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 Aug. 14 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 9 of these mini-essays/comments.

ONE:

Let’s see…[TX governor] Perry’s supposed to have this animal magnetism, right? Or drawing power…something like that? Last week, Perry’s day of prayer in Houston claimed 30K in attendance. Uh, huh…pretty paltry, considering this particular stadium (Reliant…kind of ironic, eh?) seats 71K. But since a turnout of 30,000 is much higher than the 8,000 organizers were predicting, I guess Perry can claim some kind of a moral victory. [NOTE: If you can't win outright, claim a moral victory.] But come on, people, only 30,000 showing up in mega-city Houston? Maybe God was telling people to stay away from this guy. Just saying…

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The Lord works in mysterious ways…and has a sense of humor with which to belittle the Mighty Pretenders among us.”

TWO:

[In response to this article: “GOP hoping for the ideal candidate”]

I want to see independents and Democrats flood the GOP primaries and vote for Ron Paul. Wouldn't it be hilarious if that strategy derailed all the other Pubber candidates and RP walks away with the brass ring? Even funnier if he managed to beat Obama. But...tragic if he became president because the Pubbers would collude with the Demoncrats to deny him a Congressional partnership. The lesson? No matter who becomes POTUS, we'll still need an independent Congress to represent the real interests of America.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"And that's a lesson that Ron Paul still fails to realize."

THREE:

"This kind of massive cut across the board…would have devastating effects on our national defense…," Panetta said. Our national DEFENSE would not be affected; however, our ability to lay siege to hapless countries around the world for extended periods would be.

I hope Panetta doesn’t get it in his head to conspire with the generals, whispering in their ears: “Guys, you’re sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and we’re not being given the means to do so, therefore, gentlemen, you know what we have to do…”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Panetta would do well to remember Rumsfeld’s response to Army Spc. Thomas Wilson who had asked about the lack of vehicle armor in Iraq: ‘You go to war with the army you have – not the Army you might want or wish to have…’”

FOUR:

[This is in response to “Seven Ways Governor Perry would change the US Constitution.”]

       ONE:  Abolish lifetime tenure for fed judges? That’s EZ, and u don’t have to amend the Con. For any vacancy, Prez Perry could say, “I’ll only nominate u if u sign 2 sworn statements: u will resign after 5 years on the bench, and that failure to resign will be grounds 2 impeach due to lack of ‘good behavior’ (i.e., violating this sworn promise to resign).”

       TWO:  I agree with Perry’s #2 [override SCOTUS decisions by 2/3 of Congress] BUT…this will be most viable if we have a Congress without a single Dem/Pub member – independents only.

       THREE:  I disagree with Perry’s #3 [repeal 16th amend]. The problem isn’t having an income tax. It’s having an inequitable taxation system. But only a Congress of independents elected without special interest help could assure this.

       FOUR:  I understand Perry’s #4 [to repeal the 17th amendment], since our current system guts states’ rights. However, I support Cross-Sectional Representation which would give rise to people power at the expense of the states by cutting across state lines, so to speak. All eligible voters nationwide should be randomly assigned to 435 Cross-Sections. Each would still vote for a Rep (the Senate being abolished), but the CS would replace the geographically-based Congressional District.

       FIVE:  Balanced budget amendment? Don’t go there. Any Dem/GOP Congress will find a way to circumvent this amendment, which no Supreme Court would dare enforce. Only a Congress composed of independents elected from Cross-Sections would have the integrity and wisdom to know when the budget should be balanced and when it should not.

       SIX:  Anti-Gay Marriage by federal dictate? We’re too far gone for that. Let’s see if gay marriages can work, before “we” define what should be a marriage. As for “between one man and one woman,” if some Muslim/Mormon male (with four wives) from another country applied for US citizenship, far be it from me to interfere with his religion by saying, “he’s got to get rid of 3 of those wives first.” We’re supposed to have freedom of religion here, right? RIGHT??

       SEVEN:  Anti-Abortion amendment? The “traditional values [of] [at least some of] our founding fathers” permitted them to personally own slaves. So much for “traditional values.” What’s important for the “soul of this country” is for the federal government to get out of the business of running our personal lives. I’m sure Perry would support an amendment to monitor wealthy women who travel abroad by testing to see if they’re pregnant before they leave and testing again when they return – and they d*mn well better still be pregnant when they return or have a new born babe in arms. Let’s pass that amendment first.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“We need a new constitution based on Cross-Sectional Representation that includes a provision for a new ConCon every twenty years.”

FIVE:

I don’t have any problem with what Governor Perry said about Bernanke. He didn’t, as some fantasize, imply a physical threat. His exact words were: “we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas.” As for “treasonous, in my opinion,” absolutely – the printing of more money makes war against our future generations. It’s pretty obvious Perry’s getting gangbanged by people who want to knock him down. People who don’t care much for the truth of what he has to say.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“As for the Fed being independent, it has no right to exist at all.”

SIX:

“Eric Zorn [who writes for that pitiful rag, The Chicago Tribune] agrees: ‘… [Ron Paul] is not a plausible contender for the GOP nomination…”

Early in the campaign, a lot of people thought Obama-of-the-Thin-Resume didn’t have a chance either. But he was helped immensely by mainstream media that refused to ask him any hard questions and bent over so far backwards in their fawning it was embarrassing. [Anyone remember that awful Steve Kroft interview?]

But, really, the Bilderberg Group had its reasons for favoring Barack over Hilary. Just as it did for favoring Obama over McCain. But you won’t find “reporters” like Zorn saying squat about the Bilderbergs.

Ron Paul could have made much more of a difference by having renounced the GOP years ago. He could make a difference now by leading a Bully Pulpit campaign to vote incumbents out of office. But he’s such a believer in the Two Party System, he couldn’t then and he won’t now.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Besides, if Independents and Democrats flood the GOP primaries and vote for Dr. Paul, he will be assassinated before the Bilderbergs will let him come close to being nominated.”

SEVEN:

Ron Paul says he believes in the Constitution. However, he wishes to ignore the 14th amendment, where it states: “All persons born [NOTE: this excludes the unborn, since it clearly says “all persons BORN” and the unborn are those who haven’t been born yet] or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States…[and] No state* shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”

The unborn are not citizens, therefore they (by means of any law passed or enforced by a state) cannot trump the rights of citizens – one of those rights being a woman's right to control her own body. So if Ron Paul thinks he can use the power of Big Government to overturn Roe v. Wade, he’d be doing so unconstitutionally.

  [* And the Fifth Amendment effectively bars the feds from doing what the 14th prevents the states from doing.]

Ron says, “I believe in a very limited role for government.” Then he throws in a “but” or two: “But…government exists…to protect liberty…[and] life. And I mean all life.” We’ll leave out for a moment that Ron enjoys a good hamburger every once in a while. The main point, you simply can’t “protect liberty…[and] life [presumably including “quality of life”]” with the “very limited” government Paul has in mind. Such a government can’t meet our minimum expectations, which include the regulations necessary to level the playing field and protect us from the Oligarchs.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Sorry, I’m sure Ron Paul is a very nice guy whose mother loved him tons and bunches when he was growing up, but that’s not good enough to be president.”

EIGHT:

@ MisesKnowsBest,

I’m assuming no such thing [God, where do people get this stuff?]. The 14^th [Amendment], for the most part, addresses what the States can’t do. And one of those things states can’t do is “abridge the privileges…of citizens,” especially on behalf of non-citizens. How would you like it if your rights were trumped in favor of illegal aliens?

According to the 14th, a state can’t tell a woman, “We, acting on behalf of the unborn (who aren’t citizens, so how does a state get to 'represent' them in the first place?), get to deny your Right to Choose by ordering you to give birth, even though you are a citizen.” If citizens don’t have a Right to Choose when it comes to their own bodies, then none of our other rights really means a whole lot. But we (or more pertinent to my argument “women”) do have a Right to Choose, due to Roe v. Wade.

Since the unborn aren’t citizens, it doesn’t matter [though you seem to think it does] when “life begins.” That’s irrelevant to the issue of citizenship. What matters, constitutionally, is who is a citizen and who is not?

By the way, the 14th says nothing about blacks at all. It does, though, (see Section 2) give states the right to deny the vote to “any male inhabitant..twenty-one years of age,” the penalty being that such states must suffer their “representation” (for example, # of reps in Congress) to be reduced by the same proportion.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Section 2 is odd in that it only specifically targets 21-year-olds, whereas I think the intent was to target 21-and-older. But…that’s not what it says.”

NINE:

[Headline of article: Michele Bachmann’s bodyguards developing reputation for bullying reporters]

This is nothing but a load of “he said, she said,” which won’t matter in the long run. Bachmann’s biggest worry will be how badly Obama will maul her during the debates…assuming she gets that far. Unfortunately, her bodyguards won’t be able to help her, nor will her husband. Sorry, MB fans, she just doesn’t have the chops, not ready for prime time, and all that. Not to mention, she doesn’t actually have a program. So far, her entire campaign is all about “me, me, me.” Which will get tiring soon enough.

 Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If nothing else, she can always fall back on her vast foreign policy and executive experience.”

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“                   ”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Occupy Wall Street on September 17, 2011?

I saw these four lines of text on the centerfold of the Sept/Oct 2011 issue of Adbusters magazine:

What is our one demand?

#OCCUPYWALLSTREET

SEPTEMBER 17^TH.

BRING TENT.

What is our one demand?

As the quoted section below makes clear, Adbusters has put out a call for “20,000 people [to, on Sept. 17 of this year] flood into lower Manhattan…and occupy Wall Street for a few months.” And they put out this call without even having decided on “What is our one demand?” What??

QUOTE:

SOURCE: http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupywallstreet.html :

Tahrir succeeded in large part because the people of Egypt made a straightforward ultimatum – that Mubarak must go – over and over again until they won. Following this model, what is our equally uncomplicated demand?

The most exciting candidate that we've heard so far is one that gets at the core of why the American political establishment is currently unworthy of being called a democracy: we demand that Barack Obama ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington. It's time for DEMOCRACY NOT CORPORATOCRACY, we're doomed without it.

:UNQUOTE.

My critique of this quote:

Somehow, it doesn’t seem right to compare “Mubarak must go” with “ordain a Presidential Commission.” Egyptians were expressing their dissatisfaction by focusing on one particular person. We’re being encouraged to believe that one particular person (Barack Obama) should be looked upon as some savior by anointing a Presidential Commission.

This Commission, even if “ordained,” could not do what Adbusters is suggesting; it could not end “the influence money has over our representatives in Washington.” It could make recommendations or even draft legislation. But only our Congress (and President) could end “the influence money has” – not some Presidential Commission.

And Congress is not going to do any such thing, since it will be lobbied not to. So why is Adbusters calling on 20,000 people to “occupy Wall Street for a few months” in order to demand a Commission which cannot achieve the desired result? Not to mention: In the name of trying to identify one equally uncomplicated demand, we’re being asked to work within the system – when the system itself won’t allow that. Asking that we demand a Presidential Commission sounds as lacking in pizzazz as asking that we write our Congressmen and newspapers.

Yeah, like that’s going to work.

The basic problem boils down to Adbusters’ hope for one “uncomplicated demand.” The situation is too complicated for such a hope – especially if the idea is to pressure Obama into doing anything. And that whole bit about “Democracy, not Corporatocracy” is nonsense, since we can’t even agree on what democracy is or how to effect it. NOTE: The word “democracy” doesn’t appear even once in our Constitution.

Another quote from Adbusters:

QUOTE:

Source: http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet :


The beauty of this new formula, and what makes this novel tactic exciting, is its pragmatic simplicity: we talk to each other in various physical gatherings and virtual people's assemblies … we zero in on what our one demand will be, a demand that awakens the imagination and, if achieved, would propel us toward the radical democracy of the future … and then we go out and seize a square of singular symbolic significance and put our asses on the line to make it happen.

On September 17, we want to see 20,000 people flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months. Once there, we shall incessantly repeat our one simple demand until Barack Obama capitulates.

for the wild,
Culture Jammers HQ

:UNQUOTE.

The word “we” is used above, but lacks clarity:

·       “We zero in on what our one demand will be” – But who decides? Is this put to a vote? Who would be eligible to vote and how would voters be identified?

·       “we go out and seize a square…put our asses on the line…” Will the staff, editors, and owners of Adbusters be there? Will they put their “asses on the line?”

The quote mentions setting up “peaceful barricades” and occupying “Wall Street for a few months.” However, the aforementioned centerfold shows a background image of protestors, surrounded by a cloud of tear gas, wearing gas masks (one guy even wielding a club). That’s “peaceful?” How does one set up a “peaceful barricade?” How does one peacefully occupy Wall Street for a few months?

Then there’s the matter of how the quoted material is signed: “for the wild,
Culture Jammers HQ.” Sounds to me like Adbusters is looking forward to a “wild,” rip-roaring good time confronting the cops. At your expense!


How will this actually play out?

Suppose 20,000 people were to descend on Wall Street on September 17, which is a Saturday by the way? I’ll go way out on a limb here and say the organizers did not even bother with the formality of obtaining a parade or demonstration permit for the 17^th itself. They just want 20,000 people to show up to a part of town which will be deserted until Monday. Being deserted, the cops won’t have much trouble identifying the protestors and they won’t have to worry about innocent bystanders getting their heads busted open by billy clubs.

As the protestors gradually show up with their tents and their intentions being fairly obvious, the cops will tell them to move on. And will arrest them if they don’t. Now, here’s where it gets interesting: Even if no charges are ever filed, the authorities will have a lot of valuable names in their database. Names that will be shared with, among others, the Department of Homeland Security. The feds would love to identify people who are so dedicated to the cause, they would actually respond to this kind of call to action. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want my name on such a database. Could lead to harassment later on down the line.

In fact, I have to question which side Adbusters is really on, coming up with a boneheaded campaign like this?


So what to do?

People feel powerless these days – especially young people. So in the name of “do something, anything,” they might be tempted to do some rather foolish things. The good news, though, is desperate action is not (yet) required.

It’s absolutely necessary, though, for us to reach out and talk, so we can learn from and teach others. In addition to talking, there are practical measures we can take from the comfort of our own homes, without risking our physical safety or calling attention to ourselves – unwanted attention from the authorities. Some examples:

·       Register to vote in the GOP primary with the specific goal of disrupting their proceedings by (for example) voting for their least popular candidate or the one least likely to win the nomination – or for Ron Paul.

·       Be a wise consumer. This means, don’t buy heavily-advertised, brand-name products; delay buying that new car; patronize small businesses; cancel your print and cable TV subscriptions; don’t buy Christmas presents (buy, yes, but buy and give at a time of your choosing – off-season).

·       Boycott the big banks – instead save and borrow from smaller, local institutions.

·       Vote all incumbents out of office, even if you happen to like “your guy.” Even liberal Democrats should not be afraid that doing so could give the GOP the presidency and both houses of Congress. That would be the bitter pill we’d have to swallow to pave the way for independents to emerge.

·       Don’t contribute any money to political campaigns – not even for “Change you can believe in.”

·       Consider the unique method of establishing a third political party that I’ve described at http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/zero-party-system-for-us-politics.html .

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“There are too many effective things we can do, instead of something as blatantly stupid as trying to seize Wall Street”

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 Aug. 7 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 16 of these mini-essays/comments.

ONE:

[My response to Angie, who had posted something rather unintelligent concerning the recent riots in Great Britain.]

@ Angie,

First of all, there are often huge differences between what a person (literally) says and what he means. I feel sorry for anyone who can’t see past the literal in order to see the pain the other is feeling.

As for what Freddy literally said: “Nobody is doing nothing for us,” a reasonable translation would be: “Everybody is doing at least something for us.” You are of course wrong to translate that as “he’s being cared for in the fullest.” And perhaps that’s the gist of the problem: There are too many people who believe that “at least something” means “in the fullest.” It most certainly does not. If everybody is doing “at least something,” perhaps that “something” is too little – even if truly everybody is doing it.

And perhaps that’s what the young man is really driving at.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Sometimes the words do get in the way of the meaning.”

TWO:

“… Patrick Leman, a University of London professor who researches 9/11 theories. ‘It stops us from having to confront the unpredictability of life.’”

Some things, however, are very predictable - like stooges from academia trying their hand at debunking. I think David Ray Griffin would blow this guy out of the water.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I still don’t buy the official 9/11 cover up.”

THREE:

“…the basis of our marriage is respect” – Bachmann [for US President]

Hmm…even deadly enemies can respect each other. So using the word “respect” tells us absolutely nothing about their relationship. Besides, isn’t the basis of marriage supposed to be love? Just saying…

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Oh, and the words ‘submission’ and ‘respect’ are not synonymous.”

FOUR:

“But everybody should have the right to be in a union.”

Actually, everybody should have a Right to Life without being victimized by special interest groups – and that’s what a union is.  What? You don’t think they go out on strike for YOUR benefit, do you?

As long as we insist on having a polarized, advocacy type of society (glaringly manifested by the Dem/Pub monopoly), we will always have various groups clawing and scratching for a larger share for themselves, at the expense of the larger society.

The only way out? Replace Congressional Districts (which are geographically based, therefore having a built-in territorial bias) with Cross-Sections. Each CS, having a constituency drawn at random from a list of all eligible voters nationwide, would not have a territorial bias.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“In order to create a government truly representative of We the People, we need a replacement Constitution that would allow for Cross-Sectional Representation. Without that, no true democracy (which is a word that does not appear even once in our current Constitution – go figure).”

FIVE:

“…take a final decision on buying Italian paper after Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi announced…”

Whoa, you don’t have to say any more after having said, “Silvio Berlusconi.” You can tell an awful lot about the political cultural (if not the soul) of a country from the kind of people in charge. Silvio Berlusconi? With him at the helm, the ECB would be fools to buy Italian paper.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Whatever happened to the quaint notion of actually having great leaders? On actually insisting on having great leaders?”

SIX:

This whole bond rating business is nothing more than a scam. How is it that New Zealand and Finland have a better rating than Saudi Arabia and China? And what in the hell is the Isle of Man doing on the elite AAA list? Oh, that’s right…part of the Queen’s club (RHIP). I can see why Switzerland made it – still riding high on Nazi money and, oh the secrets that government could spill!

Looking at this triple-A club, a certain word comes to mind – cartel. I can see that the interests of the master race are very well secured indeed.

As a side note: A friend of mine said, “You are aware that the US lost the War of 1812 and has been a British colony ever since.” No, I don’t buy that, but the behavior of our leaders is rather suspect and shows they don’t have our best interests in mind. If not ours, whose?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Neutral bond rating agencies, indeed! Who invents this nonsense?”

SEVEN:

Foreigner 427 responded to my post (SIX, immediately above) by writing:

"Saudi Arabia and China?"

How open are those nations to international agencies? Not very. How open are these nations to free market forces? Not very. How much are businesses in those countries subject to the whims of a totalitarian gov't? Very much.

So they get a lower rating.

"Isle of Man doing on the elite AAA list?"

You seem to be confused. It's not a rating of how rich you are, it's a rating of how stable the country is, how open it is to free market forces, etc, which ultimately determines the likelyhood that repayment of debt could face a problem.

[My answer to Foreigner 427’s text, cited immediately above.]

Well, Foreigner427, the nitty-gritty of the bond business is, “If I buy your bonds, will you pay me back?” It doesn’t matter if the issuing nations are “open to international agencies..or free market forces,” or if the countries are totalitarian. What matters is, “will you pay me back?”

When trying to gauge likelihood of payback, the fact that both countries are very much integrated into the international monetary system assumes huge importance. China and Saudi Arabia will play by the rules because they have too much to lose if they don’t.

As for what determines how rating agencies issue their verdicts, I doubt there’s a lot of science behind that – witness the behavior of these players as they issued dubious ratings during the subprime mortgage crash.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I’m not confused at all – this is still a scam. The question is, how pervasive is it?”

EIGHT:

“Turks have grown less enamored of the prospect of joining the European Union.”

As I have written in the past, the heart and soul of Turkey does not belong in the EU. Turkey would do well to position itself as the pivotal (even capitol) state of a resurgent Caliphate. Though perhaps that would be better known as an Islamic Union.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I would welcome an Islamic Union, headed by Turkey, into the international community.”

NINE:

I will blow Mitt Romney out of the water, when the time is right, with a YouTube clip I scripted.

This clip will show him being sworn in as the newly-elected president, concluding his oath with: “…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 he says “THIS,” he takes the Book, upon which his left hand is resting, and lifts it over his head for all to see. As the camera zooms in on the cover, we see these words: The Book of Mormon. We also hear a buzz of commentators’ voices saying stuff like: “This is an outrage,” “Impeach the sonofabitch,” “The ballz of this guy,” “Who does he think he is?”

As for that last question, he knows exactly who he is, who he has always been – a descendant of a Mormon apostle who really believes what he just said, “The Book of Mormon [is] the most correct book of scripture known to man.” If that is what the newly-elected President of the United States believes, why should he swear his oath on the Bible? Why shouldn’t he say exactly what he feels, for all the world to hear?

I’m really going to enjoy the howls from the Religious Right once this YouTube clip goes viral.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“All I need now is an actor who looks enough like Mitt Romney. Maybe the guy who played Herman Munster…oh wait…he’s dead…as dead as will be Romney’s candidacy when…”

TEN:

[My answer to Mitt Romney who said, “Corporations are people.”

“Corporations are people?”

Hmm…did Romulus mean, “Corporations are legal persons?” Or “Corporations employ people who have feelings too?”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Or maybe we should ask his twin brother REAM-US.”

ELEVEN:

My response to WM, who posted: “Tax all political contributions at a 50% rate...let the lobbyist pay their fair share.” [WM got a lot of thumbs-up for this. Go figure.] 

My response: At first blush, WM's idea sounds good, but it wouldn't really raise much revenue. I suppose that's not the point, though. The real point is to suggest something (anything!) that will make We-the-Sheeple feel good about ourselves.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Okay, now that we’re done jacking off, when will we get really serious by voting all incumbents out of office and giving independents a chance?”

TWELVE:

If all political contributions are taxed at 50%, corruption won't be lowered [as claimed by one poster]. What it will do is diminish the effectiveness of contributions made to third party and independent candidates, since they don't attract deeply-pocketed donors. The fat cats won't have any problem beating a 50% tax; they'll just double (easily double) their "contributions" - being more than willing to pay the tax. But the non Dem/Pub candidates will be the ones who will suffer, since their donors can't as easily up the ante.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"The only way to beat these bastards is to vote all incumbents out of office - even if that means voting for the party you loathe...or (if one is available) you could vote independent (hint, hint)."

THIRTEEN:

From the article posted on Yahoo:  “An experimental unmanned hypersonic glider has been launched from an air base on the central California coast…The U.S. military is trying to develop technology to respond to threats around the globe at speeds of Mach 20 or greater.”

My response: (sigh) And how much is this going to cost us? Actually, there will be two costs:

ONE: The cost of building and maintaining a fleet of these things;

TWO: The “cost” which will result from our temptation to use them by sticking our noses into every little nook and cranny in the world.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“It’s that second cost that will be the zinger.”

FOURTEEN:

 “Governments had to step in to provide liquidity in droves through low interest rates, bank bailouts and injections of cash into the economy.”

Actually, that is false – governments did not have to step in. Yes, there would have been pain had they not stepped in, but relative to what? Nothing was really solved and bad companies (supposedly too big to fail) should have been “allowed” to do just that. Their assets would have been snapped up by other companies, and their bad management would have been fired. But…those who sing the praises of unfettered free market capitalism would have none of that. Their refrain would have been the same, “Where’s my bailout?”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Bailout is just another way of saying ‘Kick the can down the road.’”

FIFTEEN:

“…massive…invasion of the Japanese home islands that was being actively planned [before the A-bomb was dropped].”

It wasn’t at all necessary to invade Japan. We could have nickeled and dimed them to “death.” The US had total air and naval superiority, so the solution should have been, “Surrender or we’ll starve you out by bombing your crops.” If not that, then we could have picked and chosen where on the Japanese islands and when we could have invaded.

The thing that’s so often glossed over is the fact the Nagasaki bomb was dropped a mere three days after Hiroshima was leveled. We didn’t care that it might have taken the Japanese high command more than 3 days to give up a war they’d been fighting for years. [Could we make such a decision in three days? Look how long it took for us to work out our debt-increase deal.] We knew Japan would eventually surrender (and sooner than later), so it didn’t really matter when (what’s the rush?).

We nuked Japan to send a message to the Russians. And if that doesn’t qualify as an act of terrorism, what does?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“It kind of hurts to think of ourselves as the world’s first nuclear terrorist, but if the shoe fits, wear it.”

SIXTEEN:

[The four words highlighted in yellow (below) are the opening words to 4 sentences posted by one of my responders. My response follows each of his sentences.]

“Air power has never won a war without a ground attack of some sort.”

The war against Japan was already won, so your point about air power is irrelevant. While it’s true their ground forces still occupied huge tracts of Asian land, the Japanese islands were without an air force, without a navy, and without a land force that could do anything but stay put. The Japanese islands were sitting ducks which could have been “persuaded” to surrender by means of a war of attrition. We could have, in effect, quarantined them. A lot of mouths to feed with the prospect of no means to feed them is a mighty powerful persuader.

“the definition of terrorism is vague…”

Oh really? The killing of innocent civilians in great numbers would certainly qualify – especially if there was a viable alternative. The Japanese High Command could have been given an ample demonstration of the power of the nuke without us having to drop them on two heavily-populated areas. For instance, blowing one high over Tokyo harbor would have made the point. Or maybe over sacred Mt. Fuji.

“Another thing not really considered was using it as a veiled threat against the Soviets.”

Are you kidding? That was exactly the point – the major point.

“So if both sides of an armed conflict agree that use of such weapons is acceptable, how is it terrorism?”

Doesn’t matter what both sides “agree” or if both sides do it – terrorism is terrorism, except if one happens to have a legal mind.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“There’s no way around this – The US was the first country to engage in nuclear terrorism. And there’s no way to song-and-dance around this conclusion. And I'm not terribly sorry if that offends anybody.”

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“It won’t matter who is elected US President in 2012, if it’s anyone other than me. The Elite’s agenda will not be challenged. “

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com