The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle for US President

 The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle

Candidate for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOUR:      Within 90 days of my inauguration, all U.S. military forces will be completely withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of the "situation on the ground."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

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

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

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

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

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

EIGHT:     I will veto any bill presented to me by Congress if it has any provision for any type of aid or loan to Israel or Egypt.

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

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

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

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

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

• Granting diplomatic recognition to Cuba and Palestine.

• Withdrawing diplomatic recognition from Kosovo and Israel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellaneous Non-Contractual Points for

Your Consideration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

The Independent Contractors’ Party

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

My realistic campaign for the US presidency

“Are you really running for president?” – that’s what I was asked six years ago by a woman to whom I’d just said [you guessed it], “I’m running for President in 2008.” I shouldn’t have been too surprised by her doubt, for how often do you run into a run-of-the-mill guy like me making such a claim?

On occasion, during that last campaign, a polite listener or two would hear me out as I’d rattle off some of my campaign points. But I didn’t usually hold their attention for long. Case in point: I was speaking to another woman, a secretary for over 30 years in a law office. When I told her I was the only candidate to offer a written contract in exchange for votes, she cut me off, saying, “Candidates can’t offer contracts that are legally enforceable; and I’m a secretary for a law firm, so I ought to know.” Then she turned and walked away.

If she had lingered a moment, I would have told her:

QUOTE:

I’m using the word “contract” in a very broad but also a very enforceable sense. It’s true that no court would hear a case involving such a contract. But my version has a built-in, self-enforcing mechanism: If I were to violate any of the promises listed in my contract, I would lose my office due to impeachment. In fact, the very first of the 47 points listed in that document promises this:

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.

In other words, if (for instance) I would have failed to fulfill this part of my contract, I would have lost my office:

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 operating in Iran.

My contract is enforceable for the simple reason that I could be impeached for failure to uphold its terms. And, believe me, a Dem/Pub Congress would be very eager to impeach an independent president, especially one who would make it so easy for them to do so.

:UNQUOTE.

But I didn’t get to say any of this; she had walked away, smug in the certainty of her 30 years of having worked in a law office.

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

That was during the last election. And, I’m forced to report, the level of disbelief has not subsided this time around. Nor has the level of support increased. Here are some details of my campaign, which might serve to explain:

·       During the 2008 campaign, I made about six political speeches. For this current campaign, I haven’t made any.

·       No campaign contributions have come my way – but this time, I made it clear I wasn’t soliciting or accepting any.

·       As in the last campaign, I haven’t made any efforts to have my name added to the ballot in any of the 50 states; mine is now and was then a write-in campaign.

·       I don’t have paid or unpaid staff working for me; this campaign has been conducted entirely by me.

·       I haven’t been interviewed by any members of the media nor has my campaign been mentioned in any outlets.

·       I haven’t advertised at all this time, though in the 2008 campaign I had paid for a few ads in print media.

·       My only means of campaigning over the past (almost) two years has been this blog site, which has been hit on 7,455 times. Only half of those hits came from the US. Interestingly enough, 1072 came from Russia [“Thanks, Russia!”].

·       Even though I end all my blog posts with contact info, not one person has sent me an email. I did, however, manage to attract a total of 12 comments on a few of the more than 300 essays I’d posted. They ranged from one word in length (“rubbish”) to three intelligent questions from one commenter. To his three questions, I posted three separate essays in answer.

So, am I “really” running for the presidency?

My short answer? Yes!

As of today, there are 90 days left until ballots are cast. That means, I don’t have much time left for my campaign to catch fire. But should it, for whatever odd reason or other, I would be hard put to explain my sudden attractiveness. But I do believe in miracles, and also in the persistence of effort. Therefore, I soldier on.

Over the next 10 days or so, I will be finalizing my written contract. So I will post that soon after for your consideration. And I will continue to post essays here on a variety of topics as inspiration smiles upon me.

My immediate goal is to finish out this campaign. Should I lose, I will try to promote the variety of reforms I’d developed on this blog. But will I try yet a third time to run as a candidate - for the 2016 cycle? No, I will not, for the simple reason that, by then, it will be too late for me as president to stop the Elite from pursuing their man-made End of Days plans.

As I had written during the 2008 campaign, “I am your last, best hope.” I still believe that. And, no, I didn’t say that out of any inflated sense of ego. But neither do I believe in false modesty. I simply said it as a truth in which I happen to believe.

As for me? I learned a great deal while wearing the mantle of presidential candidate over the past six years. If I lose this election, I can console myself with this:  Perhaps at some time in the not-too-distant future (after the Apocalypse) some survivors might be gathered around a lonely fire near the remains of some blasted-out city speaking favorably about what might have been had I been elected president instead of Barack Obama. Such reminiscence might be of small comfort to those survivors. But I will be happy to offer them that much. And happier still if I happen to be seated among them.

As for my Labor Day prediction

I have frequently blogged my prediction that Obama will unleash an attack around Labor Day (26 days from now) against Iran’s nuclear facilities. I will stand by that prediction, though I desperately hope I turn out to be wrong. However, the cynical might well point out: “If you happen to be right about this, do you think that would give your campaign a tremendous boost?” And the even more cynical might point out: “If this attack takes place according to your prediction, you’ll have to be eliminated.”

To both cynics, I reply: “If I’m right about this, the major media will not say a word about me having called it. Therefore, only those few who read my blog would be aware of my prediction at all. So I don’t really have anything to fear for having been so bold.”

And if I am wrong about Obama's Iranian intentions, it remains to be seen how wrong, for how long, and in what ways.

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I, for one, have no regrets.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Rahm Emanuel and the Albany Park Library

Question: What can we look forward to if Rahm Emanuel is elected President of the United States?

Disclaimer: Anyone who navigates this blog will easily discover that I have an intense dislike for Rahm, such as is normally reserved for traitors, so keep that in mind while reading the following.

Guiding Principle: You can tell an awful lot about a leader from the little things he does, the kind of things that don’t usually call attention to themselves – not even on a slow news day.

So what? It’s only a library

You’d have to try awfully hard to find a more non-descript, unimposing little building than the Albany Park Library, a single-story structure on the corner of Kimball and Foster Avenues in Chicago. Albany Park is the name of one of 77 community areas in Chicago, situated on the far North side. Anyone familiar with Chicago politics understands the value of being so situated; a substantial value indeed when compared to perennially impoverished neighborhoods situated on the south and west sides.

I believe the fate of this library will prove to be a useful indicator of what kind of president Rahm Emanuel would be. [Make no mistake about this: He very much wants that job.]

In a nut shell?  Rahm has approved the use of money meant to combat urban decay in order to tear down a perfectly good library and build another in the exact same spot. Of course, the Illinois judiciary being what it is, Rahm will never be brought up on charges of violating the TIF law (more on that, later). This is from the official City of Chicago website:

QUOTE:

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2011/november_2011/chicago_city_councilpassesmeasurestosupportcommunitiesacrossthec.html

The Albany Park branch library at 5150 N. Kimball Ave. will be replaced by a new structure that's twice its size through $15 million in TIF assistance.
The new 16,000-square-foot facility will rise on the site of the current library, which dates to 1963.

Being planned by the Public Building Commission, the new library will create eight full-time positions and 35 temporary construction jobs. Work could start in spring 2013.

:UNQUOTE.

Chicago, even in the Albany Park neighborhood, has many needs. But replacing this library is not anywhere near the highest priority. Here I’d like to quote from an article that appeared in the August 1, 2012 Chicago Tribune newspaper; the article is entitled: “City debt payments set to spike next year.” Here’s a link, followed by the material I’m quoting, into which I’ve inserted my yellowed highlights and bracketed comments:

http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx

QUOTE:

City of Chicago debt payments are expected to soar by $278 million next year to the record level of $1.55 billion, stated a city financial analysis released Tuesday by Mayor Rahm Emanuel. [I am so distrustful of Rahm, that I call into question the accuracy of this analysis. It is written: “Figures don’t lie. But it is also written, “Sometimes, liars ‘figure.’”]

As a result, about $1 of every $4 the city will spend in 2013 could go to paying off long-term debt, complicating the city’s already strained financial situation. [Tell me, does $1 of every $4 in your personal budget go for such payments?]

This year, the analysis shows a projected budget shortfall of $369 million, half of what it once was expected to be. [It might be tempting to credit Rahm with this reduction, but perhaps it would be more accurate to conclude that Rahm did nothing more than take long-overdue measures which long-term Mayor Daley didn’t.] But it’s still a big hole that will force the city to find ways to spend less, bring in more money or both. Part of the expected gap results from higher pension and debt costs, the analysis states. Paying those costs diverts money from being used for day-to-day city operations.

The debt problem began to grow a decade ago, under former Mayor Richard Daley [perhaps because he had for so long been neglectful of Chicago’s overall social and economic health]. Overall city long-term debt has nearly doubled during the past 10 years as the city borrowed money to expand O’Hare International Airport, upgrade its sewer and water systems, fix streets and build new libraries [hopefully, where they were needed] and police stations.

More than $1 billion also was borrowed to pay retroactive police and fire raises and cover legal judgments against the city. [Say, what?!  $1 billion?  Shouldn’t there be some kind of law against borrowing for pay raises? You may be very sure, though, that Rahm Emanuel would never propose such a law.] Payments are expected to surge in 2013 because of the way the debt is structured.

Pension costs, meanwhile, are a financial time bomb set to go off in 2015, when a state law requires the city to step up its payments to the funds for police officers and firefighters, the analysis states. [2015, you say? At that point, Rahm can claim to be too busy campaigning for the presidency and will leave that in “the capable hands of my successor.” Yeah, right!]

:UNQUOTE.

A bit of background: What is a TIF?

TIF stands for “Tax Increment Financing,” which this next quote defines, and which includes my bracketed comments and yellowed highlights:

QUOTE:

http://www.chicagonewscoop.org/chicagos-1-7-billion-in-tif-spending-aided-public-and-private-projects-almost-evenly/

The city [Chicago] began using TIF in 1984, after state lawmakers authorized the financing technique to help cities spur development in blighted or declining areas. Once the city designates an area as a TIF district, the amount of property taxes that the city, county, schools and other local governments can collect from it is frozen for 23 years. [That means, for instance, that such increases in tax revenue wouldn’t be available to help the Chicago Public School system but would, instead, be diverted into a TIF account, forcing CPS to find alternative sources for operational funding.]  Any new tax revenue generated from rising property values — the tax increment — is collected by the city and must be spent within the district or in a bordering one. [And in Chicago, the Mayor has decisive say in how TIF dollars are spent.]

The intent is to use these pots of money to lure investment from private real estate investors [And we “lure investment” by knocking down one library to replace it with another on the exact same spot?] by fixing infrastructure, acquiring properties for developers or subsidizing them directly. As the developers build or renovate offices, homes and factories, property values presumably rise, leading to incremental increases in property tax revenues.

:UNQUOTE.


Basically, the underlying idea of a TIF is to fight urban blight by helping support the local economy. Specifically, it was intended to help the poorest of the poor among our communities, which would not include Albany Park. More specifically, it wasn’t intended to be used so that a mayoral ally (local alderman Margaret Laurino) could look good during the next election by having a new building constructed for (in essence) her benefit.

Which it would, since many of the locals would see a new building being constructed as a sign of the influence of their alderman.

Rahm Emanuel as President

Based on this incident of the redundant library, how are we to envision Rahm Emanuel as President of the United States? He would use the existing system, benefitting his cronies and allies and therefore himself, instead of reforming it. He would run the presidency for the benefit of the Democratic Party, much as he operates for its benefit as mayor in the one [Democratic] party town which has been Chicago since way before I was born. His experience as (specifically) a Chicago mayor wouldn’t give him any practical experience in dealing with political opposition. In fact, he’s very much programmed, as is a pit bull, to take such opposition personally to the point of lashing out.

Moreover, I don’t think Rahm Emanuel has the temperament for policymaking that aims for long-term impact. And I suppose that’s just as well, at least as far as his personal plan is concerned – which (again) is to run for the US presidency in 2016. Rahm knows that he can’t afford to be Chicago’s mayor for another term, since too many chickens will have had time to come home to roost. He can boast now about having made some reforms, since that’s relatively easy in terms of simply reigning in the bad practices of his mayoral predecessors.

But with too much time at the helm, pundits will begin to notice that Rahm will start to run out of rabbits to pull out of the hat. And that could lead to them concluding: “What’s wrong in Chicago is Rahm Emanuel’s fault.” That’s a definite drawback to being in charge for too long, especially over an enterprise as hopeless as Chicago will turn out to be without the benefit of a long-term vision.

Rahm Emanuel will prove himself to be a leader satisfied with the appearances of short-term gain (enough to fool the voters), while ignoring long-term solutions. But doesn’t that describe the mindset of our voters when they cast ballots in a national election? If so, then those voters and such “leaders” as Rahm Emanuel would be a perfect match.

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

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

“I hope that, somehow, we can manage to stave off the disaster that would most surely result from a President Rahm Emanuel.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The accused “Batman” killer and the Death Penalty

I oppose the death penalty under all circumstances. In fact, if I were to be the Governor of Colorado in the case cited below, I would commute the death penalty to life imprisonment – that is, assuming such a penalty is decreed by the court.

I will start my version of a Pro Life defense by responding to this recent editorial by Jonah Goldberg: “Death penalty foes won’t take a stand in Colorado.” It was in Aurora, Colorado that James Holmes shot and killed 12 people (wounding many more) during a midnight showing of Batman: The Dark Knight Rises.

Within the following quoted material, I offer some bracketed comments.

QUOTE [I only quote the last portion of Goldberg’s essay, since that’s where he discusses the death penalty]:

These are good questions. But you know what debate seems conspicuously absent? Should we execute James Holmes?

[Perhaps this debate will take place when (if?) Colorado decides to seek the death penalty in this case.]

Death penalty opponents are fairly mercenary [yeah, Goldberg really wrote “mercenary,” which is borderline demagogic, though “calculating” would have been more appropriate] about when to express their outrage. When questions of guilt can be muddied in the media; when the facts are old and hard to look up; when the witnesses are dead; when statistics can be deployed to buttress the charge of institutional racism: These are just a few of the times when opponents loudly insist the death penalty must go. [If “these are just a few,” that must mean there are many more times when perhaps opponents are more upfront in their condemnation.]

But when the murderer is white or racist or his crimes so incomprehensibly ugly, the anti-death-penalty crowd stays silent. [Always? That’s quite a claim.] It's the smart play. If your long-term goal is to abolish the death penalty, you want to pick your cases carefully. [Of course you do, since your goal is to at least move those whom are rabidly pro-death-penalty to reconsider their position.]

[Goldberg is guilty of trying to group all opponents of the death penalty into a “crowd.” As you’ll see in my following comments, I will echo views which can be reasonably expected to be shared (at least in part) by many who absolutely oppose the death penalty.]

But the simple fact is, if the death penalty is always wrong, it's wrong in the politically inconvenient cases too. [I agree.]

The standards of newspaper writing and civic discourse require that we call Holmes the "alleged" culprit in this horrific slaughter. That's fine, but if the facts are what we've been told they are, then we know this man is guilty and the jury will not have a hard time saying so. [If I were to be on that jury and the death penalty was on the table, I would vote “not guilty.”]

We don't know whether he's mentally ill, but odds are he isn't. [The one possibility that Goldberg doesn’t mention: Was Holmes under some kind of mind control, not only when he (allegedly) did the deed but during the preceding time when he bought his guns and body armor, and booby trapped his apartment?]

Indeed, criminologists and psychiatrists will tell you that most mass murderers aren't insane. But the public debate is already caught up in a familiar tautology. [Goldberg’s next three sentences would be irrelevant if Holmes was acting under mind control.] What Holmes did was an act of madness, therefore he must be a madman. And if he's a madman, we can't execute him because he's not responsible for his actions. And if he's not responsible, then "society" must be. [Perhaps he and “society” are co-responsible, especially if part of that society (e.g., the CIA) had anything to do with the mind control possibility mentioned above.]

And we can't execute a man for society's sins. So: Cue the debate about guns, and funding for mental health, and the popular culture. [As for “funding for mental health,” the more important issue is: What are we going to do to make this country a better place in which to live so as to better nurture, on a broad scale, mental health?]

Well, I say enough. I favor the death penalty. I don't support killing insane or mentally disabled people who are truly not responsible for their actions, but I don't believe that committing an "act of madness" necessarily makes you a madman. But committing an act of wanton evil makes you an evil man. [Or it makes evil those who programmed someone to act under mind control.]

Evil and madness are not synonyms. Societies that cannot distinguish between the two are destined to get more of both.

If the death penalty is always wrong, let us have an argument about James Holmes, a man many Americans are aware of, informed about and interested in. [I’m about to give “us” that argument.] Let us hear why the inequities of the criminal justice system require his life be spared. Fight the death penalty battle on this battlefield. [No, Mr. Goldberg, not on “this battlefield,” for I believe the best arguments in this case have nothing to do with even mentioning the “inequities of the criminal justice system.”]

That won't happen. It won't happen in part because nobody on the Sunday talk shows wants to debate the death penalty when the case for it is strong. They like cases that "raise troubling questions about the legitimacy of the death penalty," not cases that affirm the legitimacy of the death penalty. [There are no cases that affirm the legitimacy of the death penalty, but (believe me) those “Sunday talk shows” wouldn’t dare have someone like me speaking my piece.]

But it also won't happen because death penalty opponents understand that when the murderer is unsympathetic, the wise course is to hold your tongue until the climate improves. [I disagree. I would never hold my tongue, instead preferring to try to educate my audience no matter how much (at least, initially) they might disagree with me. Who knows? The shock might help wake them up.]

It remains an open question whether Colorado will seek the death penalty. Prosecutors know that doing so would add years and millions of dollars in extra costs because opponents have so gummed up the legal works. [Those “opponents” didn’t gum up the works by themselves; they had plenty of help from lawmakers whom passed the enabling statutes.] That way they can complain about the outrageous costs of a mechanism they themselves have worked to make prohibitively expensive.

I say, let us give Holmes a fair trial. If convicted, execute him swiftly. [How about, “If convicted, execute him with as much deliberate speed as allowed by Colorado law?”] If you disagree, explain why this man deserves to live. [Here, I’ll drop a hint of something I’ll return to below: “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.]

[Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.]

:UNQUOTE: [NOTE:  I didn’t revise Goldberg’s sentences, though I introduced breaks in some of his paragraphs for ease of reading.]

A Judaic perspective

Since Jonah describes himself as Jewish, I’ll highlight the example of Israel as one that perhaps he can appreciate. But first I want offer an impression of his essay (above). The man who wrote that might have been “Jewish” – that is, vaguely religious – but he is certainly not a Jew. The difference? Jonah seems to be more of a fierce defender of his tribal identity rather than of the tenets of his faith. The thrust of his essay is polarizing and seeks to inflame rather than invite honest answers to the issues he poses.

The following link to Wikipedia points out that only two executions have taken place in Israel since 1948 – Adolph Eichmann and Meir Tobianski. Meir was shot by a firing squad for treason, an offense for which he was posthumously exonerated!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Israel

This link also mentions this: “…in 1954 Israel abolished the penalty during peacetime with the exception of convictions of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against the Jewish people.”

[A brief aside: I find it unusual that Israel would cite “crimes against [only] the Jewish people” as being worthy of the death penalty, especially since a sizeable minority of Israel’s citizens aren’t Jewish. I mean, why aren’t “crimes against the Islamic people” covered as well?]

I had no idea that Israel’s rate of execution for capital offenses was so low. Especially in view of the following from this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_punishment_in_the_Bible

QUOTE:

Only in the case of premeditated murder was there the added stricture of 'Do not accept a ransom for the life of the murderer who deserves to die' (Num 35:31). . . . Traditional wisdom, both in the Jewish and Christian communities, interpreted this [Biblical] verse in Numbers 35:31 to mean that out of the almost twenty cases calling for capital punishment in the Old Testament, every one of them could have the sanction commuted by an appropriate substitute of money or anything that showed the seriousness of the crime, but in the case of what we today call first-degree murder, there was never to be offered or accepted any substitute or bargaining of any kind: the offender had to pay with his or her life.

:UNQUOTE.

Even though, as cited as the last words in the preceding paragraph, “the offender had to pay with his or her life,” that hasn’t been the case in Israel for over 60 years. This is because the rabbinical tradition has come down increasingly strongly in opposition over the years starting at least as early as Maimonides. It seems the idea is to avoid the death penalty unless absolutely sure of guilt – and then the rabbis got more conservative than that!  But apparently not conservative enough soon enough to save Meir Tobianski’s life in 1948.

Given that half of Israel’s (two) executions since 1948 were a mistake, I’m surprised Israel doesn’t come right out with an absolute ban on the death penalty under any and all circumstances. “But surely,” you might ask, “didn’t Adolph Eichmann deserve to die?”

I answer that with an emphatic “No! Killing him won’t bring back the dead. And keeping him alive, though in prison for a life sentence, could have yielded certain benefits. The most obvious among these: a prolonged opportunity to obtain detailed information from Eichmann about his deeds and who else was involved.  And, hopefully, once he realized he wouldn’t be executed, a chance to learn how someone like him thinks. A more subtle benefit, though perhaps the most profound, Israel could claim:

“‘On the battlefield, we will kill you. As a helpless prisoner of ours, you have only to worry about what God will do to you. And we gratefully leave that in His hands.’”

Of course, sparing Eichmann would have required of Israel a tremendous leap of faith. But perhaps not so at this time. Considering Israel’s long-standing official policy on executions versus the number actually executed, this leap if taken now would be relatively small. And it would serve to contrast that country nobly against its enemies which seem all-to-ready to execute for the smallest of reasons.

Not a bad deal, which I urge Israel to strongly consider.

In a more Christian vein

Here I cite: “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.” That’s a common paraphrasing of this, as quoted from the New International Version (© 1984) of the Bible (Romans 12:19): “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.’”

I like the part about leaving “room for God’s wrath,” which could be a subset of “leave room for God.” But we don’t do that very often, since our overinflated egos and senses of self-righteousness virtually demand that we do God’s work instead of Him – and not leave Him any damn room at all.

Even if James Holmes isn’t under mind control and isn’t insane, if the court finds him guilty it should still not kill him. Yes, put him in prison for life if you wish. And perhaps even parole him if the Colorado governor, who has that authority, happens to be a Christian who comes to believe that Holmes embraces Jesus while incarcerated and becomes saved. Such a governor would have to be very sure and also have a great deal of political courage to free such a man. But isn’t salvation in this life supposed to be more than just a possibility – that it’s supposed to be guaranteed?

Imagine this: Wouldn’t it be something if James Holmes (say, 10 years down the line) were to be pardoned and, in an act of homage, go to the theater he’d shot up in order to see a midnight revival screening of (you guessed it) Batman: The Dark Knight Rises?

At present, though, judging from the bile spewing forth on the web, there mustn’t be very many forgive-and-forget type of Christians out there.

A Buddhist’s point of view

The “Buddhist” I’m referring to here is me. However, take that with a grain of salt since I am a solo practitioner who comes from a “sect” containing exactly one member (me) with no teachers except the book known as the Lotus Sutra. I’m sure, though, that mainstream Buddhists would embrace what I’m about to say.

This link connects to the interesting story of Angulimala, a mass murderer (999 victims) who lived in India during the lifetime of Shakyamuni Buddha:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angulimala

Named at birth Ahimsaka, he became known as Angulimala (“necklace of fingers”) due to his habit of taking a finger from each of his victims and stringing it on a necklace which he wore around his neck. His goal was to collect 1,000 such fingers. This quote from the link describes what happens after the Buddha converted Angulimala:

QUOTE:

Later, King Pasenadi (the king of Kosala) set out to find and kill Angulimala. He stopped first to pay a visit to the Buddha and his followers at the monastery where they dwelled. He explained to the Buddha his purpose, and the Buddha asked how the king would respond if he were to discover that Angulimala had given up the life of a highwayman and become a monk. The king said that he would salute him and offer to provide for him in his monastic vocation. The Buddha then revealed that Angulimala sat only a few feet away, his hair and beard shaven off, a member of the Buddhist order. The king, astounded, offered to donate robe materials to Angulimala, and then returned to his palace.

[AND]

However a resentful few could not forget that he was responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. Unable to win revenge through the law, they took matters into their own hands. With sticks and stones, they attacked him as he walked for alms.

With a bleeding head, torn outer robe and a broken alms bowl, Angulimala managed to return to the monastery. The Buddha encouraged Angulimala to bear his torment with equanimity; he indicated that Angulimala was experiencing the fruits of the karma that would otherwise have condemned him to hell...

:UNQUOTE.

Ironically enough, if someone had managed to kill Angulimala when he had attained the stage of arhat, that person would have committed one of the Five Cardinal Sins of Buddhism – killing an arhat. The penalty for that would be an extremely long stay in the Hell of Incessant Suffering. Buddhists believe that karma will take its course, which is one reason why they don’t believe in capital punishment.

They had it coming to them

Karmically speaking, there is no such thing as an innocent victim. That must mean that all of the people killed by James Holmes had it coming to them. Of course that’s hard to accept in the case of the youngest victim, six years of age. But a Buddhist believes in karma, which means that nothing happens without a reason – even though that reason might have occurred many lifetimes ago. For instance, that six-year-old, in a prior life, might have committed a murder for which she now paid the price. By dying a premature death, a great deal of negative karma can be erased which will allow the person, after being reincarnated, to pursue the path of enlightenment with that much less of a karmic burden.

I would have to conclude that the patrons of that theater must have had really great karma, since only twelve people died. I do not say “only” in any attempt to trivialize this massacre; but when compared to what the death toll could have been had Holmes’ gun not jammed, I’d say the audience got off very lightly.

Practical Reasons for sparing James Holmes

I will leave it to the courts to determine if James Holmes is guilty as charged. If he is found guilty, then we would have much to gain by keeping him incarcerated for life. I am highly suspicious when people urge (as Jonah Goldman has) that Holmes be executed swiftly. That smacks of a desire to hide the evidence. For if Holmes killed all those people while under the influence of a (for example) CIA mind control experiment gone wrong (or gone right, as the case may be), that evidence would vanish upon his death – especially if he were to be cremated (and, I am predicting, that is exactly what will happen).

It is extremely rare to actually capture a mass murderer. I feel we should take full advantage of his captivity to learn as much as we can about why he did what he did, and to see if someone like that can actually be rehabilitated.

As for the Death Penalty in general

I’ll open here by quoting this article by Amnesty International (Friday, June 19, 2009) as linked here:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/states-without-death-penalty-have-lower-murder-rates

QUOTE:

Scientists agree, by an overwhelming majority, that the death penalty has no deterrent effect. They felt the same way over ten years ago, and nothing has changed since then. States without the death penalty continue to have significantly lower murder rates than those that retain capital punishment. And the few recent studies purporting to prove a deterrent effect, though getting heavy play in the media, have failed to impress the larger scientific community, which has exposed them as flawed and inconsistent.

:UNQUOTE.

Insistence on the death penalty contributes to an increasing level of meanness in our culture. Sure, we’re at war and that helps harden people, but it’s more than that. National politicians routinely and rudely snipe at each other. Anti-Muslim sentiment is rampant. Kids post YouTube videos of beatings that they and their friends participate in. And there’s a marked decline in the appreciation of finesse and subtlety – yielding to the love of brute force and immediate gratification.

I have no problem boldly defending my stand against the death penalty. Even though Jonah Goldberg challenges us with, “If you disagree, explain why this man deserves to live,” I challenge him right back by asking, “And who are you to explain why anyone ‘deserves’ to die?”

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party

“We don’t need to concern ourselves with who should die as much as with how we can go about improving the spiritual quality of life for everybody – and I don’t just mean for Americans only.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com