Iran's nuclear treaty

The media has been flooded recently with news of a deal made by six major powers, including the USA, with Iran concerning its nuclear development program. Missing from all announcements? Why isn't anything being said about the constitutional requirement that this proposed treaty be submitted to the US Senate for ratification?

And that's what this pending agreement would be - a treaty. That is, by common definition, an agreement between/among two or more foreign nations. Foreign nations are involved and there are agreements listed in the text of this (I'll call it by its proper name) treaty, so why isn't there any hue and cry for ratification?

Not only is the media silent, but so is the Tea Party and the GOP. Where's Senator Green-Eggs-and-Ham when we need him to stand up to demand that the Senate must vote on this treaty? I refer you to Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution (2nd paragraph):

QUOTE:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

UNQUOTE.

To put a finer point on this quote, I'll rephrase: "He shall NOT have power to make treaties without the advice and consent of the Senate and without a ratification by two thirds of the Senators present."

So where's the "advice and consent" and the concurrence of two thirds? Maybe that's it - since it's next to impossible to get two-thirds of the Senate to agree on anything - especially with the unconstitutional filibuster rule* in place. Given this impossibility, it's entirely possible that the powers-that-be decided not to involve the Senate. To pretend, at least in this case, that the Senate should not have any role to play in this treaty. Given the power of Israel's lobby, I can see why a lot of senators wouldn't want to go on record as ratifying such a treaty.

This reminds me of how the Obama administration refused to define the military takeover in Egypt as a coup (or even address that issue) which, by law, would have forced a cancelation of US aid to that country. Our position was, unless Obama defines this as a coup, it's not a coup. But...I doubt the language of the statute itself drew that distinction. And who says, the USA is a country of laws, not men?


The Power of the President vs. "shall"

I'm going to quote part of Article II, Section 3, with my highlights in yellow:

QUOTE:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union...he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

:UNQUOTE.

Definition of the word "shall" from thefreedictionary.com: 

"b. Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison."

I had blogged about the part that reads "he shall receive ambassadors...," to which someone took me to task, claiming: "The word 'shall' means that the President has the option of receiving ambassadors, to which I replied: "Does that mean the Commandment 'Thou Shalt not kill' means we have the option of killing?" I never got an answer to that one, since the word "shall," as highlighted four times above, makes clear that there's no choice here - the President must do these things.

The context of my earlier blog challenged the time-honored claim that only the US President has the power to grant or withdraw diplomatic recognition. My position, then and now, is that diplomatic recognition is a category of treaty and must be ratified by the Senate. Of course, that's not the way scholars have, for centuries, interpreted this power. But scholars can be wrong, you know - very wrong.

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party - a virtual party

"All our enemies have to do to undermine us is to point to our own Constitution and show (quite easily) how we're not following our own most primary guiding document" - Steven Searle.

FOOT NOTE:

unconstitutional filibuster rule* in: I direct you to this link, in which I (and only I) am claiming (with arguments provided) that the filibuster is indeed unconstitutional:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/04/invitation-to-sue-senate-for.html

The Power of the People vs. "Constitutionality"

Today's question:

Do We-the-People have the right to replace the US constitution?

Friends of the Article V Convention:

There is a group calling itself "Friends of the Article V Convention" [FOAVC] which says no! From their website:

QUOTE [from http://www.foavc.org/]:

The mission of Friends of the Article V Convention is ... to help the public understand the difference between an Article V Convention, which FOAVC fully supports, and a "constitutional convention" that would rethink the entirety of our current Constitution, which FOAVC emphatically does not support.

:UNQUOTE.

Article V and the FOAVC

The FOAVC claims that We-the-People have the right to amend our Constitution but not the right to replace it. As I will make clear in a bit, the Constitution itself allows for its own replacement. But the FOAVC chooses to focus, for what I believe are malevolent purposes, only on Article V, which follows:

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...

:UNQUOTE.

Point/Counterpoint:

These "Points" are from the FOAVC website, from four consecutive sentences. "Counterpoints" are my comments.

Point:

...a "constitutional convention" -- one that seeks to literally discard, replace and re-write the current Constitution -- is blatantly extra-constitutional.

Counterpoint:

To call something "extra-constitutional" is not the same as calling it "unconstitutional."

Point:

It is neither authorized by our Constitution nor is it sanctioned elsewhere by any federal or state law.

Counterpoint:

How strange! Would it matter if it is "sanctioned elsewhere" if the constitution itself doesn’t authorize it? But of course we don't have to concern ourselves with this "elsewhere" authorization. Why? This is where FOAVC is wrong: Our constitution in fact does authorize a full-blown constitutional convention. I cite three sources for my reasoning:

ONE: Our current document replaced the original constitution (known as the Articles of Confederation) by means of a constitutional convention. Under the terms of the AOC, the Articles could not be altered (that is, amended or changed) without the permission of all of the states. However, our current constitution allowed itself to be established if ratified by only 9 out of the 13 states. In other words, our current constitution is, well, unconstitutional.

TWO: I took a careful look at the Preamble of the constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Articles formed the union and We-the-People had the right to "form a more perfect union." So says the Preamble, which is the constitution's very first sentence. So why shouldn't we have the right to form an even more perfect union now - by means of a new constitution?

THREE: We-the-People had (and still have!) the right (as further reinforced by the Tenth Amendment) to make such a fundamental change (here's the Tenth): "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people [my emphasis added]." My interpretation: We-the-People have the right to "ordain and establish" since these are powers not delegated to the United States.

The Preamble and the Tenth Amendment couldn't be clearer on this point.

Point:

In short, a "constitutional convention" would constitute a quasi-rebellious act if not an outright direct assault on our constitutional republic which, in the view of many constitutional scholars, would violate numerous federal and state laws.

Counterpoint:

Let's start with that first bit of nonsense: "direct assault on our constitutional republic." Such a convention would be an assault on our current constitution but not on the idea that we ought to have a "constitutional republic." [Wasn't our current constitution an "assault" on our first constitution?]

As for any claim that such a Constitutional Convention would "violate numerous federal and state laws," so what? Since the Constitution itself is supposed to be the supreme law of the land (and my point TWO above makes clear that the Constitution gives We-the-People the right to determine our mode of governance), any "federal and state laws" to the contrary would be, well, unconstitutional.

Point:

This is the type of convention that deserves the scorn of the American people.

Counterpoint: Scorn of the American people, eh?

"Scorn" indeed! I suggest FOAVC try this out for size:

Suppose three-fourths* of our citizens wrote the following statement on their federal income tax forms:

"I, the undersigned (being one of We-the-People), hereby demand the creation of a constitutional convention to replace the entire U.S. constitution. If three-fourths* of eligible voters approve of any replacement created by that convention, that would be sufficient to replace our current constitution." [I propose three-fourths*, since that's the fraction of state legislatures needed to ratify amendments.]

Guess what! This majority voice won't be heard. This majority voice will be considered a "quasi-rebellious act." FOAVC, among others, will say, "We've got a direct assault on our constitutional republic on our hands."

If anyone "deserves the scorn of the American people," it would be our leaders for turning a deaf ear to demands for change (as, for example, expressed on our tax forms). And maybe another group is even more deserving of scorn (if we accept FOAVC's logic): Our Founding Fathers! They were arrogant enough to write a constitution which can only be amended but never replaced. In other words, they thought they got it right for all time. They (the dead) wish to impose their will on us (the living).

So what's wrong with our constitution?

The biggest thing "wrong" with it is the notion that it can't be replaced. Do we not have a right of self-determination? If our Founding Fathers were so keen on "No taxation without representation," then surely they wouldn't be so keen on asserting the tyranny of their generation over ours. If our current constitution is so great, why not put it to a vote? Why not subject it to good old American competition in the marketplace of ideas?

Here's a short list of my particular complaints:

ONE: The tyranny of the Two Party monopoly system, not even foreseen by our Founding Fathers, needs to be addressed.

TWO: Here I will cite one of FOAVC's core complaints: Even though Article V of our current constitution states that Congress "shall call a convention for proposing amendments" whenever the legislatures of two-thirds of our states request one, Congress refuses to do so. All 50** state legislatures have requested such a convention, yet Congress is silent. It fails to do its constitutional duty to "call a convention." And the Supreme Court does not rally in response to this outrage. I think we need a constitution which is not so easily ignored.

THREE: Concerning how easily our constitution is ignored, I cite the fact that West Virginia and Maine were unconstitutionally admitted to the union. Article IV, Section 3 is clear: “…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…” Realpolitik was at work to create WVa and ME, not the Supreme Law of the Land.

FOUR: Article V also says, "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." That would seem to imply that we will always have a Senate (and we will always have states!), and that's an amendment-proof fact of life. Why should that be so?

FIVE: The presidency has become entirely too powerful, an issue which in and of itself has to be addressed.

SIX: The Electoral College must go, since that was meant to restrain (that is, “thwart, if necessary”) the will of the people.

SEVEN: An increasingly exclusive legal system in which he who can't afford proper and long-term legal assistance can't have his day in court. [If you can't "pay to play," you lose by default.]

EIGHT:  Since we have a culture in which the unconstitutional Senate filibuster rule thrives, only a new Constitution can help create the new culture where that can’t happen.

Conclusion

There are groups like FOAVC which are trying to pry loose some power for the people. Or at least, they give that appearance.  I really wanted to give the FOAVC the benefit of the doubt. But I have come to the conclusion that they exist to divert energy and effort away from what is really needed: A full-blown Convention to Replace the US Constitution. They use very strong language in opposition to genuine, overall reform, as evidenced not only by their website but also by two emails FOAVC sent to me.

We-the-People have the right to self-governance. More than that – to a self-governance obtained in a manner of our choosing. We don’t have to be told, by men dead for two hundred years, that we can’t replace their Constitution – ever – that we can only amend it. We don’t need the stooges of the FOAVC channeling those dead men.

If you have any doubts about the real intent of the Founding Fathers, just ask yourself one question: Why did they state, in Article V, that Congress “…on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments..,” but doesn’t say what could or should happen if Congress doesn’t?

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)

“With ‘friends’ like Friends of the Article V Convention, who needs enemies?”

Footnotes:

three-fourths* - I cited "three-fourths" above as a rhetorical device, whereas I personally believe in a much smaller fraction. In the case of the tax forms cited above, 25% would be a fair number to start the ball rolling. As for ratification, 50%+1 of all ballots cast should decide the issue.

 All 50** - The FOAVC makes this claim. However, it should be noted that many of those 50 have rescinded their calls for a convention.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Conversation with "god(?)" - fantasy

Conversation with “god(?)” – a fantasy

It’s sweetly warm and humid on my little mesa in the Grand Canyon. My campfire crackles quietly as little embers fly up to greet the moon, a giant among the trillions of stars in the deep night sky. I am so utterly alone here, thinking how true it must be – that there are parts of the Grand Canyon where no human has ever tread.

This is all part of an inspired deal I had made – to come here alone if I should win the lottery. To say “deal” is misleading since I didn’t make any deal with anybody in particular. Isn’t that supposed to be important? I bought the ticket and said out loud, being sure no one could hear me: “I swear this oath: If I win, I will never claim the prize and will destroy this ticket, never to tell anyone I’d won.”

That was part of the deal; the other part was a whimsical afterthought. Spinning a globe of the earth, I declared: “If I win, I will go to that spot my finger lands on and seek ‘god’ – whatever ‘he’ might be – and try to talk to ‘him.’ Who knows? Maybe ‘he’ll’ talk back.” So I had closed my eyes, jabbed my finger, then looked where I was to go if…big IF.

A few days later, big IF became big THEN: I found out I won – in fact, I was the sole winner of $180 million dollars. Then in the privacy of my room, I burned the ticket completely to ashes, rubbing it to dust with my fingers. I had kept my word, then started packing my bag, not feeling any sense of loss at all but hopeful of a very big gain.

That was three weeks ago and here I sit, my spectacular view in all directions simply amazing. “Well,” I speak up, “time to get started.”

I rise and face the moon, clear my throat and begin:

“I don’t expect to hear any answers, but I will speak my piece anyway. Even if I am to hear an answer, how could I know its source? God/god? Devil/devil? Other/other? I’ve often wondered how Mohammed was so sure he knew the owner of the voice in that cave in which he was first told (threatened?) to ‘Recite!’ This doubt finds wording in many forms – including this: How can one know the will of God?

“I myself am an agnostic. I don’t know if You exist or perhaps once existed and no longer does. I don’t know where everything came from, but I am curious. I’ve always asked a lot of questions and I’ve always loved a good puzzle. So, for the sake of argument, I will address the God of Abraham. Here goes…

“Concerning the punishment of sinners: Why subject them to eternal torment? Why not just dis-create them? You created them, surely You can simply give the word (as it were), then they would be no more. But keeping them in existence just to torture them for all eternity, wouldn’t that make You the greatest terrorist of all time?

“Some say, among the powers of God must be the power to create other Gods? What say You of this? Do You leave it for only Yourself to be Godly? Are You wary of competition; are You uneasy about the universes They might create?

“Many believe You created the Universe and are its master, and that You could just as easily destroy it without a trace. Tell me, could You instead leave the Universe intact and will Yourself out of existence, also without a trace? And even more difficult, once You’d will Yourself out of existence, could You summon Yourself back?

“And most difficult of all? Deciding to shift back and forth from existing to not existing? Multiple times? If so, how many? And what would determine how many and how long you’d stay out of existence each time, leaving the universe Godless?

“Was there only one Creation? Did You suffer even one moment of gnawing doubt before You uttered, ‘Let there be Light?”

I pause, draw a deep breath, and say, “That’s all I have to say.” Time passes, the fire crackles, a soft breeze stirs, coyotes howl in the distance, a single eagle soars overhead, I wait but not for long.

I sigh and kick out the remains of my fire, pick up my bag, and turn to go. From behind me, I hear a voice saying, “Wait.” But I do not wait, I do not turn to see the speaker, for I am no longer curious. I already have the answers I seek.

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“It’s okay, it really is, if God speaks and You don’t answer.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

A Buddhist reflects on the Bible: Part I

I call this post, “A Buddhist reflects on the Bible: Part I” – the Buddhist being the wholly Trinity of Me, Myself, and I. “Part I” is merely a label of convenience – meaning that I do not intend to give (here and now) my detailed impressions of the entire Bible. At some future date, I might post a Part 2, 3, 4 etc, but at this point, I only have a yawning enthusiasm to do so.

To be fair, I’ve read precious little of the Bible’s texts. Oh, I’ve tried over the decades to fathom its mysteries but I just couldn’t penetrate the archaic, flowery, and (in my opinion) vague and stilted prose.

However, I feel I’ve been blessed with an open mind (which used to be called liberal, but not in polite society any more). So I want to give you an idea of what goes through my mind as I try to process certain “givens.” Toward that end, I’m going to touch on the Old Testament stories of Job, and of Abraham in the episode commonly called the Binding of Isaac.

QUOTES* followed by COMMENTS

In my usual style, I will QUOTE source material and follow with my COMMENTS. I purposely omit entire sections of narrative on which I don’t intend to comment.

  * All QUOTES are from http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.og/

From the Book of Job

QUOTE:

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

COMMENT:

The word “perfect” hit me like a brick. Did the text mean “perfect” as in “[only] as perfect as a mere man can be?” “Perfect” covers a lot of territory – so much that the entire rest of the sentence could have been omitted after that word.

QUOTE:

His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.

COMMENT:

“Five hundred she asses,” you say? What? No he asses?

“The greatest of all the men of the east,” you say? There were no kings who were greater? Not to mention, how should one define “greatest” in this context? Does the mere possession of wealth make one great?

Can you imagine the sheer number of acres which had to be at Job’s disposal to feed all this herd? And the number of herders under his employ? Job was very rich, to say the least. But whenever I hear of a man’s wealth, a couple of things are at work in the back of my mind. How did he obtain this wealth; or was it all just bestowed upon him as blessings from the Lord? How did he defend himself from pilferage or blatant thievery?

I never begrudge a man his fortune but it does give me pause. Especially since, as the old saying goes, “Victors write history books.” So if the Bible should be at least partly regarded as a history book, shouldn’t we be suspicious as to how much of that historical reporting is (shall we say) self-serving or self-vindicating?

QUOTE:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

COMMENT:

Why is Satan permitted to attend a gathering of the LORD and the sons of God? Unless he too should be considered a son of God?

QUOTE:

And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

COMMENT:

What a strange greeting is, “Whence comest thou?” More to my sensibility would be, “What brings you here?”

And what a strange answer. A good friend tells me that “in the earth” refers to exactly that – literally, “inside the earth,” which contains an underground world much embraced by devotees of the Hollow Earth narrative. As for “walking up and down in it,” could the “walking up” part refer to how he got from within the earth to its surface?

QUOTE:

[NOTE: This section follows the immediately preceding QUOTE(D) section.]

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

COMMENT:

Of course, the rest of the story is well known – how Satan is permitted by the LORD to put Job through a variety of trials. Satan claimed Job would curse the LORD if he were to lose his divinely provided bounties and if his health or life were to be threatened.

However, suppose instead Satan did not challenge the LORD. Suppose instead he said something like this, “You say, ‘[there is] none like him,’ and that he is ‘a perfect…man.” If there are none like him and he is perfect, you’re saying he is the only man among the entire multitude alive at this moment who is perfect. He may well be perfect – I won’t challenge that. What I will challenge – How is it that he is the only perfect man? How poorly you have nurtured the human race that this must be so.”

Of course, if Satan had offered these alternate words, must we assume that God would never have tested Job? Remember: It was Satan who, only after being permitted to do so by the LORD after challenging the LORD, had savaged Job so terribly. So if God had it in His mind that Job was to be tested, and if Satan hadn’t been a willing tool in this test, would God have tested Job in another way? Maybe deciding to test Job directly Himself, without Satan’s assistance?

QUOTE:

So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

COMMENT:

Eww…Much of the rest of what follows contains speeches made by Job after seven days of silently suffering from these boils. He is in utter agony and yet – he manages to speak so eloquently. Why is that? How is that possible? [Again, I had trouble penetrating his meaning but I could sense how others could obtain at least the general drift of Job’s words.]

QUOTE:

Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? Curse God, and die.

COMMENT:

Sounds like his wife is saying, “Since you’re in such awful physical pain, why not cut short your life by cursing God. For then He shall surely smite thee, removing you from this life and from any life hereafter. If your pain is so great, how could you be expected to endure it without [apparent] end?” [NOTE: It could not have been known to Job for how much longer he would suffer, nor by what means.]

QUOTE:

[This immediately follows “Curse God, and die” from the above QUOTE.]

But he said unto her…shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

COMMENT:

I will answer his question (“…and shall we not receive evil?”) with an emphatic, “No, we shall not – at least, we should not receive evil and still call God great.” The whole thrust of this story seems to be, “If we can only man up and suffer silently at the hands of our superiors, bounty shall surely be ours.” That ethic has been suggested to all of the lowly throughout all of the ages by all of our superiors. But that doesn’t mean we have to like it; and it surely doesn’t mean we have to call them “great” as they torture us.

QUOTE:

[After Job’s trials are over and he is no longer suffering.]

Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before…every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.

COMMENT:

Why did all of those people give Job money? He surely didn’t need it, for as the next QUOTE tells us:

QUOTE:

So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.

COMMENT:

What, still no he asses? What’s with that?

After most of Job’s herders had been killed by Satan’s hand, where did Job find replacements to manage this even larger-than-before flock? Did he enslave them, which was not an uncommon practice of the time? How did he obtain extra land for their forage and roaming?

QUOTE:

He had also seven sons and three daughters.

COMMENT:

Ah, these would have been to replace those seven sons and three daughters which the LORD God had allowed Satan to kill earlier in this narrative. I don’t know how Job felt about losing his first ten children; I don’t even know if he mourned their loss. But here and now, I (in the twenty-first century) will say a prayer for them. For the narrative continues by saying, “And thus lived Job an hundred and forty years…So Job died, [being] old and full of days.” Sad this couldn’t have been said of his dead children.

The Binding of Isaac

Much of what I’ve heard about Abraham has forced this conclusion: Were I to see Abraham approaching me as I should walk down the sidewalk, I would cross the street to avoid him.

Since the story of the Binding of Isaac is so well-known, I will not summarize it here but I will furnish a link should you care to review its words, which are rather few in number:

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Genesis&chapter=22&verse

More QUOTES and COMMENTS follow:

QUOTE:

And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here [am] I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where [is] the lamb for a burnt offering?

COMMENT:

In answer to that question, Abraham lies by saying:

“…My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.”

Since Issac was supposed to have been a rather profound individual in his own right, Abraham should have said, “You are to be that lamb. I will bind and cover thee with sticks which I shall set aflame, after I slit your throat so you feel no pain. For God has told me to make of you a burnt offering.”

To me, this is what makes an offering profound – that it is voluntarily given, not demanded as tribute is demanded by all-too-common tyrants.

QUOTE:

And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

COMMENT:

There’s no hint in this telling that Isaac resisted in any way or said anything. This is part of the problem I have with Abraham – it’s always all about Abraham. You’d think this story would allow for some words or actions to be offered by the man who is about to die.

QUOTE:

And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind [him] a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

COMMENT:

This was done after an angel of the LORD told Abraham not to sacrifice Isaac, and indeed had praised Abraham by saying, “Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearst God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.”

So there we have it:

1)   God tells Abraham to kill his son and burn him up as an offering;

2)   An angel of God, at the last moment, tells Abraham not to kill his son.

3)   However, no mention is made of that angel (or God Himself) asking for a substitute burnt offering (that ram).

4)   That substitute was Abraham’s inspiration of the moment upon seeing some poor, defenseless animal trapped.

5)   The angel of God did not stop Abraham from killing the ram.

If I were any kind of a fiction writer, I might have added these considerations toward the end of this story:

Killing that ram was the real test which God had in mind for Abraham.

The binding of Isaac wasn’t much of a test since God told him to kill his son but withdrew that order. In other words, Abraham didn’t have to do any thinking, he simply followed the words of the Lord. However, killing that ram was a thought that came directly from Abraham, unsolicited by God. That ram, as a symbol, would have been Jesus Christ in disguise, of whom the world (or at least Abraham) was not yet ready.

The irony is that this ram was “attached” to a wooden framework (his horns caught in a bush) in a manner similar to how Jesus Christ was to be later crucified. So, in his own way, Abraham pre-crucified Christ so to speak. If that was the case – God was truly forgiving indeed.

QUOTE:

…I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] on the sea shore…

COMMENT:

Hmm…as many as all that, eh? That’s way more than the known population of the earth.

QUOTE:

And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

COMMENT:

In my humble opinion, the descendants of Abraham (specifically, those of Isaac) haven’t done much to bless “all the nations of the earth.” When’s that supposed to happen?

As for “because thou hast obeyed my voice,” I would have much preferred “because thou hasn’t obeyed my righteous laws.” Harkens to an age old situation: Just because one hears the voice of one claiming to be God, doesn’t make it so. Even today, there are too many claiming they did some really awful things because “God told me to.” Well…something told them to but…

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

In closing

Please, don’t get the wrong idea. I’m just as questioning of Buddhist scripture as well, much to the discomfort of my fellow Buddhists. Which might explain why we no longer keep each other’s company.

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Why is it that children can offer interesting questions, but they seem to lose that ability when they get older? Where’s Peter Pan when you need him?” - Steven Searle.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

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, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Any resemblance of characters in this movie to persons living or dead 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?