is wrong.” By the way, quitting cost him his pension. His act was difficult – a lot more difficult than giving a “thumbs up” to nonsense.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Too many of these thumbers have too much time on their hands.”

SIXTEEN:

And if Obamacare gets flushed down the toilet by the Supreme Court, will anybody make a move to repeal the exemption from anti-trust laws the insurance industry has enjoyed for decades? Even if Obamacare survives, that exemption has got to go.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The only way out is to vote all incumbents out of office – that will mark the beginning of our renaissance.”

SEVENTEEN:

I posted this in response to Obama’s move to station US Marines at a base in Australia:

This is exactly what we shouldn’t be doing. In fact, we should be phasing out our presence, letting local nations know they’re going to have to rely on each other instead of an omnipresent US. If we keep stationing troops here, there, and everywhere, local nations will not seek each other out for mutual support and defense.

India, South Korea, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines have ample resources to contain China. And let’s call it that, shall we? China wants to expand, just like the US did (and still does). Large economies tend to do that. But it does not have to be our job to protect everybody. And that goes for the EU as well. I’m definitely in favor of pulling out of NATO.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The other nations of the world can get along quite nicely without us.”

EIGHTEEN:

“Iran has had a history of hiding information from the IAEA.” And the US has a long history of meddling in Iran’s affairs – including the overthrow of its democratically-elected government.

Even if Iran had the bomb, it wouldn’t be our problem. It’s time for the EU and Iran’s neighbors to man up and deal with this. If they want to attack Iran, they may do so – without US support. We don’t have to do everything. But I’ll tell you this much: Any who attack Iran had better be prepared for long-term consequences. I truly hope they think this thing out in advance.

One piece of advice for those who really believe military action to be necessary: Target the ayatollahs and their financial assets.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I couldn’t believe it when I first heard: An ayatollah is actually a billionaire – Rafsanjani. No way a billionaire cleric is a man of God.”

NINETEEN:

This was in response to Cicero who thought I was “delusional” in my defense of Barack Obama:

Well, Cicero, I think you lost count, since you wrote, “Delusional about both counts.” My point? You say nothing about one count – “good looking guy” – while piling on nonsensically about the other count – “book worm.”

As for his smarts – you’re exaggerating to say he can’t “construct a sentence without…” Come on, man, that’s simply not true. As for Obama’s smarts, you’re trying to lay down a blanket indictment simply because you don’t like the man’s politics. One doesn’t get to teach constitutional law at U of Chicago Law School for 12 years without sufficient knowledge of the constitution. You might not agree with how he interprets that document, but you cannot honestly say he “has no understanding” of it.

I could return the compliment and call you “delusional” – but you’re not. You’re just plain dishonest.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Obama graduated from Harvard Law and was president of the Harvard Law Review, so he’s no dummy. Get over it.”

TWENTY:

My response to this observation by “Dave” follows his words: “and then theres the real world. he might be right.”

Dave,

Even if [Gingrich] is right, it's not our problem. I'm fully confident in the ability of the EU, Russia, Israel, and India (the immediate neighbors) to take care of business. That's "real world." Thinking the US has to micromanage every far-flung situation is sheer paranoia and smacks of a massive superiority complex. Which isn't "real world" at all - it's delusional.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"As far as 'real world' is concerned, I wouldn't put too much stock in what Gingrich knows about that, him being a writer of historical fiction."

TWENTY-ONE:

Gloria Cain says, “I’m thinking he would have to have a split personality to do the things that were said.”

Well, Gloria, you may well be on to something there. You know the old saying: The wife is the last to know, and the first to exclaim “I should have known!” This is where Herman’s claim that his wife supports him “200 percent” gets interesting.

First, I’d rather hear that from his wife than from her “spokesman.”

Second, if his wife supports him 200%, that would break down to 100% support for each of his split personalities (hmm...maybe she does know).

Third, if that isn’t true, then I have to seriously question Herman’s math – and he was a math major in college, wasn’t he? Go figure!

Oh, BTW, if Herman Cain cared anything at all for his wife’s heart condition, he should not have allowed himself to be photographed (recently) with his arms around two white college-age honeys. That picture sent a message: No one tells Herman Cain what to do.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“This man is a dog; and I’m not spelling that d-a-w-g.”

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

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

“It won’t matter who gets elected president in 2012 – and ‘who’ includes me. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do the right thing. It’s never too late for that.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com