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/

A Constitutional Oddity: the Presidential Oath

QUESTION: If the president-elect of the United States refuses to take the oath of office, can he become the president?

ANSWER: No, he may not. According to the US Constitution:

QUOTE: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." UNQUOTE [Art. II, Section I, Clause 8].

Imagine that! Suppose 90% of the voters elected a candidate, who then refused to take this oath. This would rank as a Constitutional contradiction in view of what Article VI has to say:

QUOTE: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. :UNQUOTE.

Here's the contradiction: If the president-elect stated it was against his religious belief to swear oaths or make affirmations of any kind, then his being denied the presidency by not taking the oath of office would, in effect, constitute a denial based on a failure to pass this "religious test."

Yet Another Obstacle Presents Itself

As you know, I hope to be elected as the next US president. There might, however, be an obstacle if I'm fortunate enough to get elected. First things first: The obstacle I speak of has nothing to do with me taking the oath of office, for I have no problem taking such an oath. However, an objection could be voiced by a challenger:

"Mr. Searle cannot possibly take such an oath, even though he might utter its words. Since he has made it a centerpiece of his campaign for office to totally replace the US Constitution, how could he possibly (as the oath itself states) ‘preserve [as in, maintain its basics, its status quo], protect, and defend' a Constitution which he fully intends to replace?"

A very good question indeed, I have to admit.

But there are even better questions: Who could challenge me and how could they go about effectively preventing me from assuming office? The ugly answer to the question of "how" would probably involve a ruling by the Supreme Court. How sad that an election by a majority of the American people could turn on the decision of (at least) five Dem/Pubs who dare call themselves "Justices." And believe me, the Court would have no problem overturning the will of the American people.

What about Jesus as President?

My legions of Dem/Pub detractors would have no qualms about using every legal trick in the book to stop me, should I win this election. There is, however, a delicious irony in our Constitution's morbid fixation with oaths. Suppose Jesus Christ ran for President and (naturally) won, and He refused to take the oath of office. [And He most emphatically would refuse!]

In His case, the Supreme Court would decide to either not hear the case or would rule in His favor – thereby, in either case, violating their own oath to "support the Constitution" by allowing Him to assume the presidency. In my case, the Court would have no problem ruling against me. Even though I would utter the oath of office (but not, in the view of some, really mean it), while Jesus would not even utter this oath.

Concluding statements

At first blush, it seems odd to require that a President-elect take an oath before he assumes office. After all, if the will of We-the-People is supposed to be so all important, why add the additional requirement of oath-taking or affirmation-making? And why were the highlighted words added in the following?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That entire highlighted section (above) implies that it is not good enough that a duly-elected president merely swear/affirm that he’ll do the job (“execute the Office”) but that he will also “preserve…the Constitution.”

I think I have an answer.

If the President is locked into “preserving” the Constitution, by means of this oath/affirmation, and if language in Article VI (quoted immediately below) locks in all other members of the government, all of these actors would effectively be denied any influence to change or replace the Constitution. How could anyone who swears to “preserve” something also engage in a movement to change/amend it?

QUOTE (from Article VI): all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.: UNQUOTE.

That’s what I call a pre-emptive strike by the Founding Fathers. They wanted their version of the Constitution to last forever, which did not happen in the case of the original constitution known as the Articles of Confederation.

This whole fixation with, and ulterior motive underlying, oath-taking has no place in a Constitution. Any replacement Constitution, which I hope to be instrumental in engineering, should make no mention of such things.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Declare your independence by voting for independents.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Blagojevich and (??) are guilty

[NOTE: I’ll get to this part toward the end – (??)]


If I had been sitting on Governor Blagojevich’s jury, I would have voted “not guilty.” There are several reasons for this, but I’ll start with the One Great Reason:

Since the playing field in US courtrooms isn’t level, I would never vote “guilty” against any defendant. And I would say so up front, before even being selected for a jury. The state simply has too much power at its disposal; when they really want to get somebody, they get him.

Indented comment: As far as letting a guilty man go free: First of all, no juror sealed within the bubble known as a courtroom could possibly know that. Second, the guilty never really go free. Yes, I’m talking about karmic retribution here. One of the biggest problems in the West: We’re so arrogant, we feel we have to act like little Gods meting out justice.

After failing to nail their man the first time, the prosecution had no problem spending $10M of your money for another go-round.

Apparently, though, nobody bothered to ask one very important question: Why must it take a unanimous jury to convict? The US Congress can pass any bill into law with only a two-thirds majority in each House. And yet, in a jury trial, unanimity is the standard. Why not 9 out of 12? Three-fourths to convict compared to two-thirds to pass a law – sounds fair enough to me.

And yet, not one single commentator has even mentioned this in passing.

As for We-the-Sheeple, we’re so programmed to accept things “because they’ve always been done that way,” we’re doomed to keep spending our way to bankruptcy for our complacency.

However, I will add this: I happen to think Rodney wasn’t guilty of trying to sell Obama’s seat in the US Senate. The only thing he was guilty of was trying to deal on the phone and getting carried away. Translation? He was speaking straight from the id, without having engaged his filters.

According to one juror*: “There were several times we had to vote and revote and listen to the tapes and go through all our notes.” If the jury had to “vote and revote” and “go through all our notes,” that tells me they weren’t really sure. And yet the Governor, speaking in real time with his filters disengaged, was faulted by the prosecution for not being more subtle. For that’s what this is all about – subtlety. Since Guv B’s approach was ham-handed, he gets to hang, while other operators who are smoother manage to stay in business.

The truth of the matter is, Governor B had a valuable commodity at his disposal. And why not call it that? Hell, he could have even appointed himself to Obama’s old Senate seat. Then what could people have said? Not this: “He’s illegally profiting from his office,” since the law did not prevent him from self-nomination. [That law is still in effect!]

He should have appointed himself. Illinois is in such wretched shape, it would take a miracle man to save it. And Dem/Pubs have a way of preventing miracle men (that is, independents unaffiliated with any party) from winning elections. So our ex-guv could have removed himself from the nastiness which defines Illinois’ local politics by (legally!) appointing himself to the US Senate. End of story!

The jury taking 10 days to weigh the evidence is pretty telling. Frankly, I thought – for that reason alone – they were tempted to let him walk. However – and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise – juries can be cowed by overbearing prosecutors and prejudiced judges. That judge and those prosecutors knew there was too much at stake to let this guy walk. And, I’m sure, in all their subtle little ways, they bullied the jury.

An example:

QUOTE*:

The real drama in the case began, said the juror who is a computer programmer, when lead prosecutor Reid Schar stood up to begin cross examining Blagojevich and said, “you are a convicted liar” referring to [his] conviction of lying to investigators after his first trial.

“That scared us all to death,” the juror said, laughing. “We were so nervous after that little segment of the trial. We were unanimous on that one. The trial up until then had not been very dramatic…until he came out and did that.”

:UNQUOTE.

·       “You are a convicted liar” – Highly prejudicial and irrelevant to the cross-examination. And the judge allowed this? The Governor had been convicted of lying to the FBI – that much is true. But that conviction is pending appeal and has nothing to do with this current trial. The prosecutor hoped to plant this broader meaning: “Once a liar, always a liar. If he lied once, he’ll lie again.”

·       “That scared us all to death” – which was precisely Schar’s intention – as endorsed by the judge.

·       “We were unanimous on that one” – a very important first step toward building the unanimity needed for conviction.

I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some members of the jury thought, “I better go along with the game plan in case our deliberations are being secretly recorded [and, yes, this has happened]. I don’t want our homegrown Gestapo knocking on my door at midnight because I dared to doubt his guilt.” Yes, the G-men knocking on your door isn’t too far off. A jury’s deliberation room is one of the few areas where an ordinary citizen’s free speech rights still mean something. Do you think for a minute that Neo-Con micromanagers (including Obama) aren’t scheming to violate even that sanctuary?


Blagojevich and (??) are guilty

So what did I mean by this article’s title?

The Governor was “guilty” of poor form and of giving the appearance of impropriety – though neither is against the law.

The Illinois Senate was guilty of voting to bar him from ever again holding public office in Illinois. [I don’t know about you, but I feel We-the-People shouldn’t be told we can’t ever again vote for certain people. That’s classical overreach.]

Illinois’ politicians are guilty of hypocrisy, knowing full well they would have done the same thing Blagojevich did if they had a chance. [But not as obviously.]

The jury was guilty, since they were asking themselves the wrong question: “Is he guilty?” They should have asked: “If he is guilty, to what degree do we want to say so?” By failing to ask that question, the jury hands over to the judge the right to hand down a 300-year sentence. Legal experts are saying that “probably” won’t happen – more likely is 10 to 15. In any event, the judge has too much latitude in sentencing which I, had I been one of those jurors, would not have cared to allow him to exercise. It will be interesting to see if juror’s remorse raises its timid head – after sentencing.

We-the-Sheeple are guilty for going along with a legal system in desperate need of a fundamental overhaul. An example:

QUOTE [written back in 2010**]:

[NOTE: This is pretty much a confession that those who can’t pay the “going rate” won’t get much of a defense – Searle.]

If the case is retried, taxpayers will have to pick up the entire tab, including $110 an hour for his court-appointed lawyers, and whatever expenses are racked up.

That is the maximum a court appointed lawyer can charge in a federal case, but well below the going rate for a top defense attorney.

:UNQUOTE.

The prosecutor’s office is guilty of bringing this case to retrial after their first (overall) failure to convict. They could have been satisfied with a prison term for lying to the FBI or with knowing the ex-guv has suffered a financial burden defending himself and has next-to-zero in the way of future job prospects. They could have been outright gleeful that he was barred from serving in elective office ever again in Illinois. All of that, and they could have saved us the massive expense of this retrial.

They could have…but they didn’t.


The Dem/Pubs in Illinois

Other Illinois governors have gone to jail – and not just from the Democratic Party.  And the problems aren’t limited to the Chief Executive’s office. Too many pols from too many safe seats are the chief cause of this state’s economic and ethical woes. And yet the voters still don’t get it. They refuse to rebel by ousting all Dem/Pubs from office and electing independents. The two main parties are corrupt and everybody knows that – but that’s the problem: These two are a known quantity. And that actually comforts us!

Several factors keep the current system in place: Fear of change, fear of the unknown, the incumbents’ institutional and financial advantages, and the power of advertising. Especially that last. After getting beaten over the head for generations with flurries of political messages, we’re too numb to say more than “whatever.”

We’re not entirely powerless, though. I have a message for those of you who still have your wits about you: Take a little trouble to find out what the incumbents’ financial interests are, and those of their backers. And boycott their products or services. Doesn’t sound like much, but it wouldn’t take much of a boycott to be effective.

Example: Start with the Chicago Tribune newspaper, which is close to bankruptcy anyway. They’ve sold us out for so long, they deserve to be buried.

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

“Just because we can’t do much doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

   * source: Chicago Red Eye (newspaper), June 29, 2011

   ** source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/18/illinois-taxpayers-facing-massive-blagojevich-retrial/#ixzz1Qaxg9Hl8

GOP’s debate held on June 13, 2011

True confession:

I did not watch the GOP’s presidential candidates’ televised/streamed debate on June 13. Only just now, I finished watching it on YouTube.

The winner of the debate:

Hands down, the winner of the debate was the moderator – John King of CNN. NOTE: Because John had so much speaking time, viewers were actually treated to the equivalent of eight (not seven) “candidates.”

The loser of the debate:

The American voting public.

What I would have liked to have seen:

The microphone cut off from a candidate who went over the time limit when answering a question. If a candidate were to have persisted for more than 10 seconds after that, I’d like to see a trap door open under the offender’s feet dropping him/her immediately from view. Bottom line? If they don’t know enough when to shut up, how the hell can they run the country?

Issues that were not addressed:

A broad range of issues was broached with varying degrees of satisfactory response. However, several questions were not asked at all or were only hinted at:

·       Should the Federal Reserve System be abolished, as Ron Paul has suggested for years?

·       Will personal income taxes “have to" be raised?

·       Isn’t it about time for a radical overhaul of the entire US taxing system?

·       How much of a cut should the Pentagon have to endure in the upcoming era of leaner and meaner budget appropriations?

·       How should we go about revamping our legal system, which is ferociously backlogged and is too expensive to allow the average citizen easy access?

·       What would you do to reign in the ever-expanding power of the presidency?

·       Should the government be allowed to default on its debt, which will surely occur if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling?

·       Since the Two Party System has proven to be our leading threat to national security, what would you suggest that would help elect Independent candidates to Congress?

·       How can we make government more accountable to the people?

·       How can we reduce the cost of campaigning for the presidency?

Polar opposite approaches to the debate:

This piece of entertainment – for that’s what it really was – felt an awful lot like speed dating. The pace was fast and furious – and the format couldn’t (like speed dating itself) really give anyone a chance to get to know these candidates. [NOTE: We will continue to pay a dear price for insisting on such a superficial exposure to our next President.]

The polar opposite approach? Each candidate could have equally divided the 120 minutes of air time, to enable each to speak without interruption for 17 minutes. That wouldn’t, however, have allowed for any questions from the audience or any follow-up questions from a moderator.

An in-between approach? I would have preferred that each candidate be allowed to speak without interruption for seven minutes without any role for a moderator except to cut off the microphone should any speaker violate his time limit. Oh, and to regulate the questioning as follows:

·       The moderator would read aloud one question, submitted in advance, from each candidate to another candidate randomly chosen with two conditions: (1) that every candidate has a chance to answer a question and (2) that no candidate is allowed to answer his own question.

·       The moderator would read aloud one question from the audience to each candidate. The questions would have been submitted in writing in advance, addressed to a particular candidate, put into a “hat” with that candidate’s name on it, and read aloud by the moderator after having been picked at random out of this “hat.”

If I had been there:

If I had been allowed to share that stage, I could have really shaken things up. Especially under a format allowing each candidate seven minutes of uninterrupted speaking time. I would have been able to tell a national audience:

·       I am the only candidate running for this office who has ever published his campaign promises in the form of a written contract. One of its promises: I would forfeit my office if I were to violate any of these promises.

·       Within 90 days of my inauguration, I would remove all US military from Iraq and Afghanistan – regardless of the conditions on the ground.

·       I would order all US military out of Europe, shutting down our bases there.

·       I would immediately void US diplomatic recognition of Israel, while granting it to Palestine.

·       I would refuse to sign any bill allowing for foreign aid to Israel and Egypt.

·       I would refuse to sign any bill into law until Congress passes an 18% cap on personal credit card interest rates and passes a Single Payer Universal Health Care law.

·       I would only appoint federal judges to five year terms by refusing to nominate them in the first place if they didn’t sign a contract stating they would resign after five years on the bench.

·       I would introduce a lawsuit to stop the unconstitutional Senate practice of the filibuster.

End comment:

What I’m proposing above is only a small part of my overall program. But remember: This is what I would be able to say in a speech lasting only seven minutes.

The only way I could have participated with the other candidates were if I were seeking the GOP nomination for the Presidency. Which of course I’m not – in fact, I am an Independent. But that alone would not stop me from trying to be nominated as a Republican – not even as I would simultaneously try for the Democratic nomination, while announcing to one and all that I am indeed an Independent.

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractor’s Party

“I am not merely an advocate of Change we can believe in (Obama’s first slogan) or Change we need (Obama’s slogan, revised in late 2008). I represent Change you can rely on…I was tempted to say, Change you can take to the bank, but a lot of people don’t like banks too much any more.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

US Presidential Candidate seeks Muslim support

This is to announce: I am hereby actively soliciting American Muslims to support my campaign for the US presidency in 2012.

Of course, I welcome any and all support – from Muslims and non-Muslims alike. But here and now, I want to emphasize that I am specifically seeking Muslim support. I wish to make a bold public declaration of my support for the US Islamic community, without any assurance they would in turn respond by embracing my campaign.

One reason I seek their support is to stand in opposition to my opponents – all of whom insist they will support Israeli policy no matter what. All of whom pledge to continue spending billions of dollars every year to support the Israeli war machine.

Another reason I seek Muslim support: A local Muslim leader I know challenged me, “If you can prepare a position paper showing why I and my community should support you, I can promise you 50 votes.” To which I replied, “Well, that would make a grand total of 50 votes I’ve earned so far.”

It would have been easy for me to tell this community leader, who had voted for and believed in Barack Obama, “If you want to know about my positions and about me personally, read my blog.” But, as the old saying goes, that would be too much information. So I prepared this brief statement, which follows. But…for anyone who wants more information, here’s the link to my blog: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/

Why should a Muslim vote for

Steven Searle for US President in 2012?

I will start with some simple statements:

·       If elected, I will grant diplomatic recognition to Palestine.

·       If elected, I will revoke US diplomatic recognition of Israel.

·       If elected, I will withdraw all US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan – withdrawal to be completed within 90 days of my inauguration.

·       If elected, I will order US forces to stop attacking Libya.

·       If elected, I will urge the American people – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – to embrace my main campaign theme:

“Declare your independence by voting for independents.”

That last point is actually the most important of all. As much as the followers of the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) might be pleased with my first four points, it is really that last point which will prove to be of greatest importance to them.

Every loyal citizen of this country will come to appreciate the importance of electing officials who are totally independent of any political party. There is a profound danger in continuing to be governed by the two major political parties which are forever at war with each other. Each major party, seeking its own advantage, cares nothing about the future of America.

Therefore, I am appealing to all Americans to unite behind my efforts to destroy these two great enemies of our people – the Democratic and Republican parties.

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

It would have been tempting for me to list points involving only the Middle East. But I did not wish to disrespect my Muslim readers, who are also loyal American citizens, by speaking only of those issues. There are others which are of keen interest to American Muslims – issues which have nothing to do with the politics of the Middle East.  And if I did not mention any of those in this document, I would be guilty of pandering to my audience.

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

The most important and distinctive feature of my campaign: I am the only candidate for president who is running on the basis of a written contract. No other such candidate in the entire history of this country has done this. The basic idea is quite simple: If I violate any of my campaign promises which are listed in my written contract, I would be forced to give up the presidency.

And why not? Every American understands the importance of a written contract as it applies in our daily lives. If two people sign a contract, both are obligated to follow the terms of that contract. If they don’t, they have to pay some kind of penalty. In this case, the two “people” who are “signing” this contract are:

1)   Me…My signature will be on a document which details what I will do if elected, although I intend to do much more than what I list in that document.

2)   I said there are two “people” who are “signing” this contract. I am the first person; the American people are the second of these two “people.” The American “people” can’t sign my contract – at least not directly. But by voting for me, they are entering into a contractual relationship with me, which has the same force as their signatures.

My name isn’t Barack Obama – who offered you “Change you can believe in.”

My name is Steven Searle – who offers you my legally-binding contract which tells you exactly what I’ll do if elected.

I am proposing a trade: If you give me your vote, I’ll do what my contract says I must do. It’s important to note here that I will only list the goals which I myself can accomplish. These are kind of goals that won’t need the support of Congress. To show you what I mean, I will repeat the four goals listed above, but this time I’ll state why I can meet these goals by myself, without needing the support or approval of anyone else:

·       If elected, I will grant diplomatic recognition to Palestine. [The US president is the only person with the power to grant or revoke diplomatic recognition. It’s true that he cannot appoint ambassadors without the approval of the Senate, but that has no effect on his basic power to grant or revoke such recognition.]

·       If elected, I will revoke US diplomatic recognition of Israel. [I could do this for the same reason as listed immediately above.]

·       If elected, I will withdraw all US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan – withdrawal to be completed within 90 days of my inauguration. [The President, who is the Commander in Chief of all US armed forces, doesn’t need the approval of any other person or agency to stop US participation in a war. The President, and only the President, is the supreme and final authority on the placement and behavior of our military forces.]

·       If elected, I will order US forces to stop attacking Libya. [Same reason as above.]

You are intelligent people, so you surely must know that no political candidate can be taken to court for violating his campaign promises – not even if those had been written down. Most people understand this to mean that no candidate, once elected, can be held to account for failing to keep his word. But that’s not true. I have thought of a way to force a presidential candidate to keep his word, which I will quote from my 2008 contract (from the time I had run against Obama and McCain):

QUOTE:

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

:UNQUOTE.

If you are interested in what my 2008 contract looked like, you can see many of its 47-points here: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/written-political-contracts.html

However, I have not completed my 2012 contract yet, though I am working on it. There are parts of my old contract which won’t be included in the new version. Obviously, you would be wise to wait until I post my 2012 contract before making any final decision about voting for me. You would also be wise to thoroughly review my blog at: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/ . There is much on that blog that has nothing to do with politics, which will however give you an idea of the kind of man I am. And that’s important to know.

I want you to know that I myself am not a Muslim. I am a Buddhist, the details of which I’ve written on my blog.

Other aspects of my political contract

I have already given you enough information, above, to make some kind of initial determination about supporting my candidacy. Of course, to be fair, there are other candidates for this office, and you should give them a fair and honest evaluation as well.

For those of you who are curious, though, I will offer more information in this section. The following links are to essays I’ve written on a variety of topics:

·       This link describes a system I invented called Cross-Sectional Representation, which I propose as the basis for a new U.S. Constitution, to completely replace the old:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/alternatives-to-fourth-reich.html

·       This link connects to an essay called, “Why we fear Muslims…really!”

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-we-fear-muslimsreally.html

·       This link describes how a Zero Party could replace the Democrats and Republicans:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/zero-party-system-for-us-politics.html

·       This link describes a practical method which can be used by activists in order to effectively challenge the current governing system. Its title: General Strike Declared by Steven Searle. Though the idea of a General Strike is well known, I offer a unique variation:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/general-strike-declared-by-steven.html

·       This link is called Palestinian Possibilities, analyzes the current situation in that region:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/palestinian-possibilities.html

The Supreme Court

I will leave you with this final example of the power of the political contract:

Supreme Court judges are not given a “lifetime appointment.” The Constitution says these judges “…shall hold their offices during good behavior …” This allows for an innovation I’m introducing in the upcoming campaign. If I have a chance to appoint a Supreme Court judge, I will insist (as a condition of my nomination) that he publicly sign a written contract. This will stipulate:

·       He can serve for only five years after which he must resign;

·       If he doesn't resign, he will most surely be impeached and removed from the bench since he had admitted (in this contract) that failure to resign would constitute the impeachable offense of failing to maintain “good behavior.” [NOTE: If a man swears an oath and violates that oath, he is guilty of bad behavior – and all of my nominees will swear an oath to uphold his nomination contract.]

·       When he resigns, he could be eligible for renomination.

My intention, which will be stated on my own contract, is to demand that all currently sitting Supreme Court justices resign immediately upon my inauguration. My contract will state that I will automatically renominate them for the Senate’s consideration, but only if they sign a contract limiting their term to five years. If the American people would actually vote for me with this kind of language in my contract, the currently sitting justices would be hard put to defy the will of the people.

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

Conclusion:

Once again, I appeal to American Muslims for their support. If you help elect me as your next president, I will not disappoint you. Most importantly, my contract will not let me disappoint you. As I’m fond of asking, “If you wouldn’t sell your house without a written contract, why just give your vote away?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

      “If you decide to support someone else for President, I hope you will encourage him or her to give strong consideration to at least some of the proposals I’ve detailed here.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com