Thursday, October 4, 2012

Stav Blackmane Interview: Part 2, This Is A Long One

(For Part 1, click here).

Now for the grand event.  Stav answers your questions.  Unfortunately we couldn't get to them all, between NP and IMAO we received about 30ish and as you can tell. Stav has nothing to hide.  That guy has no problem telling you how he feels.  I think this is one reason why I'm going to write him in.

Mundane68: On Gun Control: Should all Americans be manditorially armed with .4x caliber handguns or would you allow smaller caliber guns for girly hands?

SB: Smaller calibers would certainly be allowed, for at least these and probably other good reasons:
o Girls get to shoot too!
o Generally speaking, the .22 has more stopping power than the .38 or larger caliber.  Yeah, I know that sounds wrong, or backwards, and it surprised me also, but the findings make sense. You can't stop what you can't hit, and in a crisis or a shootout almost everyone is far more accurate with a no-kick .22 than with a hoss gun.
  Also, I will NOT mandate that all Americans get conceal-carry licenses, as that would be a violation of Federalism.  What I can probably put into place, however, and something I'd really like to do, is to grant significantly meaty tax breaks to those who do, and I can justifythis as a reward for voluntarily assuming part of the burden of civic peace-keeping.

Mundane68: On Middle East Politics: Should we just ignore them butchering each other, or do the humanitarian thing and nuke them from orbit to be sure?

SB: Except where Israel is concerned, our ally whom I will always stand with, these are not truly mutually-exclusive options.  Can't we do both?  Sidebar:  Let me harken back to my earlier statement that "nobody owns me"… just to be clear: Israel does not own me.  And I will never forsake her. That's MY choice, with no one pulling my strings.

Mundane68:Tax Policy: How does he feel about sending IRS agents to celebrities' houses at 1 AM for surprise audits after they make statements like "I think we need to pay more in taxes..."

SB: I would rather just send the celebrities hefty bills, and save the 1 AM surprise audits for members of Congress and other IRS auditors (and "on their own heads be it" if they aren't ready for them).

Mundane68:Corporate Welfare: Any CEO of a company getting money from the government directly is required to make a sex tape once a year. I mean, we might as well see how we are getting screwed. How does he feel about that?

SB: If your goal is to REALLY BE SURE that people are made aware of how badly they're being screwed, then we should stop withholding payroll taxes.  And before you ask, YES, that's part of my plan.  Otherwise, I feel a bit queasy about your suggestion.  These people - these CEOs - are perhaps without exception NOT beauty queens or fashion models. That said, why would you want to inflict such punishment upon the American populace at large?  I think you have your priorities backwards… If the rich recipients of government largesse have to (read: get to) make an annual sex tape, and someone's got to watch it, all we'd be doing is feeding both their wallets and their already substantial egos.  I'm not seeing the down side for them, or the upside for the rest of us.  I have to give you credit, however, because if the government did choose to get into the pornography business, wasting a ton of money to produce a low-quality product is about what you could expect.

Mundane68:Who is hotter? Megyn Kelly or Patti Ann Brown

SB: Are you asking about my personal tastes, or my official position?  Because my personal tastes run more towards Megyn Kelly, although they both strike me as beautiful.  My official position, however, requires me to both 1) insist that we all live in this grand melting pot of a society where opinions differ and that both women should be considered as "smokin' hot", to steal a phrase from my worthy interviewer, and furthermore 2) this issue will likely never be resolved because I require my official positions be backed up by hard experimental data (I'm an "evidence" freak when it comes to making official pronouncements), and frankly I expect my wife would object to me even making inquiries along those lines.

snark: How do you plan on dealing with Congress? 

SB: Harshly.
Part 2 of this answer:  I sat on just saying "Harshly" for two days, torn between the elegance of a one-word answer that came straight from my soul, vs. its cry for elaboration. So here's the elaboration:  Since you phrased your question as "dealing" with Congress as opposed to "working" with them, I'm taking it as written that you were referring to confrontational situations.  And since hair-splitters would likely chime in with "But you can't just order Congress around!" I'd say that I agree, but I still will have to deal with the opposition, and my strategy for that involves kicking, uh, doors open, and taking names (this is me watching my language).

In fact, If the situation calls for it (read: "has anything to do with the budget or the abysmal state of our country's finances") I would not hesitate to leap aboard Air Force One, travel to the district of an opposing congressman, or several locations within the state of an opposing senator, and use the awesome power of the bully pulpit to take my case directly to their constituents, in as open and public a forum as possible.  And I wouldn't screen the participants for anything other than weapons, i.e. no guaranteed friendly audiences, because in a lively give-and-take I'd much rather have a Chris Christie-like opportunity to shred the opposition than to be preaching to an echo chamber.  I would declaim in loud and specific terms how their representative was standing firmly in the way of our country's recovery (or hastening our doom), and let the people know exactly what I want/expect them to do about it.

Ogrrre: In your opinion, does life start at conception, or does it start later, at birth?

 SB: Life starts at conception. That's not just my opinion, by the way, that's biological fact.  That our law does not recognize this is a problem with the law, not with our understanding of biology.

Ogrrre: Since Obama interfered with established bankruptcy law in the case of GM, and stiffed the bond holders in favor of the UAW, would you consider confiscating every share of GM stock from the UAW and give that stock to the bondholders of record when GM filed for bankruptcy?

SB: That's a good start. I'd also surrender almost all of the shares still held by the government (see below), and take other measures to make whole those who unjustly had their stake in the company stolen.  But I would not stop there. The reason I would hold a few shares in reserve and not surrender every last one is because I'd also push through legislation outlawing all public unions (or at least all those interfacing at the federal level), and would use the wedge of the government owning some GM shares to crowbar the UAW out of GM entirely, and ban them from returning for as long as the government was in any way a legal stakeholder.

Ogrrre: If you are elected, do you intend to have Obama and Holder arrested and turned over to the Mexican government for their part in Fast and Furious and the subsequent cover-up?

SB: If I can prove "treason" first, then no.  Sadly, Mexican justice, no matter how well deserved, would have to take a back seat to our own.  Otherwise, I have to admit the temptation is strong.

Ogrrre: If you are elected, what do you intend to do about Iran's continued enrichment of uranium and their continued quest for nuclear weapons?

SB: End it.

Ogrrre: Since "entitlement" programs are not mentioned in the Enumerated Powers in the Constitution, and since the "entitlement" programs are not sustainable and are bankrupting the country, how would you reform those programs to move able-bodied people, male and female, off of those programs and into productive jobs?

SB: The government can't really move people into productive jobs. The best we can do is foster an economic and regulatory environment that naturally encourages and rewards the creation of productive jobs, largely by getting out of the way and revoking and removing the government-created impediments which prevent jobs from being created.  AND we can motivate the able-bodied into joining the workforce through a variety of "carrot and stick" mechanisms; the "carrots" being such as job training, counseling, etc., all backed by the "stick" of a relentless countdown clock marking the ongoing reduction and approaching end of their government support.

I would also consider launching a PSA series to counter the barrage of negative "you are helpless and need the government"-type of messages that saturate out culture.  I'm not going to speculate at the breadth of topics these would address - we haven't yet hired the creative geniuses who would develop them - but I imagine you'd at least see messages like "I want the government to stop treating me like a helpless child. I'm a man; I stand on my own two feet."  Of course I'd like to see one that says "Whenever someone tells me 'We've got a government program for that, you should sign up!' I say 'Get away from me you useless soul-sucking drone!' if I'm feeling polite."  But I don't know how well that one would sell.  It would probably work on a T-shirt.  I'd make that a campaign slogan except that too many people would get confused over whom it was supposed to be addressed.  Some things sound much better in my head than on a billboard, and this might be an example.

Ogrrre: Given that creating "money" out of thin air, whether by printing more currency or creating deposits by computer, always results in hyperinflation and the destruction of the currency, what is your solution to the current myopic "quantitative easing" being practiced by the Treasury Department and the Fed?

SB: I consider "quantitative easing" to be a hostile action committed by those who cannot reasonably claim to have not known what they were doing nor understood the certain consequences of their actions.  I would do more than end it.  I would "follow the money" and instigate investigations concerning those involved, with the goal being prosecutions for any charge we could legally make stick.

Ogrrre: Do you intend to audit the Fed?

SB: Yes. Early and often.
Part 2 of this answer:  I sat on just saying "Yes. Early and often" for two days while pondering the potential impacts.  Let me pose a few "what if" questions, the basis of which I have no evidence at all, and to be clear; this is not an exercise in conspiracy theorizing, it is an exercise in considering the ramifications.
What if I was elected, made inquiries, and discovered that:
o The Fed actually has been audited, perhaps even regularly so, and the consequences of letting the results be known publically are so horrifying that no administration - from either party - has so far chosen to release the data in order to spare both us and the world from the consequences of doing so?
o Our stores of material wealth, namely gold, have been so over-leveraged, or compromised, or outright stolen, like the "ghost steel" phenomenon in China, as to render the stabilizing effect of whatever remains in our possession moot?
o Revealing to the public the accurate state of our financial affairs would - guaranteed, and with 100% certainty - result in economic Armageddon world-wide?
What would I do? Well, here's my guiding thoughts:
You do what you can to prevent injury through education, diligence, and careful action.  You clean the wound to prevent infection.  You lance the infection to save the limb.  You amputate to stave off death.

I would make whatever preparations I deemed necessary to keep (or restore) the peace and maintain civil order, and guarantee the continuation of the government (reluctantly, mind you, but still), to protect our borders and safeguard (to the degree possible) our international merchants, to stockpile the resources consumed by our utilities, and sadly I'd even prepare some draconian proclamations that I would oppose in my private capacity.  In other words, I'd let the military's Joint Chiefs know.  Then somewhere between a week and a month before going public with the news, I would summon the governors of all 50 states, along with whatever we call the senior officials of our various territories (do we refer to them as "governors" too?), to Washington D.C. and upon pain of horrifying consequences the least of which would be the complete removal of all federal support during the upcoming crisis, even if making such a threat would be technically illegal, and leaning hardest on the Democrats (whom I don't trust) I would reveal to them the ugly truths, our expectations, projections, and preparations.  And by the way, I'd do this before telling Congress, which I would subsequently do in an air-tight closed session. I would also reveal that my "soft target" for going public would be a few days hence.
And since I'm not a complete fool, and since I know that the moment I released Congress from the air-tight session that word would spread like wildfire, I would actually have had my "going public" media team and camera crew standing by, and I'd make the public announcement probably before the Congressmen could get back to their offices.  I might even entertain a cell-phone block and land-line cut at the Capitol during all that… might be appealing - I should probably look into that…
Regardless, my feeling is that unless bankers have hidden fusion bombs beneath all our major cities, and have been holding us hostage for years without our knowledge (to be clear - I do not believe that), UNLESS that's the case, then there is no scenario so horrible that continuing to postpone into the future won't worsen.  If I am remembered as the President who sparked the worst economic crash in recorded history, I'll go down ruefully smiling, knowing that not only did I not cause the situation, I would have prevented a worse fate from happening later.

Ogrrre: Do you intend to stop subsidies to entities such as Amtrak?

SB: Yes. Amtrack's a piffle. Not only do I intend to stop subsidies to Amtrak, I intend to sell it off.  And its cousins, if such a thing can be identified.

Ogrrre: Do you intend to reverse ethanol mandates?

SB: I intend to end them, but to do so over the course of a couple of planting seasons so as to not needlessly crash the corn market nor bankrupt farmers who planted corn on the government's promise of a handsome return.  In fact, actually "reversing" the mandates might be tricky to do, but I bet it would be hilarious to speculate about.

Ogrrre: Given that the NLRB is no longer a neutral referee between labor and management, and has become an advocate for the Unions, do you intend to disestablish the NLRB?

SB: Instantly.  That would be one of my Omnibus Pre-Day One Initiatives, the details of which I'll be posting at as soon as they're complete.  This will contain, among other things, the entire list of federal departments and agencies, and the fate I intend for them.  Now, regarding the name " Omnibus Pre-Day One Initiatives", I've got to say that although any administrative edict I might issue prior to my inauguration would not carry the force of law, the "Initiative", in the NLRB's case, would be letting them know "you might as well start packing up now, because the moment my hand comes off the Bible, your lights are off and your doors are locked" during the transition phase would accomplish much of my plans for them prior to my actual swearing in.

Ogrrre: Given that the EPA has repeatedly ignored science and their scientific advisers and made decisions based on pseudoscience and the political agenda of the Left (e.g. banning DDT, regulating carbon dioxide, etc.), do you intend to disestablish the EPA and turn over environmental quality decisions to the States where such belong according to the 10th Amendment?

SB: Yes, as part of my "Omnibus Pre-Day One Initiatives". Also, I would either legalize or push to have Congress legalize DDT (the difference being I don't remember off-hand whether or not it was a Presidential Order or a normal bill passed by Congress that outlawed it).  I would also make certain to demonize Rachael Carson at any appropriate venue, in order to counter years' worth of environmentalists' lies.

Ogrrre: Do you want to continue tax support for:
a. NPR? 
b. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting?
c. The National Endowment for the Arts?
d. The National Endowment for the Humanities?

SB: No.  And it is a much longer list than just those.  Again, please see my "Omnibus Pre-Day One Initiatives".

Ogrrre: Would you want to remove all Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood?

SB: Yes, with extreme prejudice.  If they can't survive without federal funding, they shouldn't survive.  When someone cries - as is sure to happen - "What about all the needs they meet and services they provide to the poor?" I'll answer "However did they survive before Planned Parenthood was created with the intent to wipe out minorities?"  If that produces a stunned look, I'll add "Go read up on 'Margaret Sanger' and 'eugenics' before you ask me another question."

Ogrrre: Given the propensity for the Department of Energy to block all energy exploration, would you advocate eliminating the Department?

SB: Yes, although I reserve the right to fire all their staff, temporarily change the name to the "Department of Energy Exploration Advocacy" re-staff - mostly with volunteers from, I assume, the various energy lobbies - and keep the lights on just long enough to have them hammer out a series of position papers, all under the umbrella title of something along the lines of "Maximizing the Exploitation of Our Natural Energy Resources - A Legislative Guide" subtitled "America - In Command of Our Future".
I'd put it through a special printing - lovingly bound in embossed leather and personally inscribed to each Member of Congress - but once that was accomplished I'd kill the utilities, lock the doors, and sell off as many of the DOE's properties as quickly as I could without crashing their local commercial real estate markets.

Ogrrre: Given that education responsibilities are reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment, would you advocate eliminating the Department of Education?

SB: Yes, as part of my "Omnibus Pre-Day One Initiatives", and with notable glee.

Ogrrre: How would you reform Social Security so that it will become viable?

SB: No, I would not.  I would end it over time, so that its termination does not crush our Seniors, while our youth are no longer led along by lies. This generation's youth, however, would be unjustly overburdened, with the thanks of a grateful nation.

Ogrrre: How would you reform "entitlement" programs in order to break the cycle of dependency demonstrated by multiple generations of welfare recipients?

SB: By ending them. Presto! Cycle broken.  Yes, it is more complex than this, but that's still a valid answer

Ogrrre: Given that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has far exceeded their charter and become an agency for violating weapons ownership rights of the citizens, as expressed by the Second Amendment, would you recommend the elimination of BATFE?

SB: Omnibus Pre-Day One Initiatives… out with a BANG!

Ogrrre: How would you reform the tax code? Would you recommend the "Fair Tax", the Flat Tax, or a modification of the current "progressive" tax? Why?

SB: I actually believe that if we're going to have an income tax at all, and I don't think we should, but if it is stipulated that we have to, then I would prefer it be a Regressive one.  But that will never fly.  So yes, we would go with some version of a Fair or Flat tax, the details of which are too complex to go into here.  That's an entire volume into itself.

Ogrrre: Do you believe that cell phone ownership and/or cable tv and/or internet service is a "right"?

SB: Of course not.

Dohtimes: Could you spell your name for me so I can do a write in vote for you?

SB: S t a v r o s  M.  B l a c k m a n e

ComradeChairmanObama: BORDERS: What would be your general policy on border security. More specifically, how would you handle the clusterf**k on our southern border?

SB: Close it, and seal it except for controlled access points.  This would include not only a wall, but also concrete-filled cores/bore holes to deter tunneling, along with a chain of seismographs monitored by a beefed-up border patrol given flexible and wide-ranging rules of engagement. That's my plan unless, of course, my crack engineering teams tell me that my anti-tunneling scheme won't work, or come up with something better.  Not being a civil engineer nor a security specialist myself, I assume that there are probably better ways of securing our border that what I can dream up unassisted, but at least you'll understand where my heart is on the matter.

By the way, I must add that this goes hand-in-hand with immigration reform.  And MY version of immigration reform doesn't make it easier for illegal immigrants to stay - oh no - but it does make it easier for LEGAL immigrants to come here, provided their home governments abide by certain agreements.  In Mexico's case, for example, I would tie our act of dramatically increasing the number of legally permitted immigrants to the Mexican government's adoption of our Bill of Rights.

ComradeChairmanObama: MIDDLE EAST: What steps would you take to prevent Israel from being wiped off the face of the Earth, and the Middle East from turning into one super-gigantic camel flea-ridden Islamic hate-fest bent on world domination, all unified under the leadership of, oh, I don't know....say, Homer Simpson?

SB: I would remind the world that not only is Israel our valued ally, but that I treasure their existence and would personally blast flat any invading aggressor, while grinning.

ComradeChairmanObama: HORRIFYING SCENARIO:
You're peaceful presidential slumber is interrupted at 2am, and you're informed that the reanimated corpses of Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Nikita Krushchev and Leonid Brezhnev are rampaging in a major American city: what do you do, sir? What do you do?

SB: That's not a horrifying scenario!  A second Obama administration would be, but in a simple case of zombie commies I would grab my shotguns and rifles, and order our troops to keep them contained until I could get there (if at all possible without endangering themselves).  If it was near election time, I might even invite the opposition candidate to come with me, and make it a contest or a telethon or the like.  Admit it - that kind of opportunity just doesn't come along every day!  The one thing I would absolutely NOT do would be to allow myself to be photographed riding a white horse while holding a bow.

Questions submitted at

seanmahair: Why do you want to be president?

SB: This country needs their president to be a strong, unflinching, unapologetic conservative.

seanmahair: Why are you better than either of the candidates running? 

SB: I'm a strong, unflinching, unapologetic conservative.

seanmahair: What is your stand on foreign aid to countries whose stated goals are to wipe Israel off the map and destroy the United States? 

SB: (This is me exercising the art of understatement)  I find such aid distasteful in the extreme.  Suffice to say, I would end such aid.  In fact, I'd consider demanding tribute from such countries should they care to continue trading with us.

seanmahair: Will you promise to evict from Washington DC any and all lobbyists and strip from the government teat all special interest groups. 

SB: No.  I'd tighten the rules governing their transparency regarding funding and activities, but overall their existence is a First Amendment issue, in at least two or three ways.

I would, however, institute Professor Glenn Reynold's (the Instapundit) idea, and I'm going to quote him directly here, of levying: "A 50% surtax on anything earned within five years after leaving the federal government, above whatever the federal salary was."  The example he used was "Leave a $150K job at the White House, take a $1M job with Goldman, Sachs, pay a $425K surtax." I'd even be tempted to call it the "Reynolds' Rule", but I'm generally against naming legislation after people. I might have to make an exception here.

seanmahair: Presidential pet? Dog, cat, bird, snake or wombat?

SB: I currently own three dogs, and will always be a "dog person".  As President, however, I'd likely expand my menagerie to include animals I've always wanted to own, but have never had the opportunity.  My preferences for these in order are:
Lion (Blackmane, of course)
Dragon (if anyone finds an actual dragon, juvenile or viable egg, and wants to donate it as a Presidential gift, I'd immediately move this to the top of my priority list, but in the meantime I'm not holding my breath.)

Rayfan87: Do you own more than 2 firearms and will you promise not to try and take mine away?

SB: Yes, and yes.

No comments:

Post a Comment