If it's true that "persistence pays off," I just might end up "persisting" my way to an appearance before a judge to be tried for treason. My persistence lies in repeated calls for a General Strike against the U.S. economy - a call which I'm renewing today.

On October 20, 2007, I posted an article on Gaia entitled: "General Strike declared by Steven Searle." My opening sentence was: "I hereby declare that a General-yet-Incremental Strike against the top seven U.S. banks will commence on November 1, 2007." [Source: http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/10/general_strike_declared_by_steven_searle ]

I had even once posted: "You can slam the brakes on business as usual by simply withholding your business." [Only that will induce "change you can believe in."]

I invite you to be the judge: Should my actions be deemed treasonous?

Let's go to the source

The "source" of course is the US Constitution, which states: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Concerning the first part - "levying War:"

Just what does "levying war" mean? Did the Founding Fathers mean to include "economic warfare?" Or does it even matter to the Supreme Court what the Founding Fathers thought? Or will SCOTUS rule that the concept of "levying War" must be interpreted to include any "weapon" which could be as effective as bombs and bullets?

I admit I am "levying war," but not against the United States. My war is against the government of the United States - specifically against the unconstitutional Two Party System which oppresses our daily lives. My authority for waging this war comes straight from the Declaration of Independence:

"[To secure the rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

That's what I aim to do by means of my campaign for the US presidency, which I hope will break the back of our Dem-Pub oppressors.

However, I realize there are fools out there who would have you believe that by attacking our form of government, I am "levying War" against the United States. If the Dem-Pub appointed In-Justices of the US Supreme Court buy that argument, it's off to prison I'll go.

Concerning the second part - "adhering ... Aid and Comfort:"

Maybe the prosecutors will claim I'm "adhering to [US] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

I would counter with: "Quite the contrary. The enemies of the United States are being given Aid and Comfort on a daily basis courtesy of our shortsighted government which is running this country into the ground. A true enemy of the United States would not want to see someone like me elected as US president. For under my leadership, the United States would flower in a way sure to astound the petty materialists - here and abroad.

"If you thought the first 200 years of our history were remarkable, tighten your seatbelts for you haven't seen anything yet."

My "treason" is very simple

My message is the soul of simplicity:

If you want to bring about "change you can believe in," stop buying stuff.

Use the power of your pocketbook, since your vote at the ballot box won't change anything. Follow the news, so you'll know how to be most effective. If, for example, you read that General Motors is suffering, then you'll know not to buy their products.

In case you're worried about GM workers losing their jobs, don't. GM is far too large - in addition to being a multinational - to be permitted to actually fail. Your efforts, in terms of any boycott, are meant to send a message to our lawmakers: "We know you will move heaven and earth for the sake of GM Corporation, but by doing so, your days will be numbered allowing truly independent lawmakers to replace you."

My proposals are all about putting additional stress on an already severely stressed governmental system.

Imposing a boycott on GM might seem like kicking a man when he's down, but my view is: "Better to kick him when he's down than wait around politely for him to get to his feet again. And believe me, if you were down - and kicking you would work to their advantage, they'd waste no time. They're big boys and girls who certainly know how to dish it out when it comes to manipulating political power to their advantage. We, the little guys, should wise up and use the only tools at our disposal."

When the IRS mails rebate checks to you, don't use that cash to go to Disneyland. Leave Disneyland to Bush and the other derelict dreamers who are practically begging YOU (the little guy) to save the entire US economy. But...they don't want you to ask: "How is it possible that the price of oil has increased 50% in 12 months?" And, more importantly, they don't want you to answer that question with: "This is no accident nor is it the result of market forces; instead, it's the result of our national No Energy Policy and bad government."

Let's get ready to rumble

According to a Reuters post dated July 2, 2008, 9:40 pm:

"The Dow industrials ended the session in a bear market on Wednesday as U.S. stocks fell on growing concerns about the toll record oil prices are taking on the economy and corporate profits."

That should be our opening bell.

For true American patriots (read: "reformers"), this is good news. So is the ever-increasing price of oil and the weakening dollar. This will make our fellow citizens eager, not only for "change we can believe in," but "fundamental change which will work." In a volatile market like this, any hint of a grassroots economic guerrilla war will strike fear into the hearts of corporate America and, most importantly, their hand-puppets (our elected leaders).

After the dust settles, and our newly independent government is in place, we'll look back and exclaim: "Wow! That sure was an easy war to fight!"

The easy part, for you: You won't have to go on trial for treason. What are the feds going to do? Arrest people for changing their spending habits? For not going to Disneyland?

The easy part, for me: Being willing to go on trial for treason, knowing that we'll still win. Conventional wisdom holds that fledgling social movements can be stymied by attacking their leaders. I intend to demonstrate that leaders are irrelevant if the strategy underlying The Best Party Available is followed. More on that at:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2006/11/my_master_plan

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"If this be treason, I intend to make the most of it" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Three topics for today:

• The Academy Award for Best Make-Up Artist goes to: Barack Obama.

• Barack Obama and the Iraqi Tar Baby

• Obama the Reneger, or how he'll continue to rake in the small "change" donations he can believe in.

The Academy Award

The Academy Award for Best Make-Up Artist has to go to Barack Obama for his role in profoundly altering The Big Picture, which stars...more on that in a bit. Furthermore, he will make history as the only make-up artist to be mistaken for the leading man, after coming from nowhere.

While most make-up artists work behind the scenes and make-up others, Obama has managed to miraculously "arrange" to be thrust onto center stage after making-up himself. We-the-People were tired of the same old style of entertainment and clamored for "change." Obama, in true illusionary celluloid style, granted their wish by appearing to be that change.

Barack was careful to use a minimalist approach as he went about the business of making himself up. He realized there was great danger in providing any ironclad timetables of specifics, so he distanced himself from timetables he couldn't talk his way out of. All this, while seeming to be unequivocal on one or two core issues.

He wanted to keep it simple, in effect saying: "We don't want to overwhelm our rather simple audience with too much change. So I'll only offer ‘Change you can believe in,' instead of ‘Change you can take to the bank.'"

The Academy thought long and hard, but decided against co-awarding the Best Make-Up Artist prize. The lapdog mainstream media, though, was seriously in the running, for they had as much to do with making-up (that is, inventing) Barack Obama as did Barack himself. However, in true Academy style, it was decided: Better to keep a healthy distance between the propagandists and the object of their propaganda.

The Academy may do as it wishes. However, I personally will bestow upon Senator Obama an award of my own creation, which I dub j.i.v.e, as in:

"As The Big Picture plays out, it will become obvious to one and all that President Obama is a j.i.v.e. - (that is) a jabbering imposture of vacuous effrontery."

The Unanswered Question: So, who is the star or "leading man" of The Big Picture? Actually, there are many leading men in the big picture, but I'll name two: Richard M. Daley (the Democratic Party's mayor of the City of Chicago), and Rahm Emanuel also of Chicago. Rahm is ostensibly the Democratic Party's Congressman who represents the Fifth Congressional District of Illinois though, in his heart of hearts, really represents the State of Israel.

The "Academy" I'm referring to isn't the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and I'm not talking about the awards known as Oscars. It might be useful to call the "Academy" The Brotherhood of the Bell, in honor of an old 1970's made-for-TV-movie. [Hey, it works for me.]

Barack Obama and the (Iraqi) Tar Baby

Obama knows he can't get us out of Iraq - ever - even if he had ever really wanted to. Notice the sly shift Obama makes in these two sentences [compare the words which I've underlined]:

QUOTE:

"My 16-month timeline [for withdrawal of U.S. forces] ... was always premised on making sure our troops were safe," Obama told reporters as his campaign plane landed in North Dakota..."And my guiding approach continues to be that we've got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable."

:UNQUOTE [source: article by Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post, July 3, 2008]

Notice how he just sort of tacked on those last five words: and that Iraq is stable.

It's those last five words which prove Barack Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq. For if we were to ever completely withdraw from Iraq, the demographics which favor Iranian-friendly Shiia Islam would assert themselves decisively against US interests. But we knew that (or should have known it) before we decided to topple Saddam Hussein.

In Barack's mind, a "stable" Iraq is one which supports all US policies, including those on disposition of its oil - since to do otherwise is a sign of (at least) mental instability among leadership, which might then have to be subjected to "regime change."

You will see how easily silver-tongued President Obama will spin our continuing military presence. For instance, notice how his website states: "... we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq." How to get around that? Simply shift troop concentrations around so they are never in any permanent locations. That's how he means to keep his promise not to build "permanent bases" in Iraq.

As for necessary permanent supply bases, we can maintain those in Kuwait or even airlift supplies in from aircraft carriers if necessary. Where there's a will, there's a rhetorical way and, believe me, Obama will prove quite capable of rhetoricizing our occupation. Question: Will you tolerate this?

I'm also a little tired of hearing Obama talk about withdrawing forces in such a way as to "keep our troops safe." In fact, at one of my own (admittedly rare) campaign speeches, someone questioned my promise to totally withdraw all U.S. forces (not just combat forces) from Iraq and Afghanistan within 90 days of my inauguration. My questioner thought I was being "hasty" and might expose our withdrawing forces to danger.

I said, "Look at it this way: We managed to blitzkrieg 146,000 U.S. troops into Iraq within a period of six weeks. We can manage to reverse-blitzkrieg them out in twice that amount of time. My promise of 3-months is more than reasonable."

People like Barack Obama who speak of slowing down the pace of troop withdrawal in the name of "protecting our troops" are being audaciously dishonest - or even a j.i.v.e. (see above definition).

Post Script: So Senator Obama is going to Iraq to talk to the senior commanders on the ground. Why hasn't anyone pointed out the obvious: These commanders may not divulge secret military information to anyone unless they have a "need to know" and "are authorized to know." Even the lowest ranking grunt knows this.

And yet, no one in our media is pointing out: "Candidate Obama has neither an operational ‘need to know' nor is he authorized to know."

Obama the Reneger: Phooey on Public Funding

Here's an example of poetic justice: Wouldn't it be a stunning reversal of fortune if Barack Obama's internet fundraising sources totally dried up, forcing him to flop-flip by being forced to accept public funding? What if his supporters got so pissed off at him, they'd just up and decide to shut off the flow from the money spigot?

Barack Obama reneged by not actually sitting down with John McCain to try to work out some ground rules. He said he would; he did not. Apparently, he thinks he'll need an outhouse full of money to fend off Swift-Boat style attacks. Hmm...John Kerry had some serious history which made Swift-Boating his past not only easy, but predictable. Are there secrets in Obama's past which only he knows about (but is worried others might discover)?

He seems to worry that the Democratic National Committee doesn't have enough cash to help him, compared to McCain's RNC which has way more. Not to worry. All Obama had to do was spread the word to his internet donors: "I've decided to take public funding for my campaign, but that doesn't mean you can't continue to support me indirectly by donating to the DNC or to any 527 Swift-Boat type group which could work in my favor."

So why did Barack Obama decide to accept donations instead of opt for public financing? Why is he risking the appearance of trying to buy the U.S. Presidency? Puh-leaze...it's quite simple: Money donated directly to Barack Obama remains under his control - even if he loses the election. It's all about control.

I just wish he'd shown a little more self-control and thought this out a bit more carefully.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"To Barack Obama's increasingly uneasy supporters: It's not too late to support my candidacy. You might want to, since you won't have to rely solely on my promises for change. My promises are part of a written contract, which makes me lose my office if I don't keep my word" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Thesis: When Jesse Jackson recently said "I wanna cut [Barack Obama's] nuts off," he didn't mean it as a private comment. On the contrary, I believe Jackson knew the mic was live. So far as I can tell, I am the only observer daring to suggest that Reverend Jesse Jackson intended his (apparently) private comments to be heard by (well) everyone. He did this for a greater good and at considerable risk to his personal well-being: Truly throwing himself on a grenade to save others.

An introductory limerick:

This appeared in a recent column by Chicago Tribune writer John Kass:

Jesse was thinking outside the box,

When he made his appearance on Fox,

When PUSH came to shove,

He showed Obama no love,

And threatened to cut off his Ba-rocks.

Background:

Reverend Jackson was sitting next to Dr. Reed Tuckson, addressing his comments to the doctor in a whisper. Both men were in Fox News Channel's Chicago studio, waiting to be interviewed on health care issues (how ironic, given Jackson's "cutting" remark). This is what Jackson whispered (loudly enough for the mic to pick up):

"See, Barack's been, um, talking down to black people on this faith-based...I wanna cut his nuts off."

Here's the entire (brief) exchange (which looks too much like a bad Saturday Night Live skit):

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=cML1ZVmRN9A&feature=related

Not for one second did I actually believe...

... Jackson had been caught in an unguarded moment. I'm sure it was staged but it wasn't a conspiracy; it was his own idea. The gentleman hearing the comment (Dr. Reed Tuckson) wasn't in on it, nor was anyone from Barack Obama's campaign. Though I'm sure the Obama camp must be delighted by Jackson's (apparent) indiscretion.

Can anyone really believe a long-time controversial public figure like Jesse Jackson could actually sit in a recording studio and say such a thing, with no fear of being secretly bugged? Remember, he was sitting in Fox studios, which (for him) was like sitting in enemy territory.

Obama, while having to take no risks of his own in this episode, benefits by having his name thrust in the news at a time when the campaign season is in a bit of a lull. Keeping a candidate's name in the public's mind, ideally in positive ways, is any campaign manager's constant goal. The Democrat's campaign also benefits from anyone thinking, "If Jesse Jackson doesn't like Obama, Obama must be an alright guy." This is an example of, "Any enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine."

My suspicions became extreme when I found out more concerning who Jackson's remarks were directed toward. Dr. Reed Tuckson doesn't seem to be any kind of homeboy or long-time Jackson confidant to whom he could expect to casually direct such a crude remark. Tuckson gave the appearance of an elegant, refined gentleman, so I was a bit surprised at his lack of rebuke (like, "Excuse me, sir, but how dare you speak to me in that manner!").

Tuckson is a man of admirable accomplishments, not the least of which is his being a medical doctor. I found it ironic that Jesse Jackson - proponent of a crude, confrontational, in-your-face, rebellious outsider brand of social activism - was addressing his comments to a man who is his diametric opposite. Judging by his bio, posted by his employer, we see a man who has worked hard to effect change within the system:

QUOTE:

Reed V. Tuckson, M.D.
Executive Vice President and Chief of Medical Affairs
UnitedHealth Group

Dr. Reed Tuckson was appointed executive vice president and chief of Medical Affairs in December 2006. Dr. Tuckson joined UnitedHealth Group in 2000 as senior vice president, Consumer Health and Medical Care Advancement. Prior to joining UnitedHealth Group, Dr. Tuckson worked as senior vice president, Professional Standards, for the American Medical Association (AMA). He also served as president of an academic health science center, and was formerly commissioner of public health for the District of Columbia.

:UNQUOTE [UnitedHealth Group webpage (list of Executives)]

Why would Jackson do such a thing?

Dr. Tuckson is a lot closer to the kind of man which Obama is, than to the kind represented by Jesse Jackson. However, the noble profession of social activism needs both types of men. Also not to be overlooked: Without Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama wouldn't be where he is today. It's too easy to forget that Jackson had run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination - twice (doing markedly better in round two).

As for any rhetorical comparison between Obama and Jackson, the good reverend has had his share of moments in the sun. For instance, his rousing performance at the 1984 Democratic National Convention has always stuck in my mind. However, that was then and this is now. Jackson is older now and past his peak effectiveness. Which might have especially encouraged him to take such a desperate action, risking public censure and ridicule to make a point. Which goes something like this:

"I strongly encourage Barack Obama to remember that government programs can be effective in uplifting disadvantaged members of minority communities. It's not good enough - and in fact it's too Republican - to say that blacks are in their predicament because it's their fault. Government can do more, should do more, and will do more once we stop chasing boogeyman terrorists all over the globe in a perpetual war."

If Jesse Jackson really intended his "nuts" comment to be heard by millions, and if he was willing to suffer ridicule and condemnation as a result, then he really did throw himself on a grenade for a greater good. If all this is true, then I salute Jesse's effort. Especially since he's incurred the ire of his own son.

It would be nice if Obama would...

...respond to Jackson's charge of "talking down to black people," which was based on comments like this:

QUOTE:

''There's a reason why our families are in disrepair," Obama said in a Father's Day speech at Apostolic Church of God on Chicago's South Side. "And some of it has to do with a tragic history, but we can't keep on using that as an excuse. Too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes. They've abandoned their responsibilities. They're acting like boys instead of men."

:UNQUOTE.

[Shudder] Doesn't Obama know that black men don't like being called "boy?" Maybe Obama isn't black enough to appreciate such a slur. Maybe millions of black men look enviously upon Barack Obama who, though not having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, certainly seems blessed in ways they were not.

And saying that families are in "disrepair" sounds odd at best and clinical, mechanistic, and dispassionate at worst. And calling black fathers "AWOL" is a gross and inappropriate use of a military term - Absent Without Official Leave (as if any "Leave" from family life could ever be "Official.")

Many critics laud Obama's oratory style, though I suspect it's his delivery which warrants those praises. As to the content of what he says and writes, well (as I've written before on this blog) that's quite a different story. The simple quote above amply demonstrates this point.

However, Barack Obama will not respond to Jesse Jackson's charge. Barack will seek to distance himself from firebrand activists, while moving with calculation and determination toward the political center. And I suppose this is all well and good - since this might end up getting him elected. But all hinges on what qualifies, in the minds of the many, as a "firebrand" and what being in the center will mean in terms of moving this country forward.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"The only emasculation Barack Obama should fear would be of his programs at the hands of the Republicans in Congress, should he become our next President. And that's a very real fear indeed- Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Thesis: The US Supreme Court was guilty of judicial misconduct. It chose to involve itself in a handgun ban case, in which the Second Amendment did not even remotely apply, then erred by failing to remand the case back for reconsideration by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which had pretended that it did apply:

District of Columbia, et al., Petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller

Opening Statement [by Steven Searle, next US President]

In this case, the second sentence of the "opinion of the Court" states: "We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution."

To the nine justices of the Supreme Court (especially to the four dissenting Justices), I say: "Fools, idiots, buffoons! Why did you deliberate this case on Second Amendment grounds, when it should have been properly - and solely - deliberated on Ninth and Tenth Amendment Grounds?"

The opinion of the Court ran to 64 pages of (useless) learned argument, which had no bearing whatsoever on the right of the Defendant to keep a handgun in his home for self-defense. Such "learned argument" was perhaps an interesting exercise in mental gymnastics, but (again) had no bearing on this case.

An old joke:

The Court's choice in deciding this case based on Second Amendment grounds reminds me of an old joke:

A passerby is strolling down a lighted sidewalk late one evening and he sees a crouched figure obviously looking for something on the ground. He's looking in a pool of light cast by a street lamp. The passerby offers to help, and crouches down to see what he can see.

After a few minutes he says, "I can't see a thing. By the way, what are you looking for?"

"A quarter."

"Are you sure you dropped it here?"

"Oh no, I dropped it over there." [Points across the street, where there aren't any streetlamps.]

"Then why are you looking for it over here?"

"The light's better."

The light's better...

...which is what the Court apparently thought. That is, SCOTUS thought the light of the Second Amendment was better, even though the truth of the matter had lain in the more unexplored (therefore "darker") realms of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (which I like calling the Dynamic Duo).

After all was said and done, Justice Scalia delivered the 64-page decision of the Court (that is, the majority opinion) in another classic 5-4 sure-to-please-everybody decision based on this complaint:

QUOTE:

Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

:UNQUOTE [source: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf ]

Two of the four minority justices had posted written dissents: Justice Stevens (to the tune of 46 pages) and Justice Breyer (to the tune of 44 pages). Especially to those two, I address one more comment:

"Your (total of) 90 pages of dissent were a profound and costly disservice to the American people, especially since you could have offered a far more relevant dissent. I will share that with you now, for free, in the interests of justice."

Dissenting Opinion, suggested by Steven Searle

Note: This is not meant to be a formal and comprehensive legal opinion, since (among other missing elements) it lacks (gasp!) footnotes. It is meant, instead, to be a wellspring from which a relevant dissent (or majority opinion) could have (and should have) sprung forth.

In any relevant dissenting opinion, it must be pointed out that the Court of Appeals had acted improperly by ruling that Second Amendment issues were involved. Application of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments was called for, which read:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" - The Ninth Amendment. [NOTE: I feel that this amendment should be increasingly invoked by We-the-People in order to claim our fair share of the power pie, currently hogged by the Feds and the states.]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" - The Tenth Amendment

What the Tenth means, according to one source [http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am10 ] :

"Anything not expressly granted to the Federal government [for instance, the power of "gun control" - Steve Searle] is reserved for the States or the People. Although this amendment is very liberally interpreted, it is one of the tenets of the Constitution. This amendment is also known as the States' Rights Amendment." I would hasten to add: "It is my belief that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments should also be known as the We-the-People's Rights Amendments."

I believe that the right of a person to be able to effectively defend his home and the lives of the people within that home must qualify as one of the non-enumerated rights protected by the Ninth. In particular I take note of Justice Stevens' dissent in this case, in which he states: "...there is no indication that the Framers of the [Second]Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

By admitting that such a "common-law right" exists, though, I don't see how Justice Stevens (for one) could object to a homeowner invoking that common-law right even though it's not specifically enshrined in the Constitution. I would dare say, the Framers of the Constitution felt that a Ninth Amendment was necessary to protect all such rights which are not specifically "enshrined."

At the very least, the Supreme Court should have remanded the decision back to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration, emphasizing its improper ruling based on Second Amendment grounds.

The problem with the Second Amendment

The 2^nd Amendment is the only amendment which establishes a right based on a rationale - and makes that part of the amendment itself. No other amendment does this, and that is its fatal flaw. Check it out:

Second Amendment: "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."

In the Court's majority opinion, this claim is made from which I'll proceed to prove my point:

QUOTE:

The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

:UNQUOTE [Page 3 of the Opinion of the Court]

Theoretically, then, if someone could prove to the Supreme Court that a well regulated Militia was not "necessary to the security of a free State" - or, more accurately, was no longer necessary (nor is even a remotely possible guarantor of that security) - then the Court could rule the Second Amendment extinct. Or, more accurately, rule it as an invalid source for any future arguments concerning "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms."

True to form, though, the Court has ruled that it has no power to rule on the now-and-future relevance of the Second Amendment, as indicated by:

QUOTE:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

:UNQUOTE [Page 64, Opinion of the Court]

To which I would ask, "If the Court can't pronounce the Second Amendment extinct, then who can?"

I would also chide the Court for not mentioning that there is no longer any possibility that any kind of "militia" could save us from a tyrannical central government. Militias, in the minds of the Founding Fathers, had that role and they could realistically be counted on. However, given the awesome powers in the hands of the central government, the withering away of (so-called) "states' rights," and the efficiency of modern counter-insurgency tactics, militias would have no chance. Hence, the Second Amendment truly is extinct, whether Justice Scalia chooses to admit it or not.

Now that's entertainment: the legal writings of SCOTUS

If you've never read any "literature" penned by our Supreme Court justices, see for yourself how entertaining it can be:

QUOTE [Page 6 of the Opinion of the Court]

And Justice Stevens is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is "primarily collective in nature."

COMMENT:

How could a Supreme Court Justice be "dead wrong?" Especially in the context of a 5-4 decision? "Dead wrong?" Common on, guys, lighten up!

QUOTE: Page 8 (Opinion of the Court):

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.

COMMENT:

Frivolous? And yet the opinion of the Court is full of references to what was "in existence in the 18^th century" as being relevant to how law should be interpreted today.

What about the Seventh Amendment as an exercise in contextual analysis? It says: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law."

How are we to analyze the meaning of "twenty dollars" in that Amendment? Are we to refer to $20 of spending power in this day and age or should we accept this view: According to the Court, it's "frivolous" to look into the value of $20 way back when?

QUOTE [page 3 of the Opinion]:

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

COMMENT:

It "announces a purpose?" Then, of course, if the "purpose" - over the course of time - becomes meaningless, that means the Amendment becomes extinct. Right?

QUOTE [Page 2 of the syllabus, preceding the Court's opinion]:

The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.

COMMENT:

Once the need for a citizens' militia disappears (and it has), then there is no more need for the Second Amendment. However, I believe that "the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms" has always existed under the protection of the 9^th and 10^th Amendments. Only those two amendments have anything to do with whether the Defendant in this case has a right to keep a gun in his home for self-defense, since it is now impossible for Defendant to become part of any kind of militia envisioned and protected by the Constitution.

QUOTE: Page 15: Opinion of the Court:

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.

COMMENT:

The only comment I can muster here is: Now that's entertainment!

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"Why do we need a Supreme Court to entertain us - for the wrong reasons and with a bare majority of 5 to 4 - that it's okay for a guy to keep a gun in his home? - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Thesis: The New Yorker did Barack Obama a huge favor by printing that cover showing him in Muslim garb. But...it didn't throw itself on any kind of grenade by doing so.

What The New Yorker engaged in is a classic example of fighting fire with fire. There are a multitude of Mini-Me's on the internet pushing a whispering campaign, suggesting that Obama is a closet Muslim. The best way to fight a whispering campaign is with a shouting campaign. So, congrats to The New Yorker for starting the shout-out.

As for the Mini-Me's, they must be gnashing their teeth watching their candidate McCain actually extending bleeding-heart sympathies to the Obama camp, agreeing that it's a "tasteless and offensive" cover.

Which it isn't, by the way. At least, that's my view. When I first saw it, I busted out laughing. I also thought, "Barack Obama must be truly blessed to have such good fortune as to be ‘lampooned' like this." Of course, the campaign hasn't even officially started yet and Obama's lead is far from overwhelming. So he'll need all the help he can get, including little gems like this.

I kind of wish Obama had laughed when he first saw the cover. Though I thought it rather odd that he hadn't first been tipped off by his campaign about this. I mean, a reporter asked Barack on Sunday what he thought, and then proceeded to describe the cover to him. Two questions:

• Why didn't the reporter simply wave a photocopy of it for Obama and her colleagues to see?

• Again, how could Obama's staff not have known about this, allowing their man to be blindsided?

Of course, if McCain (on the other hand) had been shown the cover and let out an involuntary chuckle, the media would have been all over that.

This cover was so brilliant and will be so effective, The New Yorker might as well accept payment from the Obama campaign for services rendered. I would love to see Barack and his wife at least pay homage by appearing on Saturday Night Live posing to mimic that cover (minus the burning American flag in the fire place).

It could be a brief appearance, since brevity is the soul of wit. We could even be treated to a thought-balloon showing us what Barack would be thinking while posing in those clothes:

"After careful reconsideration, I have refined my position on this cover. It's pretty funny all right ... but that's not why I'm standing here right now. It's the freaking boatload of cash SNL's paying me for 30-seconds' worth of work."

Michelle Obama's thought-balloon:

"That's not right, baby. Just come out and admit it. You're hot to see me in this get up."

It will be interesting to see how many couples go to Halloween parties mimicking this cover. That will be just a few precious days shy of the election.

What isn't so funny...

...is that Obama wants to send at least 7,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. I wonder how The New Yorker  could possibly satirize that. [Hmm...well, since he would be Commander in Chief, he could station them away from the cave where he knows Bin Ladin is hiding.]

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"My written contract calls for me to pull all US forces out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran within 90 days of my inauguration - and, frankly, I think everyone will be so relieved they wouldn't even consider satirizing those moves" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

No. I believe, instead, that each of us as individuals should strive for the goal of attaining enlightenment, which can be accomplished in this lifetime. This is a far cry from anything that "evolution" can promise. Once that goal is accomplished, then each of us (as Buddhas) will be conscious of all that ever was, all that is, and all that ever will be. Better than merely being "conscious" of all that, we will acquire the ability to change all that. But, strangely enough, we will have no burning desire to do so. Compassion, yes; burning desire, no.

Consciousness is not the same as Buddha-nature; "consciousness" is too small a word.

As to your last question: "And if not, do you feel we are different now than we've been in the past?" - I will say this: I don't care much for the "we" part. "We" never attained Buddhahood. That's what individuals attain based on strenuous and persistent individual practice. Like Sisyphus, I've been pushing that boulder up that hill - in the name of seeking enlightenment - for many lifetimes. And so have you - or many of you, at any rate. Only to backslide.

The trick is to find the breakthrough. But that's no trick at all. The key is to keep practicing.

Reminder: For the past 18 months, I have been promising to withdraw all US forces from Afghanistan (as well as Iraq) within 90 days of my inauguration as the next US President. In contrast to Barack Obama's "promises," mine are in the form of a written contract. I violate that contract, I lose the presidency.

Introduction

Today, I will base my remarks on current US "efforts" in Afghanistan, where many Americans assume we're "winning."

Our War in Afghanistan will be seven years old on October 7, 2008. Much to the delight of our homegrown war profiteers/terrorists, this conflict will not end any time soon. It has already taken third place on our list of wars, as ranked by duration. The Vietnam War, at 116 months, comes in first place; the American Revolution, at 100 months, assumes second place; and Afghanistan pulls up in third place at 81 months.

And before we forget too quickly, our Iraqi Adventure is still chugging along in fourth place at 64 months.

A more careful consideration of Afghanistan

Barack Obama is cleverly trying to divert the public's attention from Iraq to Afghanistan. He's claiming that's the site of the "real" war against terror. Maybe he's counting on the electorate not being able to keep two fronts in mind at the same time. What nobody has noticed is that Obama is agreeing with President Bush: We'll need 7,000 more troops in Afghanistan. [sigh, they really are on the same page]

Let's ponder some inconvenient truths: Adding 7,000 more soldiers to a country roughly the size of Texas boils down to this: Adding 36 more soldiers per square mile. And Afghanistan, being a lot more mountainous than Texas, offers insurgents a lot more places to hide. Not to mention, native fighters are able to blend in with the local civilian population. And not to mention, we're really not just talking about Afghanistan, but must include neighboring Pakistan as well. This increases the size of the theater of operation and the challenges to the "allies."

But maybe these 7,000 will turn the tide. An old rule of thumb is, if counterinsurgents have at least ten times the manpower of insurgents, the counters will defeat the insurgents. Unfortunately for the counters, the math is a bit tricky. The largest single force on either side is the 76,000-man Afghan army. Question: Are their hearts really in this or are there perhaps Taliban sympathizers among them? Or, setting aside the Taliban's cause for a moment: How keen is the Afghan army about supporting the agendas of "former" colonial powers?

Case in point: Our NATO allies include 7,750 soldiers from Britain. How does one calculate the effectiveness of those 7,750 in terms of the ten to one ratio? Obviously, they help tip the balance against the insurgents. However, there is a down side. Afghans aren't terribly fond of the British, due to memories of the first Anglo-Afghan War. Not to mention the Second- and Third-Anglo Afghan Wars. So, by firing up the hatred of the local population, the Brits might be more of a negative than a positive influence. (Hmm...and Americans speak English; do you suppose the Afghans view us as coming from the same place, as it were?) I don't suppose anybody thought about any of this beforehand.

The official name of the country is the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan [my emphasis]. Much as Britain created its own religion, the Afghans will resist foreign domination in order to further develop their own cultural identity (with no small bow to Islamic ideals).

And now we are treated to the spectacle of Barack Obama inserting himself into the Afghanistani political scene. He's trying, no doubt, to fine-tune his overall strategy on the War on Terror. But I wonder if he has given even one thought to trying to figure out why we should leave Afghanistan (and quickly), keeping in mind the broader lessons of the past.

We need to be more creative and less knee-jerking in our overall dealings with citizens of other cultures. In other words, there are some "lessons" of the past which we'll need to abandon.

The War on Terror's Grand Strategy

The intention is not so much to "win" the War on Terror, as it is to make sure that it never ends. US troops might not always be in Afghanistan or Iraq in massive numbers. And focuses and placements of forces will change - kind of like a shell game. This will especially be true when the United States' Shadow Government shifts (more) forces to Africa as our next front in the War on Terror. The unstated rationale will be: "We need to be in Africa as a counterbalance to Chinese designs on the Dark Continent's resources, and by all means preventing Africa from becoming a United States of Africa."

The stated rationale? "We've got to smoke those terrorists out, no matter where they try to hide. And we ‘know' they're hiding in the jungles of Africa."

As a precursor, Canadian troops could go to Darfur. I read in the paper recently that Canada would really prefer more of a peacekeeping role and wants to go to Darfur. They don't feel as mission-comfortable in Afghanistan. Of course, once the Canadians are in Darfur, the die will be cast for further Western troop insertions.

Suppose, however, the War on Terror did end. Suppose the United States was fortunate enough to elect a President with enough courage to end it by saying: "Enough, already. Time to stop the nonsense - and I don't care how much Halliburton stands to lose by this change in policy."

That President would be me, claiming: "The real way to win the War on Terror is to stop meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. Stop thinking that we win anyone over by throwing a lot of bombs at a lot of dark-skinned people."

Barack Obama and John McCain both bleat about how much bigger and badder they'll make our armed forces. They fail to mention part of the reason we "need" such a large military: Our economy "depends" on war spending and on keeping large numbers of our youth in uniform and out of the civilian economy. There are the Rich and Powerful (RAP) who fear the negative impact of too many Americans competing for too few jobs. They are convinced we need a large standing army to absorb many who would otherwise be unemployable.

That's old school thinking.

My response to that: "The RAPs are right - under the rules of the game as currently imposed. I aim to change those rules from the inside out, and through and through. I refuse to believe it's economically desirable to pull millions out of the labor force and pay them to do nothing constructive." [NOTE: No, we don't have "millions" in uniform... yet. But the advocates of Compulsory National Service have been scheming away toward that end for years.]

What we're really dealing with is a lack of creativity in our politics.

And if we pull out of Afghanistan, then what?

I will go on record as saying, "It would not bother me if the Taliban took over again in Afghanistan." If they manage to reclaim power in spite of seven years of war with the United States and NATO, then they will have earned that power.

The US government should have been as ferocious - as it's been in Afghanistan - in pursuit of those who were really responsible for the 9/11 attacks on US soil. But...that didn't happen. Few follow-up questions were asked in a poorly-financed and rushed investigation sponsored by an unwilling White House, which encouraged foregone conclusions. Commissioners followed up few leads, and Congress turned a deaf ear to patriots who later questioned their government's official version of what happened.

Instead, our President decided to make a grand spectacle of things - dubbing his effort the War of Terror. And what were the results of Bush's efforts in Afghanistan? We still haven't captured Osama bin Laden. The thousands of our innocents who'd perished on 9/11 have been more than matched by the deaths of innocents in Afghanistan. Yet our thirst for revenge hasn't been satisfied; it's only been lessened by the passage of time. [Time may well heal all wounds, but first it serves to dim our memories.]

Meanwhile, we've acquired quite the mountain of debt, a loss of our own freedom, and an anxious desire to know "What's next?"

For those of you who think the Bush nightmare will end after he's out of office, I assure you: This nightmare is only just beginning.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"Oh what a fine mess we invite, when we're faced with choosing our next President: A man with no military background versus another man whose military background best qualifies him to run the Pentagon's Bureau on Returning Prisoners of War. Wait...there is another choice: Steven Searle, who believes it's more important to aggressively pursue peace than to look for reasons to go to war" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Thesis: An artist should be elected as next President of the United States.

I think the need for an artistic soul as president has been underappreciated in this current election cycle. We do have art represented by the likes of Barack Obama and John McCain. However, their kind of "art" is best illustrated by definition #13 of art, as listed by dictionary.reference.com: trickery; cunning.

I'm thinking of a nobler brand of art: visionary, atypical, non-pandering, ennobling, inspirational, insightful, selfless, unexpected, breathtaking, creative, and courageous. I hope my blogs at this site have exemplified at least some of these qualities to some degree.

An Example of my Art

Though I consider all of my blogs to be examples of my art, today I'm going to post a poem I'd written ten years or so ago in order to give a more traditional example of art. It's not great, but I offer it as an example of how I process the world. I call it The Great Wall.

The Great Wall

I see the young black women on the bus

wearing their

hair

which seems

more sculpted than coiffed.

The illusion of fashion is plausible

from a distance though fails upon

closer inspection.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't

get that close.

But my focus is drawn to

the extreme artificiality of their

hairdressers' outputs.

I know the wretchedness of the

tortured brittle strands

made to suffer a conformity not

natural to their genetics.

Actually, to all the young black foxes

on the CTA*, I'd like to say:

"Off with it! Crew-cut it down to

virtual militariness. It's only

hair.

If your man will ‘love' you more for your stylized hair,

then he's less worth

having than your stupid

hair."

Saw a movie once called THX 1138 and beheld

on screen a scarcely hairy-headed beauty. Was

struck dumb, I was,

by her deliberate yet delicate

manner which no amount of or shaping of her head

hair

could have bettered.

There is a great wall that divides

me from the hairy-conscious ones.

It's only hair...

Run the ‘lectric clipper over it yourself,

cutting out the middleman.

This I do and I can't begin to tell you how

free

I feel.

*CTA: Chicago Transit Authority: Chicago's mass transit system of buses and trains.

Aftermath

I have a great love of language, though only minimal skill in using it. But my intentions are good: I do not use language to deceive, pander, or merely get elected. My aim is to use it to inspire others. I can easily admit I'm not the smartest bear in the zoo, but I'm willing to offer what I've got hoping that others will pick up the ball and move it forward.

Or sometimes I will use words to make others laugh, there not being many puns I could resist conjuring if given the chance. Case in point:

In my early 20s, I was eating midnight breakfast with my best friend in some 24-hour joint in the gay ghetto in Chicago. Across the aisle from us were four young men who were so boisterous, I could barely hear my friend's conversation. We were there for two hours, when suddenly (it seemed sudden anyway) our four loud yakkers were gone.

The silence was truly deafening.

I chanced to look over at their deserted table and saw it piled so high with dishes and napkins, it looked more like a landfill. Hard to believe only four guys could make such a mess - seemed more like the work of six to me. I thought, "What a huge mess for the waitress to clean up - and I'll bet they left only a chump change tip."

I pointed out this messy table to my friend and said, "Aftermath comes home economics."

As I said, I rarely resist a pun - good or bad.

Comparisons

A lot of people say, "Barack Obama is such a good speaker." Fact is, I'm better - but lamentably never had the national media (or many others) give me the chance to prove it.

Many people say John McCain wrote a good book: Faith of my Fathers. Actually, it was Mark Salter, who polished that up, about whom wikipedia has this to say:

"Mark Salter is an American ghostwriter from Davenport, Iowa known for his collaborations with United States Senator John McCain on several nonfiction books as well as on political speeches."

As for me, I write my own stuff, and I come up with my own ideas - though I'm more than glad to listen to suggestions from others. My technique as a writer leaves much to be desired, but my content is quite another matter and is unmatched by any of my opponents. But...nobody knows this, except a few of you out there in GaiaLand.

So I owe you - those of you who are my supporters, anyway - an apology. I am sorry for how miserably I have failed to find a way to get my ideas before a larger audience. It's still not too late, though the clock of inevitability is ticking. Even if I'm not elected as next US President, I hope my ideas somehow come to have some influence.

Best wishes and I hope you, in whatever way you choose (anonymously or otherwise), help me fight the good fight.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"Having a good idea is not enough. It never is, not without a way to spread it around" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

What would happen to Iraq if the US totally withdrew its forces?

A stronger federation

I believe our immediate withdrawal from Iraq would not lead to a bloodbath - far from it.

Suppose the Kurds thought to form a breakaway Republic of Kurdistan - completely independent of Iraq. They would then be at the mercy of Turkey, which might decide to operate with impunity against Turkish Kurdish rebels accused of operating from this new country.

What about the majority Shia? They too might be tempted to break away. However, the (mostly Arabic) Shia powerbrokers in Iraq might worry about their new country becoming dominated, or even militarily occupied, by Iran. The Shia of Iran aren't Arabs, so the Shia of Iraq might find themselves as second-class citizens in an Iran "enlarged" at their country's expense.

And the Sunni minority? Their territory is far more fragmented than that of the Shia, and the Sunnis don't have access to the sea - so their independent nation would be a landlocked country, with those inherent disadvantages. Also, they don't have as much oil.

If, however, they'd insist on independence, they might wish to seek protection against their more numerous Shia neighbors. Whom could they turn to, who reliably wouldn't turn against them in the future? This issue alone would discourage secession. Though Saudi Arabia might seem the most stable and likely protector, there are disadvantages: Dealing with the whims of royalty can be dangerous (the Saudis have an absolute monarchy), not to mention the harsher form of Islam (Wahhabism) embraced by the Saudis.

Complicating matters is this question: How should the oil be divided up, especially in the underpopulated areas (including the 50% of the country which is desert) and in areas inhabited by more than one major ethnic group?

Bottom line?

Though all three of Iraq's three major groups have their own grievances, agendas, and enemies lists, the leaders among all three groups would quickly realize the value of sticking together and working to build a stronger Iraqi nation. And they will come to realize this a lot more quickly if they knew within 90 days of my inauguration as the next US president, all US government workers and forces would no longer be in their country nor conduct operations within their borders - even if asked.

If we don't cut them loose and do so quickly, Iraq will never develop to the next stages of nationhood.

Me and Senator Obama

I have a major difference of opinion with Barack Obama, who shamelessly hedges his bets on Iraq. He says we should pull out 1 to 2 combat brigades per month - but that rate would depend on the situation on the ground. In any event, he claims on his website:

QUOTE:

Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel.

:UNQUOTE.

What do you mean by "residual force," President Obama? How many troops make up "residual?" Under my plan, that number would be "zero." I was once asked (not by Mr. Obama - I've never met the man), "You mean you wouldn't even leave a small group of soldiers behind to stand guard at the US embassy in Iraq?"

Actually, I love questions like this, because the inquirer thinks he's successfully played "gotcha" with me. My straightforward answer: "What part of zero don't you understand?" Translation? I would not have any forces - not even a ceremonial guard - to protect our diplomats. I would rely on the Iraqi government to do its job and protect our diplomats. Other nations don't consider it necessary to post troops in their Washington DC embassies; I expect the Iraqis to return the favor.

And if they can't, or won't, or the US State Department tells me they can't, guess what? I would not station any diplomats in Iraq.

Why we do it

There are a lot of well-meaning fools out there who cling fiercely to the notion that the US should always be the policeman of the world. Now and forever - with a sentiment similar to "Britannia rules the waves" or "the sun never sets on the British Empire." Or, to invoke Rudyard Kipling's quaint term, we should gladly bear "The White Man's Burden."

These well-meaning fools think we have to be ready at a moment's notice to put lots of "boots on the ground" in any God-forsaken patch of real estate on this globe. That we must keep our fingers in every pie. Our spies must be under every bed - listening to every conversation. Our corruptors free to bribe, buy and sell any public or private official in any country - except in the US itself of course.

It is not foolishness we should fear. Instead, we should fear the insecurity and cowardice of our own leaders who fear the unknown. They sense Iraq will slide into unpredictability, which won't happen as long as we're there forever. Unpredictability terrifies the insecure. Barack Obama knows this. John McCain knows this. And after the election, we ourselves will come to have absolutely no doubts about this.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"My suggestion to Iraq: Don't be in such a hurry to sell your oil rights to G8 corporations. Why, instead, don't you ask for bids from a coalition of oil companies owned and operated by Muslims?" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.