GOP’s Illinois presidential primary in 2012

Opening lament: I’m going to make a prediction here: Illinois will fail to have turned its GOP primary into the history-making rout it could have been. Here’s an example of what I have in mind:

News Flash:  As a result of Democratic Party cross-over voting allied with substantial independent voter support, it’s Rick Santorum in a landslide:

45% for Rick Santorum

30% for Mitt Romney

20% for Newt Gingrich

5% for Ron Paul

Suppose these numbers would come to pass. Of course, Rick Santorum couldn’t claim much of a victory with a turnout so heavily influenced by outsiders. If the turnout were to be far greater-than-expected, you can be sure Romney would cry “foul.” Such a result could delegitimize Santorum’s campaign, since he’d be seen as the candidate favored by the Democrats (therefore, the weakest candidate) to run against Obama in November.

Can you say, “Anarchy?”

The beginning of the revolution

If rank-and-file Democrats as well as liberal independents in Illinois were to give us the results above, we could truly claim this as the beginning of the revolution. More precisely? The beginning of the effective revolution. This would far outshine any efforts by the Occupy movements, for the systemic impact would be huge. For those of us who rail against the evils of the Two Party System, being able to undermine and embarrass one of those parties would be very satisfying indeed.

There are people who would question the wisdom of promoting Rick Santorum’s candidacy. Suppose he were to go on to win the GOP nomination and (worse) go on to beat Barack Obama. If liberal reformers are so afraid of that possibility (remote as it most surely is), they lack the courage to take any kind of chance at all. If they can’t muster even the small degree of courage to take this chance, they don’t deserve the label of reformer.

Building consciousness by showing (for instance) how we can strike against the GOP is necessary to any chance we’d have of succeeding. And dissatisfied voters all over the country would be galvanized by such an obvious attempt to sink Romney’s candidacy. Malcontents and the protest-minded would finally realize, “We can make a difference without having to take to the streets. Yes we can!”

Those who would sabotage the revolution

I’m a life-long resident of Chicago who has read the Chicago Reader for decades. This liberal, alternative magazine occasionally points out the flaws and outrages of the local power structure. So it was with particular interest that I read the latest issue – the last one before votes are to be cast on March 20. And sure enough, on page 6 there was an article entitled, “What’s really going on in the primary elections.”

I was hoping to read some encouragement that non-GOP voters should undermine the GOP primary as I described above. The fourth and fifth sentences, in the article by Mick Dumke and Ben Joravsky, initially  raised my soon-to-be dashed hopes: “Aside from the Republican presidential candidates fighting to return us to 1955, no other high-profile races are on the ballot – no U.S. senator, no governor, no attorney general. Incumbent state’s attorney Anita Alvarez is running for reelection, but she’s unopposed…”

But then, the article flat-lines. Instead of launching into why voters frustrated by the antics of our oppressors should seriously gut the GOP primary, Dumke and Joravsky proceed to get very boring – intentionally so, I believe. I will demonstrate that level of boredom with a few quotes at the end of this article; since were I to quote them now, you would be so bored you’d stop reading my post. But for now I’ll say, “With friends like these authors, who needs enemies?”

Dumke and Joravsky could have rallied the long-oppressed and anxious among us. They could have blasted the trumpet of “Let’s embarrass the hell out of the GOP.” And, while they were at it, they could have urged us to vote against all incumbents in the general election itself. I will digress here with a quote from my Jan. 6, 2012 blog post: “The only viable U.S. reform strategy.”

QUOTE: There is really only one way to force political reform in the United States: Deny job security to all incumbent officeholders. Translation? Next time you cast your ballot, vote against all incumbents, even those you think are good candidates. :UNQUOTE: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/01/only-viable-us-reform-strategy.html

So why did these two veteran political writers opt for a safe, uncontroversial, and boring essay? Perhaps encouraging cross-over voting runs counter to some kind of unspoken “gentleman’s agreement” among journalists. You know, the kind that prevented them from asking candidate Barack Obama any tough questions during the last campaign. Such a “gentleman’s agreement” would surely include this sentiment: “It’s okay to criticize the power structure but you can’t promote ways to undermine it.” Some old-school journalists would actually accuse me of fomenting anarchy. My response to that is: “We’re already in a state of anarchy, which is exactly where our orderly and oppressive system is leading us, slowly and surely.”

As a side note, I observe that Ben Joravsky has written extensively on the abuses of the TIF system here in Chicago. I suppose some people are grateful he’s explained the intricacies of Tax Increment Financing as manifested locally. However, I’m more keen to know why he chose to write about something that absolutely nobody can do anything about. Joravsky could have done a far greater service by leading a truly effective reformer’s charge. But…he chose not to do that, and I think it’s pretty obvious why.

The boring quotes I promised above:

QUOTE [with my comments in brackets - Steve]:

·       It’s the moment we’ve all been waiting for: the chance to vote for the next Cook County court clerk.

·       So really this election is an opportunity for the area’s most powerful politicians – the big boys and girls – to see who has the longest, um, tentacles. [The next sentence mentions Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Cook County board president Toni Preckwinkle. Can you feel the tingle of excitement building up?]

·       Don’t laugh – there have been times when judicial candidates legally changed their names to get an edge from sounding Irish. [This comes as no surprise to Chicago residents.]

·       The proxy wars extend out of Chicago and even Cook County… [Dumke/Joravsky then proceed to focus on minutiae of interest only to those who care about the fortunes of the local Democratic Party machine.]

·       …Mayor Emanuel, who coincidentally has teamed up with Joe Berrios [not surprised you, outside of Illinois, haven’t heard of him] to make his own endorsement in races ranging from water reclamation district to judicial seats across the county.

Well, I’ll stop there since I’m sure you get the idea.

To me, this much is obvious: You’re not going to get any kind of call to action from “journalists” employed by mainstream media. That media is supported by advertising, which is bought by corporations, which generally tend to support the status quo. The true irony here? Those who support that status quo will go down as surely as the rest of us.  Our failure to evolve will doom us to bad legislation from third-rate politicians.

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

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

“It’s high time for us to commit to a wholesale abandonment of journalism as it’s currently practiced in America.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Charles Krauthammer pitches for Israel (again)

On March 12, Charles Krauthammer posted a 763-word “essay” entitled: “Obama vs. Israel.” Before I analyze his essay, I want to restate one of my basic positions:

There is a way for Iran to legally pursue a nuclear arsenal. This is something no one in the media is bothering to mention. When I informed the Ron Paul campaign about this loophole, they didn’t respond. The loophole, which was built into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty itself, states (in Article X, point 1):

Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

Translation? All Iran has to do is put into writing that it has decided extraordinary events have transpired which make it unviable for them to remain bound by the treaty. I highlighted twice above to show that this decision is not subject to review. Of course, who could dispute Iran’s contention that it feels threatened by the economic sanctions (acts of war, actually) and all the loose talk coming from US presidential candidates about how we will not permit Iran to have a nuclear weapon, even if military force must be used to prevent that?

I would love to hear some reporter during a televised debate ask for a response to my article X contention from Obama and any of his GOP wannabe opponents. But, somehow I think that’s not going to happen.

Now, on to Krauthammer’s essay

I will quote sections of this essay followed by my comments:

QUOTE:

After ostensibly tough talk about preventing Iran from going nuclear, the Obama administration acquiesced this week to yet another round of talks with the mullahs.

COMMENT:

This is no small gain, that Obama ventured into this tough talk arena. As for “yet another round of talks,” it might seem that Iran is stalling but perhaps we are too. Maybe top-secret “eyes only” intel came to Obama’s attention that the sanctions are proving to be so detrimental to support for the mullahs, that time is exactly what is needed for them to be most effective.

QUOTE:

These negotiations don't just gain time for a nuclear program about whose military intent the International Atomic Energy Agency is issuing alarming warnings. They make it extremely difficult for Israel to do anything about it (while it still can), lest Israel be universally condemned for having aborted a diplomatic solution.

COMMENT:

About that military intent: The IAEA has expressed concerns. That’s true enough. However, it hasn’t issued any “alarming warnings.” All it has said so far is that IAEA hasn’t been given enough cooperation from the Iranians to make draw any conclusions or issue any “alarming warnings.”

As for making it difficult for Israel to act: Come on, Charles. Israel will do exactly what it pleases when it pleases, international opinion be damned. Even Netanyahu has recently claimed that Israel’s fate is in its own hands. Fine! If they feel threatened, they will do whatever they wish. Of course the Zionists would love the US to do its dirty work, but only because it would be cheaper, more efficient, and would deflect world censure away from Israel.

QUOTE:

If the administration were serious about achievement rather than appearance, it would have warned that this was the last chance for Iran to come clean and would have demanded a short timeline.

COMMENT:

As I said above, maybe our intel is showing current conditions in Iran deteriorating so badly, we want as much time as possible so as disrupt Iranian national unity. Maybe the mullahs were surprised that Obama didn’t demand a short timeline. Maybe Obama knows something Krauthammer doesn’t.

QUOTE:

… when Obama's own director of national intelligence was asked by the Senate intelligence committee whether sanctions had any effect on the course of Iran's nuclear program, the answer was simple: No. None whatsoever.

COMMENT:

Ah, perhaps the Senate committee was asking the wrong question. Maybe this would have been more pertinent: “Are sanctions having any discernible divisive effect on Iranian society, such as might create political pressure on the mullahs to focus on butter instead of [nuclear] guns?” Don’t forget, though: Anything the Senate committee asks would only be answered by Obama’s intel director at his discretion. That is, he might demand: “I will answer that question in closed session, but only with a provision that no public statements be made.”

Anything said by that director publicly must be analyzed knowing that his filters were on.

QUOTE:

So what is Obama's real objective? "We're trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel," an administration official told The Post in the most revealing White House admission since "leading from behind."

COMMENT:

Hmm…couple of points here:

·       Why shouldn’t we make Israel’s decision to attack “as hard as possible,” knowing that Israel will attack with or without us if it becomes convinced its survival depends on it?

·       I don’t put much credence in unnamed “administration officials” being quoted in mainstream media.

QUOTE:

The world's greatest exporter of terror (according to the State Department), the systematic killer of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, the self-declared enemy that invented "Death to America Day" is approaching nuclear capability -- and the focus of U.S. policy is to prevent a democratic ally threatened with annihilation from preempting the threat?

COMMENT:

Wow, Chas really outdid himself this time. But I’ll try my level best to undo him. Here goes:

As for “the world’s greatest exporter of terror,” a lot of people would give the US itself that distinction.

“Systematic killer?” Makes it sound like the Iranians have got a concentration camp thing going – US soldiers enter and never leave. Maybe (just maybe) Iran seeks to oppose US adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, when our forces go in, we’re saving the world for democracy. When others don’t buy that and seek to oppose us, we call them “killers.”

“self-declared enemy?” Sure, I can see why the Iranians are mad at us. We overthrew their government back in 1953 because we wanted a better oil deal. That brought in the Shah, which gave rise to mullahs, and the rest is history.

As for “democratic ally?” Israel is a theocracy, not a democracy. And it is not an ally – no ally would have sunk the USS Liberty or spied on us as did Jonathan Pollard. Israel will be the first to admit that it has no “allies” – certainly no friends – though it does maintain marriages of convenience. That’s about it.

As for “the focus of U.S. policy is to prevent [Israel] from preempting the threat?” I’ll just re-quote that Obama admin official cited above by Krauthammer himself: "We're trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel." That doesn’t say anything about preventing Israel from doing anything.

If we really wanted to prevent Israel from attacking Iran, we could do so – militarily even, if this was felt to be necessary.

QUOTE:

And then [Obama] pursues policies… meant, as his own official admitted, to stop Israel from exercising precisely that sovereign right to self-protection.

COMMENT:

Again, that official admitted no such thing. He said “we’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel.” Krauthammer is either illiterate, or forgets what he wrote earlier in the same article, or is a liar. I think he’s a liar.

QUOTE:

Obama wants to get past Nov. 6 without any untoward action that might threaten his re-election.

COMMENT:

How would a US attack on Iran threaten Obama’s re-election? In fact, I believe Obama will attack around Labor Day – insisting that the US go it alone. This will be a quick strike without the use of any US ground troops. And it will serve to silence his GOP opponent – I mean, what’s he gonna say?

QUOTE:

For Israel, however, the stakes are somewhat higher: the very existence of a vibrant nation and its 6 million Jews.

COMMENT:

According to Wikipedia: “The State of Israel has a population of approximately 7,836,300 inhabitants as of December 2011. 75.3% of them are Jewish.” I point this out to show exactly where Krauthammer is coming from – he only cares about the Jews and not the other 1.5M citizens of Israel. I’m convinced that, should he venture down the streets of any Israeli city, he would be totally blind to any non-Jew within his field of vision. For Charles Krauthammer, they simply don’t exist.

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I still think this can’t be his real name. I mean, come on – a Krauthammer is ‘one who hammers Krauts’ – kraut being a derogatory term for a German. I don’t see how such a virtual lobbyist for Israel is actually paid to publish in US newspapers – for he isn’t any kind of journalist. Nor any kind of an American.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Yahoo News Periodic Updates, March 10, 2012

On occasion, I consolidate comments I’d attempted to post to articles appearing recently on Yahoo News. I share my comments with you here hoping to reach an audience immune from Yahoo’s periodic attempts to block or censor. My posts are written as if I actually were the US President. As is my usual custom, if I open with a quoted item, that’s from the article itself.

I hope you enjoy all fourteen of these mini-essays.

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

ONE:

QUOTE (from a recent Yahoo News article):

Texas' law does not specify the type of sonogram a woman must receive, but an invasive transvaginal ultrasound is necessary to meet requirements that the doctor show the woman an image of the fetus, describe its features and make the fetal heartbeat audible in the first trimester. The procedure uses a wand inserted in the vagina to yield an image instead of a wand rubbed over a woman's belly.

My response:

“Texas'…requirements that the doctor show the woman an image of the fetus, describe its features and make the fetal heartbeat audible in the first trimester.” Hold on a minute there, hoss. Ask yourself this question: Is it also a Texas “requirement” that a woman look at the image her doctor is trying to guilt her with? Must she listen to this doctor and that heartbeat, or by plugging her fingers in her ears would she be violating the intent of the law?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Sounds to me like such a woman would be having her privacy invaded under the assumption she can’t make the right decision without a little help from the authorities. Do we really want to go there?”

TWO:

DanielF replied to ONE above:

Let's see, when you swear an oath to protect life, and turn around and perform an abortion because the vessel carrying it is not ready for it yet, shouldn't your license to practice medicine be in as much jeopardy as your honor of oath to Hippocrates?

My reply:

DanielF,

This might surprise you, but the Hippocratic Oath doesn’t mention anything about “protect[ing] life.” It does however include these, among its several provisions:

“I will respect the privacy of my patients…But it may also be within my power to take a life…” Not to mention this (but I will anyway): “I will remember that I remain a member of society…” – which presumably means that “I will adhere to society’s laws and conventions” – one of which is the currently-recognized right for a woman to terminate her pregnancy (at least within the first trimester).

Besides, there is a Constitutional argument: The rights of citizens (for instance, of pregnant women) can’t be trumped by the “rights” of non-citizens, which must include (by definition) the unborn. The only saving grace here is the Ninth Amendment’s right of “reasonable expectation” (a term of my coinage) that holds: The citizenry have a right to expect that the most egregious acts against “common decency” would be prohibited – for instance, an abortion the day before birth (to pick an extreme example).

Besides, DanielF, if we were to be consistent in our moralizing, we should insist that no woman (even the wealthiest) be allowed to leave the country without first submitting to a pregnancy test; and if she be pregnant upon leaving, she had better still be pregnant or holding a new-born babe in her arms when she return to this country. The exception would be if the child should die of natural causes during childbirth overseas; otherwise, the charge would be murder.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“This is complicated, but of course the wealthy and well-connected will always seek loopholes not available to the rest of us.”

THREE:

Open letter to our armed forces: "Warriors, don’t let anyone trample on your rights. Remember your oath of enlistment, which opens with ‘I, [state your name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…’ That means you must defend the Constitution against abuse by the President himself, should his conduct show him to be its enemy.”

“The Marine Corps said Stein is allowed to express his personal opinions as long as they do not give the impression he is speaking in his official capacity as a Marine.” What does that mean? If he is interviewed on TV while in civilian clothes, he can’t say he’s a Marine? Maybe this is what was meant: “The Marine Corps would consider speech to be improper if a Marine would claim to be speaking on behalf of the Marine Corp.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If elected, I will authorize periodic polls of our active duty warriors, while assuring their anonymity, asking for their frank opinions on the conflicts we’re engaged in; then I will publish these results.”

FOUR:

Gargoyle responded to THREE above:

defend the Constitution against abuse by the President himself ? Did you actually type that? And who the hell is Steven Searle?  Any service member who tries to assault President Obama will have the Secret Service to get through first.

My response:

@ Gargoyle,

The oath binds our warriors to protect our Constitution against enemies, foreign or domestic. Did you bother to read my qualifying statement, “…should his [the President’s] conduct show him to be its enemy?” If our president should ever become the enemy of the Constitution, all of our soldiers (because of this oath they’d sworn) would be obligated to oppose him – violently if necessary. What part of this oath do you not understand?

Actually, this oath is also sworn – especially the part I quoted – by Secret Service agents themselves. So that renders as rather humorous your last sentence. As for who I am? Just google: Steven Searle US President 2012. In case you didn’t know, information on me (as it is for most of us) is available on line.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The problem with people like you is a tendency to identify the person of the President with the office of the Presidency and to think of that person as a personification of the US itself. In that, you are wrong.”

FIVE:

[This regards an article about an on-line video which garnered millions of views recently, about the Lord’s Resistance Army.]

The focus on Kony is an attempt to deflect from our plan to re-colonize Africa. Obama’s own intelligence report states that Kony has about 300 fighters operating in an area about the size of California. And yet Obama saw that as reason enough to dispatch 100 of our troops. The real reason for those troops is to influence local state military establishments, in much the same way we attempted to compromise the militaries in South America with our “advisors” and “trainers.” This is too transparent – even a Tea Partier ought to be able to figure this one out.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Obama never was the ‘change you can believe in,’ from day one he was the ‘change’ that will carry on the neo-con plan for US Empire.”

SIX:

“the teachings about black men bearing the curse of Cain and having been unfaithful to God in a past life…” I keep telling you: Mormons are the Abrahamic link to Buddhism. How else could they so casually talk about what was done “in a past life?” Reincarnation, anybody?

Wait, it gets even better with this from an early Mormon sermon called the King Follett discourse. I paraphrase the best part: “As Man is now, God once was; as God is now, Man shall one day become.” Substitute the word “Buddha” for “God” (no great leap there), and the Mormons might as well own up to being Buddhists.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If Romney wins, we might end up getting our first Buddhist president. If I win, we’ll definitely do so.”

SEVEN:

AwakeAlertOrientedx3 replied to SIX above:

"As Man is now, Jesus once was; as Jesus is now, Man shall one day become." Is that really that different from what is taught by traditionaly Christianity?

My response:

@ Awake…

Couple of problems here.  First, Jesus is not God in the Mormon view. However, I will answer your question as if He were. Nowhere in traditional Christianity does it say that a man can become equal to God. Taking a closer look at your quote, Jesus was never “as Man is now,” for Jesus was born without sin and did not sin while in mortal form. Given that, how could anyone claim that Jesus was once like a common mortal?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Besides all this, you overlook the effects of reincarnation in terms of enabling self-perfection. All of traditional Christianity says we only get one life and that salvation is possible only through Jesus Christ.”

EIGHT:

This is great news! Since Israel says it’s the “master of its fate,” there’s no need for Obama to say he’s got Israel’s back. That also means Israel will no longer need our multi-billion dollar per year (since 1976) welfare payment to their military. I mean, why would that be necessary since Israel is now the master of its own fate? Again, this is great news for US taxpayers. Life is good.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“On the other hand, saying one is master of his own fate sounds like a very secular kind of thing to say, doesn’t it? Where exactly is Netanyahu coming from?”

NINE:

ulsterirish1 responded to EIGHT above:

Israel will be fine with that plan as long as the US also grows the balls to quit making bribe payoffs to Islamic countries . @YourNPres, Who makes the tanks and planes?

My response:

Ulsterirish1,

I had no idea this thread was graced with someone of your stature  – that is, someone who knows what Israel “will be fine with.” Say hi to Bibi for me – yes, he knows who I am.

As for “who makes the tanks and planes?” Partial answer: US taxpayers employed by the arms industry. However, those are SOME taxpayers who have their employment supported by OTHER taxpayers – which is a form of welfare. You might want to claim, “It’s all about jobs, so who cares where the money comes from?” Basing even part of our economy on war makes us dependent on – you guessed it, a constant need to support war machines. In the end, we end up paying a lot more than we could ever “gain” by “earning” this blood money.

Another point: If the government is going to get into supporting American industry by means of indirect welfare payments, I’m sure there are far superior investments that could be made – say in infrastructure and education.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If elected, I will withdraw US diplomatic recognition from Israel and give it, instead, to Palestine. Enough BS is enough – we’ve paid for our folly long enough.” Ulsterirish1,

TEN:

Isaac responded to EIGHT above:

Hello you blithering idiot. I think its time someone got their facts straight. The "welfare payment" that you speak of is a 3.1 billion dollar annual grant given by the united states government to the israeli military TO SPEND ON AMERICAN WEAPONS!!!!!!!!!! They dont get this money to go buy candy. They buy American goods with every red cent of it. In addition, Israel has some very advanced tech that they SHARE with the US. It is not a one way relationship. Get your facts straight.,

My response:

Isaac,

Ah, it’s my pleasure to deal with yet another name-caller who tries to evade the main point. You said, “They [sic] dont get this money to go buy candy.” But…they still get this money and it comes from US taxpayers, so my welfare comment still stands.

You say: “They buy American goods with every red cent of it.” Not just any “American goods,” but American weapons. I have a problem with us being one of the main arms dealers of the world, providing weapons for both sides. But the biggest problem is the false economy underlying this scam. That is, our government interferes with the free market system by subsidizing Israeli “purchases.” Such government intervention is not good economic policy.

While it’s true that those who make the weapons and their employees earn money from selling weapons to Israel, there’s no real net gain for the US because that same money “earned” had to come from somewhere. Guess where? The taxpayers, who might instead appreciate either lower taxes or redirection of that money into non-blood money enterprises! So where’s the gain to our economy?

As for Israel sharing high tech with us, it’s nothing we couldn’t live without and we give them access to high tek as well. But I’m more concerned about the false economy issue. Say, Isaac, how's the weather over in Israel this time of year?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Next time, Isaac, before you post, clear your comments with Netanyahu – I’m sure he would have stopped you dead in your tracks so you wouldn't have looked so stupid.”

ELEVEN:

[The following consists of an exchange between me and two posters. I quote them first.]

Zo says: Exactly! There were 4 wars against Israel and none since Dimona silos are built.

But who is this "historian" [Martin Levi van Creveld – an Israeli military historian, quoted by another poster] and why you think we should pay attention to his words? He is not president of Israel and he is not calling for the total destruction of another state.

Miss says: M, actually their latest jericho missiles can be launched far enough away to hit the eastern half of the U.S. (which means they can hit as far away as Indonesia). Actually, all distance measurements are taken using allies it would NOT destroy.

It's called "the Sampson Option." The whole point would be Israel acting like the Biblical Sampson, destroying itself to perserve Judaism elsewhere. By definition, sending missiles to European capitals or major U.S. cities would NOT be part of it as these missiles would destroy the world's remaining Jews outside Israel, the very people the Sampson Option is meant to protect. That's why Europeans/Americans don't complain or get scared when they refer to destroying those cities... because they are actually talking about an entirely different set of cities of equal distance.

My responses:

@ Zo...Come on. Don’t be so lazy. Just look him up on Wikipedia. He's world famous.

@Miss, Nice try, but you lie when you say, “distance measurements are…allies it would NOT destroy.” As Creveld wrote, “Most European capitals are targets for our air force.” If the Israelis got mad enough, they’d have no problem destroying those capitals.

Also, there are two problems with your claim of Israel, “destroying itself to preserve Judaism elsewhere.” First, Israel doesn’t care as much about preserving “Judaism” (really…whatever that is) as it cares about preserving the lives of its tribesmen. Life precedes philosophy, so to speak. Second, if Israel were to destroy itself, the remaining Jews world-wide would keep a lower profile and most of the rest of the world (seriously) wouldn’t miss Israel at all.

@ everybody in general:

I find Creveld’s last two sentences to be of special interest: First of all, Israel doesn’t have the “capability to take the world down with us” – with only 200 nukes, is he kidding? Lastly, he assures us “that [Israel will take the world down with us], before Israel goes under.” Let’s be real clear about what this Jewish Nazi is saying: He thinks it’s quite alright to destroy 7 billion mostly innocent people if his 6 million tribesmen were to perish. That, my friends, is the raving of a genocidal maniac.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Martin van Creveld doesn’t believe in Judaism at all; he has made in his mind a God which is the Jewish tribe. No more, no less.”

TWELVE:

“What would a US counterattack [against Iran] look like?” What counterattack? I predict the US will attack Iran before Labor Day of this year – without Israel’s help. Our leaders will insist on Israeli abstinence here, so as to spare Netanyahu’s tribesmen from Islamic wrath. If the US “counterattacks,” that will only be in response to a false flag operation conducted by the US. As for Obama, his plan right now is to attack Iran unilaterally. All this talk of giving diplomacy a chance to work is a sham.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“A US operation against Iran will be code for: The US dominated One World Order has just been gaveled into session – yer either fer us or agin us.”

THIRTEEN:

“…[Netanyahu] told the assembled Israel partisans…which included three quarters of members of Congress.” Wow! This article came right out and said three quarters of our Congressmen are Israel partisans.  According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a partisan is “a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially: one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.” It’s amazing when 75% of our legislators can agree on anything – but allegiance to a foreign power? That’s a bit much, don’t you think?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“We need independent Congressmen, so get rid of the Dem/Pubs who blindly support Israel – at our expense.”

FOURTEEN:

Is McCain going to offer a formal War Resolution in the Senate? Something like: “We the ever-obsequious Congress do hereby grant our backing if POTUS wants to attack Syria with whatever force he deems necessary for however long it will take.” [There! That about covers all bases, yes?]

War making decisions should at least be endorsed (in advance!) by the Congress rather than letting POTUS act unilaterally. But…I hate to break this Mac: If we get involved in Syria, we will not be able to stop al-Qaida from taking over.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“In more ways than you can count, we created al-Qaida.”

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I’d make a very good US President. Unfortunately, my candidacy will never see the light of day. I do hope, though, that you who read my material at least enjoy it – and at most derive something of value from it.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com