US Prez candidate renounces his citizenship

Introduction:

The following is a document I submitted by which I renounce my US citizenship, but…in a very unusual way.

How strange! A candidate for US president renounces his citizenship, and yet insists that he is still running for that office in the upcoming (2012) election cycle. You will see, though, that the manner in which I renounce does not bar me from running nor bar me from holding that office should We-the-People (of the USA) actually elect me.

As usual, everything I do is for a reason, which I hope will become clear as you read on.

DOCUMENT BEGINS:

For consideration by the Court

in the matter of Discover Bank vs. Steven Searle:

Case Number 10-M1-172401

Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

SUBJECT: Status of Steven Searle’s citizenship.

PURPOSE:  This document stands in support of my Fourth Motion to Dismiss. Dismissal is sought due to Mr. Searle no longer being a US citizen, and therefore no longer under the jurisdiction of this Court.

ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT:

1. Declaration of Searle’s citizenship

2. Aspects and implications of Searle’s citizenship claims

3. Rationale for renunciation

4. De Jure vs. De Facto renunciation of U.S. Citizenship

I. Declaration of Searle’s Citizenship

On this date and time – March 18, 2011 at 12:01 AM – I hereby declare:

·         I am no longer a citizen of the United States of America;

·         I am no longer a citizen of the State of Illinois;

·         My personal sovereignty (a sovereignty equal to that of the United States or of any other independent nation, entity, or person) and therefore pledge allegiance only to myself and to my own values, thereby being, in a manner of speaking, a citizen of a “country” having a population consisting of one, single, solitary individual;

·         As for allegiances beyond my self and my values, I don’t declare adherence to any particular faction but instead dedicate myself to the betterment of Greater Terra and all its peoples; in that sense, I am also a “citizen” of Greater Terra;

·         A king is alleged to have uttered these famous words: “The state? I am the state.”  I (a commoner) offer a refinement: “A state? I am a state.”

II. Aspects and implications of Searle’s citizenship claims

·         ONE: I was a natural born US citizen, though I haven’t been a de facto US citizen for years.

·         TWO: The practical effects of this document will be hard to predict, since I did not (and will not) follow any of the statutorily-established protocols for renouncing my citizenship. That is, I am not renouncing in a manner recognized by statute.

·         THREE: I base my renunciation on the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution: “The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” A fundamental right must be the right of self-determination – specifically, a right to choose one’s citizenship and one’s allegiances without being unreasonably burdened by rules imposed by a state one no longer even recognizes (one such burden: being compelled to bear the expense of traveling abroad in order to renounce “before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States”);

·         FOUR: I maintain that I – by means of this declaration submitted to a court of law in defense of a lawsuit brought against me by Discover Bank – am effectively renouncing my citizenship in such a manner as would gain the assent of any reasonable man upon a fair and open-minded examination. Such declaration in open court must be considered sufficient to validate such renunciation.

·         FIVE: Since I can no longer “Pledge Allegiance to the United States of America” or abide by the terms of the Oath of Citizenship (affirmed by naturalized citizens), I can no longer be considered a US citizen.

·         SIX: Since I hereby withdraw my “consent,” the US government can no longer claim to be (in the words of the US Declaration of Independence) “deriving [its] just powers from the consent of the governed.” Since, without my consent, the government can no longer govern me, that government can no longer count me among its citizens.

·         SEVEN: Will I vote? No, even though I have a currently active voter registration card. That card was obtained by affirming that I was a United States citizen. Since I am now renouncing that citizenship in such manner that I and any reasonable man should deem proper, I cannot in good conscience continue to vote.

·         EIGHT: I declare that I will not file tax forms due to my status as a “self-contained sovereign entity” entirely equal to the United States. For example, would Congress pretend it could tax France? No, because Congress has no authority over France.

·         NINE: I will continue, as I have for at least the past five years, to refuse to file income tax forms for yet another reason. Since I had always discovered, after completion of my tax forms, that I owed more than what was deducted from my income, I will continue to deny those extra amounts to a state which is hopelessly corrupt and wasteful of my taxpayer dollars (Illinois) and to a nation (USA) which is currently engaged in two illegal wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan).

·         TEN: What about payment of taxes? I briefly considered resisting the extraction of taxes from my income. However, since I in fact reside in the United States and benefit from that residency, I am more than willing to pay my fair share. For that reason, I will not contest withholdings from my income. In addition, since there is no mechanism in place by means of which to assess the amount of my fair share, for the time being I will consider current amounts withheld to be my fair share.

·         ELEVEN: My treatment under the law. Seeing how poorly US courts and other institutions treat US citizens in general, I’m hoping my newly-adopted form of citizenship might constitute one small step in the right direction toward changing that treatment – both for myself and for my (former) countrymen.

·         TWELVE: Will I serve on a jury if summoned? No, for several reasons, the chief of which – I am no longer eligible since I am no longer a US citizen. Other reasons: I do not believe it is possible for a defendant, especially if poor or (increasingly) if middle class, to obtain a fair trial in this country, which makes it morally repugnant for me to participate as a member of a jury; forced participation in a jury violates the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against “involuntary servitude.”

·         THIRTEEN: Will I sue to attain formal recognition of my self-defined citizenship? No, since I don’t want to be bothered to undertake the initiative. Will I defend if others try to sue to strip me of US citizenship-as-defined-by-statute? Maybe, if they would thereby try to deport me. As a world “citizen” and “self-contained” citizen, I claim the right to live anywhere on the planet I so desire and to try by all reasonable and creative means to do so, while striving to always be a good neighbor.

III. Rationale for Renunciation

Citing the US Declaration of Independence:

I hereby paraphrase the two opening paragraphs of this renowned document:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one person to dissolve the political bands which have connected him with others, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Karma entitle him, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that he should declare the causes which impel him to the separation.

I hold these truths to be self-evident:

·         ONE: That all humans are not created equal, and in fact are not created at all but come into their various incarnated forms – either superior or inferior to those forms manifested by others – due to the dictates of the Law of Karma;

·         TWO: That all humans possess widely varying degrees (rarely equal to those of his fellows) of karmically-earned and –bounded opportunities for the maintenance of Life, expansion of Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, the major restriction being “not at the expense of others;”

·         THREE: That all humans, possessing Buddha-nature, have a most fundamental right – the most fundamental right – to seek Enlightenment and to take action which will lead to that goal for themselves and for others allowing only for the minimal and absolutely necessary restrictions imposed by the state or any other type of community;

·         FOUR: That to secure these rights or any other “rights,” the necessary evil of government is accepted by humans, claiming to derive its just powers from the consent of the governed – though that “consent” is generally assumed to derive from 50% plus one of the body politic;

·         FIVE: That whenever any form of the sovereign state becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the individual person (by declaring himself to be a sovereign entity) to remove himself from its influence to the greatest degree possible, and to encourage others (and to himself act) to eliminate that influence world-wide.

Experience indeed has shown that long-established national sovereignties inevitably and increasingly ignore the Law of Karma and provide proof against the wisdom of continuing to support such macro sovereignties. In particular, I cite the following causes which impel me to my separation, effectively withdrawing the “consent of the governed [that is, my consent]” considered so necessary as the source of the just powers of government:

·         ONE: A continued and increasing transfer of power and wealth to elites and interest groups to the detriment of the majority of common citizens;

·         TWO: The establishment of a system of justice inaccessible to the poor and to vast segments of the middle class unwilling or unable to finance accessibility;

·         THREE: The establishment of a political and judicial system which seeks to systematically decrease the power of the average citizen and transfer it to the state and its various institutions which include its two major political parties;

·         FOUR: A continuing indulgence in a highly unconstitutional practice of the United States Senate which denies the principle of One Man, One Vote – the filibuster;

·         FIVE: The overwhelming and disproportionate influence of moneyed interests and groups over our electoral processes;

·         SIX: Participation in two illegal wars of aggression – in Iraq and Afghanistan;

·         SEVEN: A Congress organized in such a manner as to grant greater influence to some of its members – specifically committee chairs – at the expense of others, a violation of the One Man, One Vote principle;

·         EIGHT: An environment in which the issue of usury cannot even be broached by lawmakers;

·         NINE: A refusal to make reparations payments to Black Americans who are victims of a crime against humanity – the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade;

·         TEN: Unconstitutionally permitting the following states to be admitted to the Union: West Virginia and Maine;

·         ELEVEN: Insisting on the legality of military conscription, though the Thirteenth Amendment bars involuntary servitude;

·         TWELVE: Allowing a system of taxation by which churches are exempted from paying taxes, which increases their influence (thereby diminishing the influence of agnostics and atheists) and increases the tax burden on everybody else.

Citing The Pledge of Allegiance:

I hereby quote the Pledge of Allegiance, after which I demonstrate why I cannot pledge this allegiance:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

·         ONE: I cannot pledge allegiance to “the flag” or to any flag, since that would be a form of idolatry. In my view, it is impossible to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth – since I value any pledge I make or oath I offer as assignable only to something much more profound. [NOTE: Concerning the issue of idolatry, I don’t see how any adherent to the Abrahamist faiths could Pledge Allegiance to the Flag.];

·         TWO: I cannot “pledge allegiance to…the republic,” since that republic is only an assertion, not a reality. We-the-People are not in control but continue to lose ground to the Two-Party System and the wealthy special interests and oligarchs who support that System; an Oligarchy is not a republic;

·         THREE: I cannot “pledge allegiance to …one nation under God” since I am a Buddhist who does not believe in the existence of God. Furthermore, the insertion of the words “under God” into the text of the Pledge served only to delegitimize a government all too willing to forget a necessary and fundamental religious neutrality in favor of seeking advantage during the Cold War over “Godless Communism;”

·         FOUR: I cannot “pledge to … one nation [the United States]…with liberty and justice for all,” because that nation pays only lip service to “liberty and justice for all” while moving farther from “all” in favor of “the people who really count – the privileged and influential.”

Citing the US Oath of Naturalization

I will now quote this Oath, after which I will demonstrate why I could not so declare had I been, by circumstance of birth, in a position to seek US citizenship by means of naturalization. I also note my belief that such an Oath (in the name of consistency) should be required of natural born citizens, though it isn’t.

QUOTE:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

:UNQUOTE.

·         ONE: I pledge allegiance to a foreign prince – that being Shakyamuni Buddha who, in spite of common belief to the contrary, is still alive and in this world; in relation to the sovereign entity which is I, Shakyamuni is an ally;

·         TWO: I also pledge allegiance to Greater Terra – that is, to the whole Earth rather than just to the particular part of it known as the United States, which would prefer that I act in its local interests even at the expense of the interests of Greater Terra;

·         THREE: I do not support the Constitution since that document is only nominally supported by the US government itself and which is holding back the progress of the American people and the other peoples of Greater Terra;

·         FOUR: I can consider supporting only a new Constitution developed by a Constitutional Convention – as long as that does not work against the interests of Greater Terra; my preference being for a system of governance based on Cross-Sectional Representation. [NOTE: Cross-Sections are created by randomly assigning individual voters from a master list of all eligible US voters; the 435 numerically-equal Cross-Sections to replace the currently existing 435 congressional districts.];

·         FIVE: I will bear arms on behalf of the United States, perform noncombatant service or perform work of national importance not when required by law, but only if the prerogatives of my personal sovereignty and the concerns of Greater Terra demand it;

·         SIX: I could not make any oath containing the words “so help me God,” since saying “so help me” should be sufficient. I also object that I could only avoid saying “so help me God,” if I were to (as currently required by law) “provide enough evidence that [my] religious training and beliefs prevent [me] from saying [this] language within the Oath of Allegiance.” I refuse to submit myself to any authority arrogant enough to assert that it could determine how much is “enough.”

IV. De Jure vs. De Facto Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship

De Jure Renunciation

QUOTE [note my emphasis in yellowed bold italics]:

Section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) governs how a U.S. citizen shall lose U.S. nationality. Section 349(a) states:

A person who is a national of the United States whether, by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality:

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular  officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense.

:UNQUOTE [source: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html]

COMMENT:  Concerning the portion above, in yellowed bold italics: There can be no doubt that it is my “intention of relinquishing United States nationality.” However, intention (as indicated above) is not enough to cause loss of citizenship; also necessary is the “voluntarily performing” of any of certain specific acts. Most relevant to my case, it can’t be argued that I am “pledging allegiance to a foreign state” by pledging allegiance to Greater Terra since that is not “a foreign state” – it is the whole world.

My intention is to encourage all citizens of all nations to relinquish their citizenship to their specific countries. Only by such a denunciation of the evils of state sovereignty can world peace be assured. Only a world without political borders can survive.

I can understand why the United States would take a dim view of its citizens pledging allegiance to “a [specific] foreign state.” That could pose a conflict of interest between two states competing for the same resources. However, since the instances of (1) declaring allegiance only to oneself or (2) to the world as a whole have not been addressed by means of statute, any possible conflict of interest could not be considered by a court of law based on any statutory considerations.

QUOTE [two quotes from Form DS-4080, US State Department]:

I desire and hereby make a formal renunciation of my U.S. nationality, as provided by section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, and pursuant thereto, I hereby absolutely and entirely renounce my United States nationality together with all rights and privileges and all duties and allegiance and fidelity thereunto pertaining. I make this renunciation intentionally, voluntarily, and of my own free will, free of any duress or undue influence.

[and]

Note: A renunciation of United States nationality/citizenship is effective only upon approval by the U.S. Department of State but, when approved, the loss of nationality/citizenship occurs as of the date the above Oath/Affirmation was taken.

:UNQUOTE.

Comment: The US State Department (as stated in the preceding sentence) or the US Attorney General (as stated in Section 349(a)(6), quoted earlier) insist that lawful renunciation can only be accomplished on their terms: As sworn before their officials and using their forms. However, since I have withdrawn my consent to be governed, I do not recognize the legitimacy of either authority in this or any matter.

De Facto Renunciation

I base my renunciation of US citizenship, and the parameters of my newly-embraced citizenship on the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution. However, I doubt that any US court would uphold this application of the Ninth. Therefore, I also base my assertions on an appeal to commonsense which transcends written statutes. Since I cannot Pledge Allegiance to the Flag or to the United States, or embrace the conditions specified in the Oath of Naturalization; and since I embrace another sovereign (Shakyamuni Buddha), how can any reasonable man maintain that I am a US citizen?

My newly-defined citizenship is De Facto, not De Jure, a fact which is reinforced by this written declaration submitted to a Court of Law. And that might be cause for concern among the various US institutions. I shall deal with their responses to such concerns as best I can as they arise. Meanwhile, however, I will proceed in my daily life as if I were (as I claim) a sovereign entity with a standing entirely equal to that of the United States.

:DOCUMENT ENDS.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“As time and design unfold, I could well end up being considered the Father of a Movement.”

Yahoo postings from the Next US President

I’m one of those fools who bother to post comments to various news articles appearing on Yahoo! News. I offer the following to give you an idea of how I would handle the US Presidency, if elected in 2012. My usual style is to open with a quote from the news article itself and go from there. Here goes:

ONE: On March 18, I posted:

“President Barack Obama said those responsible must be held accountable..."

Um...Mr. President, among "those responsible" is "that one in particular who is most responsible" - the man "we're" supporting - President [of Yemen] Saleh. So, Barack, how "must" we hold Saleh responsible? Send in Black Ops to kidnap and spirit him away to Gitmo? Got any other ideas? Let's hear them.

Oh, and while I'm at it, I'd like to remind you why "we" decided to get involved in Libya - Saleh (I mean, Gadhafi) was killing civilians. Oh, that's right, Saleh is killing civilians, too. Welllll......? Ball's in your court, Mr. President.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

       "As your next president, I would pull out all aid from Yemen and let the (very wealthy) Saudis worry about how to deal with their (very poor) next door neighbors in Yemen. And let the Yeminis take care of Saleh."

TWO: On March 17, I posted:

"The U.N. vote paved the way for possible international air strikes on Gadhafi's advancing military..."

Hmm...if Gadhafi's forces stand down, hold their positions, and take no hostile action - thereby honoring the resolution's "immediate establishment of a cease-fire" - could/should Gadhafi's forces be subjected to "international air strikes?" Also, since there is now a No Fly Zone and a cease fire in effect, does that mean the rebels can't even fly recon and that they, too, must cease hostilities? With a cease fire in place, this now-stalemated conflict could drag on for years.

There is a very good reason the Arab League states don't want to take the lead in militarily opposing Gadhafi. He'll find a way to get even. For instance - in the case of Egypt - he might well decide to bomb the Aswan High Dam.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

       "There's way more here than meets the eye - please note Germany's abstention. Things are going to get a whole lot more complicated."

THREE: On March 17, I posted:

[In response to Hilary Clinton asserting that a No Fly Zone must involve pre-emptive bombing of Gadhafi’s air defenses:]

No it doesn't. A No-Fly Zone doesn't have to be an absolute clamp. If (and this is a big IF) the US is going to do this, simply announce: Any of Gadhafi's forces that take to the air will incur consequences. That doesn't have to mean that those particular airborne craft will have to be met by scrambling our own. Clinton is speaking about bombing to reduce, in advance, any possible threat to our pilots. But...drones and long-range missiles (for instance, to blow up runways or jets parked on those runways) could do the job without risk to our pilots.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       "I still say the Arab League should be the sole enforcer of any No-Fly Zone."

FOUR: On March 17, I posted:

[In response to this posted by another commenter:] “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”  - Thomas Jefferson

It's interesting that Jefferson said that, since there wasn't a whole of "experience" in his day with "best forms of government." There were damn few models to choose from, and those that considered any form of "rights" were few and far between. I'm not saying his conclusion is wrong, but...he just didn't really have much "experience" upon which to base his statement.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       "Besides, the guy owned slaves so, in my view, that profoundly diminishes anything he said about 'tyranny.' Just saying..."

FIVE: On March 17, I posted:

Just say No... by voting for me. I'm the only presidential candidate who is refusing to accept campaign contributions at all...period. My approach is: If a certain critical mass of people like my message, and they in turn spread the word (this used to be called a "whispering campaign"), I hope to underwhelm the Big Money Boys. [That's right, "underwhelm."]

We don't have to continue buying into "more is better." Our whole way of life has been polluted by the "more is better" ideology, and look what it's doing to us. The race for more campaign $$ is just another way of saying, "The more $$ collected, the less of a voice the little guy will have." Maybe that's the idea, yes?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       "The billion $$ 'needed' to campaign for the presidency in this era of diminishing resources would be money better spent for (practically) any other purpose."

SIX: On March 16, I posted:

The worst news for Sarah Palin? If the computer-generated image of what she'd look look like after being President for four years ever gets out, nobody would vote for her. The irony? That image looks exactly like Nancy Pelosi.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       "Yeah, I've seen my own compu image and it looks pretty bad but...I never expected anybody to vote for me because of my looks...unlike some candidates out there."

SEVEN: On March 16, I posted:

Okay, everybody, time to sober up. Looks like Gadafi's going to win this thing - even with a No Fly Zone. The real work starts after he wins - that is, how will the World Community treat him in particular and Libya in general. Do "we" boycott their oil? Well...problem with that is, the Western companies that have contracts are about to have their contracts redirected to Russia, China and India. Boycotting would hurt those countries if they would try to sell that oil in Europe.

The real challenge: How do we "soft power" Gadafi (and his sons) out of power after "hard power" fails? Not to mention: How will the Arab League choose to interact with this "socialist," pretend Muslim dictator?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       "The easiest way is by means of a war of words - that is, if learned and respected Islamic scholars were to issue an avalanche of fatwas denouncing Gadafi as a traitor to the spirit of Islam, that could do more to influence him than anything the rebels have tried."

EIGHT: On March 16, I posted:

There are better ways than nuke plants for power generation. I’ll offer one off the top of my head: Geo-thermal.

Basically, the deeper into the earth you go, the hotter it gets. Drill down, pump water (even salt water would be OK) to take advantage of that heat to create steam, which can run turbines to create power. Not sure of cost/benefit analysis but…at least we won’t risk what’s happening in Japan (and that would save a couple of bucks, no?).

Also, don’t be too sure there aren’t other power gen methods already under patent but intentionally kept off the market. In the name of the public good, these must be accessed and that info disseminated. Of course, the people who profit from nuke plants won’t like that. Too bad.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       “Why does it always take a catastrophe for people to start looking for alts?”

NINE: On March 15, I posted:

[In response to market skittishness caused by the situation in Japan (tsunami & nuke power plant instability):]

"It's a situation where you sell first and ask questions later," said Peter Cardillo, chief market economist at New York-based brokerage house Avalon Partners....

Oh? And this guy is a chief market economist? He's just blowing smoke for his more knowledgeable clients, who will buy low from those who followed Peter's "advice." Everybody knows disasters make for good growth opportunities (RE: Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctine"). Sure, a lot of people have suffered in this disaster and more will suffer. But...even after the devastation of WWII, it didn't take long for Europe (and, more to the point, Japan) to rebound mightily, far exceeding their pre-war powers.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       "Tsk, tsk, Peter. You aren't an emperor but you surely have no clothes on at this particular time."

TEN: On March 15, I posted:

"French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe suggested that the fighting in Libya had already outpaced diplomatic efforts." I heard a rumor that a couple of French jets got into a dog fight with Gadhafi's air force. But no, there were no French jets in the sky - there were only Mirages.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       "France has a rather large Muslim population that is keenly interested in how much more than words France is willing to use."

ELEVEN: On March 15, I posted:

"...keeping him in solitary confinement for 23 hours while forcing him to be naked every night. The Pentagon has defended Manning's treatment as necessary to prevent the WikiLeaks suspect from attempting suicide."

Why don't they add another "security" measure - immobilize him by strapping him onto a gurney. That way, he couldn't try to bash his head in by running into a wall.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       "Why is this prisoner in Gitmo, anyway? Wasn't Obammer going to shut that down?"

TWELVE: On March 15, I posted:

"...we need a declaration of war.” – [in order to act in Libya, according to Senator Richard Lugar].

"No we don't. Obama as CINC can, under the parameters of the War Powers Act, respond militarily - essentially at his own discretion. And that response doesn't have to be of the Shock and Awe type. At this point, even a token response would have drastic impact.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       "If I were President, though, I would still do nothing unless Congress (by a two-thirds majority) resolved that I should."

THIRTEEN: On March 15, I posted:

Gadhafi warned rebels: "There are only two possibilities: Surrender or run away."

See? That shows Gadhafi isn't a genuine Muslim, since he fails to add a third possibility: "...or martyr yourselves."

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

       "Sometimes, it's what a person doesn't say that turns out to be the most telling."

FOURTEEN: On March 15, I posted:

"Even without prior evidence, if the ship's captain gave permission for the Israeli navy to board, the action is legal, David added."

And what do you suppose would have happened had the captain not acquiesed - er, I meant, given his "permission." And why did David have to "add" anything. If martime law is really on Israel's side on this one, there wasn't any need to "add" anything else, was there? Unless, maybe, David wasn't that sure about his martime law claim or his evidence claim.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"Doesn't matter, anyway. It's only a matter of time."

FIFTEEN: On March 14, I posted:

"Both Democrats and Republicans are accusing each other of not showing flexibility…[regarding the current impasse on federal budget legislation]"

Well that's true...they're not because they can't. If John Q. Public, because he's stuck in his ways, won't start voting for independents, then JQP will end up with Dem/Pubs who are stuck in their ways. Sounds like a lose-lose to me.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
     "Obama could have changed history by immediately going after the Senate filibuster rule...but he didn't. Another lose-lose."

SIXTEEN: On March 12, I posted:

By the time the “world community” – whatever that is – decides to impose a No-Fly Zone, it will be too late. Perhaps that’s the idea, yes? “Diplomacy” favors established governments – be they good ones or bad. If Gadhafi prevails, it will be interesting to see how he’ll manage to reingratiate himself (it was always about him, yes?) into the good graces of the WC. In his favor: Time heals all wounds (though most people don’t fully appreciate the karmic meaning of that truism).

The Arab League let a golden opportunity slip through its fingers. It asks the UN to impose a No-Fly Zone, but it could have taken action on its own. I don’t know who else the Arab League represents – other than its Arabic-speaking, Islamic-posturing oil barons – but it surely does not represent the Muslim man in the street. In fact, the AL is deathly afraid of that common but very numerous “man.”

The AL could have declared an NFZ on its own, basically saying, “Screw the United Nations, which has done little over the decades for the Arab/Muslim cause. We will deal with Gadhafi ourselves.” With that, only a token NFZ would be needed. You know, an occasional strike by an occasional (Saudi Arabian?) bomber against a solitary Libyan jet sitting on its runway. The NFZ doesn’t have to be absolute – since any action following such a declaration by the AL would have monstrously huge ripple effects.

And these ripples could give rise to the Pan-Islamic Union (or Caliphate, to use an ancient expression) many Muslim idealists have dreamt about for centuries. If only Arab/Muslim leaders would wake up and decide to act on their won.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       “And I would have no problem, as president, dealing with such an Islamic Union, since I – unlike most Western leaders and diplomats – am not afraid of the unknown” – Steve.

SEVENTEEN: On March 10, I posted:

“France on Thursday became the first country to formally recognize Libya's opposition National Council as the country's legitimate representative.”

Barack Obama, acting entirely on his own, can immediately pull diplomatic recognition from Gadhafi and grant it to the National Council. And he wouldn’t need the advice and consent of the Senate. He can do this entirely on his own. That single act would do more to rally the international community into action than anything else. And even if the revolution failed, he could continue to recognize that Council as a government in exile. And for this, he would actually deserve the Nobel Peace Prize (this time).

“Jones said, adding: ‘He's a key figure in this and very adept at using the Arab League.’”

Hmm…Jones should have said, “…and very adept at ENGAGING the Arab League.” I don’t think the AL would ever like thinking of itself as being “used.”

Suppose Iran decided to get involved by doing some off-shore shelling. That would certainly alter the equation, now wouldn’t it?

What “should” probably happen: Let Gadhafi crush the rebellion, while the US and EU do nothing, which will motivate the Muslim man in the street to ask, “How can we avenge these martyrs who died while the Arab League sat by and did nothing?”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

EIGHTEEN: On March 9, I posted:

“The nation hasn't figured out how to accommodate a sizable and long-established religious minority…”

What you mean by “the nation,” white man? This “minority” is surely part of that nation, as are that minority’s friends and allies among its fellow Americans.

If Rep. King were more honest and efficient in his efforts to get to the bottom of this issue, he wouldn’t be holding congressional hearings. What he needs to know can be learned by other more discreet, less incendiary means…isn’t that what we have intel services for? All King will succeed in doing with his grandstanding is “further stoking them fires.” But I guess that’s the point, isn’t it?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       “I guess the Pubbers need some kind of issue to blow hard about…guess this will do till something else comes along…which it will…always does.”

NINETEEN: On March 9, I posted:

Hal…well, well, well...out of 9 thumbs down, you are the one and only reader who bothered to post a reply. So I guess I have to set you straight.

First of all, you don’t speak for all Americans, so I’m not sure I know what you mean by “our way of life.” Believe, me…without even having met you, I can assure you that my way of life (as a Buddhist) is quite from yours. And how do I know that? Simple: No Buddhist worth his wisdom would write as you do.

You say, “This hearing is long overdue…” Actually, “this hearing” will be a waste of taxpayers’ money, just as surely as it was a waste of my Congressman’s time to take turns reading the Constitution on the House floor (you can thank Speaker Boner for that one). Time is money, let’s get cracking.

As I said, this hearing will not answer any questions. The answers you’re looking for are best obtained by intel, not by some grandstanding congressman.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       “As for who’s been blowing us up for 30 years, to an appreciable extent we have to look in the mirror to answer that one.”

TWENTY: On March 3, I posted:

“A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses," Gates told a congressional panel.

Gates used the word “begins.” Why? It should be a simple matter of simply declaring a no-fly zone. Then violations would be cause for further response. Spy-in-the-sky satellites or AWACS could easily detect, and prove to the world community, if Gadhafi violates any no-fly rule. One possible response: Flatten every single Libyan jet on the ground or (more kindly) bomb the runways. Or for every infraction, “You lose a jet.” People, this is way too easy. And Gates cannot see any of this? Fire the SOB.

I’m more worried about Obama basically telling Gadhafi he has 24-hours to get out of town. Sound familiar? Bush to Saddam? But…it didn’t take me long to see Obama as an incarnation of Bush, so that’s that.

Remember: Only Congress has power to declare war. Though of course the War Powers Act nibbles at that authority. Congress should pass a Resolution against intervention of any type in Libya. Or it should quickly say it gives Obama a free hand (just like Bush). Either way, Congress should (er) “participate” in any decision instead of rolling over and playing dead.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       “Why do we insist on leaving such momentous decisions in the hands of one man? Is that reflex a product of Abrahamist faith or other such partriarchal nonsense?” – Steve.

TWENTYONE: On March 3, I posted:

UnitedWeStand,

It's not a matter of whether I know more. I'll admit I don't. I'm more concerned as to why Gates is deliberately lying to Congress about where we have to "begin." Also, why didn't any of those Congressmen challenge him? Believe me, Gates isn't that intimidating - he's just got connections, that's all.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"If elected, I promise you this much: No more Gates's."

TWENTYTWO: On March 2, I posted:

@ John: I didn’t “blame everything on Bush.” I blamed Bush for recognizing Kosovo after encouraging them to declare their independence. Reread my post. No, on second thought, don’t. I doubt it would do any good.

@ Van The Man: My hero, Clinton? Okay…for the record, I think Clinton was (and still is) scum. He should have resigned the presidency after being found “not guilty) at his impeachment trial. Where did you get that Clinton is my hero?

@ Abe Paul: No, YOU really are dumb. “First, it was Clinton, not Bush!” (???) Define what you mean by “first.” My post criticized Bush for granting diplomatic recognition to Kosovo. Only the President can do that, and only Bush did that…and that violated international law in the process. As for “he was a Kosovo citizen”…we don’t know the full story yet as to his citizenship or loyalties. As I’d written, “Maybe, just maybe, this Kosovo citizen is really a Serbian.” Dude, reread those first three words.

@PatrickB: You, sir, with all due respect, are a joke. Everything I wrote was either factual or preceded with “maybe.” Go ahead, tell me how I’ve created “facts.” Can you identify even one instance? You have “experienced first hand the love for Clinton that the people exhibit?” Pray tell, which “people” are you talking about? Not all of them. The Serbs? I doubt it. You can lol all you want, but frankly, I’m counting on support from people with a lot more intelligence than you show – people who don’t lol quite so easily or foolishly, I might add.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       “Hello, out there in Yahooland. Too many yahoos who can’t post a decent reply.”

TWENTYTHREE: On March 2, I posted:

“but [the Pope] explains how with a thorough, Gospel-by-Gospel analysis [why the Jews weren’t to blame for the death of Jesus]...”(???)

Oh he does, does he? And this is something which centuries of Popedom couldn't have managed long before now? I'm starting to have grave doubts about this papal infallibility stuff.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       "Who cares what Pope R.A.T. [Royal Anti-christian Theologian] Zinger thinks, anyway? He's just another misguided Abrahamist."

TWENTYFOUR: On March 2, I posted:

Richard, I occasionally indulge in understatement along with the occasional acronym.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       "The reason our Founding Fathers messed up (e.g., the issue of slavery) is they didn't have access to the Buddhist scripture known as the Lotus Sutra, which was translated into a European language only after our Revolution. Had they known of this scripture, we would have avoided a whole lot of Abrahamist nonsense which ensued" - Steve.

TWENTYFIVE: On February 22, I posted:

"...as well as the powerful military have all profited richly from the corrupt system." You might include US arms manufacturers as beneficiaries of this corruption.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       "The Camp David Peace Accords = Jimmy Carter's cheap attempt to buy peace."

Bobo responded to the above by writing, “30 years of peace and stability is not cheap. Better then Steven Searle ever done.”

[To which, I reply:] Ah, Bobo, you need to take a more careful look. While it's true that Egypt and Israel stopped gunning it out, our hard-earned taxpayer dollars have done a lot more harm than good. For one thing, our cash helped Mubarak suppress his own people. Tell me, how stable is the Egyptian situation right now? [We bought and paid for that!]

Also, our cash pumps up the Israeli war machine which really hasn’t needed our help in decades. Did our cash buy us any consideration from the Zionists or do they feel emboldened to continue West Bank settlement expansion? Does the man in the street in the Middle East appreciate how much we’ve propped up Israel and autocratic regimes across the entire region?

Naw..didn’t think so. Not to mention, our cash could have been better used here at home.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       “Besides, after getting bloodied by Israel, Egypt would have sooner or later opted for non-belligerency. And that wouldn’t have cost us a dime.”

TWENTYSIX: On February 22, I posted:

(sigh) The biggest threat facing Israel has nothing to do with incoming ballistic missiles. It has everything to do with how it sold out against its religion in favor of its tribalism.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
       "As part of my campaign for the presidency, I won't be going to Israel to kowtow by putting a yarmulke on my head and swearing eternal fidelity to the Union of 12 Tribes" - Steve.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

The Arab League's No-Fly Zone (??)

By the time the “world community” – whatever that is – decides to impose a No-Fly Zone, it will be too late. Perhaps that’s the idea, yes? “Diplomacy” favors established governments – be they good ones or bad. If Gadhafi prevails, it will be interesting to see how he’ll manage to reingratiate himself (it was always about him, yes?) into the good graces of the WC. In his favor: Time heals all wounds (though most people don’t fully appreciate the karmic meaning of that truism).

The Arab League let a golden opportunity slip through its fingers. It asks the UN to impose a No-Fly Zone, but it could have taken action on its own. I don’t know who else the Arab League represents – other than its Arabic-speaking, Islamic-posturing oil barons – but it surely does not represent the Muslim man in the street. In fact, the AL is deathly afraid of that common but very numerous “man.”

The AL could have declared an NFZ on its own, basically saying, “Screw the United Nations, which has done little over the decades for the Arab/Muslim cause. We will deal with Gadhafi ourselves.” With that, only a token NFZ would be needed. You know, an occasional strike by an occasional (Saudi Arabian?) bomber against a solitary Libyan jet sitting on its runway. The NFZ doesn’t have to be absolute – since any action following such a declaration by the AL would have monstrously huge ripple effects.

And these ripples could give rise to the Pan-Islamic Union (or Caliphate, to use an ancient expression) many Muslim idealists have dreamt about for centuries. If only Arab/Muslim leaders would wake up and decide to act on their won.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

“And I would have no problem, as president, dealing with such an Islamic Union, since I – unlike most Western leaders and diplomats – am not afraid of the unknown” – Steve.

More thoughts on Libya

I successfully posted this as a comment to a Yahoo News article just now:

QUOTE:

“France on Thursday became the first country to formally recognize Libya's opposition National Council as the country's legitimate representative.”

Barack Obama, acting entirely on his own, can immediately pull diplomatic recognition from Gaddafi and grant it to the National Council. And he wouldn’t need the advice and consent of the Senate. He can do this entirely on his own. That single act would do more to rally the international community into action than anything else. And even if the revolution failed, he could continue to recognize that Council as a government in exile. And for this, he would actually deserve the Nobel Peace Prize (this time).

“Jones said, adding: ‘He's a key figure in this and very adept at using the Arab League.’”

Hmm…Jones should have said, “…and very adept at ENGAGING the Arab League.” I don’t think the AL would ever like thinking of itself as being “used.”

Suppose Iran decided to get involved by doing some off-shore shelling. That would certainly alter the equation, now wouldn’t it?

What “should” probably happen: Let Gaddafi crush the rebellion, while the US and EU do nothing, which will motivate the Muslim man in the street to ask, “How can we avenge these martyrs who died while the Arab League sat by and did nothing?”

:UNQUOTE.

An observation:

Since I believe that a Pan-Islamic Union will eventually come into being, leaders like Gaddafi will prove to be obsolete. How could a devout Muslim embrace a country named (by Gaddafi himself) the “Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab State of the Masses?”

My position

As a candidate for US president, hoping to unseat Barack Obama, I offer this much:

If I were president right now, I would propose that Congress pass a bill transferring US diplomatic recognition of Libya as I’d described above – from Gaddafi to the rebels. Even though the US Constitution gives this power entirely to the US President, I would relinquish that power – permanently.

That being said, I would make three exceptions before relinquishing:

·         Remove US diplomatic recognition from Israel;

·         Grant that recognition to Palestine;

·         Remove it from Kosovo, since President Bush had acted illegally by granting it in the first place.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Some revolutions have to be permitted to fail, so that they can arise again more powerfully.”

My reflections on the Libyan civil war

Opening statement:

I don’t have any independent, intimate knowledge of Libya, its people, Gadhafi, or the nuances of their current internal conflict. I am an American who, like the vast majority of my fellow citizens, has been fed only certain “facts” useful to our own ruling elite. That being said, I’ll offer some thoughts.

How quickly and massively they rose up…

I’m a bit suspicious as to the genuineness of this (apparently) popular and broad-based uprising. The rebels seemed to appear from nowhere and were everywhere at once. I’m not saying that’s impossible, though perhaps those fires were stoked by US operatives after having been nurtured for years (decades?). Decades…yes, why not? Once seeds are planted, one must be patient.

I’m also a bit suspicious as to how quickly came the call that Gadhafi should be brought up on war crimes charges. That was blatantly stupid – you don’t encourage a head of state to step down by threatening to bring him up on charges as soon as he’s out of power.

This much I’ve picked up on – my government doesn’t like Moammar El-Gadhafi. Frankly, I don’t care for what reason. That doesn’t matter in the overall scheme of things. But this dislike is obvious.

The fact that some of Gadhafi’s pilots abandoned his cause speaks volumes to me. For a military man to abandon his commander is profound – no matter from what area of the world he hails. He risks everything, especially if the revolution fails. He leaves behind family and friends who might suffer repercussions. And such a decision doesn’t come easily: It violates an ingrained default – that a soldier gives his superiors the benefit of a huge amount of doubt.

So why? What forces have worked on those who deserted from the ranks? Did long-term US subversion have anything to do with it? Were these men promised anything in exchange for their desertion? If, as has been argued, these men could not follow orders to bomb civilians, then they must truly rank among the exceptional. But…at this point, we really don’t know what their orders were. Remember: Truth is the first casualty of war.

And suppose they had been ordered to bomb civilians. What of that? There are military commanders the world over who would practice a little terrorism in the name of shortening the conflict and saving lives that would be lost otherwise. If you’re tempted to think “How awful,” keep two words in mind: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The issue of foreign intervention

Now I put on my hat as a presidential candidate in the 2012 US presidential election:

If I were president right now, I wouldn’t even be tempted to intervene – militarily or otherwise. In fact, I wouldn’t even make any move to freeze Libyan assets. If the US Congress wanted to take action, I would veto any bill they generated toward that end. Why? To force them to take a real stand – pass the bill over my veto with the required two-thirds majority.

It’s not that I wish to show support for Gadhafi by vetoing such legislation. I aim for a higher principle: I wish to destroy the Imperial US Presidency. I am aghast that any sane man would think one man should have the right to make or endorse an act of war. And that’s what such action would be – an act of war. And I emphasize – that’s all the US President is – one man. If the representatives of the American people – the duly-elected Congress – wish to take action, it should be by a bold (that is, two-thirds) majority. And I would serve notice that I, as one man, would not enable the Congress; would not make it any easier for them to make this decision. I would insist on as close to a bipartisan show of force as possible.

I personally believe the Libyan situation is a golden opportunity – to subtract the United States from the equation. We are not the policeman of the world. Leadership from other quarters will never come to the fore if we keep butting in. In this case, it is far more appropriate for other actors to step up to this stage. I’m thinking of other Muslim states primarily. Hasn’t the West been accused of meddling in Islamic affairs far too often?

I hope, after all is said and done, that the House of Saud will not be found lacking in charity. That they didn’t sit on their billions rather than render even a token amount of humanitarian aid. And as for establishing any kind of a No-Fly Zone, Saudi Arabia has a very capable air force.

Ah, yes…that whole business of the No-Fly Zone. No one wants to take any initiative. Leading players in the West speak of obtaining consensus to enable UN enforcement. But why? People like US Defense Secretary Gates pretend it would be difficult for the US to enforce such a Zone. But the good secretary is being deceptive. What he’s talking about is a foolproof net that dominates the entire Libyan countryside. And he says the US would first have to bomb Libyan air defenses to start the ball rolling.

Who is he kidding? If (and I’m being Devil’s Advocate here) the US, the EU, any single one of the EU countries (or a few acting collectively), or any of the Islamic states wanted to, they could simply decree such a Zone. They could announce: “If the Libyan air force puts a single plane in the air over rebel-held territory [or, if you’d prefer, the whole country], we will retaliate at a time and place of our choosing.”

That means, “we” wouldn’t have to scramble our jets each time one of Gadhafi’s aircraft went airborne. The decree could add: “For each plane you put up, we’ll flatten one parked on one of your runways…[or we’ll flatten them all, if you’d prefer].” And this "flattening" process doesn't even have to involve risk to "our" jets and pilots, since ship-to-surface missiles targeted by satellite or drones could do this trick quite nicely.

Final words for today

I don’t automatically accept that the intentions of my country are entirely honorable as regards Gadhafi, his fate, and that of Libya. I do, however, hope that others are allowed (by means of US non-intervention) to open a new chapter in the world’s use of its various powers.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“If we have a Congress full of independents, we’d be much likelier to do the right thing.”

Running on empty, for US President

Psst…a couple of things on my mind today:

·         So far, I’m truly in this thing alone…just as I was in the last election;

·         I won’t accept campaign contributions;

·         Help Wanted: I could use a campaign manager and web advisor and…a female running mate (it’s in my contract that I seek the presidency with a VP-seeker who is a woman);

·         Renouncing my citizenship in order to embrace Greater Terra;

·         bpa_cinc@yahoo.com … that’s my e-mail address…ask and you shall receive.

Running on empty: So far, I’m truly in this thing alone…

As you know, I’m running for US President in 2012. You might not know – I have absolutely no backing. Not even “moral support.” And I’m not independently wealthy – only making $38K per year as a state civil servant. And I don’t have any connections.

So why bother – again? Yes, I had run in the last election as well. And I am running now same as I had back then – basing my campaign on ideas. I walked away from the last election with bragging rights: I can claim I was the only presidential candidate in the history of this country to run on the basis of a written contract. And I hope to use these bragging rights for another challenge in 2012. But more than rights will be needed – I’ll need the assistance of others who share my vision as outlined in other postings on this blog*.

On thing should work in my favor: Barack Obama has massively disappointed a lot of his early followers – the ones who bought into “Change you can believe in.” Now, more than ever, I’m hoping voters will come to see the value of my chief message: Unless we elect independents to Congress and the presidency, we will eventually be destroyed by the two-party system, a far more dangerous threat than the GWOT.

The potency of The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle

Do not underestimate the power of candidates giving their word to voters by means of a written contract. I think our citizens are fed up with lying politicians – even those who lie by claiming to be practical by appealing to “the center.” I sense that people yearn for a man of his word – one who is willing to bind himself to his word. Someone who doesn’t end up “surprising” his initial supporters with over-the-top compromises (aka “sellouts”).

I am proud of my innovative contract that had listed 47 campaign promises, any one of which would have caused me to forfeit the presidency were I to be found guilty of nonperformance.

I felt this promise was especially appealing (#2 in my contract document):

“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.” [NOTE: All of my promises were like this one – involving decisions which I alone could make. That way I couldn’t weasel out by saying, “Congress didn’t vote for my proposal, so how could I be accused of violating my contract? I did my part”]

[In the case of this “90 days” promise, for example, I would not need congressional approval. As Commander in Chief of all US armed forces, I could unilaterally act to withdraw these forces as promised.]

During one of my few campaign speeches back in 2007, one woman in the audience of 30 informed me: “Campaign promises cannot be enforced in a court of law.” That’s when I informed her of the very first promise in this contract [and I quote]:

“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.”

I told her that she was right – that promises by politicians can’t be enforced in a court of law. Which is exactly why I chose to circumvent courts of law. Which only makes sense, since there’s only one way to remove a president from office anyway – and that’s by impeachment. As I told this audience: “Look, imagine this…if I actually win the presidency as an Independent, don’t you think the Congress (dominated by party animals) would seize upon any excuse to remove me from office? They would scrutinize my contract for any whiff of a violation – and then impeach me for failure to honor my word. I’m counting on my enemies to help me keep my word – for your benefit.”

In other words, I propose to use the system against itself to save itself.

I’m also counting on a lot of anonymous, ordinary people (like me!) to tune into what I’m saying and conclude: “This is worthy of support. I’m in. What can I do?”

I won’t accept campaign contributions

Election 2012 will set the bar at $1 billion to become the next president. We may or may not actually see any one candidate pull in that much. But the last election makes this prospect in 2012 a strong possibility. In any event, the winning candidate will be the one who comes closest to this mark – or at least that’s conventional wisdom.

And isn’t that sad? Doesn’t it sicken you a little when pundits gleefully report fund-raising stats as the primary season wears on?

This is an area in which I hope to set a new standard: I am intentionally refusing to solicit – and will not accept – any campaign donations. I want to stand in the sharpest possible contrast to those who buy into the idea that “we have the best politicians money can buy.”

The only concession I will make is to agree to be paid for any speeches I deliver and articles/books I might write. That, however, will be personal income which I will use to promote the ideas behind my campaign and the campaign itself. The only other possibility will consist of others – people not under my influence, pay, or control – who act on their own to advertise the merits of my campaign. I am counting on those people to spontaneously decide – without any solicitation by me – to rise up and spread the word.

Of course, that would mean I wouldn’t have any control over content or means of propagation. But…I can live with that.

In all fairness, I feel I must issue a disclosure here: During the last election, I tried my hand at fundraising – and came up totally empty. I suppose such a revelation should be embarrassing, but I don’t embarrass easily. And I hope my honesty here is appreciated.

Help Wanted

I can use a campaign manager(s), web advisor, and a female running mate. The lesson I learned in the last campaign – “Steve, you can’t do this alone.” One of my gravest weaknesses is lack of internet savvy – I don’t even have a website. And I don’t have any clue on how to use the web to attract public interest. As I wrote above, I don’t care about fundraising but “spreading the word” is crucial.

As for a manager and advisor, I am asking for volunteers who will work without pay. But these positions aren’t expected to be full time or to be held by only one or two people. For instance, anyone who can arrange a speaking engagement – even just one time – would be acting as a campaign manager. And there could perhaps be dozens of such individuals working in isolation, though coordinating with me at a distance if necessary. And I would eagerly accept help from non-US citizens – both within and without the United States.

As for the female running mate: That’s not negotiable. As I’d specified in my 2008 contract:

“I will not choose anyone to be my Vice President who is not a woman. Though I will insist that she present an electoral contract to the American people, I will not insist that it be a duplicate of my contract. In addition, I will allow her total freedom to operate within the capacity of her office as she sees fit, without supervision or censorship.”

Renouncing my citizenship

I am in the process of renouncing my US citizenship, for very practical reasons. Right now, I satisfy the requirement in the US Constitution that no person may serve as president except a “natural born citizen.” However, the manner in which I’ve chosen to renounce my citizenship would have a distinct advantage: I would do so in a way not recognized by US law. This is from one of the US State Department’s websites:

QUOTE:

Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)…is the section of law that governs the ability of a United States citizen to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. That section of law provides for the loss of nationality by voluntarily performing the following act with the intent to relinquish his or her U.S. nationality:

“(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State” (emphasis added.).

:UNQUOTE [http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html]

As emphasized in the quote (above), I could not legally renounce unless I leave the U.S. – which I don’t intend to do. If I don’t renounce in a foreign state, the US will not recognize me as a non-citizen. However, for the US government to attempt to dictate how I choose to sever my connection would be a violation of my personal sovereignty as implied in the Tenth Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

States aren’t the only entities that possess sovereignty – each individual has personal sovereignty as well, which could simply be called “choice.” And each of us has a right to define his personal loyalties. Also important: Our government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. We make a big deal out of that particular sentiment.

My status as a “light being”

I have a friend who says we’re all light beings who got lost, and have to return to the light. I’ll spare you the particulars of her theology, but I consider the question of my citizenship to be roughly equal to this question: “Is light a particle or a wave?” In physics, the answer is “Light is both – in certain aspects it is a particle, in others it displays wave characteristics.”

In like manner: “Is Steven Searle a US citizen or a citizen of Greater Terra?”

In the eyes of the US government, I will always remain a citizen unless I follow their procedure to renounce. Of course, I could sue the government, claiming violation of my constitutional rights by disallowing my preferred method of renunciation: By means of either (or both) a legal notice posted in a newspaper or (likelier) as part of my formal documentation submitted to a judge who will be hearing my credit card case** on April 5.

But I will not bother to try forcing the government to recognize me as a non-US citizen, by suing in Court. Why should I? I would enjoy certain benefits by being “both a US citizen and not a US citizen.” I get to assert my personal sovereignty and stay put – the best of both possible worlds. The US government couldn’t deport me, since (under its own definition) I am still a US citizen who would still be eligible for the US presidency.

But in any de facto sense, I would no longer be a citizen since I would make a “declaration, on oath.” I’ll detail what I mean by that after you consider this:

QUOTE:

I hereby declare, on oath [my emphasis – Steve], that I…renounce…all allegiance…to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law…

:UNQUOTE.

This quoted portion is what all immigrants must “declare,” in the process of becoming US citizens. It seems to me that the important part is to “declare, on oath,” so in order to shed my citizenship I would simply “declare, on oath”:

·         I will not bear true faith and allegiance to the United States, but instead do so to the world as a whole – that is, I declare myself to be a citizen of the Earth – or, using my own term, of Greater Terra. By “Greater,” I mean the world as it can and should be after we rid ourselves of the scourge of national sovereignties.

·         I can only support the Constitution to this extent: We have to have something upon which to rely until we hold a long overdue Constitutional Convention to write a new constitution.

·         I will not bear arms as required by law, since the Constitution itself (13^th amendment) bars military conscription as a form of involuntary servitude. Any “bearing of arms” I would do would not be required by law but only by the dictates of my personal sovereignty.

·         I never did “pledge allegiance to the flag,” since this is just another form of idolatry. So I couldn’t even recite the “Pledge of Allegiance.”

But…why renounce?

Why renounce? Why do something that would actually cause a lot of people to hate me? Not to mention, not vote for me?

My entire campaign for the US presidency is, in reality, an attempt to reach out to all world citizens in order to create that better world all decent people yearn for. And the only way for me to do that is by making a statement: “I’m no longer a provincial, tribal, exceptional US citizen; I embrace the whole world and seek the betterment of all of Greater Terra’s inhabitants – not just those who happen to live in my neighborhood.” Of course, for me to turn US voters on to this concept will be quite an undertaking – which is why I seek help from any corner of the globe.

Just “call” me

I want to open things up a bit by giving you my personal e-mail address: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com . Ask me anything you’d like or volunteer your opinions or campaign assistance. The Buddha is said to have mostly preached in response to questions. Though I’m not a Buddha, I’d like to try his approach. So far, on this blog, I’ve written about what interests me, while only guessing what might be of interest to you. But…it’s a big world out there with a lot of people embracing wildly varying viewpoints. And, besides, I’m a terrible guesser. So…I leave it to you to ask away.

I will assume, unless you say otherwise, that I am free to post your e-mail’s text and my response on this blog. I won’t, however, post your e-mail address or any personal info you might share with me.

Steven Searle for US President in 2021

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“We can do this – and should. 2012 is just around the corner.”

  * “other postings on this blog” – for instance:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/written-political-contracts.html

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

 ** “credit card court case” –

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/11/tax-dodger-black-reparationist-or-both.html