Abolish the US Presidency

I propose an Amendment to the US Constitution to abolish the presidency – at least, as we know it. There would still be a President but he would not be – as he is now – an Imperial President.

My amendment would render as obsolete most of Article II of the Constitution, which opens by saying:

“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

I propose the following as a change in that sentiment:

“The President of the United States shall be considered primarily as the nominal head of state, as a diplomat serving at the pleasure of and under the instruction of Congress.”

It is important here to immediately address what I mean by “Congress.” Most Americans hold their duly-elected Congressmen in such low esteem, even used car salesmen look good. So I couldn’t possibly mean that kind of Congress. Instead, I foresee a Congress composed entirely of independents who are unaligned with any interest group or political party. Redefining Congress in this way is important in light of these two parts of my proposed amendment:

·       The only persons eligible to serve as President will be sitting Congressmen.

·       The only persons eligible to vote for President will be sitting Congressmen.

That is to say, the President will have been an actively-serving Congressman who surrenders that office upon being elected by a majority of his fellow Congressmen for a four year term as President.

I can hear the hue and cry now about We-the-People being stripped of our right to choose our leader. [As if We really have much choice in the matter.]  However, that redefined leader will have very few powers and will serve his four year term unless Congress, for any reason of its choosing, decides to replace him at any time, with or without cause.

The President that I envision will be Congress’s chief representative in dealings with foreign nations. That is, he’ll be a conduit through which the sense of the Congress will be known. He will not, however, be the Chief Executive who presides over the agencies currently listed under his control; Congress will determine who will lead those agencies and those leaders will be subject to immediate replacement by Congress. However, as long as they are in charge, they can manage these agencies, with their decisions being subject to Congressional override.

The President will have nothing to do with Supreme Court nominations; there’s no reason the Congress couldn’t handle that task on its own.

The President will not be Commander in Chief, since the Congress itself (or a select few Congressmen of its choosing) will convey its orders to our armed forces. The only military function to be served by the President, which is a carryover from past presidents, is his role in launching the US’s nuclear weapons.

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

Our Founding Fathers’ single greatest failure was in determining that we needed (what is really) a One-Man Branch of Government. Unfortunately, this de facto king managed to acquire ever-increasing power unto himself. Our greatest failure as an electorate was to go along with this scam.

Even the Constitution makes plain that it is Congress that is to be preeminent, since Congress is mentioned first (in Article I) and the Presidency second (in Article II). But, lo and behold, we all went along with the nonsense that we have three separate but equal branches of government. That absolutely was never the intention: Congress was meant to be dominant. For those who doubt that, ask yourself this: Why is Congress the only branch that can (without being subject to appeal) impeach members of the other two branches but can't itself be impeached?

Closing Thoughts

We don’t really need a President, in our current sense of what that office implies. Instead of being a leader, too often he is a lightning rod that attracts opposition to himself simply because that’s just one more way to attack his political party. The President becomes a polarizing figure who manages to bring out the basest emotions of the body politic as each election cycles begins anew.

If we had a President who ceased to be so vital to the legislative process, then We-the-People would start paying more attention to having a quality Congress. Having an Imperial President tends to muddy the waters, helping us lose our focus.

This last part might not seem all that important, but I would eliminate this sentence from Article II:

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

I am amazed that this had been included in the first place by the Founding Fathers, especially since it’s there for no good reason. I mean, come on people, once a candidate is elected President, should he be denied his office if he should decide to refuse to take this oath?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“We will probably never change our minds about the presidency because we share so much in common with citizens of other nations – civilized or not: We love our strongman form of government.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The USA’s [NOT!]Civil War, and guns for felons

Today, I’m going to address the issue of guns for felons. From there, I’ll turn to the grossly misnamed Civil War of the USA’s past and the possibility of a genuine Civil War in the future.

The Source

As always, it’s a good idea to start with the source. In this case, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Based on this, by what authority are felons barred from owning guns? My question stems from my conviction that, once a felon serves his sentence (that is, after he has paid his debt to society), he shouldn’t continue to be punished. But in fact he is, for under our legal system, there is no such thing as an ex-felon. Even after release from prison, such a person is marked for life; he continues to be treated as a criminal.

Such “disenfranchisement” bears the US Supreme Court’s approval based on three words in the 14^th Amendment. Those three words, which I’ll highlight in yellow below, are contained in Section 2, which in part reads:

But when the right to vote…is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

In a nutshell, this section simply allows states the right to deny the right to vote, but must pay the consequence of reduced representation in Congress, the only exemption concerning those who rebel or commit an “other crime.”

Now, the 14^th Amendment is odd for a number of reasons, two of which I’ll cite here:

ONE:

I’m amazed that the Supreme Court could give to state authorities the “right” to disenfranchise (I’ll call them) ex-felons based on something as unconstitutionally vague as the words “or other crime?” That is to say, someone can lose their right to vote for a crime such as…loitering!? Not even the Constitution itself is of much help here; I’m thinking specifically of Article II, Section 4 which states:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

I’m amazed that two serious crimes are mentioned (treason and bribery), only to have follow (in the same breath, as it were) “OTHER [my emphasis] high crimes and misdemeanors.”


TWO:

[I will quote the following from this source, inserting my own comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Acts .]


QUOTE:

After the end of the American Civil War…the United States Congress passed four statutes known as Reconstruction Acts. … Fulfillment of the requirements of the Acts were necessary for the former Confederate States to be readmitted to the Union.

[COMMENT: I find it hard to understand why these states had to be readmitted, since the position of the Union during the war was that secession was illegal (in other words, it wasn’t recognized as having taken place). To “readmit” these states must therefore imply that they had been in fact lawfully seceded.]

[AND]

In addition, Congress required that each state draft a new state constitution, which would have to be approved by Congress. The states also were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution…

[COMMENT: As for the 10 words highlighted in turquoise: How can an Amendment be considered legitimately ratified if a state was forced to vote for its ratification? Even more to the point, since such a state (apparently) needed to be readmitted to the Union, by what right could it have voted for ratification in the first place?]

:UNQUOTE.


Undermining the Second Amendment

One well-publicized intention of the Second Amendment was to provide for an at-large militia which, if granted the right to bear arms, could serve as a check on the possibility our government would ever take a turn toward tyranny. Such a tyrannical force could, conceivably, decide to disarm potential malcontents. People incarcerated as felons (especially for crimes of violence) would be exactly the type of persons who would be most willing to take action against a government they feel to be unjust.

So, from the government’s point of view, it would be useful to disarm such persons. But that same government would market this policy to the general public as a means of insuring public safety, though I hasten to point out – no such considerations were incorporated into the Second Amendment itself. That’s how fundamental the Founding Fathers considered to be the right to bear arms.

But of course times change, and those who were once the revolutionary Founding Fathers have been replaced by those who are far more interested in keeping (and expanding) their own personal power.

You would think that the NRA and the GOP would be at the forefront of the battle to restore gun ownership rights to ex-felons. But you would be wrong by so thinking. Those two groups have been tied to the so-called Law and Order rhetoric for so long, they couldn’t support the rights of others who are overwhelming marginalized by everybody else.

[NOTE: I don’t know what the Tea Partiers think of felons and guns, but I doubt they would boldly champion the cause of the ex-felon. Doing so would detract support from their other agenda items.]

It’s interesting to see how the GOP seeks to divide us on this issue. There are 291 words in the GOP’s 2012 platform under the heading, “Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” I will quote from (and comment on) some of those words:

QUOTE:

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right …solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense.

[COMMENT: The term “law-abiding” citizen is a euphemism for non-felon. Why shouldn’t a felon have a “God-given right of self-defense?”]

[AND]

Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities.

[COMMENT: This last sentence is almost too funny. Since felons are denied the right to own guns, is the GOP saying that felons are no longer citizens? If “gun ownership is [supposed to be] responsible citizenship,” then how can the GOP tolerate the disarming of ex-felons who would be more than happy to rebel against a tyrannical government? For the potential for such a rebellion to be successful must surely be part of what is meant by “to defend…their communities.”]

:UNQUOTE.

Comparing The Battle of Athens, Tennessee in 1946

to the (misnamed) American Civil War

There are a lot of Second Amendment enthusiasts – that is, the kind who think our guns will protect us against our own government – who cite the case of the Battle of Athens, Tennessee in 1946. They see that “Battle” as an example of the power of unregulated guns to beat the Establishment. Keep in mind, as you read the following quote, that the “Battle” was fought against sheriff’s deputies, holed up in a jail with uncounted ballots, in order to release those ballots to determine who the [are you ready for this?] next sheriff should be.

QUOTE [including my comments]:

SOURCE: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm  ]:

As Recently As 1946, American Citizens Were
Forced To Take Up Arms As A Last Resort
Against Corrupt Government Officials.

[AND]

On August 1-2, 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force as a last resort to overturn it.


[COMMENT: No such thing happened. The “county government” wasn’t overturned. What happened? Ballot boxes were liberated, which denied election to a candidate for sheriff representing an oppressive cabal.]

These Americans wanted honest open elections. For years they had asked for state or federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud (forged ballots, secret ballot counts and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies) by the local political boss. They got no help.

:UNQUOTE.

Unbelievable! Homegrown militia types tout this as a great victory for citizens bearing arms. However, they conveniently overlook the greatest example in our history of citizens taking arms against the federal government in a struggle which they lost. I’m referring of course to the USA’s 1861 – 1865 War of Secession.

Simply put, there were 11 states which no longer wished to remain part of the United States of America. And, Constitutionally-speaking, they had every right to withdraw from that Union. Even our Declaration of Independence, in its very first sentence, speaks of when “…it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth [their status as an independent nation].”

To be sure, the Confederates didn’t lose quickly. Against an army that was twice their size, they inflicted twice as many killed as they themselves suffered. They had guns and even an organized and very effective army. But in the end, their right to bear arms did not do what it was supposed to do – act as insurance against a tyrannical government. [“Tyrannical” in the sense of being forceful in its insistence that the 11 seceding states remain in the Union.]

Reflections on the True Meaning of

the USA’s War of Secession

I passionately and thoroughly disagree with calling this war, a Civil War. For it was not, simply because it doesn’t fit the universally-accepted definitions of what comprise civil wars. It was a War of Secession. In fact, I would like to see an Act of Congress officially naming this conflict as such a war.

I am a firm believer in the truth and, also, in truth in packaging. It’s about time we saw this conflict for what it was. I’ve often wondered why the Union was so insistent against secession, though it didn’t take long to realize that the issue of slavery was only of modest importance.

The fact is, the South wasn’t really integrated into USA society as a whole. And that’s simply because, there was no such thing at the time. The Unionists weren’t as much opposed to secession as they were to what that might bring about. And the primary fear was, the possibility of the various European powers vying for influence (and investment opportunities) in the newly-minted Confederacy. And that, in turn, could mean competition, something the industrial North could not tolerate.

Why we need a New Order of New Leaders

I’m going to cite one more quote of interest to show the cynicism of our lawmakers, who are far more interested in making exceptions for the sake of business than in enforcing the pure intentions of the Second Amendment (not to mention, other laws which they choose to enforce only at their own whim).

QUOTE:

Under federal law, those convicted of a felony are forbidden from purchasing or possessing firearms and explosives. Yet as the result of a 1965 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, convicted felons were allowed to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) for "relief" from the "disability" of not being able to buy and possess guns.

The "relief from disability" program was established as a favor to firearms manufacturer Winchester, then a division of Olin Mathieson Corporation. In 1962 Olin Mathieson pleaded guilty to felony counts stemming from a kickback scheme involving Vietnamese and Cambodian pharmaceutical importers. Under the law as it existed at the time, Winchester could no longer be licensed as a firearm manufacturer. The "relief from disability" program allowed Winchester to stay in business.

SOURCE: http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm

:UNQUOTE.

Why, oh why, do exceptions to policies so often come into existence only for the benefit of the well-connected?

The Civil War of the Future

After you’ve read this post, I hope you’ll see how futile would be armed insurrection against the US government. For what was true at the time of the War of Secession is certainly more true now: The feds can outgun, in terms of quantity and quality, any conceivable militia which, by no stretch, could be as organized and omnipresent as the feds. The best such militias could hope for would be to serve as an irritant, much as street gangs are to municipal police departments. The risk of such an approach would be to bring down the awful specter of martial law and a further consolidation of federal power.

And that would serve to squelch any possibility of a sympathetic mass uprising by the general public.

The Civil War of the Future will be intelligently fought – and won – without firing a single shot. Elsewhere on this blog, especially in my earliest postings, I’ve described how that might be accomplished, which I’ll leave it to you to pursue. But I will say this: Our greatest strategy involves educating the public to the necessity of voting against all incumbents, at all times, for all offices on a consistent basis for at least ten years. Only that can work to pave the way for non-party aligned, independent office seekers to get elected.

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

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

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Yahoo Periodic News Updates, August 26, 2012

[Correction: I erred in the title by indicating July 29, 2012 as the date of posting; I corrected it to August 26, 2012, which is now reflected in the current title. My apologies.]

It looks like my relationship with Yahoo! has finally flatlined. I have long suspected that Yahoo! sporadically blocked my posts. However, I was at least able to try posting for the last 18 months. That is, until about 10 days ago, when I discovered I couldn’t even access the “comment” option.

So what follows are my comments that had managed to get posted before Yahoo! decided to pull the plug. Of course, they haven’t responded to my email seeking to restore access. But I suppose the reason is quite simple: The election for US president is getting close, so Yahoo! appears to be shutting down people like me who might raise embarrassing points.

Judge for yourself, though. The following mostly deal with the upcoming election, so perhaps those comments (on top of those of the preceding months) must have made certain powerful people uncomfortable. But you know how it is: We have freedom of speech, alright. But not too much, especially if it bothers the people who count.

As is my usual custom, if I open with a quoted item, that’s from the article itself.

I hope you enjoy all 29 of these mini-essays.

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

ONE:

[This was one comment Yahoo! blocked, in spite of numerous attempts I’d made to post. I can definitely see how this post made the Pubbers nervous.]

“… who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway?" [So asked Bush the Senior.] It doesn’t matter who he is but, rather, what he got a lot of Congressmen to do – sign his No Tax pledge. As an independent candidate, I am opposing Obama/Romney by offering a written contract. One of its provisions says that I will not increase taxes, borrowing, or fees. Another provision says, if I violate my written contract I am to lose my office by means of an uncontested impeachment.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Words are important – especially when you give your word.”

TWO:

[This is the first of my responses to “I drive a truck.” The second immediately follows.]

Paul Ryan claims, “I drive a truck. I used to work at McDonald’s. I like to camp. I’m you.” [sigh] Not quite. How many of you got elected to Congress at the tender age of 28 and got to stay for 14 years? How many of you were groomed for a life in politics immediately upon graduation from college? Ryan looks youthful – and he is – but he’s really a Washington insider out of touch with anything but the conservative ideas of those who’d groomed him. I say the man lacks balance.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“You see, the way it works – take a young, impressionable guy and put him under the wings of reliable party elders, then he’ll never be tempted to stray. But be sure to stroke him good and plenty along the way.”

THREE:

Paul Ryan: “I drive a truck. I used to work at McDonald’s. I like to camp. [I’m a rabid fan of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Enlightened, Elitist, Selfishness.] I’m you.” No, Paul, you’re not us. And we’ll gladly show you the door in November, but I suppose you already know that Romney’s not going to make it. Your sights are already on 2016. Which is okay, really it is. But you won’t win then either.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“No, Paul, you’re not like us at all.”

FOUR:

"Don't give me Ayn Rand," [Paul Ryan] says. Too late – you were pretty enamored of her all of 7 years ago. So your infatuation was more than a childish whim. Why the about-face? Did your Pope give you a tongue-lashing about this?

“Ryan has since denied making his staff read the books.” So, was he lying when he’d claimed the opposite back in 2005? Or is he lying now? One way or the other – he’s a liar.

“And the fight we are in here…is a fight of individualism versus collectivism."  That’s a typical Pubber for you, seeing things in terms of black or white (or to quote a famous Pubber sage, “you’re either fer us or agin us”).  Both forces vie against each other but the outcome heavily favors compromise. As for pure individualism winning out, “No man is an island entire of itself.” As for collectivism winning out, “Variety is the spice of life.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Paul Ryan isn’t as smart as he thinks he is or even as smart as he thinks his supporters think he is.”

FIVE:

So Reince is calling Sen. Reid a “dirty” liar... because…? There’s no way Reince could know whether or not Reid had a source. So for the Pubber [national] chair to call Reid a liar would make him (wait for it, here it comes)…presumptuous. Not bad. A presumptuous defense of the presumptive GOP nominee. These boys are batting a thousand. Now, how about one of you Pubber boys stepping up to the plate and offering some solutions instead of acting self-righteously indignant?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The more I see of the current GOP crop, the more they seem like mean and petty little connivers.”

SIX:

Senator Graham says “I think he’s lying,” and yet the previous sentence in this article says, “…Graham called…Reid…a liar…” There’s a world of difference between “I think” and calling someone a liar. Of course, one might ask Lindsey, “Upon what evidence do you say you ‘think’ Reid is lying? Or did you mean to say, ‘I’ve got a gut feeling Reid is lying about this?’” Of course, to that, the reporter could ask, “SFW?”

At least Graham is trying to be indirect, as opposed to the chair of the GOP (Reince Priebus) calling Reid a “dirty liar” – without saying “I think” first.

All this puts Money[R] in a tight spot, since releasing his tax forms now would make it seem like he’s buckling under pressure. In fact, Mitt might be having a problem selecting a VP because he very well might insist that they, too, hide (I mean, “withhold”) their tax forms. How would it look if a VP released his forms and his boss didn’t?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I love watching these guys squirm.”

SEVEN:

The real question is, “Will Ryan embrace Ayn Rand’s ideas regarding governance?” Ryan is quite the Rand devotee, so I suspect she will be his driving force.  But maybe we should think about what that really means. Matt Taibbi gave this nice little summary in his book “Griftopia:”

“…the Rand belief system looks like this:

1…Facts are facts: things can be absolutely right or absolutely wrong, as determined by reason.

2…According to my reasoning, I am absolutely right.

3…Charity is immoral.

4…Pay for your own [effin] schools.”

In spite of all the huffing and puffing, that’s what Ayn Rand is all about. And that’s what Paul Ryan is all about, once you strip away the rhetoric.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Karmically speaking, we supposedly get the leaders we deserve, but (really) what on earth did we do wrong to deserve this?”

EIGHT:

"I [Paul Ryan] grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff.” That’s what is quoted (in a speech made in 2005) on the Wikipedia page under Paul Ryan’s name.

I, too, have read from Ayn Rand’s works, noting how easily the young and gullible could fall for her load of bull. If Ryan had been so inspired by her, I dare say his reading list wasn’t very broad.

Yesiree, Bob. The Dems are going to go to town on this guy. But Romney will have the consolation of having satisfied his conservative base. Tell you what: After Romney loses this election, no one in that base will even bother to buy him a beer and offer condolences.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Obama and company must be dancing for joy about now.”

NINE:

“And as the economy grows…[Money[R]’s] plan would be virtually paid for by those increased revenues.” Sounds like a case of counting one’s chickens before they hatch – or trickle down.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The economy will grow when people spend more; and they’ve got to have more confidence in the overall system to do that. Question: What will Willard do to jack up that confidence?”

TEN:

"[Romney is] going to have to really, really go to the right.” No, he won’t. He’ll just carry a big stick and talk softly, saying, “I’m the President…what part of that don’t you understand?” Besides, if Romney doesn’t go their way, what’s the Tea Party going to do – bolt from the GOP, impeach Romney, and try to elect one of their own to the White House? These people are delusional. There’s not a true conservative among them – just a bunch of opportunistic, limelight-seeking con-men. And the rest of us have already figured that out.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If Romney wins – which I severely doubt BTW – he’ll ‘richard’ [hey, I've got to use that word to get by the Yahoo censors] the Tea Party into submission. Yessiree, Bob, good old boy Willard will show these uppity types what’s what.”

ELEVEN:

J,

I’m on drugs? And YOUR handle is “J?” I’m loving this. As for solutions - come on, face it. The only “solution” Money[R] is offering is, “Vote for me because I’m not Obama.” Go ahead, J, name one solution (vague oratory not counting) that the Pubbers have offered after almost four years of sniping daily at the president, swearing he’d be a one-termer almost from day one.

If [Senator] Reid’s got a source that he doesn’t disclose [a source that claims Romney hasn’t paid any income tax for 10 years], maybe that’s because that source made him promise not to. If I had a source that had inside info on my opponents, I would keep his identity to myself hoping for more leads.

As for your fourth question, I would love it and so would anyone else in this country standing before a judge. Most defendants in our judicial system would consider themselves lucky to be able to prove their innocence, even though we all know the prosecution is supposed to prove guilt.

I think you blew it, though, perhaps intending to phrase your question this way:

“How would you like to be accused of a crime and told your only defense is to prove that the allegations are false, which you could do only by revealing information [the infamous undisclosed tax returns] which you have every right to keep to yourself as privileged information, not for your accusers to prove their validity??”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“J, you must be a Pubber, since you seem to have problems using proper English to express what you mean to say. Just saying…”

TWELVE:

"Sometimes I have to catch my breath…” – Boehner.
So that’s why Boner sounds like he's thinking with a hyperventilated brain. Slow down, dude. Take deep breaths. Then good ideas will come to you. But, really, to come right out and lie like this – saying the President “never even had a real job.” Being respectful of the presidency might be too much to expect these days, but to come out with a bald-faced lie? How does Boner sleep at night?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The Speaker needs to lose the next election. Then he’ll find out what it means to need a real job. Oh, that’s right…he's from one of them thar safe seats, so no worries, right?”

THIRTEEN:

[This is my response to an article with this headline: “Romney Says Obama Lawsuit Blocks Ohio Military Voters.”]

“Republicans faulted the extra time for civilians as too costly for local governments and prone to fraud and abuse.” If the polling places are going to be open anyway (to enable early voting by the military), then how is it “too costly” to extend that same privilege to others? As for “prone to fraud and abuse,” then maybe early voting should be eliminated for all.

If Money[R] is going to jump on this issue, that simply shows how desperate he is. And he is desperate because he certainly isn’t offering any solutions other than to say, ‘Vote for me because I’m not Obama.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Sorry, Willard, that ain’t gonna cut it.”

FOURTEEN:

“an unusual shroud of secrecy on the case [imposed by the judge who is hearing the case of the Batman Theater shooter]"… Oh, I don’t know. It’s not such an unusual shroud if the CIA is in any way involved. I still think the shooter was the victim of some kind of govt mind control experiment gone terribly wrong. Or maybe not so wrong. Soon after the shooting, his former university put a gag order on all of his former professors. Something about this whole episode really stinks.

Don’t be too quick to hold James Holmes personally responsible.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If elected, I (like JFK) will urge the disbanding of the CIA. And, yeah, I know what happened to him."

FIFTEEN:

[This is part of my response to Tearless's 444-word reply to one of my posts.]

@ Tearless,

ONE: I never called the Fed or the IRS “parts of government;” they are, as everyone knows, agents of that government which were created by legislation.

TWO: The “reformation” I promote is non-partisan not, as you wrote, “partisan[ship].” A recurring theme in all my writings is the need to vote out all Dem/Pubs and replace them with independents.

THREE:  My CSR constitution will save this country trillions. As for specific bills, I propose few. I’m relying on independent legislators who aren’t beholden to party or lobby to pool their collective wisdom to come up with solutions. I accuse Ron Paul’s supporters of having a Savior Complex. They think electing one man will be a magic bullet. Read your Constitution and you’ll see how it’s the Congress (Article I) which is pre-eminent and that POTUS is supposed to be secondary (not equal to Congress).

FOUR:  Part of my written Contract is that I will not sign any bill into law that raises taxes or increases the debt ceiling. This is superior to Bush I’s famous “Read my lips: No new taxes.” If I were to violate my pledge, I would lose my office.

If you choose to support the Constitution, you’ll be supporting something our government doesn’t. What do you propose to do about that? Remember the primary rule of evolution: Survival, not of the “fittest” but of the most adaptable. Those who don’t adapt, die. By doggedly sticking with the outdated Constitution – warts and all – you’re only hastening our demise.

As for my “totalitarian-style trade policy,” my call is for a voluntary boycott against Israeli products. In fact, I believe in open trade – as evidenced by my view that our decades’ old boycott of Cuban products is a violation of international law.

I could say more, but there’s not much point since you obviously didn’t read my material very carefully. Instead, you choose a form of character assassination by accusing me of positions I didn’t take.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“All I ask is that people read my stuff, not make up stuff.”

SIXTEEN:

Money[R]’s remark [comparing Palestinians to Israeli Jews] can all too easily morph into something like this: “Poor Americans are mired in poverty because of their inferiority to Mormons.” People like Willard (the upper tenth of the upper 1%) don’t have to come right out and say stuff like this because it comes out of their every pore.

As for the “hand of providence,” the fact we’ve given Israel $3B per year since 1976 hasn’t hurt either. Or are we (the US) the “hand of providence” being referred to?

As much as some Americans “aren’t overly fond” of the Palestinians, they’re down right sick and tired of how our politicians don the yarmulke and kiss the Wailing Wall - that not being all they kiss, when it comes to campaign fundraising.

I am a presidential candidate – the only one – who doesn’t pledge allegiance to a Greater Israel of which the US is a virtual part. If elected, I won’t sign any bill into law giving Israel or Egypt any type of aid whatsoever. Zionists! Get your hands off our pols and out of our pockets.

The article was right about one thing, though, when it mentioned Money[R] showing uncharacteristic “conviction and sincerity.” What’s that say about Willard in a more general way?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“One of these days, our pols will come to fully realize just how much the average American is coming to actually despise Israel – and all it ‘stands’ for.”

SEVENTEEN:

Kathyk goofed when she posted, “We will never have campaign reform because the people who benefit from it make the rules.” I’m sure she meant to say, “…the people who WOULD benefit from it [“it” being “campaign reform”] DON’T make the rules.” In her mind, perhaps she was trying to say this: “We will never have campaign reform because the people who benefit from the status quo make the rules.” And yet, she got 438 thumbs-up vs. 11 thumbs-down for her goof. And none of the 54 who replied noticed the error of her words.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“And I’m equally sure none of these posters knows how to bring about campaign reform. I do – vote independent or anti-incumbent.”

EIGHTEEN:

[John D took exception to me beating up on Kathyk (above), thinking I was being nitpicky. So of course, right off the bat, I set John D straight about his own sloppy writing.]

John D,

Your first sentence doesn’t make sense, for “arguments” don’t “comprehend.” Did you perhaps mean to say, “…the meaning of her post was comprehended by her AUDIENCE?” BTW, Kathyk’s mistake wasn’t grammatical; it was a sin of omission of two words. Obviously, most people would agree with you, that speaking and writing accurately aren’t important anymore – that we’re all just supposed to “get it” when someone bumblingly spews out their profundities. So much for the future of American craftsmanship, eh? And we used to be somewhat of an educated nation.

I’m adamant about voting independent or voting out all incumbents. There really is no other way. We need to terrorize the Dem/Pubs by firmly insisting they all have to go. In the final analysis, there are no good incumbents since (deep down) they’re all too used to operating within the system. And that’s the problem.

Were you trying to imply that votes for independents are stolen or are left uncounted when you wrote “…most of those votes get lost in the shuffle?” If so, then those who count the votes are pretty dishonest, aren’t they? And those people are party members. As in Europe, the civil service should count the votes.

I’ll add one more strategy for the reform-minded. Next time a primary election comes to your local polling place, ask for a Dem/Pub ballot and vote for the candidate most likely to squelch any possible bandwagon effect from building up.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Words matter – use them wisely.”

NINETEEN:

[John D decided to give it another shot, so I responded with this.]

John D,

My focus on wordsmithing might seem overwrought, but there is a reason. I’ve been blogging for six years and have noticed that taking the time, actually meditating on exactly what I’m saying, helps me clarify my thinking. At times it’s even changed my mind about what I was trying to say. You’re right, though, that very few people would bother. Just as few people would bother to actually read aloud from the same book for an hour per day for five years, as I have done, in order to get as much out of it as possible. But I’ve found such exercises to be well worth it.

As for your question: On 9/27/10, I posted an essay on my blog called “A Zero Party system for US politics.” If you read that and perhaps check out some of the other of the 300 essays I’ve posted since Sept. 10, that might answer some of your questions. However, my personal email address is posted at the end of each essay. So if you wish to contact me with any questions you might have, that might be better than using Yahoo.

[NOTE: I haven’t heard back from John D, so I doubt he took my advice.]

As for me becoming president in 2012, I consider your “almost positive that you will not be” to be a ringing endorsement. You’re probably right, though, since my campaign vehicle (the blog I mentioned) has only been viewed by 7300 people in three years.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012 (or 2016?)

“If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” [UPDATE: I won’t be trying again in 2016. By then, it will be too late.]

TWENTY:

Jason,

You’re right – “Anti-incumbent won’t get it done.” At least, not by itself. Of course, as you said, “you will just hate him in four years.” At that point, though, vote him out since he’ll be the new incumbent. An anti-incumbency campaign will only work if (obviously) enough people embrace it and if those people consistently vote anti-incumbent - with one exception: if a non-Dem/Pub independent happens to be the incumbent.

The point is to make it clear to the Dems/Pubs that we are aware of the dangers of a party system which seeks advantage for its own side which, in turn, leads to legislative gridlock. I’m agitating for a Zero Party system in which candidates run on the basis of written contracts, which could include a promise not to run for (say) more than 4 consecutive terms. My blog (mentioned above, in my replies to John D) gives more details on this and other reforms I'm proposing.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“We the People are not entirely without resources.”

TWENTY-ONE:

Leon S,

If Obama craps out as the next TWO years unfold, I’m hoping that (finally!) people will wake up and replace all Dem/Pubs with non-party affiliated independents. There really is no other way, unless the American voter is madly in love with being ping-ponged by the major parties.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"There's simply too much independent and ethical talent in this country to allow the Majors to continue running roughshod over us."

TWENTY-TWO:

[Moi asked me, “which of mitt's statements or pronouncements on anything are you basing your comment on?” To which I posted the following.]

Moi,

This is too easy. I’m not basing my comment on anything other than his actions. It’s pretty obvious he likes to be inscrutably secretive, much like a poker player who doesn’t want to tip his hand. Some people call Mitt a flip-flopper; others say he’s just trying to be flexible. I think he finds great value in keeping his enemies – as well as his friends, some of whom might decide to get uppity and turn on him – guessing.

Besides, the whole Tea Party thing is pretty overblown. It might play well in Texas, but the rest of us remember Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann – oh, and also Santorum. Mitt can conduct his presidency as he sees fit, knowing full well that the GOP Congress will behave as typical Pubbers always do – they’ll fall in line. Yeah, there will be a few blowhards, but there always are, aren’t there?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“BTW, I don’t recall the Tea Party having offered much in the way of what you call ‘statements or pronouncements’ that could stand as viable solutions to our problems. Again, just a bunch of blowhards blowing airs of vagueness.”

TWENTY-THREE:

We keep voting them back in because we've been thoroughly programmed to do so for decades. Ah, the power of advertising makes us think we have no choices other than name brands – what I call Brand X vs. Brand Y thinking. The problem is, an interlocking directorship controls both brands. The system counts very heavily on us being predictable. Maybe that’s why you’ll find so many of us to be inflexible and intolerant. Hey, whatever works, right? Problem is, it works better for “them” than it does for you.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Isn’t it great to be programmed and not even be aware of it? And you think we’re free?”

TWENTY-FOUR:

Make no mistake about this: This is Barack Obama’s war [in Afghanistan] and has been since he was sworn in. We are there because of this one man – and only because of this one man. If he wanted to pull all of our forces out tomorrow, he could do exactly that. Even if Congress didn’t want him to; even if Congress unanimously passed a resolution for us to stay there.

This is a fact grossly underappreciated by almost everybody: All American wars are the sole proprietorship on ONE man – the President. And that’s no exaggeration – even including WWII. That is, if FDR had decided to bring all the troops home in 1943, that would have been his call to make and his alone. Of course, in that case, he would have been impeached but for as long as he remained Commander in Chief, he could have unilaterally ordered a cease fire. And that, my friends, is the Constitution for you. [Yes, it has downsides.]

In the case of Iraq, that was Bush’s war until Obama got elected. At any time, Bush (or Obama) could have totally pulled the plug on this thing. Same with Afghanistan.

As long as we insist on keeping a virtual one-man-branch of government (some call it a quasi-monarchy or Imperial Presidency), this will continue to be the case. It’s not a pretty truth, but it is the truth. And this is exactly why I’ve proposed totally replacing (and not just “merely” amending) our current Constitution.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Know when to say when.”

TWENTY-FIVE:

The article claims that “an embarrassing debacle for the army on the border with Israel, where 16 Egyptian troops were killed…may have given Morsi the opening he needed [to move against the military]…”

That sounds strange to me. The generals could have resisted Morsi’s moves against them (and the military establishment) by saying, “Now is not the time for an Islamist (as opposed to a “Muslim”) president to challenge the military which, as you have seen, has been attacked by radical Islamists. Without the unimpeded power of the army to move against such rogue and radical elements, anarchy will raise its ugly head in our country.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Sorry…but I can’t see the killing of 16 Egyptian soldiers as helping Morsi’s cause.”

TWENTY-SIX:

Jim Matho from Kelowna, Canada wrote:

“there is a power struggle in Egypt between the Muslim brotherhood(Morsi) and the army......this was a opportunity for the brotherhood to get rid of some old generals and install some loyal to them, the death of those soldiers is seen as a sign of weakness and unpreparedness,and helped provide the impetus to "make the move".......pretty simple actually”

This is my reply:

Jim,

Your analysis is too simple. If 16 of our troops had been killed (say) in an ambush in Washington, DC, we might have sacked the local commander. But we wouldn’t have gotten rid of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

So there must be more here than meets the eye. For instance, did Morsi make a secret deal with the army in exchange for the appearance of his asserting a degree of control over the army? If so, what? The army controls not only its own troops but also large swaths of the economy. So, I have to disagree with your claim of “pretty simple actually.” For people in power don’t give that up without getting something substantial in exchange. Maybe we ought to worry about what that “something” is. [Maybe a green light to attack Israel?]

Also, your claim about Morsi being able to “install some [generals] loyal to [the Brotherhood]” doesn’t ring true. Within the entire Egyptian high command, I doubt there are any in sympathy with the Brotherhood. At least, they’re not sympathetic enough to allow them to take over and put the army on a leash. When you consider the decades of animosity between the army and the Brotherhood, your claim of sympathetic-to-the-Brotherhood generals seems far-fetched to say the least.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“It’s very rarely ‘pretty simple actually.’”

TWENTY-SEVEN:

Jim,

This may well be Egypt but the military mindset is fairly universal, no matter which country one hails from. The bottom line is: The military has all the guns and the Brotherhood has none, so nothing will happen unless the military really wants it to happen. Besides, there’s another player at stake here: the bloc of secular, “modern,” middle class Egyptians who fear slippage into the dark ages should sharia law be established. And the military would have a very useful ally indeed with that group.

In spite of appearances, I’m not convinced the military just rolled over and played dead by allowing Morsi to do what it is he appeared to do [by sacking some generals].

As for Dr. Ashour’s comment about “those more loyal to the presidency,” I have to ask – “those more loyal for what reason?” They might be more loyal since they’re Islamists who have axes to grind against a military that has oppressed them for decades. They might be secularists who see the presidency as a bulwark against sharia law. They might be Copts who share common cause with the secularists regarding that law.

As for where one’s loyalty lies, that’s not always obvious. In the oppressive climate which was pre-Morsi Egypt, even the walls had ears. So I’m not sure who’s really loyal to whom, or who is pretending. That preceding sentence addresses this part you’d cited: “those figures are known to be more pro-reform and more willing to accept the current status quo.” Known? Really? I’m not so sure.

If Morsi can manage to pry loose those substantial segments of the economy which are currently under military control, then I’ll start to believe Morsi is gaining control. But I don’t think Morsi will be able to reach that goal unless he makes a public appeal to the US to stop making payments to its military and instead re-direct that money to civilian improvement projects. The military must be stopped but unless Morsi tries something drastic, I don’t see them letting go.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If the US really wanted to make a lasting contribution to the Egyptian Spring, redirecting its decades-long aid to its military would go a long way toward healing many wounds.”

TWENTY-EIGHT:

Jimcmillan,

But bad monetary policy isn’t just a US problem. And maintaining the economy isn’t the important thing. The Elites realize that at least two billion (maybe as many as five billion) people have to be killed off in order for them to maintain control. Above all, they don’t want current events to spin out of control, for control is what it’s all about. And economics is strictly secondary toward that end.

I’m predicting that a quick and massive kill-off will start no later than 2017. I also predict that Obama will make the first move toward that end by bombing Iran’s nuke sites by around Labor Day of this year.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Frankly, I believe the Elite are more inclined to steer a few asteroids our way – and (no) I’m not kidding.”

TWENTY-NINE:

Jimcmillan,

You speak of us facing “a…very painful resolution,” and how a “complete reset of the economy” will become necessary. However, you don’t indicate any specifics. My belief is that the economy is beyond merely being “reset” except by the draconian thinning of the herd I’d cited. Of course, some people might take such a thinning to be an extreme way of resetting the economy. But…I don’t believe in euphemisms.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“When the stuff hits the fan, I’ll be among the first to call it ‘sheet.’”

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I wonder if Mitt Romney owns any stock in Yahoo! Or has friends there.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com