The US Debt Crisis: A Better Approach

The current situation: The US managed to dodge a bullet by (barely) beating the Aug. 2 deadline to increase our borrowing limit. But there were costs:

·       An immediate negative stock market reaction when investors realized the government would be less likely to spend in order to pull us out of recession;

·       A loss of confidence in our government by US citizens who saw far too many instances of leaders from the monopoly parties acting badly;

·       A downgrade from our AAA bond rating for the first time in our history (probably because the Powers-that-Be failed to offer S&P a large enough bribe not to);

·       No assurance that our long-term problems will ever be satisfactorily resolved.

Proposal: Our debt bomb can best be defused by implementing a new national constitution based on Cross-Sectional Representation (CSR).

Background note: I developed CSR in the mid-70’s and have posted on this concept numerous times on this blog. Most notably at:

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

Question: Could a government based on Cross-Sectional Representation have done any better in terms of raising the borrowing limit and cutting expenses?

To recap CSR: Before answering the question posed above, it will be necessary for me to recap exactly what CSR is. This I’ll do by quoting directly from a truly unique historic document: “The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle, candidate for US President in 2008”:

Cross-Sectional Representation: The 435 Congressional Districts now in existence share a fatal flaw: they are distinct physical locations. Each district should be replaced with a new unit: the Cross-Section. Every eligible voter in the country should be randomly assigned to one of 435 numerically-equal Cross-Sections. A Congressman would still be elected, but his constituency would consist of voters who, as members of a Cross-Section, are literally scattered all over the country. This way, we avoid having Congressmen trying to please local constituencies at the expense of our broader, national interests. My proposal includes: Abolishing the U.S. Senate, thereby making the House our sole national legislative body.

 

Also included in CSR:

·       All federal court decisions can be overturned by a simple majority of the CSR House.

·       Abolition of the Presidency as a separate branch of government. Specifically: The President would not be popularly-elected, but would instead be a Congressman chosen by a simple majority of his peers in the CSR House. This “president” would only have the power (to the same extent as does our current president) to launch nuclear weapons; he would not have any other powers.

·       Election to the CSR House can only be facilitated by posting campaign material on-line at a designated website. This will, in effect, eliminate the need for political parties and fundraising for office.

·       Elections to the CSR House (for terms of about 3.5 years) would be staggered so that one seat to the House would be up for election every three days, instead of all seats every two years (which is the current practice).

So, how could CSR have done a better job?

The last bullet point (above) gives part of the answer. Right now, drama is created by Congressmen – all of them at once – worrying about reelection. That’s a huge force animating our virtual siege mentality when it comes to public debate on vital issues. Also, the fact that only one-third of the Senate is up for reelection takes considerable pressure off the other two-thirds.

But “pressure” and “drama” shouldn’t drive policy-making. The collective wisdom of our lawmakers should be the driving force – especially lawmakers who aren’t members of any political party. Due to the unique nature of CSR (detailed in the link above), political parties and bosses as we currently know them will cease to exist.

With each lawmaker freed from worrying about (1) advancing his party’s interests and (2) the influence of geographically-based Congressional Districts, he’ll be likelier to pass laws for more pragmatic reasons.

To put a finer point on item (2) above: There is a determined minority of Right-Wingers who are able to dominate the political agenda in this country because they can have a decisive effect on electing Congressmen in certain Districts where their numbers are concentrated. However, if we replace Districts with Cross-Sections, this “determined minority” will not be as effective since they can’t as easily sway Cross-Sections which are literally composed of average citizens who aren’t neighbors.

The role of the President

Right now, we have a system of government in which one man is allowed to be one of its three branches. And during the recent debt-ceiling debate, we were treated to the spectacle of this One Man Branch of Government coming right out and saying (in more or less these words): “Increase the debt limit by a large enough amount that I won’t have to be bothered by this issue again before I’m reelected in 2012.”

Not only was Barack Obama blatantly concerned about his prospects for reelection, but (as leader of his party) was concerned about his party’s prospects as well. [Reminder: Under CSR, there are practical reasons why parties or even lobbyists, for that matter, could no longer exert their present undue influence.]

In terms of efficiently passing laws that avoid “kicking the can down the road,” nothing is more destructive than the One Man Monarch (oops, I meant, One Man Branch of Government) and a Congress run by the seniority system which rules over committees.

The role of the Congress

The way Congress passes legislation is characterized by multiple built-in oppressors:

·       Bills can too easily die in committee (they can be pried loose from committee control, but only with great difficulty);

·       Chairmen of committees have too much power to control the fate of bills;

·       The Speaker of the House can decide when or even if certain pieces of legislation can even be voted on;

·       The Senate filibuster always looms large as a discouraging specter.

Had CSR been in effect, each Congressman could have reacted to the August 2 deadline for debt-ceiling increase by having made in advance (say, by July 27) the following sworn public statement:

QUOTE:

I will only vote for a bill to increase the national debt if it contains the following provisions:

ONE: To raise the debt-ceiling, but only by an amount sufficient to enable borrowing for one more quarter.

TWO: To mandate spending cuts of $1T spread over a decade, with at least 30% of those cuts to occur within the first three years.

THREE: To include this oath which would irrevocably bar consideration of any other debt-increase bill for two months: “By voting for this bill, I hereby swear by means of an oath, equal in authority to the Oath of Office which is required of all Representatives before assuming office, that I will not vote for any other bill to raise the debt ceiling earlier than 2 months from today.”

:UNQUOTE.

This type of bill would have great power based, as it is, on an oath and by preventing any kind of change-of-mind should future Congresses decide they didn’t want to trim spending so drastically. By allowing for only quarter-by-quarter increases in the debt ceiling, Congress and the President would be challenged to stay the course and remain mindful of their responsibilities.

This kind of bill would have been a “take it or leave it” offer to the Senate, which the Senate could not refuse since (due to the oath contained therein) the House could not consider any other variation for two months. Similar examples of legislative creativity aren’t possible under our current, overly-rigid system.

The following link describes a Congress (or even just a House) that can operate in a more streamlined (not to mention, creative) fashion, unhindered by a hierarchal Committee system:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/04/long-arm-of-law.html

Cuts in spending & changes in taxing

Our biggest problem is we have too many sacred cows protected by too many vested interests. Put another way: “We’ve become expert at thwarting reform.” But if we continue to insist on remaining so “expert” at keeping good solutions (and problem-solvers) at bay, only bad solutions will remain. The worst? Our Elite will decide there are too many of us to properly take care of, so they’ll find a way to thin the herd. A war? An artificially-induced pestilence? Invite other-worldly aliens to take a whack at us?

I like to think an Independent House, as established by CSR, could level the playing field and wouldn’t be afraid to create:

·       An equitable tax system good for the country as a whole;

·       Rules to govern bond rating agencies to assure a consistent and scientific basis for their ratings;

·       A military, no longer operating from over 700 overseas bases, that isn’t obligated to police the entire world;

·       A reformed judiciary system (possibly allowing for non-traditional judges and ombudsmen) where participants don’t have to pay to play – that is, where justice isn’t so damned expensive;

·       Alternatives to an education that aren’t as expensive as what the states are willing to allow. In this age of the internet, there should be widely-available access for citizens to educate themselves on-line, with credit for this knowledge being transferable to more traditional institutions;

·       An environment where states would be barred from competing for business with other states by means of offering tax breaks or financial incentives to relocate;

·       A cost of doing business which includes regulation of exotic financial instruments and disallowal of hidden ownership laws and off-shore shell corporations;

·       Usury laws to deny outrageous rates of interest for credit card activity or bank loans;

·       An equitable working environment for all, and not just for those who belong to a union, which assures fair treatment on the job and the possibility of a decent wage.

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Of course, we could continue on our current course and simply allow the chips to fall where they may. But I guarantee that will please few of you.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

US President’s weekly Yahoo News updates

Once per week, I consolidate comments I’d posted to recent articles appearing on Yahoo News. I share my views, written as if I actually were the US President. [I’m working on that.] The following were posted between July 31 and today, though appear below in no particular order. As is my usual custom, if I open with a quoted item, that’s from the article itself.

I hope you enjoy all 21 of these mini-essays/comments.

ONE:

No pain, no gain. The only language people understand is money, which doesn’t just talk – it screams. Once the Dow falls to (oh, say) 5,000, maybe people will be ready to vote out all of the Dem/Pubs and elect Independents. By that time, however, it will be too late, since the Elite will have imposed martial law and suspended the Constitution under a State of Emergency.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Nasty habits are hard to break. But if we don’t break our nastiest – that of robotically electing Dem/Pubs to office – we’ll have only ourselves to blame as we peer out from behind the fences of FEMA concentration camps.”

TWO:

As scripture, the Bible has some strong points. But if George Washington had access to the Buddhist scripture known as the Lotus Sutra, he would have cast the Bible aside. But...the Lotus had not been translated into any of the Western languages at the time of the American Revolution. Our Revolution would have had a much firmer basis in the truth if it had.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Ah, timing is everything: Karma 101.”...

THREE:

“Do you want to share the world with the Chinese or with nuclear-armed Iran?” he says. “The only thing worse than Americans running the world is someone else running the world.”

In the first sentence, Donnelly of AEI (barf!) talks about sharing the world. In the very next sentence, he talks about “someone else running the world” – as if we, at present, are “running the world” (which is truer than it should be). I wonder if Donnelly himself was aware of what had just come out of his mouth.

Why not share the world with the Chinese? Haven’t they tolerated Western domination for centuries? And, no, they’re not going to rape your women – they just want to know what it feels like to be a Superpower. We’d be hypocrites to blame them.

As for the Defense budget – even if you cut it in half, Special Ops would find ways to illegally finance military “needs.” If we’re serious about reducing defense spending (which we aren’t, by the way), we would pass a law barring all lobbyists from even entering the Pentagon, & preventing all retired generals from going to work for civilian defense contractors.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“In spite of this so-called historic bipartisan debt compromise, we still accomplished only one thing – kicked the can down the road.”

FOUR:

“… petition for divine assistance to help the nation emerge from its financial woes and other crises” – [quote from Texas governor & possible presidential candidate Rick Perry]

I heard some Native Americans (aka Indians with feathers, not dots) offered to teach [Texas Governor] Perry how to do a rain dance. Texas could use some of that heavenly elixir. Perry declined their offer since these heathen redskins weren’t Christians and besides, “I’d look pretty silly prancing around like that!”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Beggars can’t be choosers.”

FIVE:

My response to another poster who had written, “Our 2 party system is not working! I wish that the politicians could understand that” follows:

It's not the politicians - it's We the People who have to understand that AND do something about it. I'm waiting!

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"Out of 300M people in this country, why do we allow ourselves to be forced to choose between Two Party mediocrities?"

SIX:

[RE: Ralph Nader’s comment that he expects Obama to be challenged in the Democratic primaries.]

I wonder how much the GOP is paying Nader to make such noise.

There’s one very good reason why Obama will not have a serious challenger during the primaries – a reason that scares the daylights out of the GOP. If Obama isn’t challenged during the primaries, the Dem strategists will quietly (or maybe not so quietly) spread the word to their rank and file: Don’t vote in our primaries, ask for a GOP ballot instead, so you can vote for Michelle Bachmann.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Such cross-over voting is legal and has happened in the past, but 2012 offers a golden opp for really screwing the GOP’s primary results.”

SEVEN:

Oh, I’m sure Obama will be faced with some gadfly irritant of a [Democratic primary] opponent who has no chance and isn’t really a serious candidate. But such “candidates” are useful to allow angry primary voters to let off steam. But as for real change you can believe in? Well, you’ve already got that. His name is Barack Obama…yuck, yuck, yuck.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“We’re too scared of our own shadow to create an independent, third party. So we’ll fall back on our knee-jerk Brand X (Dems) vs. Brand Y (GOP) thinking. Oh, well…so much for our spirit of independence.”

EIGHT:

“Scientists expect the payoff to be well worth the long journey.” It’s always easy for a project to be “well worth” it to scientists, when taxpayers are footing the bill.

"What we're really going after is some of the most fundamental questions of our solar system — how Jupiter formed, how it evolved [and how it managed to exert such an influence on us that we spend money we don’t have to get there].”

"My biggest hope is that all of our predictions about Jupiter are wrong, and that we find something completely different than what we expect. [That way, we can play the Fear Card, asking Congress for more money since they always cough up when faced with Fear of the Unknown.]”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If elected, I will veto NASA's funding, saying, ‘If these space projects are so valuable, then let private enterprise partner with universities to pay for them. Or, how about a Coalition of the Willing? That scam worked with our wars so…’”

NINE:

[The “outcome” mentioned in the next sentence is the possibility of even greater cuts in the military budget.]

"It is an outcome that would be completely unacceptable to me as secretary of defense…”

Well, Mr. Secretary, either man up and deal with it or tender your resignation. If I’m elected in 2012, I’ll simplify that with, “You’re fired!”

Mr. Panetta worries about the ability to “project our power.” But tell me, sir, if the Chinese wanted to project their power by intervening in South America with joint training exercises (all in the name of “defense” of course), how could you object? We have no qualms about projecting our power (again, in the name of “defense”) in China’s back yard.

We still outspend China at least three-to-one in terms of defense, not to mention the decades of head start we've had. Good God, man, how much “defense” is enough? As for the US asking questions of Beijing, a proper Chinese response would be, “What part of 'None of your dam business' do you not understand?” Which is exactly what we would say should Beijing “question” Washington.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If elected, I would fire at least 10% of the top officer corps. Most people don’t realize how dangerous to our national security are generals who are too comfortable in their positions. But…no one talks about that!”

TEN:

[Mystery companies, before disbanding, donating to Romney's PAC.]

Being as connected as he is to the Mormon elite, there will be a lot more money than that magically appearing.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“You DO believe in magic, don’t you?”

ELEVEN:

@ Zeke199,

You’re not asking the right question: “how chummy do you want to be with a [Muslim] religious system…?” One does not get “chummy” with systems; one gets chummy with people.

The few Muslims I’ve encountered have been admirable people. Do they secretly wish me a nasty death? Maybe, though I have had nasty Christians tell me to my face I’m going to burn in Hell. I have problems with the narratives of all of the Abrahamic  faiths, which is exactly why I’m a Buddhist.

I’m sure a lot of militant Islamic rhetoric would tone down once we stop oppressing their people and occupying their lands. Most people, I strongly suspect, aren’t really very well steeped in their own theology. [For instance, my Muslim friends are stumped when I point out that Mohammed didn’t receive his revelations directly from God (and why not?) but from Gabriel.]

But Muslims do know this much: They want good things for their families, and don't look kindly on those who would deny that.

TWELVE:

@ Pete

So “True Christianity” doesn’t believe that Jesus Christ is the literal son of God? How interesting! As for Catholics being polytheistic, they would deny that of course. The Trinity is called a mystery, which is how Catholics get to embrace monotheism. Think of it this way: Is light a wave or a particle? It exhibits both wave and particle characteristics; so, it is both and neither, yet it is fundamental, unique, and indivisible – kind of like a Trinitarian God is supposed to be, yes?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I hope you all don’t cherry pick certain Quranic scriptures, since you might not like it if others were that selective with the Bible.”

THIRTEEN:

J,

The Dem/Pubs have already shamelessly trashed the Constitution by decades of gnawing away at its meanings and protections. I aim to replace it (not just amend it, but replace the whole thing) with a new Law of the Land based on Cross-Sectional Representation. If we insist on hanging on to this antiquated relic, I assure you that will be the end of the United States. It’s that serious.

As far as NASA is concerned, I personally would like to see a transfer of its programs to a consortium of universities and private companies. But I would leave that decision to a Congress composed entirely of Independents.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Save the Republic from the ravages of the runaway Two Party System – vote Independent.”

FOURTEEN:

Government spending which creates jobs is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. If government expenditures would decrease, that would free up more money for taxpayers to spend or invest in the economy. And that would create jobs for the best of reasons – due to an increase in economic activity. Government is not a very efficient spender, so the less it spends, the better. Leave spending up to those who know how – We the People.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Too much reliance on government-as-employer leads to a lazy welfare attitude.”

FIFTEEN:

“[The asteroid] Vesta is ‘so rich in features’ that it will keep scientists busy for years…”

Well, at least those folks have jobs.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“No need to scuttle projects like this in the name of balancing the budget…just keep moving along folks and mind your own business.”

SIXTEEN:

So (almost) all the GOP prez candidates are against the debt deal. But does that mean, if they were in the Congress, would they have voted against it? [NOTE: We already know Bachmann & Ron Paul voted “no.”]

Interestingly, as many Dems voted for it as against it: 95 each. And more Dems voted “no” than did Republicans: 95 vs. 66.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The saddest thing? Voters will forget how close we came to disaster (and will fail to realize we're still not out of the woods on this) and will continue to re-elected Dem/Pub incumbents. Yea, they’ll be mad at them but…they’ll still vote for them.”

SEVENTEEN:

“… I think it is safe to say…neither Congress nor anyone else may prevent [outstanding US bonds] from being paid. That seems fairly clear.”

“I think?” “Fairly clear?” These words don’t convey much strength of conviction, do they?

Professor Sheppard makes certain leaps by claiming: “I think that [Obama] …is absolutely required to pay the bonds. The whole point of the 14th Amendment's section four was to make sure that the public debt would be above politics, that there could never be a question of the full faith and credit of the United States.”

Is Sheppard taking money under the table from foreign holders of US bonds, making him say stuff like this? Section four simply states: “The validity of the public debt of the United States… shall not be questioned.”

Professor, nobody was questioning that debt’s validity nor do the words “full faith and credit of the United States” even appear in the amendment. The issue before Congress was the manner and conditions under which that debt is to be paid. In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t even state that our public debt must be paid; it only says that debt “shall not be questioned.”

To put a finer point on the matter, Section 5 of the 14th states: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article [that is, “amendment”].” It doesn’t say “Obama shall have the power to enforce by raising the debt limit without authorization by Congress.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If Obama would have listened to Professor Sheppard, he might have ended up being impeached. Just saying…”

EIGHTEEN:

“… would be affected, as would payments to doctors and other Medicare providers.”

Much is made of the fact that individual benefits would not be affected but providers would get the shaft. But no one has made it clear that providers couldn’t deny services or demand supplementary payment from patients. A little more clarity is needed here.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Look at the bright side: Our Bombs for Libya program wasn’t cut back.”

NINETEEN:

Maybe a Constitutional amendment would be too much, but sooner or later the feds will have to deal with a “half slave, half free” situation. Meaning: If a gay couple from New York gets married (in New York) and then decides to move to a state which doesn’t allow for gay marriage or civil unions, would or should that marriage be recognized by that second state?

Suppose the partners decide, in that second state, to get a divorce. Would they have to do so in NY? Could wills be tied up in probate if relatives decided to challenge the legality of that marriage in that second state?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“It never gets any easier, does it?”

TWENTY:

[My response to Bob, who had responded to the questions I asked in NINETEEN (above).]

Bob,

I’m not so sure about my questions having been “legally decided.” I hear what you’re saying about “legal contract,” but some might argue that marriage is more than just a legal contract (or it’s unique enough to require “special” consideration). If that argument were to prevail, that would open doors to a sweeping judicial scrutiny.

Your second sentence raises a question: If that second state does not have laws governing the contract, then couldn’t that be construed as a form of (de facto) invalidation? I still see a need for the feds to get involved, in the name of “equal protection under the law.” I’ve seen contracts that are considered iron-clad end up before a judge – with sometimes surprising results.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The marriage contract is going to come under severe pressure, if from no other source than activist judges.”

TWENTY-ONE:

Not so fast on “the Senate will never convict [Obama on an impeachment charge].” Conviction wouldn’t actually be necessary for the GOP to savage Obama for this transgression. Picture this: Presidential candidate and US Rep Michelle Bachmann leading the charge by filing a motion to impeach Obama. The House will pass this motion but – and this is the important part – not right away. There will be much prolonging of the proceedings with a lot of theater and testimony and rabble-rousing. This will be the opening and sustaining shot of Campaign 2012.

The 14^th Amendment states: “The validity of the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned.” Nobody is questioning it – what is being questioned are the circumstances and conditions under which it will be paid and under which future debt, in order to be considered valid, will be incurred. And those “circumstances” could involve default (which the Constitution doesn’t specifically bar), which would lead to a restructuring of our debt among our creditors. Again, no one is questioning this debt’s validity. Just as when individuals go to bankruptcy court – the debts are acknowledged as valid. What remains is for the court to decide how to proceed.

Another thing, not fully appreciated: The Fourteenth Amendment was passed under duress. The Southern States, where the Tea Party has a lot of room for growth, know this. Obama would be unwise to use the Fourteenth [to increase our debt limit under his own (and only his own) authority], unless he wants to start a new Civil War. Steven Searle for US President in 2012 “The GOP would have no choice but to impeach Obama, even if the Senate wouldn’t vote to convict.”

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“If it seems that I push the envelope with some of my pronouncements, that’s only in the spirit of ‘the mail must go through.’”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

My Challenge to the US Military

My challenge to the US military is simply this: Think!  Think about the oath you swore upon entering the service.

Is it too much to ask of someone who swears an oath to think about what that oath means? This is no idle question, for the day might come when you will be morally compelled to take action based on that oath. I am referring to that part which states:

“…I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”

You do realize, of course, that if you are called upon to “defend the Constitution…against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” you might have to take military action (shoot to kill) some of your fellow soldiers. Are you prepared to do that? Have you been briefed so you’ll know when you might have to take such drastic action? Do you even know what constitutes an attack against the Constitution of the United States?

Are you aware that you did not swear an oath to defend the United States or its people? Your oath is to “support and defend the Constitution.” The United States and its people aren’t even mentioned in your oath. Are you okay with that?

When you enlisted, or accepted your commission as an officer, the swearing of the military oath was a quick affair mandated by federal law. However, that same federal law did not mandate any training on the meaning of that oath or what you would be expected to do as a consequence of that oath. An oath is a serious thing, which I’m sure you swore in all sincerity. If, however, the authorities which mandated this oath had been equally serious and sincere, they would have also mandated appropriate training for you to assure its proper execution.

And this they did not do. I would call that act of negligence a serious dereliction of their duty to you.

The Pledge and Three Oaths

The Pledge: There are four oaths which are at stake here – actually, three oaths and one pledge. First the Pledge of Allegiance which, being part of the Flag Code, has no force of law behind it. It is merely a formal device of etiquette which no one can be compelled to recite. I quote:

“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.”

Again, this is “merely” a pledge and not a solemn oath or affirmation compelled by force of law. To my way of thinking, there are several problems with the Pledge:

·       “I pledge allegiance to the flag [which is a piece of cloth]…” Say, what?

·       “I pledge allegiance… to the republic…” The Pledge has the unique distinction, compared to the text of the oaths (which follow), of bonding the pledger to his country. I would have preferred that allegiance be pledged to the people or to the nation. But “the republic” is close enough.

·       The US is not a place “with liberty and justice for all.” No one can quarrel with this assertion – this is simply the way things are.

The Military Oaths – Oath of Enlistment/Office: Federal law mandates that all enlisted men swear one kind of oath and officers swear another. Both oaths have these words in common:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…So help me God.”

I highlighted the words above, just to reinforce that “allegiance” is not sworn to the United States or its people but only to the Constitution (which is what the word “same” refers to). That being the case, our servicemen should know what our Constitution means. But…that’s not expected of them nor is it drilled into them.

On to the enlisted man, who is expected to also swear/affirm the following: “I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” The officer is NOT (as is the enlisted man) under oath to “obey the orders” of anybody!

The following text is not part of the enlisted man’s oath, so apparently nobody cares if he swears to “take this obligation freely…”:

“I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter…”

Oath of Allegiance mandated of all naturalized citizens

This oath (quoted below) is not mandated of those whom the Constitution calls “natural born” citizens – only of immigrants. This oath, similar to that for military officers cited above, states that new citizens shall “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States.” But…it does not require a Pledge of Allegiance to the United States itself or to its people. But it does require the forsaking of all formerly held “allegiance and fidelity” to other entities (described in the oath).

I find especially disturbing that this promise is included: “I will bear arms on behalf of the United States.” It doesn’t say “I will defend the United States and its people.” It implies that the new citizen could well find himself in the position of a mercenary (who bears “arms on behalf”) fighting undeclared wars of aggression.

Here’s the naturalized citizens’ oath in its entirety – read it and weep:

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.

My revision of our military oaths

This revision is for both officers and enlisted personnel, flowing from my own pen:

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will, even at the cost of my life, support and defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and that I will obey all appropriate and lawful orders issued by the President of the United States and of the officers appointed over me, according to all US laws and international treaty obligations.” [The Tea Party will absolutely hate the inclusion of those last three words.]

This oath does not obligate a soldier to “defend the Constitution,” but it does mandate that he “support and defend” his country. Constitutions can change, which is why it’s important not to tie down our military to “defend” what could (and should) be replaced – I’m working on that! The people are important; the country is important; particular (and replaceable) Constitutions…aren’t important.

I wonder what would happen if a significant number of our troops decided to recant their original Oath of Enlistment/Office and, instead, swear to my revised version. Would that invalidate their enlistment contracts? How would the courts react if servicemen insisted on remaining in the service but only under the terms of this revised oath?

Closing thoughts

I am running for the office of US President in 2012, hoping to hand Barack Obama a well-deserved early retirement. If elected, I would be your Commander in Chief. But I would run things a bit differently, for I don’t see a serviceman as just a piece of meat who is to obey blindly and immediately. I expect our troops to use their minds and higher judgment. I consider you a valuable resource to our nation, too valuable to expect you to allow others to do your thinking for you.

There’s too much at stake to indulge in that.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Ten hut! What’s on your mind?”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Mitt Romney YouTube clip

The following is a proposed YouTube clip on what Mitt Romney’s swearing-in ceremony might involve. I wrote this fanciful piece to encourage America’s citizens to reflect on what a Romney presidency might come to mean.

Scene:

A room opening on to a balcony from which Mitt Romney will soon be sworn in as President of the United States. The muffled sounds of a large crowd gathered outside can be heard behind the balcony’s closed doors. Romney is pacing back and forth talking to his Chief of Staff, who is off camera but speaks with a Darth Vader voice. There is a portable radio in the room carrying a live broadcast, which we can hear as the scene opens.

From the radio, we hear this dialogue:

First Reporter: “Who would have ever thought we’d see a Mormon in the White House?”

Second Reporter: “Who would have ever foreseen Barack Obama’s untimely death?”

First Reporter: “That certainly threw the Democrats for a loop, didn’t it?”

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

At that point, we hear a sharp click as Romney turns off the radio, saying, “You know, I would have rather beaten Obama than…”

Chief of Staff: “I know, but the Lord does work in mysterious ways, doesn’t He?”

Romney (slowly): “Yes – He – does.”

Chief: “Do you want to practice one more time? Your public is waiting.”

Romney: “Are you sure we should be doing it this way? I mean, you know, people might take this rather badly.”

Chief: “People might as well get used to the New World Order. And me swearing you in – especially this way – is a pretty good place to start.”

Romney: “I’m still not sure.”

Chief: “It doesn’t matter if you’re sure. Orders are orders.”

Romney: “End of story, right?”

Chief: “Actually, this is only the beginning. Have a little faith.”

Romney: “Very well. Let’s run through this one more time.”

[Romney picks up a book and hands it to his Chief, still unseen off-camera except for a black gloved hand which takes the book.]

Chief: “Place your left hand here, raise your right hand, and repeat after me: I”

Romney: “I, Willard Mitt Romney”

Chief: “do solemnly swear”

Romney: “do solemnly swear”

Chief: “that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States”

Romney: “that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States”

Chief: “and will to the best of my ability”

Romney: “and will to the best of my ability”

Chief: “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”

Romney: “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. [pause] I do so solemnly swear upon this, The Book of Mormon, the most correct book of scripture known to man.”

As soon as Romney starts saying “this, The Book of Mormon,” he takes that book from his Chief’s hand and holds it high over his head so his imaginary audience can see its title. The camera zooms in on the Book, as we hear radio voices saying:

“What just happened?”

“The balls of this guy!”

“Impeach the sonofabitch!”

“This is an outrage.”

“The Southern Baptist Convention is going to have a shit fit.”

“Who’s the Svengali who just swore in our President?”

“By what right does Mitt Romney add his own propaganda to the oath of office?”

Reflections on this clip

As for that last question: That tradition started with George Washington who added “So help me God” to the oath, even though that wasn’t in Constitution. And every President thereafter also added, “So help me God.” So why shouldn’t Mr. Romney feel free to add his bit?

I have been criticized for dragging Mitt Romney’s (and Jon Huntsman’s) religion into consideration. The Constitution says, “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” By dwelling on their Mormon faith, I seem to be submitting these candidates to a “religious test,” which bothers some people. “A candidate’s religion is personal and should not be questioned,” or so they’d claim. To which I would ask, “Would you feel the same way if that religion called for human sacrifice? Wouldn’t you expect a bit of clarification?”

As for the constitutional prohibition against a “religious test,” that simply means no authority can insist on such a test. That is, for example, no Secretary of State could deny ballot access for this reason. However, We-the-People have a right to know as much as possible about what makes our president tick. So We can insist on such a test. It’s true that candidates can ignore religious questions, but they do so at their own peril. In fact, they seem to welcome the opportunity to share their faith and how it might shape their decision-making processes.

But what about bad taste?

It might be considered bad taste to suggest that Obama might not live through his first term. I defend that as merely a shocking, attention-grabbing device. The deck is so badly stacked against independent candidates like myself, we need all the help we can get to make an impact.

As for that Svengali/Darth Vader character and hints of a New World Order, we truly don’t know from whom a Mormon president would take his marching orders. Anyone who doubts this should remember how surprised we were when Barack Obama “chose” Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, and “chose” only Wall Street types to be his economic advisors. I very much want people to be aware of Svengalis lurking in the background.

As for me? You can easily judge from my platform that I don’t have any marching orders. I also don’t have any problem explaining exactly what kind of a Buddhist I am. Nor would I have any problem with those who might lampoon my faith. Actually, I would welcome that as a challenge.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I am forced to push the envelope, for the mail must go through.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com