The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle for US President

 The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle

Candidate for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

Preamble:     I, Steven Searle, am the only candidate running for the office of US president in 2012 who is offering a binding contract in exchange for your vote. The following text, which concludes with my signature block, comprises this contract in its final form. This document has been under construction for the past two years and its supporting essays are available at http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com .

As I had stated in the 2008 version of this contract, when running against Obama and McCain:

I will not be shy about claiming this to be an historic document, on a par with the Magna Carta and the U.S. Declaration of Independence. I hope my creation will serve as a model for future candidates (for national and local offices) who wish to follow my lead by offering themselves as alternatives to the Democratic and Republican parties which are ruining this country.

The following text consists of two parts – the terms of my contract followed by a list of non-contractual elements. These extra points are intended to convey a sense of the kind of President I would be.

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:     I will veto any bill presented to me by Congress which has any provision for increases in taxes or fees or for increased government borrowing.

THREE:     Starting with the first annual military budget presented for my signature, I will not sign if the dollar amount is greater than half of the amount authorized by President Obama for his last annual military budget. I will also not approve of any supplementary military appropriations.

FOUR:      Within 90 days of my inauguration, all U.S. military forces will be completely withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of the "situation on the ground."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 in Iran.

FIVE:     Under no circumstances, during my presidency, will the United States militarily intervene in the affairs of any foreign nation without a declaration of war by Congress. In addition, all U.S. forces will be withdrawn from all foreign nations, except for the token numbers needed at our embassies. This will include total withdrawal from NATO and will also include advisors we station in foreign nations in support of terrorist suppression and training of local forces. Bottom line: All of these forces are to come home.

SIX:     I will veto every single bill from Congress that comes my way until it passes:

• a Single Payer health care reform package, which will provide medical coverage to all US citizens free of charge - that is, without co-payments, deductibles, or any requirement to pay insurance premiums. This will also establish reasonable medical billing practices and rates.

• a nationwide cap of 18% on personal credit card interest rates.

SEVEN:     Until the Senate permanently repudiates the filibuster and acknowledges its unconstitutionality, I will veto every bill passed by the Senate, even those not involving a filibuster. Concurrently, I will press this issue in Court by suing the U.S. Senate.

EIGHT:     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.

NINE:     I will ask the Palestinian government to invite US troops, under my personal command, to engage in joint peace games in the West Bank with their military forces. I will ask that the Palestinian forces participating in this exercise be completely unarmed. I will ask the same of participating US forces, but will only accept volunteers for this unique mission.

TEN:     I will immediately fire at least 10% of the top military officer corp.

ELEVEN:     If Iran announced to the world that it was going to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and declare its intention to build an atomic bomb, I would acknowledge its right to do so. I would attempt to visit that country and plead with their leaders not to pursue that course, but I would acknowledge its right to do so.

TWELVE:     As long as I am President, the U.S. will not take any military action against Iran, not even if the U.S. Congress declares war against that country for good reason. I would fully expect the Congress to remove me from office and find a Chief Executive willing to wage that war. [NOTE: This policy will not prevent US forces from defending themselves should they ever be attacked anywhere in the world.]

THIRTEEN:     I will not exercise the "right" of the President to grant/withhold diplomatic recognition to/from any country with four exceptions, which I'll invoke immediately upon becoming President.  After these four exceptions, I will consult with the Senate, seeking advice and consent on such issues:

• Granting diplomatic recognition to Cuba and Palestine.

• Withdrawing diplomatic recognition from Kosovo and Israel.

FOURTEEN:     My Supreme Court Nominations: I will demand the resignations of all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, but will renominate them for five year terms under the conditions stated below. Failure of these justices to submit their resignations will be defined as a violation of “good behavior” and will therefore be grounds for impeachment.

I will not nominate any person to the Court who will not sign the following contract:

• I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for a period of five years, after which I will resign from that office. Failure to resign, I here and now freely stipulate, will constitute a violation of the "good behavior' rule mandated by Article III, section 1 of the Constitution. Such a violation would and should subject me to a well-deserved impeachment and removal from office.

FIFTEEN:     I will aggressively seek to completely replace our Constitution by means of establishing a Constitutional Convention, which will (hopefully) consider implementing a system I've created: Cross-Sectional Representation (CSR). One key provision of CSR is the replacement of our 435 Congressional Districts with 435 Cross-Sections.

SIXTEEN:     Within 90 days of my inauguration, I will order all US personnel out of all facilities located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This will allow Cuba to reoccupy that land, as is its sovereign right.

SEVENTEEN:     I will seek to lift the US embargo against Cuba, since those sanctions are a violation of international law.

EIGHTEEN:     Within 90 days of my inauguration, I will free all prisoners held in Guantanamo under two conditions (one optional, the other mandatory):

• The optional condition: I will ask that each prisoner swear an oath of non-violence against the United States. However, since I don't believe in coercing an oath, I would still free those refusing to swear such an oath.

• The mandatory condition: I will insist on meeting each prisoner in order to grasp his hand for at least 30 seconds.

NINETEEN:     There will be no military draft during my presidency. If Congress enacts a draft, however, I will encourage all draftees to be inducted. Immediately after induction, though, they will be subject to this blanket order: Do not follow any orders from any member of the military except this order from me, your Commander in Chief: "Carry on with your civilian lives as if you had never been drafted."

TWENTY:     If we should ever need a lot of new soldiers very quickly, I still would not violate my campaign promise against the draft. Instead, I would resign from office or encourage instantaneous impeachment by the Senate. That way, I would be keeping my campaign promise ("Read my lips: No draft") but allow for my successor to do what she thinks is right.

TWENTY-ONE:     I will use the Bully Pulpit to force radical changes in our federal tax laws. There are people serving time in federal prison for various tax-related offenses. Maybe releasing enough of these people from prison might make Congress nervous. Maybe if I granted a blanket pardon to everyone who refuses to pay taxes, that might actually terrify Congress into long overdue reform.

TWENTY-TWO:     While I’m President, the United States will never engage in torture.

TWENTY-THREE:     When Congress sends bills for my signature, I will simply sign them (if I support them) without making any signing statements.

TWENTY-FOUR:     I will abdicate my "right" to have US Attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the President" - with no such attorney to be dismissed without cause. Should I attempt a dismissal for cause, a right could be invoked to contest dismissal before a voluntary board consisting of eleven randomly-chosen legal professionals from the top eleven law schools in the United States. This board need not necessarily convene in person or hear such cases face-to-face.

TWENTY-FIVE:     I will not make any recess appointments.

TWENTY-SIX:     I will choose a female to be my vice president.

TWENTY-SEVEN:     During my first State of the Union address, I will declare that any Congress consisting of Democrats and Republicans is unrepresentative of the people, and therefore urge voters to replace their Congressmen with independents.

TWENTY-EIGHT:     I will make it a point not to make any of my State of the Union addresses before the assembled Congress itself. In good conscience, I could only speak directly either to We-the-People or to their genuine representatives.

TWENTY-NINE:     I will immediately release federal prisoner Jonathan Jay Pollard. He has been serving a life sentence since 1987 for the crime of spying on the United States on behalf of Israel.

THIRTY:     I will award to Mordechai Vanunu the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our nation's highest civilian award. I will also attempt to arrange for Mr. Vanunu's release from Israel and for the granting of asylum in a country of his choice.

THIRTY-ONE:     I will not run for re-election. Violation of this pledge is an impeachable offense for which I may be removed from office during my first (and only) term.

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

Miscellaneous Non-Contractual Points for

Your Consideration

1…I will be a Class Warfare President, conducting that war as a compassionate Buddhist.

2…My personal logo is a green, non-rotated swastika, meant to promote a greater appreciation of applied Buddhist practice.

3…My written Contract will keep us out of war. But my running mate won’t be similarly restrained.

4…I propose a reformed Congress that eliminates its unconstitutional seniority system and top-down management style which denies the effective input and equal participation of all (including the most junior) legislators.

5…I favor a Congress unfettered by a Committee system.

6…Let’s abandon the Imperial Presidency and return to the original intention of the Constitution – that Congress is to be considered pre-eminent.

7…Our judicial system should be accessible by even the most indigent citizen to challenge the interests of the wealthiest citizens on an equal footing.

8…The U.S. Constitution should be replaced, not merely amended. And this replacement should take effect when ratified by two-thirds of all eligible U.S. voters who cast ballots on this issue.

9…I am in favor of Supreme Court decisions being voidable by Congress (not subject to presidential veto) – by a two-thirds vote of a Dem/Pub Congress; by a simple majority of an independent Congress.

10…I propose this revision of the military oath for both officers and enlisted personnel:

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will, even at the cost of my life, support and defend the people of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and that I will obey all appropriate and lawful orders issued by the President of the United States and of the officers appointed over me, according to all US laws and international treaty obligations.”

11…I favor juries being allowed to render verdicts by 9 to 3 margins.

12…It won’t matter who gets elected, since civilized life as we know it will cease to exist within 5 years.

13…I predict that Barack Obama will bomb Iranian nuclear facilities around Labor Day.

14…I will issue a personal call for a boycott of Israeli products by U.S. citizens.

15…Israel’s security is not a vital US interest.

16…I, unlike Mitt Romney, oppose line-item veto power for the president.

17…I oppose Barack Obama’s bipartisan plan to recolonize Africa.

18…Vote for independents for Congress; until that’s possible, vote against all incumbents.

19…States shouldn’t be allowed to compete against other states for business by offering tax incentives.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

The Independent Contractors’ Party

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Obama’s Recess Appointments – January, 2012

Title of article recently posted on The Blaze:

“Obama Uses Executive Authority to Make Recess Appointment – While Senate is Still in Session”*

This is what nobody’s pointing out – an inconvenient truth if ever there was one: Even if, as Obama claims, the Senate was not in session, he would still have been wrong to make these 4 recess appointments: 3 for the NLRB and 1 (Richard Cordray) to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Obama claims to be making recess appointments but nobody is pointing out that these can only be made in the case of “vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.” According to the Constitution:

Article II, Section 2: “The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”

None of these vacancies “happened” (that is, “occurred”) during “the recess of the Senate;” they “happened” when the Senate was, by universal agreement, in session. All four appointments had been pending in the Senate (Cordray’s, since July 2011), only to be held up by the GOP. If any of these positions had become vacant during a senatorial recess, only then would Obama have been within his rights to make a recess appointment.

The only way Cordray’s confirmation had failed was due to (you guessed it) a filibuster. Why do we allow the Senate to cling to this highly unconstitutional device? Rule by supermajority is the surest way to get nothing done.

My view of recess appointments, in general

Back in 2008, I had run for the office of US President under the terms of a 47-point contract. I was the first presidential candidate in this country’s history to offer such a revolutionary document. This is point #34 from that contract:

“I will not make any recess appointments. Also, I will ask for lists of recommendations to ambassadorships from the ten leading universities in the U.S. with programs in international studies. I will submit names to the Senate from those lists.”

[NOTE: Think about it. If I had been elected instead of Barack Obama, we would have all been spared the ignominy of an Imperial President trying to thwart the will of the elected representatives of the people.]

Detractors will object to my point #34 by claiming: “What if Congress isn’t in session and it would be imperative that a position be filled immediately?” For one thing, I can’t imagine such an imperative arising. But if a particular position should be filled quickly, I would simply use my power under Section 3 of Article II: “…[the President] may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses…” Then I would invoke the usual process for filling such a vacancy.

Even though recess appointments are allowable under the Constitution, I find them repugnant to the notion that Congress should be regarded as the supreme of our three branches of government. For that reason, under a Searle presidency, there wouldn’t be any recess appointments.

I base my Congress first philosophy on at least three grounds:

·       Congress outranks the President simply because it can impeach him for any reason whatsoever (or none, should it so choose) and the courts would be powerless to interfere.

·       Though there is a provision to enable the removal of any sitting president (again, by means of impeachment), there is no counterpart in terms of the president being able to dissolve the Congress. Some countries grant that power to their chief executives; we don’t.

·       The President should be regarded as beholden to the Congress since he must report to that body according to Section 7 of Article I of the Constitution: “Every bill…shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated…” In other words, the President can’t just say “no” to a bill, he’s got to say why he objects.

More on the idea of Electoral Contracting

This is from the Preamble to my 2008 contract, posted on-line September 19, 2008:

QUOTE:

 The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle

Candidate for US President in 2008

Preamble:       I, Steven Searle, am the only candidate running for the office of US president in 2008 who is offering a binding contract in exchange for your vote. The following 47 points comprise this contract, which is now presented to you in its final form….

I will not be shy about claiming this to be an historic document, on a par with the Magna Carta and the U.S. Declaration of Independence. I hope my creation will serve as a model for future candidates (for national and local offices) who wish to follow my lead by offering themselves as alternatives to the Democratic and Republican parties which are ruining this country.

:UNQUOTE.

Suppose a candidate for the US Senate would want to offer such a contract. He might want to include a provision like this:

“If elected, I will vote to end any and all attempts to filibuster any business before the Senate.”

The Senate as an institution will never willingly get rid of this anti-democratic device. However, individual senators might hasten its demise by “contracting it out,” as it were. As soon as individual senatorial office-seekers oppose the filibuster in their contracts, perhaps that might generate the public outcry needed to finally terminate this practice.

There is another provision I’d like to see in (again) a Senate candidate’s contract:

“If elected, I understand that my constituents are sending me to Washington DC to be a senator who is to be the equal of any other, regardless of seniority. Toward that end, my constituents are instructing me to be a member of the Senate but not a member of any of its committees.”

I’m very keen on reigning in the power of the Imperial Presidency by redesigning Congress, as indicated in my essay, “The Long Arm of the Law,” posted on April 12, 2011. After clicking the following link, scroll to the part that’s yellowed –

How a Congress without committees would work:      

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5696907376473242750&postID=3382380853699079953

Enforcement Mechanism: Such a contract would be easy to enforce against a sitting President – he could simply be impeached for non-compliance. Even though Congressmen can’t be impeached, they can give their contracts teeth by (in effect) posting a compliance bond. For instance, Senator So-and-So’s contract could identify in advance a panel of 12 volunteers to monitor his compliance. If, for instance, 8 out of 12 would determine him to be in violation of his contract (for instance, by voting against cloture, thereby enabling a filibuster to continue), So-and-So would be given the option of either resigning his office or forfeiting a bond held in trust by that panel, which would consist of (for instance) 12 faculty members of a leading law school.

What I wrote in the preceding paragraph are only my suggestions. I’m sure if an office-seeker really wanted to commit to an Electoral Contract, he would come up with his own contractual provisions and enforcement mechanisms. I have no doubt that such Electoral Contracts will find their way into our campaigns. Perhaps they’ll be offered by candidates who are desperate enough to try anything. In that spirit, I had sent several of the current GOP presidential candidates a suggestion that they, too, submit their own contracts to the voters. Michelle Bachmann was one whose campaign I’d contacted. Either she didn’t believe she was desperate enough or the whole concept of contracting didn’t fit into her strategy.

One of these days, though, my approach will sound viable enough to attract a mainstream candidate’s attention. One desperate enough. Newt Gingrich comes to mind, for I had contacted his campaign as well several months ago. We’ll see.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I wonder if Ron Paul would have made such ‘recess’ appointments if he happened to be president right now.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

  * http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-uses-executive-authority-to-make-recess-appointment%e2%80%94while-congress-is-still-in-session/

The only viable U.S. reform strategy

There is really only one way to force political reform in the United States: Deny job security to all incumbent officeholders. Translation? Next time you cast your ballot, vote against all incumbents, even those you think are good candidates. [I’ll explain that a bit later.]

Obviously, my proposal will fall largely on deaf ears, as do most unusual proposals – at least in the beginning. Most people are creatures of habit. So getting them to break old, comfortable habits will take a lot of effort by a dedicated few. As those few become many, the task becomes easier but first things first: I have to explain why (according to the title I picked) an anti-incumbent movement is the “only viable U.S. reform strategy.”

The only reason the DC establishment runs roughshod over its constituents is, they have job security. Most incumbents get reelected on a routine basis. And even if (for instance) a certain number of Congressmen get swept from office due to voter anger, that only represents a momentary wobble of the systemic  gyroscope. Balance is soon restored, the first sign being a softening of the rhetoric once the newly-elected Reps assume office. The new guys want to get reelected too, so they won’t want to appear too radical.

In any event, in spite of occasional turns of fortune by one party or the other, the Two Party System itself remains entrenched. That is the source of its power over us, and that is the source of our frustration.

If, however, We-the-People were to send a message that we will not tolerate incumbency, that will set the stage for independents to get elected. Think about it: If an elected official knew there was an anti-incumbent tide rising throughout the land, he’d be less likely to automatically fall in line with whatever the party leadership has in mind. He’d, instead, be more mindful of the voters.

My message to him? “It won’t matter what you do, for once you’re elected, you become the new incumbent. So you will be voted out of office after only one term.” Sounds rather brutal, but (as I’ll explain) this uniform approach to all incumbents will be necessary for us to maintain.

The Fear Factor

I will refine my proposal:

Vote against all incumbent officeholders. If you love Democrats, vote against them anyway if they happen to be the incumbent. If the Republican you vote for wins, then (obviously) he is the new incumbent against whom you should vote in the next election. If you think such a strategy risks anarchy, then don’t vote that way in local elections. Focusing only on the US Congress will be good enough to force a sea change in our national politics.

Anarchy inspires terror. And the Establishment will try to use this as a Fear Factor to urge people to vote the straight-and-narrow (that is, to vote according to whatever motivated them in past elections).

However, there are two good reasons not to fear anarchy, at least not as induced by anti-incumbency:

·        Even if we were to be 100% successful – that is, in unemploying  all incumbents in all future elections for the next dozen years or so – the Elite which really runs this country would not allow a legislative breakdown to threaten the smooth day-to-day operation of this country’s business-as-usual. No matter who gets elected, the Elite will be able to bring sufficient pressure to bear (even by death squad actions, if necessary) to whip newly-elected Congressmen into line.

·        We are already living in a state of anarchy, but our downward slide is so gradual (slow but sure like a glacier) that few notice how surely legislative gridlock and kicking-the-can-down-the-road will induce a societal breakdown – and much sooner than we realize.

A bit later

To repeat one of my earlier statements: “Next time you cast your ballot, vote against all incumbents, even those you think are good candidates. [I’ll explain that a bit later.]”

So why should you vote against someone you “know” is a good candidate? By analogy, when a doctor scrapes out a cancer, sometimes he has to remove good cells. But I believe the real answer is, there are no good candidates because they all, to an unavoidable degree, are victims two irresistible forces:

·        Lobbyists; and

·        The leaders of their own party who can demand at least occasional adherence to the party line – or else.

Besides, even the so-called “good” officeholders fail because they’re habitually tied to the Two Party System. Even Ron Paul, in spite of his unorthodox positions as a Congressman, never came out and said: “We need independents in Congress, since only they won’t be swayed by the demands of their party or by lobbyists.”

More on Ron Paul and Third Party possibilities

Ron Paul was a member of the Libertarian Party once, having resigned from the GOP. Back in 1988, he was even the LP presidential candidate. However, Ron rejoined the GOP, which I think was a mistake – he should have seized the Bully Pulpit as a Congressman in order to promote the Libertarian Party. Instead of promoting the importance of an alternative to the Dem/Pub options, Paul decided to assume the role of resident curmudgeonly crank. “Dr. No,” his colleagues ended up calling him for his routine “no” votes on “unconstitutional” legislation.

Now, apparently, his strategy might change. If Ron Paul does not win the GOP nomination this time around, there’s talk he might try a third party run. Ah, a third party! Apparently none of Dr. Paul’s supporters realize you can’t have a viable third party which only manages to elect one candidate to national office. Even if that office happens to be the presidency. The other two parties would close ranks to oppose such a president.

Activists have spoken for decades about the need for a third party. They are mistaken, since only a Congress full of non-party independents can successfully govern. Instead of a Two Party or even a Three Party System, we need a Zero Party System. Moreover, we need term limits to protect us against the pernicious influence of lobbyists. Since incumbents will never vote for term limits, it is up to us as voters to “vote” for term limits by routinely voting against incumbents.

It’s time to break the programming, people

We are mercilessly hammered with propaganda 24/7. All of which serves to program us. The only reason the Two Party System is so dominant  is due to the efficiency of this programming. We can successfully rebel by doing this little: Stop being so damn predictable! If the Elite can anticipate our reactions to their agenda, they can tailor-make their long-range strategies by pushing our buttons with a lot of little steps along the way.

Or, equally as effective, just change the faces of the players. Case in point: If George Bush had suggested a “surge” in Afghanistan, he would have been roundly denounced. But when President Change-You-Can-Believe-In issued those orders, no problem. Sure, his supporters were disappointed, but so what? They surely wouldn’t vote for his GOP opponent in the next election.

But I feel that people don’t like to be played or made to feel they have no real choice. Right now, we’re at an ideal stage to push this anti-incumbency campaign. Congressional approval ratings are at an all-time low. The GOP has shown itself to be a far-from-loyal opposition – sinking as low as petty and non-ending obstructionism.

 And the beauty of this particular moment in time? We don’t even (much like the Occupy Wall Street crowd) have to present a coherent plan of action such as, “If elected, we will do (this, that, or the other thing).” Instead, we can merely assert that only a Congress of non-party aligned, loyal Americans can put their heads together and come up with practical solutions that work. And this assertion will resonate with voters who are tired of legislative gridlock, rule by supermajority (for instance, the filibuster), and the unending spectacle of each party that’s out of power trying its best to undermine the party that’s in power.

The Founding Fathers never intended for us to be governed by a class of professional, life-long politicians. Their ideal was for men of means (established pillars of the community) to take time out of their business affairs, spend a couple of years of public service as legislators, and then return to their former lives. Or perhaps retired gentlemen of means would like to give a few of their sunset years to such community service. Since the lengthy travel time of the early 1800’s would mandate long absences from home, it was expected that few would even be tempted to serve for more than two or three terms at most.

So our challenge is actually very simple: Just remind people of what they already know – the system isn’t working; we need answers fast; and incumbents under the current set of rules, who have managed to insulate themselves from the wrath of the voters, aren’t sufficiently motivated to create the practical system of laws we need to get our country moving forward again. But we have to remind them more than a few times. Remember: We have quite a wall of propaganda to break down!

Some examples of successful propaganda

Look at the recently-concluded Iowa caucuses. As observed by the Huffington Post*:

QUOTE*:

The numbers tell the story: of the 2,250,423 voters in the state (using the higher voting-eligible population), only 147,255 came out last night. And of those, only 122,255 voted in the Republican contest, for a turnout percentage of 5.4 percent.

:UNQUOTE*:

I had tried to promote (on this blog) the idea of cross-over voting to skew the primary results. In this case, given the low turnout, it would have been easy for independents and Democrats to have voted in the GOP caucuses for (say) Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman. Sabotaging the GOP primaries is a potent weapon, especially since Obama’s supporters can cross-over because their candidate won’t need their support since he’s running unopposed.

But…nobody crossed over. We have been so successfully programmed that we completely overlook obvious and potent strategies to convey our dissatisfaction. Instead, we have completely bought into the notion of how “important” Iowa and New Hampshire are to legitimizing the candidates. Iowa and New Hampshire? Give me a break. These two states are far from representative of America. However, that’s not the point. These two states were chosen on purpose to make it that much harder for a candidate to obtain traction. You don’t think it’s merely a coincidence these two vote first, do you?

It takes a lot of money, time, and trouble to campaign in these two atypical states. So only the best-financed can afford to engage. And “engage” they must, for failure to do so would allow the media to conclude these states were “written off.” That’s a charge that’s hard to beat.

Of course, the purpose of the long build-up to primary season (and the lengthy season itself) is to focus voter attention on this one particularly ridiculous notion:

What matters most – which one man ends up becoming president.

By focusing our attention on one man, the media and the System itself succeed in diverting our attention from what really needs fixing: The Congress itself. But we’re used to this type of mindset:  After all, when a major league baseball team isn’t having a winning season, we expect the manager to get fired in order to “shake things up.” But this view is in violation of our constitutional model. After all, Article I of the Constitution set up our national legislative bodies; Article II, the Presidency; and Article III, the Judiciary. These, I feel, were set up in order of importance.

It’s about time we reasserted that order of importance, insisting that Congress is of the utmost importance – not the Imperial Presidency.

End note:

If we ever reached a point where incumbents had no hope of being reelected (at least, not as Democrats or Republicans), there would be one immediately daunting outcome: Without a seniority system, how would committee assignments and chairmanships be determined? As I’ve written before, I feel that our Congress should consist of coequal members serving without being forced into a hierarchy by a committee structure. We have no problem expecting our president to be knowledgeable on all of the issues (or at least to have his own reliable sources as consultants). So why shouldn’t we expect our Congress to consist of (dramatic pause) – 435 presidents?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“There’s nothing like a loss of job security to throw the fear of God into our arrogant party animals” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

   * Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/iowa-caucus-results_n_1184479.html

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. 27 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 15 of these mini-essays/comments.

ONE:

I just clicked on the Herman Cain for President website. There wasn’t any mention of him “suspending” his presidential campaign. There were, however, options to click on and “Join the Cain Train,” and to contribute. There was also an article posted by Cain on 12/01, entitled: “Ginger White: Another Loser Trying to Cash in.”

Also listed is a “private reception with photo op” scheduled for Dec. 5 in Oklahoma City…with a $250 minimum suggested contribution. How many will pay $250 to have their picture taken with Cain, without a colostomy bag over his head? Since his website is still open for business, will Cain insist on participating in future GOP candidate debates? I mean, he didn’t drop out, he just “suspended.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Even though Cain’s website brags, ‘[Cain] has never been fazed by what is expedient or easy…,’ it seems he was easily tempted by both.”

TWO:

Knew-it Gettin’-Rich vs. Barack Obama? Obama will win in a landslide after painting Gettin’-Rich as the personification of the insider, professional politician from the Party of No, who really believes it would take only 3 low-level nukes fired from a barge in the Gulf of Mexico to pump out enough EMP to completely paralyze the whole country. What a fool!

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If the choice narrows down to Knew-It vs. Obama, the former Speaker wouldn’t be able to withstand the withering blast of reminders resurrected from his past brought to the entire country's attention.”

THREE:

 “… [Newt Gingrich’s] opponents, a slapstick lot….” Ron Paul & Jon Huntsman? Slapstick?

“But presidential campaigns are about character”… Knute Gettin’-Rich has character? People, especially female voters, could come to admire squeaky clean Romney as a personification of family values. Standing next to Knute, Mitt looks like a saint. Imagine that, Knute and Herman, a man who behaves himself, maritally speaking.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Joe Klein [the author of this article]? Or is it Joke Lyin’?"

FOUR:

Knute Gettin’-Rich, All American, promised on his website to sign this Executive Order (among others) on Day One:

“Respect Each Sovereign Nation’s Choice of its Capital. Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own Capital. Accordingly, the U.S. State Department should be instructed to respect the choice of each sovereign nation and place the American embassy in their Capital. (Israel is the only country the United States discriminates against in this regard. The people of Israel have designated Jerusalem as their capital. Yet the United States retains its embassy in Tel Aviv.)”

Knute is being disingenuous here. He could simply grant diplomatic recognition to Israel (even though it already has that status), but this time with this language, “The U.S. recognizes the state of Israel, Jerusalem being its capital, as the eternal homeland of the Jewish people (its Arab citizens be damned).” [Well, that IS where he’s coming from.]

Instead, Knute (All American) chooses to use an indirect route by claiming “the U.S. State Department should be instructed…” Instead he could choose the direct route by invoking the unique and unshared power of the President to grant diplomatic recognition. Is this an example of Gettin’-Rich’s bold leadership style – to hide behind the State Department?

Jerusalem doesn’t entirely belong to Israel, which is why we put our embassy in Tel Aviv in order to contest that claim. Israel has the right to choose its own capital. But we’re not obligated to endorse that decision. Besides, if Israel didn’t like our choice of Tel Aviv, they could have barred our embassy unless we placed it in Jerusalem. And Israel didn’t do that, now did it? So obviously Israel didn’t choose to invoke some mystic right that all embassies must be placed in a capital city.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I won’t kiss Israel’s butt like Gettin’-Rich; I will (on DAY ONE) completely void our recognition of Israel, granting that status to Palestine instead.”

FIVE:

Maybe Cain will make a defiant announcement [on Dec. 3], saying, "If Ginger White says I've had sex with her (off and on) for 13 years, she should be able to describe some of my intimate anatomical details. I say she won't be able to do that because...we never had sex!"

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"Wow, wouldn't that turn things around! At least somewhat. After all, he did admit giving her money."

SIX:

Why didn’t the interviewer cut to the chase by asking: “Since you had a 13-year affair with Herman Cain, you can surely give us some intimate details. Big or small? Circumcised or uncircumcised? Hangs to the left or to the right…or is he ambiDICKstrous?”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I swear, the ‘journalists’ covering this case are as lame as the ones who never asked candidate Obama any hard questions back in 2007.”

SEVEN:

All Ginger White has to do is go public with details of Cain's anatomy. I'm absolutely amazed none of the media hounds has asked her, point blank, if she would consider doing this.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"I haven't seen any comments posted by Yahoo posters about this, though I have tried to bring it up twice before only to find - Yahoo censors again. Let's see if this post squeaks through." [This one did squeak through!]

EIGHT:

Independents can derail Newt Gettin’-Rich by simply asking for a GOP primary ballot and voting for someone else. Even Democrats could do that, since they won’t have to vote in any Democratic primaries (since Obama is running unopposed). Screw up the GOP primary, which is only fair considering how the GOP has screwed us for so long. By the way, this is perfectly legal.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“All the Occupy Wall Street types (and their legions of sympathizers) have to do is find structural weaknesses in the system and exploit those. Primary skewing sounds like a pretty good place to start.”

NINE:

If Gettin’-Rich becomes the nominee, compare his new Contract with America to mine. The biggest difference? My contract has teeth – if I don’t do what I promise, I forfeit the presidency via impeachment. Newt won’t do that. And I am only promising what I alone can actually deliver. Consider these elements from the contract I offered when running against Obama & McCain back in 2008 – elements I’m going to reintroduce:

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

TWO: There will be no military draft during my presidency. If Congress enacts a draft, however, I will encourage all draftees to be inducted. Immediately after induction, though, they will be subject to this blanket order: Do not follow any orders from any member of the military except this order from me, your Commander in Chief: "Carry on with your civilian lives as if you had never been drafted."

THREE: I will veto every single bill from Congress that comes my way until it passes a nationwide cap on personal credit card interest rates of 18%.

FOUR: Within 90 days of my inauguration, I will order all US personnel out of all facilities located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This will allow Cuba to reoccupy that land, as is its sovereign right.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Here’s a new provision: I will void US diplomatic recognition of Israel and grant it, instead, to Palestine.”

TEN:

Suppose China has as many nukes as we do. So what? The US delivery system is far superior and has greater diversity. I still maintain, as I did in 2008 when I ran against Obama and McCain, that we only need 1,000 nukes tops.

Can anyone blame the Chinese for being secretive? When we have people like Newt Gettin’-Rich publicly declaring that covert (and deniable) activity against Iran should be initiated, China knows that would also include them. They know what we’re capable of. Not to worry, though. China won’t do anything militarily since that might upset their inexorable march toward economic dominance. That’s the real way they hope to come out on top.

As for this “professor” and his student researchers – please. Talk about Chinese tunnels has been going around for at least 10 years – in the public press. If anything, I rather suspect this “professor” and his group benefitted from input provided by our own government.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“You can fool some of the people some of the time…but I’m pretty hard to fool, so stop embarrassing yourselves by trying.”

ELEVEN:

Stock markets will have their ups and downs. But they’ll tend to stay up if the EU and the US carry out two plans:

ONE:  to prevent the emergence of a Pan-Islamic Union (called by some “a new Caliphate”);

TWO: to continue to sow the seeds of African disunity.

The reasons are the same in both cases: Neither the US nor the EU (nor China, for that matter) wants to see the emergence of a new industrial economy that could threaten their market shares. The Elite view some nations as consumers, some as producers, and others as providers of raw materials never to be allowed to industrialize. Why do you think Obama recently sent 100 troops to Africa? That was part of a larger, on-going plan to expand our undermining influence in the Dark Continent.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“To my African brothers: The US is not your friend, nor are the Chinese and Euros. In their view, it’s best that you don’t forget your place.”

TWELVE:

Herman Cain is a sham candidate acting as a set-up man to make Romney look good. Think about it. Surely Cain didn’t think his skeletons would stay in their closets. I suspect that from the very beginning Cain wasn’t a serious candidate but (shall we say?) an enabler for a higher (GOP) power.

As for Knew-It Gettin’-Rich, he wasn’t a sham candidate – at least not by intention but he too will serve that function. Standing next to former Speaker Gettin’-Rich and (especially) next to Cain, the squeaky clean Romney will start looking awfully good to a lot of people. A lot more than just the fundie Christians who might go with Romney, since he seems to personify family values.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“However, I can’t explain why the latest Cain detractor doesn’t offer some intimate details, since she must have seen a lot of Herman in 13 years.”

THIRTEEN:

"For the Muslim Brotherhood, democracy is a useful means of coming to power, but not a valued end state." That’s funny – our own Dem/Pub axis feels the same way about our own “democracy.”

We don’t have a democracy here – we have a “constitutional republic” (or actually a union of such republics). Our leaders don’t like democracy – for if they did, the Senate filibuster couldn’t exist (we’d have one man, one vote). Democracy can only work if you have an informed and participating citizenry – which we don’t (we simply go through the motions of picking from choices forced upon us).

The most ideal form of government is an enlightened monarchy. And a large number of Republicans support that notion, since they can’t wait for Jesus to return and rule over us. So…’nuff said about democracy.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Say, you don’t suppose we’re afraid that Muslim Brotherhood might be pissed at us for having armed and trained Mubarak’s forces to suppress them for decades, do you?”

FOURTEEN:

“… as a drug-fueled civil war now rages in Mexico.” That’s according to the Newt for Prez website. “civil war now rages in Mexico?” Is this guy nuts or merely given to hyperbole? Yes, there’s a drug-war going on but that can’t be called a civil war. I’m going to send Knew-It Gettin’Rich (at last) a dictionary.

Even worse than not knowing what a civil war is, is Knew-Its fondness for alternative histories. This is a man who loves indulging (literally) in fantasy. Let’s hope, if elected, he knows where the borders of La-La Land end and Real Nations’ begin. One fantasy that he supports is the “threat” of a pending EMP attack, as in the book One Second After to which he contributed (movie deal went bust, though). I rip that delusion to shreds here: Google: EMP threat bogeyman Gingrich Searle.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Gingrich may have a PhD in history and have an arm chair quarterback's love of the military (never served), but that doesn’t mean he’s fit to lead our future.”

FIFTEEN:

“…[Newt Gingrich campaigns in a] wealthy conservative stronghold [in Florida]…” Ah, a bunch of rich white people waiting to see the Great White Hope (Knew-it Gettin’Rich). They be chomping at the bit for him to oust that black feller currently at 1600. Get down with your homies, Mr. Speaker. Enjoy it while it lasts, which won’t be for long. Then voters will remember why they soured on you back in the day.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Knew-it Gettin’Rich personifies what’s wrong with DC culture, but some folks love livin’ in the past and reminisin’ about when people knew their place.”

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

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

“Since Newt Gingrich is the latest GOP flavor-of-the-month, I promise to do my homework, read what he has to say, and proceed to rip him to shreds. [sigh] This is too easy. Why can’t the GOP give me a real challenge?”


Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: