Explore
Gaia Soulmates
 Advertising keeps Gaia free! Interested in sponsoring us?

Sarah Palin: Watch your back, sweetie!

Posted on Sep 3rd, 2008 by Cinc : Mr. President Cinc
 

Did it ever occur to Sarah Palin...

...that she's being set up? Worst case scenario: If something should happen to Sarah any time soon, John McCain can pick another running mate, with Shadow Government operatives crying crocodile tears about "poor Sarah." Yes, my worst case scenario is far-fetched, but I'll bet the good Governor hasn't thought this through very carefully.


Why did Sarah accept McCain's VP nod?

She could have said "no" when Mac III asked her to be his running mate. She could have said:

"It would be a great disservice to our country if I were to ever be in a position where I could actually become President overnight. For instance, I don't have anything even remotely resembling a working knowledge of military affairs. Or do I? Did your campaign managers figure, since my son's going to Iraq soon and I'm a good shot in a big game hunting situation, we'll count those as military experience?

"John, with all due respect, I have to ask: Why on earth are you asking me to be your running mate? This is some kind of joke, right?"

What kind of massive ego allows someone like Sarah Palin to accept a VP offer? What kind of massive contempt for the American people allows Mac III to offer her the job? What kind of massive streak of bad citizenship prevents the American people from rising up angry over this outrage?

Where the hell is Paul Revere when you need him? Okay, I'll channel Paul (someone's got to do it) by proclaiming, "The Red-Staters are coming! The Red-Staters are coming - to foist off manifestly unqualified leadership on us!" [Not great in a sloganistic way, but I don't do slogans.] The Red-Staters I'm referring to are the Yes-men of the GOP rank-and-file who aren't screaming at Mac III for this Palinian lunacy.

George F. Will, why aren't you calling Palin's elevation by its proper name: "bone-headed foolishness?" George has an elegant, professorial way with words but was way too circumspect in his essay, "Impulse, Meet Experience" [at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090202441.html ]

So, to George F. Will and other sugar coaters, I say: "Sometimes your writing has to have more balls. This is one of those times."


Propaganda from the McCain camp

QUOTE:

"The McCain campaign will launch a television ad directly comparing Gov. Palin's executive experience as a governor who oversees 24,000 state employees, 14 statewide cabinet agencies and a $10 billion budget to Barack Obama's experience as a one-term junior senator from Illinois."

[and]

Senior adviser Steve Schmidt gave Politico a statement saying...: "Gov. Sarah Palin is an exceptional governor with a record of accomplishment that exceeds, by far, the governing accomplishments of Sen. Obama..."

:UNQUOTE [source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/13111 ]

"An exceptional governor?" Dude, she's been in office less than three years. So isn't claiming "exceptional" a bit over the top? And as for comparing Obama's and Palin's accomplishments: A freshman senator can usually accomplish only in ways that are subtle and symbolic, compared to a governor who is, front-and-center, a head of state. Obama, though, can claim to have soaked up a lot of advice and perspectives by virtue of having been immersed in the US Senate and this campaign. True, that's not the same as direct, hands-on experience - but it's also true Sarah Palin hasn't even had this much.


Point/Counterpoint

My Counterpoints follow these Points expressed on the Rasmussen Reports website on 9/2/08:


Point:

After a long weekend of Democratic criticism of John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, over half of voters (52%) still have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of the Alaska governor. Thirty-one percent (31%) view her very favorably.


Counterpoint:

Uh huh, so this means that at least 52% of respondents weren't honest enough to choose two other options: "Not familiar with Sarah Palin" and "Not sure." As for those who responded unfavorably, if they did so because they have qualms about Palin's presidentially-relevant suitability, they may also be considered honest.


Point:

Voters are evenly divided on whether Palin was the right choice for McCain and whether her selection makes them more or less likely to vote for the Republican candidate. But 69% of GOP voters believe the choice was a good one, while nearly as many Democrats (63%) disagree. Unaffiliated voters are evenly divided as well.


Counterpoint:

I'm not surprised at the partisanship reflected by the 69% vs. 63% choices. In fact, I cite that as further proof of how political parties manage to make people suspend their commonsense. This is another reason why I am making a pitch to abandon the Dem/Pub officeholders and replace them with independents.

As to the unaffiliated voters being "evenly divided," I have to ask: "Why are so many people overdosing on stupid pills?"


Conclusion: Experience doesn't matter

During the past two years I've been writing this blog, I've often cited this mantra: "Experience doesn't matter in presidential politics." [Think: Ronald "Bonzo" Reagan!] By selecting Sarah Palin, Mac III has emphasized my point, which is buttressed by my owning up to an experience deficit. But I offer something more profound: Solid programs for America which have an origin not in experience but in Buddhist practice. And I back my proposals in the form of a written contract.

And this means that I, therefore, have another quality lacking in both Mac III and Obama: Political courage.


Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"Of course, there is another possible reason why Sarah Palin won't matter: There might be some credence to claims by certain internet conspiracy theorists that we won't even have an election this time around. This claim is based on the belief that Black Ops will time the release of a killer Avian flu in order to justify cancellation of the election. Do I believe this? Nah, but it crosses my mind" - 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.

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (161)  

McCain and Ms "Able??"

Posted on Sep 6th, 2008 by Cinc : Mr. President Cinc
 

Introduction:

I dub them McCain and Ms "Able??"

Senator McCain and Governor Palin aren't all that comparable to the biblical Cain and Abel, for at least this reason: Palin is a woman. However, there are some bases of comparison:

Senator McCain (like the Biblical Cain):


  • is the elder of the two
  • was a wanderer of the earth
  • has a problem with authority figures
  • has anger issues
  • has successfully negotiated with higher powers when in trouble
  • has given first-born sons a bad name by squandering the inherent birthright of that status (although in Mac III's case, the "squandering" of his early years became significantly less pronounced later in life)

There are also several ironies in comparing Mac III and Sarah Palin (in the context of the Cain and Abel story):


  • John McCain, as opposed to Cain, aims to be the "keeper of sheep" if he's elected - the "sheep" being us.

  • Sarah Palin, as opposed to Abel, is a "tiller of the soil" - in terms of exploiting the oil wealth of her state for the benefit of her fellow Alaskans.

  • Sarah, unlike Abel, can't really be labeled as being very "able" at all, in terms of being ready for the biggest managerial job in the world.

Of course, we all remember what happened to Abel at the hands of Cain. Now everybody knows McCain would never rise up against Ms "Abel??" - at least not directly, not by his own knowledge, and not by his own hand. But a president has many hands, some of which he knows not what they do.



Sarah Palin: Welfare Queen

I would characterize Sarah Palin as the GOP's version of a Welfare Queen - at least in terms of her governing of Alaska. There are several dimensions to Alaskan welfare, so let us proceed:

The State of Alaska ranks #4 among the 50 states in terms of how much federal money pours into this state, compared to how much Alaskans pay in federal taxes. For each dollar of taxes the IRS collects from the following four states, this is how much each state receives back in terms of federal dollars funneled back to them:


#1: New Mexico - $3.10

#2: Mississippi - $2.96

#3: West Virginia - $2.94

#4: Alaska - $2.62


[source: Table 4:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Publications/What-Came-to-Your-State-in-2005.html ]


My own state, Illinois (ranked #47), gets only 68-cents back from the feds for each dollar it contributes to the US IRS. This is one reason why it's so hard to be governor of Illinois vs. Alaska.


Exactly how hard is it to be Governor of Alaska?

"Alaska is the only state that does not collect state sales tax or levy an individual income tax. To finance state operations, Alaska depends primarily on petroleum revenues" - according to http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/edit/state/profiles/state_tax_Aka.asp

Not only that, but "Each Alaska resident gets an annual rebate from state oil revenue, and this year Palin added $1,200 more to the $2,100 check each person received." [see full quote, further down].

It seems that Palin was responsible for increasing the dole paid out to her fellow Alaskans, by means of raising taxes on oil companies unnecessarily. I think conservatives call that soaking the rich. Do you think the mindlessly cheering multitude at the GOP convention would have actually booed if she came right out and said, "And I'm in favor of soaking the rich?" Frankly, I don't know how to answer that question, since Republicans are becoming increasingly hard to predict [aren't they supposed to be the party of lower taxes for corporations and smaller, less intrusive, and cheaper government?] Remember: An animal fighting for its survival is extremely unpredictable and dangerous.


Poor Alaska!

QUOTE:

``[Alaska is] like Dubai. It gets enormous royalties and taxes and fees of various types from oil,'' said Chris Edwards, an economist and state budget expert at the Cato Institute, a Washington group that advocates low taxes and small government.

According to the state Legislative Finance Division, Alaska will get $11 billion in oil taxes and royalties -- $5 billion more than the $6 billion fiscal 2009 budget -- if prices average $106 a barrel, yesterday's price on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The state received $5.1 billion from oil companies in fiscal 2007, when it had a $1.2 billion surplus.

Each Alaska resident gets an annual rebate from state oil revenue, and this year Palin added $1,200 more to the $2,100 check each person received.

:UNQUOTE [source:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYdZoyTvFrTc&refer=home ]


The bottom line on President Sarah Palin

It wasn't very hard for Sarah to govern Alaska, since 11 out of 20 in the Senate and 23 out of 40 in the House are from her own party. Sarah never had to sweat bullets to forge a state budget in the face of fierce opposition from a rival party and lack of fiscal resources. But what's Sarah Palin going to do if she, as President, ever has to wrestle with monster federal deficits with only two options at hand: raise taxes and/or increase the national debt?

It's easy to be a "conservative" in an undemanding, non-real world environment like Alaskan state politics. What about the day she becomes leader of the Free World? There's an apt comparison here: As Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin never had to worry about the Russians who are only 53 miles from Alaska's shores. As President of the United States, she'll have a lot more to worry about from the Russians than ever before.


John McCain's alcoholic thinking

Choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate had to be the result of John McCain's Alcoholic Thinking, which can severely afflict even people who are not themselves drinkers. John McCain's father was the most dangerous kind of alcoholic - one who could consume much and often but not to the point of impairing his on-the-job performance - this is what is called a functioning alcoholic.

And this functioning alcoholic was Senator McCain's father. However, "functioning" or not, it's indisputable that long-term use of alcohol warps the thought processes and value judgments of the drinker - not to mention the young, impressionable children of such a drinker. Once upon a time, John McCain was such an impressionable, young child, who "learned" from his father, as did John's father learn from his father, of whom the Senator writes:

"He smoked, swore, drank, and gambled at every opportunity he had" - page 12, Faith of my Fathers.

Senator McCain sought to emulate his father and grandfather in many remarkable ways. Though I don't know if Mac III is an alcoholic in a medically-definable way, I do know that he does drink and (more importantly) has been a victim of his own family's culture of functional alcoholism and alcoholic thinking.

When I was in my early 20s, I would hang out with my friends and watch them smoke pot and/or drink. As the evening progressed, I'd hear them spout some pretty outlandish ideas, which to them sounded better and better the more they imbibed. Of course, the next morning they would denounce these delusions - if they would remember them at all. However, long-term exposure to such imbibing brings one to a point where the delusional ideas start to crop up - without imbibing one drop!

That's the dangerous threshold.

The alcoholic parent reaches a point that, even without drinking, he becomes dangerous to his children who come to think of such warped thought-processes as normal. That's how insidiously alcohol can affect the innocent and youthful non-drinker. And then the young boy grows up, starts drinking heavily himself, eventually reaching a point where he starts thinking about how much "sense" his father was making once upon a time.

So John McCain's alcoholically-affected thought processes yield Sarah Palin as an inspired choice for vice president. Why is it that no one in the media speaks of John McCain's intimate relationship with alcohol, perhaps having even influenced his choice of a second wife (heiress to a beer fortune)? How is it that ordinary citizens from all walks of life aren't scrutinizing Sarah Palin, as a wise old jeweler would inspect a candidate diamond?


McCain and Ms "Able??"

The GOP, wearing its rose-colored glasses, is offering us two rugged individualists from non-traditional backgrounds with questionable credentials at best. Much as I dislike Republicans in general, I have to admit they could have done much better than these two. It seems the Farm System which produced this ticket has failed the GOP - which is as badly as it's failed the Democrats - which is as badly as its on the verge of failing the country.

Well...there is another option: Elect me!


Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"For how much longer will McCain and Ms "Able??" be able to continue fooling America? For at least 59 more days, they hope, since that's how long until we cast our ballots" - 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.

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (255)  

John McCain's "bud": Colonel Bud Day

Posted on Sep 10th, 2008 by Cinc : Mr. President Cinc
 

Thesis: Colonel Bud Day and GOP presidential candidate John McCain were both POWs during the Vietnam War. Today's blog will explore some of Day's thinking, which can easily be extrapolated to John McCain's - though Mac III has been far more circumspect in revealing his inner-self. This restraint shows that his campaign staffers (handlers, if you'd prefer) have been doing their jobs very well indeed.


Four red letter dates in Bud Day's life


  • March 14, 1973: Released after more than 5.5 years of captivity as a POW.

  • April 30, 1975: Vietnam War ended.

  • March 6, 1976: Colonel Day received Congressional Medal of Honor from President Ford.

  • After March 6, 1976: Former president Richard Nixon re-awards the Congressional Medal of Honor to Colonel Day - at Day's request. [Exact date of re-award: unknown]

Introducing Colonel George "Bud" Day

"Col. Day holds every significant combat award and is the nation's most highly decorated officer, as well as the most decorated since General Douglass MacArthur. He holds nearly seventy military decorations and awards, of which more than fifty are for combat." - according to http://mrgrg-ms.org/col-day.html

In addition, Colonel Day was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for:


  • being the only POW to (allegedly) successfully escape captivity and make it to South Vietnam (briefly) before being recaptured and sent back north;

  • resisting his captors' attempts to force him to reveal information and commit disloyal acts.

I inserted the word "allegedly" above for two reasons:


  • An account of Day's POW experience is a prominent part of a book by Robert Coram - American Patriot: The Life and Wars of Colonel Bud Day - which, after reading carefully (twice), I found too incredible to be true.

  • There were no witnesses to Colonel Day's activities from the moment of his escape to the time of his return to prison. The importance of the "two witnesses rule" is indicated below.

The two witnesses rule:


QUOTE:

In their provisions for judging whether a man is entitled to the Medal of Honor, each of the armed services has set up regulations which permit no margin of doubt or error. The deed of the person must be proved by incontestable evidence of at least two eyewitnesses...

:UNQUOTE [source: Medal of Honor: History and Issues (updated March 30, 2006), CRS Report for Congress]

I've spent considerable time and effort (unsuccessfully) attempting to determine why Colonel Day was awarded the Medal of Honor, even though the official citation's text (at least, the part pertaining to his escape), is based solely on Day's own testimony. No witnesses required. Why? [Perhaps the Pentagon perceived a need to create a hero who was more heroic than he actually was. It saddens me to think that the "actually was" part is considered insufficient.]


Colonel Day chooses Nixon to reaward his Medal of Honor

Bud Day was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Ford on March 6, 1976. However, Bud decided that wasn't good enough, even though Congress had made a law in this area. Therefore:


QUOTE:

[Colonel Bud Day] called an aide to former president Richard Nixon and said, "Would you ask President Nixon if he will reaward my Medal of Honor?"

The aide was a bit nonplussed by the request. Former president Nixon was living in exile in San Clemente, in disgrace after resigning from the presidency. But the aide knew that Nixon was a revered figure to the POWs. And he knew that Bud Day was one of Nixon's most outspoken supporters.

"Colonel, I'm not sure what you mean by reawarding the medal."

Day told the aide about the year's delay in awarding his MOH and how he thought the medal should be above politics, even presidential politics. He reaffirmed his respect for Nixon and told the aide, "I would be honored for President Nixon to be the president who awarded me the Medal of Honor. That would be the one that counts."

Nixon agreed.

:UNQUOTE [p. 283, American Patriot, by Robert Coram]


Colonel Day's sins of arrogance:

So the good Colonel gets to decide "[Nixon] would be the one that counts." It didn't matter that the law mandated Gerald Ford as the appropriate awarder - though Day was a lawyer and should have known better. Bud Day states in Coram's book that "the medal should be above politics, even presidential politics," yet he decided to politicize the medal in two ways:


  • By asking a disgraced Richard Nixon to re-award his medal, and (later)

  • By wearing his medal while appearing in a Swift Boat Veteran's for Truth spot in opposition to John Kerry.

It was bad enough that Richard Nixon broke the law, thereby losing the presidency. Then Bud Day decides to add insult to that injury by ignoring the will of Congress, and to violate the sanctity of the Medal of Honor by politicizing it for causes which he believes are right. Day thought he "knew better."

However, "knowing better" is sometimes the problem - as in, some people feel they are entitled to use illegal or unethical means in order to impose their own views because they feel they "know better." And the reason they "know better" is (for example):


  • ...because I spent 6 years in a POW camp and the country owes me allegiance to my opinions in repayment for the suffering my allegiance to my country cost me.

  • ...because I am the great anti-communist fighter and am entitled to engage in political dirty tricks to maintain power for my party as long as possible.

  • ...because the ends justify the means, but only I get to decide when.

  • ...because I feel God has spared me from death for some great purpose. [News flash: Each and every one of us is here for some great purpose - that's Buddhism 101.]

The sad irony of Day's Nixon worship

There are veterans who feel that the United States would have won the Vietnam War if our fighting men hadn't been stabbed in the back by liberal media, anti-war demonstrators, draft dodgers, and other America haters. However, they neglect to name the greatest villain in this drama: Richard Nixon.

The great delusion of these vets was that American air power was sufficient to keep the commies at bay once our ground forces had been completely withdrawn from Vietnam: That was the basic idea behind our policy to Vietnamize the war. The South Vietnamese army was supposed to be able to stave off the Reds by calling in massive B52 strikes against besieging North Vietnamese forces.

Nixon himself believed this plan would work.

However, Nixon himself sabotaged that very plan by breaking the law, losing the presidency, and allowing the so-called surrender-monkey Democrats to seize the initiative. [It didn't help matters that Nixon's VP (one Spiro Agnew) was also a crook.]

I find it ironic that Colonel Bud Day saw fit to seek out Nixon, saying (in effect):

"Sir, I could only respect the Medal if awarded by you, since you did so much to hasten the end of the war, which in turn hastened my release from a POW prison. Of course, I have no problem overlooking the fact that your illegal actions in effect caused us to lose that war by losing you as Commander in Chief, which denied US air power its chance to keep the South Vietnamese government in power."

Maybe I'm being delusional here, but I thought every POW and American fighting man who believed we were doing the right thing in Vietnam would have much rather have given his life if that meant prolonging and winning this war, than idolize a leader whose behavior caused loss of that war. Even though that loss meant gaining their own freedom.


Stolen Honor: Wounds that never heal [a documentary film]


QUOTE:

[Many Vietnam veterans] believed Kerry's 1971 testimony [before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations] was the template from which almost every Vietnam movie was made.

Except for The Green Berets ... no commercial movies about Vietnam appeared until after the mid-1970s, five years or so after Kerry's testimony. And almost every one of those movies ... included American soldiers as John Kerry has portrayed them in his testimony: crazed, dope-smoking, civilian-killing psychotics who, once they came home, were ticking bombs.

For many Americans, the most compelling statements about the Vietnam War were found in those movies, and many veterans believe that, by extension, Kerry was responsible for America's erroneous beliefs about Vietnam. ... To many Vietnam veterans, particularly the POWs ... Kerry had wronged a generation of honorable men; he had stolen their honor. This was their truth. And they ached for the chance to make things right.

:UNQUOTE [Page 300, American Patriot].


This sentiment was the source of the eventual production of a documentary film called Stolen Honor: Wounds that never heal. This film was made with the intention of denying the presidency to John Kerry, which meant of course giving it to George W. Bush (but these vengeful warriors hadn't thought that part out very carefully). According to American Patriot (page 300):


QUOTE:

It was near the end [of the film] before Bud Day appeared. With his Medal of Honor around his neck, he looked straight into the camera and said of John Kerry, "This man committed an act of treason. He lied, he besmirched our name, and he did it for self-interest. And now he wants us to forget? I can never forget. Treason is a crime that can never be forgiven."

:UNQUOTE.


What's wrong with the picture?

For one thing, Day is being a liberal! A flaming liberal, in how he liberally uses the word "treason." And this is a man who is a lawyer - who seems to prefer his own personal definitions of words rather than any legal uses. [I don't recall that charges of treason had ever been brought against John Kerry.]

There were a lot of folks back in 1971 to whom Kerry's testimony was right on. Why didn't those vets, active duty military, and war supporters who shared Day's views back then speak up? Why wasn't there a massive backlash of protest over Kerry's testimony - back in 1971? Isn't it rather cowardly to wait more than 30 years to register one's protest, hoping (perhaps) that the public would have forgotten what had motivated millions of peace demonstrators from all walks of life to take to the streets to oppose this war?

And not to mention: Colonel Day flaunted his medal for political purposes, with a willingness (four years later) to do so again for his old friend John McCain. And of course McCain would never scold Day for politicizing the medal. Why should McCain do something so humiliating to a fellow demi-god? And isn't that what these people think they are? Isn't that what the John McCains and Bud Days of the world mean when they say Americans should "serve a cause greater than yourself?"

What they really mean is: "Serve us because we are greater than yourselves - because we know better than you what's good for you."


End note: To those who think John Kerry had stolen their honor:

It is possible to steal a man's medals. It is also possible to deny him a parade. It is even possible to rewrite history in order to make heroes of villains and vice versa. However, your honor is a matter between you and your God, however you perceive Him. And nobody can steal that.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"Never elect as president a man who thinks his past sufferings entitle him to that office" - 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.

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (336)  

Coming soon: My contract in final form

Posted on Sep 16th, 2008 by Cinc : Mr. President Cinc
 

Within one week, I hope to post my contract in final form, so stay tuned. For the past two years, I have been posting essays on Gaia which described the major elements of my contract. This I offer in exchange for your vote for US president. If I violate any of the terms of this contract, the consequence would be forfeiture of my office. My goal is to present a contract which will be so attractive, it will put Barack Obama and John McCain to shame. I hope once you review this document, you'll agree: Steven Searle should be elected next President of the United States.


For now, I'll leave you with something to think about:


If John McCain should become incapacitated or (heaven forbid) pass away before the election, do you suppose the GOP would elevate Sarah Palin to the top of the ticket and then allow her to select her own running mate?


If not, why not? After all, if McCain should become indisposed after the election, the GOP wouldn't have any problem with Sarah Palin becoming the next president. I guess much hinges on timing, yes?


Just thinking out loud, that's all.


Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"I'm really excited about my pending contractual offer; I hope you'll find it at least thought-provoking and at most worthy of your fanatical support" - 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.

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (154)  

The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle for US President

Posted on Sep 19th, 2008 by Cinc : Mr. President Cinc
 

The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle

Candidate for US President in 2008

Founder of The Best Party Available



Preamble:       I, Steven Searle, am the only candidate running for the office of US president in 2008 who is offering a binding contract in exchange for your vote. The following 47 points comprise this contract, which is now presented to you in its final form. This contract has been under construction for the past two years and can be seen, in its draft form, at http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog. I invite you to review all of the postings on this blog for background information and analysis regarding the following points, as well as other essays of interest.


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



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


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


THREE:         I will urge Congress to retroactively raise to $5,000,000 the payment to next-of-kin (or other designees) of all U.S. soldiers (and members of Private Military Companies) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan - and make that tax free. In addition, I will urge Congress to increase disability benefits to $1,000,000 per lost limb, also retroactively and tax free. All this with an apology to our troops who've sacrificed so much: "We - made - a - mistake - and - we're - sorry."


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


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

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

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



SIX:
               I will not choose anyone to be my Vice President who is not a woman. Though I will insist that she present an electoral contract to the American people, I will not insist that it be a duplicate of my contract. In addition, I will allow her total freedom to operate within the capacity of her office as she sees fit, without supervision or censorship.


SEVEN:
         I will sign a blanket pardon in advance to all women who might be brought up on federal charges prohibiting abortion, insisting their choices should be strictly a matter between them and their doctors. If the various states attempt to pass anti-abortion legislation, I will direct the Justice Department to sue these states for violating the Fourteenth Amendment.


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


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


TEN:
              On August 6, 2012, our total nuclear stockpile will be no greater than 1,000 warheads or else I will refuse, after that date, to allow the United States to use its nuclear weapons under any circumstances. I will also disallow the use of predelegated nuclear weapons release authority, thereby absolutely preventing the use of these weapons in any offensive or defensive capacity.


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


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


THIRTEEN:
In the event of an Iranian invasion of Iraq: I would make an announcement to the nation acknowledging Iran's incursion, but I would not condemn it. I would continue by saying: "Hopefully, George W. Bush was the last of the Imperial American Presidents. With that in mind, I will not urge this country into war. If Congress wishes to declare war, I will here and now state that this President recognizes that only Congress has that power."


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


FIFTEEN:
     I will invite Rabbi Lerner and supporters of his Global Marshall Plan to meet with me to discuss the principles of this Plan and how to implement it.


SIXTEEN:
     I will aggressively seek to completely replace our Constitution by means of establishing a Constitutional Convention, which will (hopefully) consider implementing a system I've created: Cross-Sectional Representation (CSR), which is briefly introduced in the next paragraph.


16a:                 Cross-Sectional Representation:
The 435 Congressional Districts now in existence share a fatal flaw: they are distinct physical locations. Each district should be replaced with a new unit: the Cross-Section. Every eligible voter in the country should be randomly assigned to one of 435 numerically-equal Cross-Sections. A Congressman would still be elected, but his constituency would consist of voters who, as members of a Cross-Section, are literally scattered all over the country. This way, we avoid having Congressmen trying to please local constituencies at the expense of our broader, national interests. My proposal includes: Abolishing the U.S. Senate, thereby making the House our sole national legislative body, members of which will serve six-year terms.


SEVENTEEN:
          I will veto any bill presented to me by Congress which has any provision for tax increase or for increased government borrowing.


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


NINETEEN:             My Supreme Court Nominations:
Upon my election, I will ask all members of the Supreme Court to submit their resignations, signifying my "no confidence" in the Court. I will not nominate any person to the Court who will not sign the following contract:

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



TWENTY:
                 I will lead efforts to overhaul our legal system. Massive, systemic reform is long overdue, and we can't leave it to lawyers (and to Congressmen who are themselves lawyers - which is most of them). Only We-the-People can do this. And I'm appealing for your support to help me replace our system with one based on justice and fair play.


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


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


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

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



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

  • Granting diplomatic recognition to Cuba.

  • Withdrawing diplomatic recognition from Kosovo.



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


TWENTY-FIVE:
      I will grant a pardon to anyone convicted of violating federal rules against trading with Cuba, spending money in Cuba, or traveling to Cuba.


TWENTY-SIX:
         Transparency will be a major focus of my administration. Definition: Transparency: Opening the books; increasing scrutiny of public and corporate transactions; vastly reducing the number of government documents marked classified; enabling and rewarding whistleblowers; creating a level playing field between employees and employers, enabling employees (and not just their unions) to gain equal and inexpensive stature in courts of law; revising the Freedom of Information Act, giving it more teeth.


TWENTY-SEVEN:
   I will undertake the most massive declassification of state secrets in US history.


TWENTY-EIGHT:
  I will insist on the creation of a Truly Independent 9/11 Commission, and will veto all bills presented to me by Congress unless Congress fully mandates and fully funds this investigative body with a one billion dollar budget. I propose that David Ray Griffin be named as head of this Commission. If Congress fails to establish and fund this entity, I will donate my entire presidential salary - all four years' worth - to establish this group and will solicit private citizens' donations toward this goal.


TWENTY-NINE:
      As the next President of the United States, I will have a special mission for my Attorney General: "Investigate and prosecute corrupt politicians with every possible resource at your disposal."


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


THIRTY-ONE:
         If Osama bin Laden were to be sentenced to death in a U.S. federal court during my presidency, I would commute his sentence to life imprisonment.


THIRTY-TWO:
        I will not only issue a formal apology for the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, but I will personally go to Iraq and apologize to randomly-chosen Iraqi citizens.


THIRTY-THREE:
    I will end the ban against gays serving openly in the military by means of this Executive Order: "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services."


THIRTY-FOUR:
      I will not make any recess appointments. Also, I will ask for lists of recommendations to ambassadorships from the ten leading universities in the U.S. with programs in international studies. I will submit names to the Senate from those lists.


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


THIRTY-SIX:
           By Executive Order, I will (in effect) repeal the unconstitutional Logan Act, which is an affront to our basic rights as American citizens to participate in the marketplace of ideas. This repeal will be effected by my Executive Order authorizing every U.S. citizen to share their ideas and interact with anyone they please, as long as they make it clear they are acting as private citizens and not in the role of U.S. diplomats/negotiators.


THIRTY-SEVEN:
    One of my first official acts as U.S. President will be to order a copy of a classified report detailing US spying in German churches in the 20-year period following World War II.


THIRTY-EIGHT:
    All of our troops will be periodically and anonymously polled to obtain their views in the midst of (as well as prior to) any future military engagements we might venture into. These results will be made public.


THIRTY-NINE:
        I will veto any bill presented to me by Congress allowing microchips to be implanted into the bodies of American citizens - "voluntarily" or otherwise. If Congress musters the two-thirds majority needed to override this veto, I will fight this law in court. If that effort fails, I will resign from office.


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


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


FORTY-TWO:
         One of my first acts as President will be to grant clemency to Michael Santos, who has been incarcerated since 1987; in addition, voiding the fine which was imposed on him. [Reference: www.michaelsantos.net]


FORTY-THREE:
     I hereby declare that any Congress consisting of Democrats and Republicans is unrepresentative of the people, and therefore urge voters to replace their Congressmen with independents.


FORTY-FOUR:
        My inauguration will not be held in Washington, D.C. It will instead be held in the exact geographic center of the lower-48 states (or as close to that center as possible), which is near Lebanon, Kansas. Since Alaska and Hawaii are excluded in this determination of "exact geographic center," my first two State of the Union addresses will be on their soil.


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


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


FORTY-SEVEN:
      Since my name is not on the ballot, you will have to write in my name in order to vote for me. Since I have not been able to recruit a running mate, it is not necessary that you also write-in a vote for vice president.


Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"I wish to thank the good people who sponsor the Gaia community for allowing me the privilege of posting on their site for these last two years. I therefore dedicate my Electoral Contract to you and to the legions of Gaians you encourage" - Steve.

Contact me:
bpa_cinc@yahoo.com


Contributions to my campaign: I am no longer soliciting, nor will I accept, any monetary contributions to my campaign. This does not mean, however, that I'm giving up.

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.

Access_public Access: Public 1 Comment Print views (253)  

The $700 Billion Bailout

Posted on Sep 23rd, 2008 by Cinc : Mr. President Cinc
 

It has been decreed from On-High: If Congress doesn't approve a $700 billion bailout for the financial services sector, the consequences will be far worse than the Great Depression.

Oh, and one more thing: This bailout must be done quickly!

And let's not overlook: The Secretary of the Treasury has to be given broad new powers.


Oh, please..stop...

Isn't anybody going to stop these people? Many of us bought into the Weapons of Mass Destruction line of bull, and see where that got us. And, oh yes, we were urged to act quickly on that one too, before the mushroom clouds started sprouting over American cities.

Of course Congress will pass this bailout package. It's too close to the election for any Congressmen to challenge the ultimate wisdom of this gross act of corporate welfare. They'll all quickly fall in line. So will Obama and McCain (and Hillary), when this package ends up in the Senate.

Congress knew about the crisis in the subprime mortgage market for a year, and now...we must act quickly to avert disaster. Whatever happened to a democracy in which lawmakers deliberated over the pros and cons of pending legislation? Whatever happened to a democracy in which lengthy and exhaustive public hearings were held on matters of monumental import?

Whatever happened to democracy in America? My sad conclusion is: We never really had it, but once upon a time we could pretend that we did.


What would I do if I were President right now?

Here's a clue:

QUOTE:

SEVENTEEN:  I will veto any bill presented to me by Congress which has any provision for tax increase or for increased government borrowing.

:UNQUOTE [from The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle for US President, posted on Gaia on 9/19/2008]

Now I'll be even more explicit: I would veto such legislation and let the chips fall where they may - at least as far as Wall Street is concerned. I could, however, support a federal moratorium on mortgage foreclosures.

The real problem is: Our gridlocked, Dem/Pub, business-as-usual, look-the-other-way Congress got us into this mess. If we had a real democracy, complete with a Congress made up of independents instead of Dem/Pubs, we would not be in imminent peril because of something known as planning ahead. That's what independent legislators do - independents who aren't tied to the purse strings of lobbyists, and who aren't thinking of "party first, country second."

That's right: planning ahead. That's what good chess players do if they want to defeat their opponents: They plan ahead, instead of merely reacting to the "situation on the ground," one move at a time - to mix a metaphor.

But, really, why should the American people plan ahead? When Barack Obama began his miraculous campaign two years ago, no one pressed him for specifics. [Not even the press pressed him!] In other words, no one asked in what manner Barack had "planned ahead" for this country.


I.O.U.S.A. - a documentary film

To be brutally frank, I.O.U.S.A. wasn't very well done. However, it did make a few good points concerning our headlong rush into national bankruptcy. And one of those good points was our failure to save for a rainy day. Americans don't save, which not only hurts each of us who doesn't save, but which forces American businesses to borrow from overseas investors.

In other words, we don't plan ahead very well. And why should we? Haven't we made a religion out of live for today and charge it against tomorrow's pay check? This attitude coexists with a feeling that all warnings of dire downfall are nothing more than Chickens Little rambling, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" And I understand that feeling. It's easy to feel that way, especially when I.O.U.S.A. itself opens up with video clips of at least six US presidents warning us that we're on the verge of economic disaster.

That forces us either into disbelief or into asking: "Please define verge."


Warren Buffett's two fictional islands and the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis

At first blush, these geographies (both cited in I.O.U.S.A.) seem unrelated but...bear with me.

Warren Buffett tried to explain the downside of becoming a debtor society by means of a story about two fictional neighboring islands. The people of Squanderville had no problem buying from their neighbors on Thriftville. But they did so by selling so much of Squanderville to Thriftville - piece by piece - that they lost their sovereignty. This brief animated clip from YouTube illustrates the basic idea quite well but...it overlooks something very profound left unsaid by Buffett: http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=M-vMxKvYfVs

Before I mention Buffett's oversight, a little history lesson:

In 1956, the French, British, and Israelis attempted a military seizure of the Suez Canal, which belonged to Egypt. The United States opposed this effort due to fears the Russians might jump in on the side of the Egyptians. We tried diplomacy with the Brits, which didn't work. Then we did something which some historians cite as the landmark moment when the British Empire ceased to exist:

The United States told the British, in so many words: "Either you pull your troops out of the Suez or we dump our holdings in British government bonds on the market." This Financial Nuclear Option would have been too much to bear, so the Brits immediately withdrew their forces.

While it's true the United States is in hock up to its eyeballs to foreign creditors, we are not in the same position now as were the British in 1956. We still have the greatest military force in the world. Even if all of our creditors, all at once, threatened us with the Financial Nuclear Option, we could counter with:

"Oh no you don't. If you f**k with us, we'll nuke you - and not with any so-called Financial Nuclear Option. I'm talking A-Bombs and H-Bombs, jack!"

That's what Warren Buffett overlooked (intentionally, I believe) in his sweet little tale of two islands. For if Squanderville had nukes, Thriftville could "own" as much of Squanderville as it pleased, but wouldn't really have true ownership power.


Conclusion

Tell me, why do you think all of our major Dem/Pub candidates - all of them - stressed the importance of having a strong military? Isn't it obvious?

Oh, and one more thing: If anyone reading this thinks our military advantage will compensate for our fiscal mismanagement, just remember:

We'd be turning the entire world against us and a morally-bankrupt America which might try to pull such a stunt would find out soon enough:

We can't beat the whole world.


Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"To President Bush, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Warren Buffett: What part of the jig is up don't you understand?" - Steve.

Contact me:
bpa_cinc@yahoo.com


Contributions to my campaign: I am no longer soliciting, nor will I accept, any monetary contributions to my campaign. This does not mean, however, that I'm giving up.

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.

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (406)