Are the Unborn Citizens?

Ex-Senator Rick Santorum was featured in a recent article posted on Yahoo News. I tried to post the following as a comment, but Yahoo wouldn’t let me:

QUOTE:       

The Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”

Look at those first five words, and you’ll see that the unborn are not citizens. That’s the important part, at least constitutionally speaking. The question Santorum asks – Is that human life a person under the Constitution? – is irrelevant. What is relevant – again, constitutionally speaking – is whether the unborn are citizens. Which they are not.

Since the unborn aren’t citizens, they can’t trump the “privileges or immunities” of those who are. Laws which deny choice to women (who are citizens) contemplating abortion cannot be made or enforced since doing so (again, under Amendment XIV) would “abridge the privileges” (the right of a citizen to control his/her own body) in favor of a non-citizen who has no rights under the Constitution.

Sounds pretty awful to put it this way, but we are talking about the Constitution, right ex-Senator?

:UNQUOTE.

But taken to its extreme…

If my interpretation is taken to its extreme, abortion should be constitutionally permissible at any time during a pregnancy. Even on the day before natural birth, abortion should be legal. That would be pretty horrible, wouldn’t it? Or is there a way out? Perhaps we could look to the Ninth Amendment:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Perhaps one of these rights would be: The Right of Reasonable Expectation (a term of my own coinage, actually). To elaborate:

Maybe (just maybe) We-the-People have a reasonable right to be spared the spectacle of abortions the day before natural birth would have occurred.

This gets tricky because it could be argued that We-the-People have a right to live in a society in which abortions aren’t permissible on demand, as a form of birth control – not even during the first trimester. So…what do we do? Take a public opinion poll to determine what We feel is a Reasonable Expectation in this case, and recognize that as our constitutional standard? Do we repeat such a poll every five years, in case We change our mind?

Leave abortion standards up to the states?

Some Americans argue that each state should be allowed to determine under what (if any) circumstances abortions should be legal within their borders. Suppose 49 out of 50 states decide to totally illegalize abortion. Practically speaking, well-to-do women could simply go to that 50^th state to exercise choice. Wouldn’t that discriminate against poorer women who would find it hard to find the resources to make the trip themselves? To put a finer point on this debate, if abortion were to be completely illegal in the US, wealthy women could travel abroad for a procedure. What should we do in that case? Insist that any woman traveling abroad be given a pregnancy test – and insist she damn well better still be pregnant upon reentering the States?

Oh, that’ll go over big with the Tea Party!

 

Time to rewrite the US Constitution

These abortion-related issues represent only one area in which our Constitution is truly negligent or lacking in appropriate coverage. How much longer will the Supreme Court try to inject meaning into archaic language by means of lengthy and convoluted reasonings? Wouldn’t it be easier to simply write a new Law of the Land in plain and accessible modern English? A host of issues could be resolved, including a constitutional ban on the filibuster – which no one seems to have the courage to tackle. What about banning (or severely limiting the operating rules of) political parties – since the Dem/Pub axis has so thoroughly undermined what our Founding Fathers had in mind?

And what about the Second Amendment, which says:

“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.”

The Second has the distinction of being the only amendment which not only states a “right” but gives the reason for it. If the reason is no longer valid, then the right should no longer be valid. To wit: It is no longer “necessary” to the security of a free state to have a well regulated militia. With the USA having the largest and best-equipped regular military forces in the world, state militias are no longer “necessary.” Not to mention: Gone are the days when state militias were deemed “necessary” in order to put down slave rebellions.

In short? Our Constitution is a mess that needs to be replaced – not merely amended. Let me at it! Let's do this!

 

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“People who insist our Constitution shouldn’t be tampered with are afraid of what We-the-People might come up with. Which says a lot more (that is negative) about those People than about We-the-People” - Steve

Rahm Emanuel, Mossad agent?

QUESTION # 1: Is Rahm Emanuel a Mossad agent?

QUESTION #2: Does that matter, one way or the other?

Disclaimer:  I don’t have any proof that Mr. Emanuel is a Mossad agent, certainly not anything that would stand up in a court of law. In the following posting, I merely present factors which should be considered by anybody thinking of supporting Rahm for Mayor of Chicago. And some of these factors would still be worth considering even if Rahm wasn’t even remotely connected to the Mossad.

I personally believe he is…

I personally believe Rahm is a Mossad agent. There! I want to put that upfront, first and foremost. Why do I feel this way? There’s an old saying: “Just follow the money.”

Follow the money:

Some way, somehow Rahm has been blessed with the Midas Touch. He is a legendary fundraiser, who has profoundly influenced the fortunes of Mayor Daley [when Rahm was all of 30 years old], Bill Clinton, and the Democratic Party. I believe his connections to wealthy Jews have helped him far more in this capacity than any acquired learning or natural flair. These wealthy Jewish donors see him, accurately and in appreciable numbers, as “their man” – or, more accurately, as “Israel’s man.”

There isn’t anything inherently evil in being sympathetic to or enamored of another country. It is, however, a conflict of interest to pretend to be serving the interests of the United States as one serves his “real” object of loyalty. There are people who claim that Rahm is a dual Israeli-American citizen; others deny this. I don’t believe he is, at least not in terms of formal documentation. However, it’s best to keep in mind that every Jew is automatically an Israeli citizen should he ever wish to formally make application.

Back to “follow the money”: $16.2 million:

How did [Zionist] Rahm “earn” $16.2 million in two-and-a-half years while “working” as an investment banker for [Jewish] Wasserstein Perella & Co? This, while he had no experience whatsoever in that field and had no MBA.

I’m amazed that no one questions this in the midst of a hotly-contested election for Chicago mayor. I’ll come right out and say it: “There’s no honest way anyone can earn that kind of money in such a brief period of time without training and experience.” But…none of Rahm’s opponents bothers to point out this obvious fact.

Rahm’s deep connection to Israel:

QUOTE*:

His father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a Jerusalem-born pediatrician who was once a member of the Irgun…

The surname Emanuel (עמנואל), adopted by the family in honor of his father's brother Emanuel Auerbach, killed in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

He and his brothers attended summer camp in Israel, including just after the 1967 Six Day War.

During the 1991 Gulf War, Emanuel volunteered with the Israel Defense Forces as a civilian helping to maintain equipment.

:UNQUOTE*.

My response to these quotes:

·         Concerning Irgun: “Critics of the Irgun has seen it as a terrorist organization. It was legally classified as such by the new State of Israel in 1948” – according to the Wikipedia article on Irgun.

·         Concerning “the surname Emanuel”: The more likely reason for changing the family name was to get rid of the (hated) Germanic surname “Auerbach” and re-establish the family with a Jewish surname – “Emanuel” being Hebrew for “God is with us.” I don’t believe for a moment that a family from a highly patriarchal culture changes its surname to honor a brother, while forsaking the surname of the father of that brother.

·         Concerning attending “summer camp in Israel”: What better way to indoctrinate the young?

·         Concerning Rahm’s volunteer service with the IDF: There’s a lot wrong with that fish story. It’s incredible that Rahm would not try to help Israel by using his already-established knack for fundraising. Rahm’s services to the IDF would not have been needed during the 1991 Gulf War, since Israel wasn’t under attack at that time. However, Israel (as always) would surely have appreciated any funds Rahm could have raised on its behalf. Then there’s the issue of Rahm working to “maintain equipment.” Since Rahm was missing part of the middle finger of his right hand (and he is right-handed), it seems improbable that he would have been terribly efficient as a mechanic. Most likely? Rahm went to Israel in 1991 to receive a briefing and necessary training for his new role as Mossad’s leading agent in the United States.

Chicago: Geo-Political Considerations

Not many people fully appreciate Chicago’s importance in the larger scheme of things. We’re more apt to hear stories about Wall Street than LaSalle Street. In fact, much of what makes Chicago tick is skillfully and intentionally kept out of the news. Let’s take a look at the sleeping giant that is Chicago:

Chicago is a power center located in Illinois, the fifth-most populous state in the Union. Moreover, Chicago as a financial and economic power doesn’t really have much competition. This can be more fully appreciated by taking a map of the United States and drawing a circle, using Chicago as the center, with a radius of 500 miles. Go ahead, take a good, long, hard look. Within that circle (with a diameter of 1,000 miles!), Chicago stands alone in terms of financial and economic influence. No other city even comes close.

It’s a truism in Realpolitiks: “If you can control the heartland, you can control the nation.” In this sense, Chicago is critically important.

And yet the local media in Chicago (and even the national press) doesn’t question the dubious circumstances and timing of Mayor Daley’s retirement (I believe he was forced to retire to make room for Rahm). No one questions how Rahm miraculously manages to be the only white candidate in this racially polarized city. And the two Hispanic candidates will most likely split that bloc of voters and the only leading Black candidate (Carol Moseley Braun) has been recently (and conveniently!) tainted by disclosures about her personal finances.

And none of the candidates for Mayor, including Rahm Emanuel, says anything about investigating city government’s financial irregularities or mob influence. The mob is pointedly not mentioned by anybody – by neither candidates nor media. Instead of focusing on the issues (on which Rahm is notably silent, speaking only in sweeping generalities), local media focuses on Rahm’s legal challengers trying to force him off the ballot based on doubts concerning his legal residency. On that issue, I tried to post this on Yahoo! – unsuccessfully (yes, Yahoo! does censor):

QUOTE:

The [Illinois] Appellate Court tried (or did it, really?) to keep Rahm off the ballot. With 2 of the 3 judges being Democrats, maybe - just maybe - the Dem who (apparently) sided with the Pubber to keep Rahm off the ballot was just engaging in a little theater. Justice Shlevin Louis Marie Hall (Dem.) knew, if the case went to the state Supreme Court, the 4-3 Democrat majority there would reinstate Rahm.

So why the theatrics, Justice Hall? To build sympathy for Rahm? To fire up his base? To keep him in the headlines as a (gag) underdog? To make his residency an issue, so he wouldn’t have to speak on any real issues?

Good job, Hall! Way to go.

Oh…don’t think too much of the Supreme Court voting unanimously to reinstate Rahm. Why not? To split 4-3 would make it seem “political” – which the court would never dream of doing…righhtttt. All in the spirit of bipartisanship, yea!

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If you think this cheap manipulation in service of Rahm was a slick piece of work, you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

:UNQUOTE.

Miscellaneous Considerations

How is it that Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama, both of whom came from Chicago, managed to come out of thin air to storm the national stage? Obama’s narrative maintains he was a community organizer fresh out of law school. And yet, during his presidential campaign, I never saw one single human interest story in the news featuring an interview with anyone who actually saw Obama do this. Oh, to be sure, he might have staged a grand appearance once in a while, just to reinforce any future propaganda effort, but the lack of coverage on this aspect of his career is truly striking.

Rahm and Barack both succeeded in having the media play an embarrassingly supportive, non-questioning role in advancing their careers.

During his two years as Obama’s Chief of Staff, absolutely nothing was done concerning the Palestinian question – which is just the way Israel wants it. [Good job, Rahm, keeping the US President in line.]

And lastly, it’s amazing that Rahm Emanuel had emerged to play such a pivotal role in the Democratic Party’s resurgence in the 2006 election cycle. All of these accomplishments can be attributed far more to Rahm Emanuel’s connections to wealthy Zionist donors than to any native genius on his part. Though, it must be admitted, he has played his role well. Since Israel has only six million Jewish inhabitants, and the international Jewish community is so small, it’s absolutely critical for them to utilize every resource at their disposal. And they have utilized Rahm to an exquisite degree – for which service he has been handsomely rewarded.

And should he become Chicago’s next mayor, his rewards will grow by leaps and bounds – though won’t necessarily be publicly noticeable. Go figure.

END NOTE: I couldn’t resist laughing aloud at a headline in one of Chicago’s papers, announcing that Rahm Emanuel had been declared ineligible to be on the ballot. This ruling was from the Appellate Court. The headline? “Rahm Bomb.” One of the greatest Jewish scholars of the Middle Ages was Maimonides – also known as “Rambam,” which is pronounced exactly the same as “Rahm Bomb.”

I doubt this connection was intended by whomever wrote that headline. But who knows? Perhaps Rahm Emanuel will become as equally revered as that ancient Jewish scholar. The universe can have a wicked sense of humor.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“If Hollywood were to invent a script similar to the life of the real life Rahm Emanuel, nobody would believe it. Simply too far-fetched.”

  * All quoted material is from the Wikipedia article on Rahm Emanuel

US President to recognize Palestine?

From my State of the Union address, to be delivered after the 2012 election?

[TEXT BEGINS] Good evening, my fellow Americans. Tonight I announce a message which I hope will result in long-overdue peace and justice for the Palestinian people. The following message, conveyed here for the first time tonight, is directly from me to the Israeli government:

"I strongly urge that you withdraw all of your armed forces from the West Bank within six months. Effective immediately, I hereby exercise one of the powers of the presidency in order to grant diplomatic recognition to the West Bank and Gaza as the free and independent state of Palestine. This independent state will determine whether Israeli citizens and their settlements will be allowed to remain within its borders and under what terms. Also, it is my personal recommendation that the city of Jerusalem be declared an international city, to be administered by the United Nations. Perhaps the U.N. might consider relocating its headquarters there.

"If you do not withdraw your armed forces within six months, U.S. military personnel will enter these areas to serve as a counterbalancing force for justice. God help you if you open fire on us."

It makes a great deal of sense to demonstrate, by means of this initiative, the meaning of American justice to, among others, the one billion Moslems of the world. It makes no sense to perpetuate the feeling that America continually turns a blind eye to the unjust behaviors of an ally, Israel, toward a neighboring people, the Palestinians.

I am asking tonight, that independent Palestine's leaders seriously consider creating a nation without armed forces. I invite them to create an example for the rest of the world to follow. In the same breath, I ask Israel to publicly debate within its borders one critical issue: Who controls your nuclear weapons? Even though officially you neither admit nor deny that you have these weapons, I submit that secrecy here serves no useful purpose. If you insist on maintaining that these weapons do not exist in your arsenal, I in turn will initiate proceedings within the U.N. to introduce weapons inspectors within your borders.

Inspections will not be necessary if you admit and demonstrate (in a token way) that you have these weapons. I implore you to immediately initiate free, open, and public debate as to their control. Some have speculated that field commanders in your military have discretionary control over these weapons. I hope that particular speculation - dangerous if true - enters your public debate.

I wish to emphasize that I do not insist that you destroy these weapons, though I hope you'll consider doing just that. [TEXT ENDS]

The Big Question:

The Big Question: Would I (if elected US president) actually make such a speech?

Perhaps the Bigger Question: Would I be willing to make it part of my binding contract that I would not adopt such a course of action? In my case, this is an appropriate question to ask since I am basing my entire candidacy (and presidency, should I win) on enforceable adherence to all provisions of my contract. [Just a reminder: I am the only candidate running for the office of US president in 2012 who is offering a written, binding contract to the voters in exchange for their votes.]

Answer: I am not going to answer that question one way or the other - at least not here, not now. There are times when, as President, it's useful to be vague when planning strategic initiatives. Especially in this case, ambiguity will serve to further stimulate international debate and perhaps bring about currently-unforeseen policy alternatives.

Two Hands:

On the one hand, I have a personal distaste for third-party interventions; local affairs should be decided locally. On that same hand, I am aware of the remote possibility that Israel might choose to retaliate against our forces, perhaps even in a nuclear manner. However, on the other hand: How long must the Palestinians continue to wait for a viable, independent nation to call home? On that same "other hand," the War Powers Act of 1973 would not serve to bar me from proceeding militarily.

My hope:

I do hope, though, that Israel might somehow muster a greatness of faith and magnanimity of spirit to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and to be the first to recognize Palestine as an independent nation.

Some have argued that Israel must never relinquish the West Bank because "God gave us this land." If that's true, would it be against Allah’s will for you in turn to give this land to your half-brother, the Palestinian? If something is given as a gift with strings attached (that is, "It's yours [a gift from the Lord], but not to do with as you wish, not as you see fit and just"), then I must ask, "Can it really be considered a gift?"

It is well worth considering: What we do with our gifts is just as important as receiving them and from Whom we receive.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Yes, it’s true, Barack Obama, that words are important. I just wish yours had more originality and backbone” – Steve.

Nigger: The Movie

Introduction

I am Caucasian, but I will use the word nigger in this essay. If that bothers you, then don’t read on. If you are open-minded (read: liberal) enough to ask why I would actually use nigger as part of a movie title, then read on – please do.

“It might have been preferable if blacks would have come up with Nigger: The Movie. But they didn’t. I did. And I don’t apologize for that.” – Steven Searle, Candidate for U.S. President in 2012, The Independent Contractor’s Party.

The Movie

Why did I choose The Movie as part of this movie’s title? I want to push the so-called N-word into the thick of public debate. Designating this film as not only a movie – but The Movie – lends this project gravitas. Here are some precedents:

Batman: The Movie (1966)

Left Behind: The Movie (2000)

Superman: The Movie (1978)

Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983)

Zeitgeist: The Movie (2007)

Jackass: The Movie (2002) … though it is with considerable risk that anyone follow too closely behind the jackass, while trying to follow in those footsteps.

Complete Title:

Nigger: The Movie (it’s not what you think)

Brief Summary

In a galaxy far, far away is a planet much like earth, on which is a country much like the United States – which even has that same name. The majority is a race called the Reds – the minority being the Blues. As featured in Nigger: The Movie, members of both races are bold in their coloration. To “paint” a picture of what the Blues might look like, check this out: http://www.blueman.com/about

The story proceeds from the efforts of a Red man and a Blue woman teaming up to be elected as President and Vice President, respectively. They are encouraged in their quest by a mysterious, solitary monk they meet in the forbidding mountain ranges of the High Country. The White One, he is called, being as white as snow.

Opening Scene

At a small, intimate, indoor political rally, the Blue Woman candidate says:

QUOTE:

Before I say one more word, I want you to know what I mean when I say nigger. Spell it: n – i – g – g – e – r.

The N stands for noble.

The I stands for intelligent.

The G stands for godly.

The G stands for gifted.

The E stands for energetic.

The R stands for realist.

My name is Azul Zulu-Femme and I want to introduce you to the next President of the United States – my running mate, Rojo Homo, who is all of these things:

He is a noble, intelligent, godly, gifted, energetic, realist.

:UNQUOTE.

[Turns to him and asks]: “Mr. Homo, are you a nigger?”

[Answers boldly and deliberately, with a smile]: “Yes, I am.”

Of Reds and Blues

The Reds and Blues are different in only two major ways: their hair and their color. In producing this movie, I hope to use black and white actors, using computer-based techniques to render them as Reds and Blues.

Ironically, the dominant Reds have kinky/wiry hair which they prefer to keep short in honor of their military legacy. The Blues, on the other hands, have luxuriant locks which they prefer long and in elaborate styles.

In one scene, a well-to-do middle-aged (short-haired) Red couple passes by a down-and-out Blue Man lying down on the sidewalk caressing his locks. We hear: “Try not to look, dear. I know it’s disgusting to see him stroking himself, but his hair is all he’s got.”

The Almighty Nigger

Everybody has heard of “the Almighty Dollar.” As a result of an inspired campaign strategy, people all over the country have taken to crossing off the word “God” on their paper money and writing the word “Nigger” under it. This scene introduces the concept:

Setting: A conference room at campaign HQ

An aide is making a pitch, standing next to an easel which supports a giant mock up of a $100 bill. The two candidates and several senior strategists are listening patiently to this pitch:

QUOTE:

I propose a unique way to raise not only mountains of campaign cash, but also to raise consciousness. Look carefully at this $100 bill [gestures]. The word God has been lined out and, in purple ink just under it, the word Nigger has been penned in.

Why purple? That’s what you get when you mix the Red and the Blue races together, so it represents the integration we seek.

We choose the $100 bill because on it is pictured the most racist president in this country’s history: The “honorable” Rais Baytor. By having “In Nigger we Trust” on President Baytor’s denomination, we are basically saying: In yo face!

We can sell these $100 bills for $150 each, since buyers will know that either Mr. Homo or Miss Femme personally wrote the word Nigger on it.

[Azul interrupts]: “And exactly how would anybody know that?”

Each bill is permanently marked by the accounting firm of Okie, Dokey, and Associates with a one-of-a-kind authentication chip containing that bill’s serial number. You might say [ahem] that our bills have a pedigree.

To continue: We not only stand to raise some money but also make a statement:

Instead of referring to this as the Almighty Dollar, we can feel comfortable calling it the Almighty Nigger. Remember: As we spell it out, the first G in nigger, as used in this campaign, stands for godly.

And since this country was largely built by the sweat of Blue men and women over the centuries – thereby creating mountains of these Almighty Dollars – we are claiming our due by redesignating them as Almighty Niggers.

Again, to all Red Rais Baytors everywhere, in yo face!

:UNQUOTE.

As this conference continues, we learn that the word nigger and its acronymical meaning are copyrighted and trademarked. In closing we hear Azul Zulu-Femme ask:

“And you think this will work?”

In response, we find out not only does it “work,” but people all over the country take to marking up their own paper money in many denominations (many, that is, so as not to discriminate only in favor of $100 bills, which is to say, so as not to favor one denomination over any other).

The White One

Our heroes, Azul-Zulu and Rojo, are friends who are dedicated do-gooders, who’ve worked together on occasion in common cause. They travel on a pilgrimage to the High Country seeking The White One, feeling drawn to him for inexplicable reasons. We learn that Rojo has been contemplating a run for the presidency, of which Azul-Zulu wishes to support.

The White One is speaking privately to this Red man and Blue woman:

QUOTE:

You are both very special people and will go far, but I urge you to follow my suggestions very carefully. No…wait…a better word: guidance, not suggestions, but guidance.

You, Azul, will run as Rojo’s running mate, and will turn out to be an important asset to his campaign.

You will win the election, both of you. However, Rojo will be assassinated half-way through his term.

[Rojo complains that this will leave his work unfinished.]

My good Rojo, this is not about you. This is about her. The changes you both seek will not come to pass if you live. Though nothing is ever guaranteed in life, I can say this: Those changes you both hold dear to your hearts are far more within reach of Madam President Azul Homo than with Mr. President Rojo Homo.

[Rojo and Azul look at each other, then at the White One.]

Yes, by all means, you must get married. I know you want to.

:UNQUOTE.

Chess

We learn in this movie that when the Blues were brought over in slave ships to work in the cotton fields, they remained impoverished for generations. However, they came to embrace playing chess since it was cheap to do so, and provided endless hours of enjoyment to a certain core of devotees.

Some of them developed the ability to play without using a chessboard or pieces, by training their minds to envision several ongoing games at once. As they would pass each other during the course of a work day, they would state their moves: “15. Ne7.” Some of the more proficient players could keep several games going on with several different players throughout the work day. Azul is capable of keeping ten games in mind with as many opponents in any one day.

We see Azul at a reception take a drink from an elderly Blue waiter and she says, “Queen b4.” He pauses and smiles: “Didn’t expect that. I’ll get back to you.”

The End

Rojo is killed at the half-way point of his presidency. Azul, as VP, takes over but does not nominate a vice president, which leaves that office vacant. After a year in office, she is unable to secure passage of her package of reform legislation. So she makes a deal with the Speaker of the House.

During her State of the Union address, she asks the Speaker to join her at the podium and then she says (the Speaker at her side):

QUOTE:

My fellow Americans, I have agreed to step down as your president allowing the Speaker to assume this office. In exchange, I have been assured of his support of these reforms I have struggled for the past year to enact. Should he renege on this agreement, I will exercise my right under our Constitution to resume the presidency.

According to our Constitution: “Whenever the President transmits a written declaration that E* is unable to discharge the powers and duties of E’s* office, and until E* transmits a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the next in line for presidential succession.”

I do this for the sake of progress and also because of something my mother once told me.

[Flashback to when Azul was a young girl of 10, telling her mother, “I want to be big.” Mother responds warmly: “And so you shall be big someday. But remember: There are a lot of ways to be big.”

Tribute

I wish to pay tribute to two movies which inspired me to create these notes, which I hope will inspire someone out there to create Nigger: The Movie. I’m indebted to Godfrey Cambridge’s The Watermelon Man (1970) and CSA: The Confederate States of America (2004).

I offer this blog to you today, mostly to give you an idea of how my mind works. As for actually making any kind of movie out of this material, I will leave that to others – my approval not being necessary. To clarify: I hereby surrender all claim of copyright for any of this material, except that I retain the right to disseminate these notes in written form as I see fit.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Any resemblance of characters in this movie to persons living or dead – or intending to run for President in 2012 – is strictly coincidental.”

 * Oh…about that E stuff…In some of my writings, I refrain from using the personal pronouns he, he, his, hers, allowing E to substitute even as parts of words as follows: Congressman or Congresswoman becomes CongressE. Don’t know if this will ever catch on, but what the hey?

How to beat earmarks

SOURCE: Associated Press, Jan. 25, 2011:

QUOTE (not in its entirety):

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama's top ally in the Senate Tuesday brusquely rejected the president's call for a ban on the practice of stuffing home state projects known as earmarks into spending bills. [Top ally, being Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev]…

…The earmark ban is one of the few areas where Obama and tea party activists are in agreement, but Reid said the idea unfairly "takes power away from the legislative branch of government. And I think that's the wrong thing to do."

:UNQUOTE.

My response posted to this Yahoo article yesterday:

QUOTE:

"...but Reid said the idea unfairly 'takes power away from the legislative branch of government...'"

No it doesn’t, and Reid is being dishonest by claiming otherwise. What earmarking does, in its present format, is to attach unrelated projects to larger bills. This is an attempt to sneak them in, flying under the radar.

Maybe [Speaker of the House] Boehner could try this as a trial balloon: Arrange for the House to vote on a Bill entitled “Earmarks” and have that Bill contain nothing else. That would provide a nice fat target for the Reps to shoot down. So as not to embarrass anybody, that Bill (though entitled Earmarks) wouldn’t actually list any. It would be just a blank piece of paper with a title.

Symbolically, this would allow the House to send a message to the Senate: Since all spending bills have to originate in the House, if you want us to consider any earmarks, you go ahead and draft an Earmarks-only bill and send it to us for “original consideration” – as if we’d drafted it.

An additional message to the Senate from the House: Rots of ruck.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Reid is an embarrassment to the legislative process – trying to sneak pork past us, indeed!”

:UNQUOTE.

Messages in bottles cast adrift at sea

Why should I even bother trying to respond to news articles posted on Yahoo? These responses are read by so precious few.

I liken what I do to what a shipwrecked sailor would do on a deserted island: Put messages in bottles, toss them into the ocean, and hope for the best. Yes, the odds are poor that anyone will ever get these messages. But if I do nothing, there’s no chance at all. It’s not that I have political ambitions forcing me, with burning desire, to seek a large and public stage. I’m just trying to get a message out. Even if only a few people “get it,” that’s good enough for me.

Besides, unless we – even with our small, powerless voices – say something to contradict pompous, lying, powerful fools like Senator Reid, they’ll assume people don’t see through them. And they’ll assume, if they have the last word, that they’re right. Never, ever let a moron have the last word or else he'll end up thinking he’s right. Humiliate the powerful, even with small gestures. That, I assure you, won’t be our only recourse. It will be only the beginning of massive changes to come. But one must start somewhere.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Nevadans are afraid of voting against Reid, since (without his powerful intervention) they’re afraid the feds (which own 85% of Nevada, anyway) will turn that state into a nuclear waste dumping zone. Sad to say, they may well have a point.”

My Anti-Military Draft Ad

Introduction: For those of you who think the military draft is a thing of the past, don’t be too sure. I, for one, don’t believe in giving the bastards any chance to take away our freedom to fight their stupid and illegal wars. Hence the following pre-emptive strike. The draft is, and always was, unconstitutional – thanks to the US Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment. That is, slavery and involuntary servitude are against the supreme law of the land.

If the Man, wants to raise an army, let him offer enough pay to attract the requisite numbers.

A commercial approach: Here's another campaign ad for the TV medium, which I had written in support of my bid for the U.S. Presidency in 2008. That was then, this is now:

This ad can (and should be) updated for the 2012 election cycle. This is only one of several such ads I've been featuring lately on this blog. I hope to share other inspirations I come up with, hoping you might return the favor. Sharing is caring.

Remember:

This is a past effort, needing updating

First Image: Blue screen showing these words in white letters: Steven Searle for President, Campaign Speech, Summer, 2008

Second Image [start live action]: A public park on a warm, sunny day, with a dozen people listening to me speak. The area is grassy and I'm speaking close to this group from the top of a small hill (just a mound, really). As I'm speaking, these words appear across the bottom of your screen (and remain there for the duration of the entire commercial): "What I'm about to say might save your lives."

As I'm speaking, the camera takes in the whole scene, then pans the crowd, then zooms in on one distinctive looking young man who's wearing large glasses.

Text of my Speech:

QUOTE: What I'm about to say might save your lives. If you vote to elect me as the next President of the United States, I promise to get rid of the military draft.

If a draft board orders a young man into the army, he should appear before that board to be sworn in as a soldier. However, I will issue a blanket order for all such newly-drafted soldiers to carry on with their civilian lives and not follow any orders from any members of the military.

The President can do this on his own authority, as Commander in Chief. And I will do more than just promise to do this.:UNQUOTE.

ACTION:

[At this point, my speech fades out. Camera pulls back a bit to show this young man with glasses turning and speaking to a friend.]

"Is this guy for real?"

Cut from live action to blue screen which is empty, except this which still appears at the bottom: "What I'm about to say might save your lives." A few seconds later, these words now (also) appear:

"Three years later. Steven Searle lost the election. Thousands of men have been drafted."

Cut to Live Action

Camera shows face of young man in glasses (same person who had listened to my speech earlier), in obvious pain. As camera pulls back, we see him in army uniform, lying down, wounded. As camera continues to pull back, we see the context: Smoldering U.S. army vehicles with dead soldiers in and near them. Nobody is moving.

A young guerilla calmly walks up to the young man with glasses, sees he's still alive, and says: "Sorry I have to do this, nothing personal you understand. [pause] Why are you here, anyway?" Then we see, from the point of view of the young man about to be shot, the guerrilla shoot our soldier. Then, we see a fogged image in freeze frame that looks like our TV has had its glass cracked. The implication is the young man was shot through his glasses.

CUT BACK TO: …The time just after I concluded my earlier speech in the park:

Scene: I walk silently among the crowd shaking hands, as a voice over (in my voice) continues with the following quoted text. As I approach the young man with glasses to shake his hand, freeze frame at just the moment we join hands (with "What I'm about to say might save your lives" still captioned at the bottom).

"I am running as a candidate of a 3rd political party, known as the Independent Contractors’ Party. ICP candidates run for office by listing their campaign promises in a written contract. It's true such contracts are not legally enforceable in a court of law. However, rest assured: If I would violate any of my promises to you, the Congress would definitely impeach me."

CUT TO BLUE SCREEN:

These words appear on screen:

Vote for Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008.

The only candidate with a contract.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party
The only candidate with a contract: "You wouldn't sell your house without a contract; why give your vote away?"

The Illegal States of Maine, West Virginia, and Texas

Maine was once part of Massachusetts and West Virginia was once part of Virginia. However, we have a violation of the Plain English of the Constitution which says:

"New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."

The 15 words I boldfaced above mean, in plain English (which I’m really into, by the way), that no new state can be created from part of any state already in existence.

And now we come to Texas which was constitutionally created and admitted to the union by an act of Congress but (quite unconstitutionally) was allowed (by that same act of Congress) this novel distinction: "New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof."

That means the State of Texas may morph into a total of four additional states, with the blessing of Congress having been given in advance. Again, blatantly unconstitutional.

The doctrine of “reasonable expectation”

First of all, there is no such thing as the doctrine of reasonable expectation; it is entirely my own invention. But it can most certainly be implied from the language of the Ninth Amendment:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

To my knowledge, not one of “the people” – either then or now – has raised a legal objection to the constitutional violations I’ve cited above. And it’s been a long time that these illegalities have gone unchallenged. So I suppose it could be claimed that “We-the-People” – especially those who live in Maine and West Virginia – have a reasonable expectation that these states will not be rejoined with Massachusetts and Virginia, respectively.

I would keep an eye on Texas, though. For suppose one day, Texas decides to morph into five states – which would give “Texans” eight additional senators. That would introduce a radical shift in the balance of power. And the Supreme Court could not weigh in on this, since creation of new states is the sole province of Congress – and not of SCOTUS or even the President [UPDATE: This is something I have to correct, since I was in error when I first wrote this piece: The President is indeed part of the process of admitting new states - Steve, May 9, 2012]. And, as I said before, Congress had already given Texas permission – in advance – to do this.

It would be interesting, however, if Congress rescinded that permission. Could Texas then say: “Oh no you don’t! That permission was a condition upon which Texas was admitted to the union. So if you rescind that much, the whole deal is off. We can reclaim our original status as an independent republic, which we were for the ten years prior to statehood.”

I still insist, though, that reasonable expectation should rule the day. Two problems, though: Whose expectations and by what set of reasons?

Make way for a new Constitution

The United States has some very ambiguous (nay, inconsistent) aspects to its legal system. Dealing with these is not a matter of simply “reading the Constitution,” a claim made often by Tea Party simpletons.

What we really need is a willingness to discard the Constitution and replace it entirely with something better. We no longer need to be ruled by the dead. We deserve better than that – or will deserve better if we can be man enough to force this vital change. Did I say “force?” Yes, but I’ll quickly add: Non-violently and most effectively by means of economic boycott of the nation’s largest banks.

There are fools out there who will claim the current Constitution does not have a mechanism for replacing that document; it can only be amended (Article V) which is brief in its entirety:

QUOTE:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 and shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

:UNQUOTE.

SIDE NOTE: Regarding the yellowed portion above: This would imply that, if such a prohibited amendment had been passed (prior to 1808, of course), objecting states would then have the right to secede from the union – since the terms of union had been violated. Perhaps this is the reason why the Constitution omitted this condition: “…and that the union shall be perpetual.” This was found in the preceding constitution known as the Articles of Confederation.

Congress is too conservative and bound by tradition to ever do anything more than “propose amendments.” And Congress will NEVER “call a convention for proposing amendments,” since (again) these traditionalistic sticks-in-the-mud are afraid of a runaway Convention that they couldn’t control which might propose replacing the entire Constitution.

The only other option is for “We-the-People” to invoke the right implied in the Constitution’s Preamble, which reads:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

If We-the-People in the 1700’s had the right to do this, can We-the-People of the 2000’s have any less of a right? During the Revolution, there was a phrase bandied about: “The shot heard round the world.” For this new Revolution I’m proposing, there’s a more elegant update: “Against all odds and without firing a shot, we overthrew the shackles of the Tyranny of the Dead.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Yes We Can – and should – do this!”