Saturday, June 4, 2011

US Presidential Candidate seeks Muslim support

This is to announce: I am hereby actively soliciting American Muslims to support my campaign for the US presidency in 2012.

Of course, I welcome any and all support – from Muslims and non-Muslims alike. But here and now, I want to emphasize that I am specifically seeking Muslim support. I wish to make a bold public declaration of my support for the US Islamic community, without any assurance they would in turn respond by embracing my campaign.

One reason I seek their support is to stand in opposition to my opponents – all of whom insist they will support Israeli policy no matter what. All of whom pledge to continue spending billions of dollars every year to support the Israeli war machine.

Another reason I seek Muslim support: A local Muslim leader I know challenged me, “If you can prepare a position paper showing why I and my community should support you, I can promise you 50 votes.” To which I replied, “Well, that would make a grand total of 50 votes I’ve earned so far.”

It would have been easy for me to tell this community leader, who had voted for and believed in Barack Obama, “If you want to know about my positions and about me personally, read my blog.” But, as the old saying goes, that would be too much information. So I prepared this brief statement, which follows. But…for anyone who wants more information, here’s the link to my blog: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/


Why should a Muslim vote for
Steven Searle for US President in 2012?

I will start with some simple statements:

·       If elected, I will grant diplomatic recognition to Palestine.

·       If elected, I will revoke US diplomatic recognition of Israel.

·       If elected, I will withdraw all US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan – withdrawal to be completed within 90 days of my inauguration.

·       If elected, I will order US forces to stop attacking Libya.

·       If elected, I will urge the American people – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – to embrace my main campaign theme:

“Declare your independence by voting for independents.”


That last point is actually the most important of all. As much as the followers of the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) might be pleased with my first four points, it is really that last point which will prove to be of greatest importance to them.

Every loyal citizen of this country will come to appreciate the importance of electing officials who are totally independent of any political party. There is a profound danger in continuing to be governed by the two major political parties which are forever at war with each other. Each major party, seeking its own advantage, cares nothing about the future of America.

Therefore, I am appealing to all Americans to unite behind my efforts to destroy these two great enemies of our people – the Democratic and Republican parties.


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

It would have been tempting for me to list points involving only the Middle East. But I did not wish to disrespect my Muslim readers, who are also loyal American citizens, by speaking only of those issues. There are others which are of keen interest to American Muslims – issues which have nothing to do with the politics of the Middle East.  And if I did not mention any of those in this document, I would be guilty of pandering to my audience.


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

The most important and distinctive feature of my campaign: I am the only candidate for president who is running on the basis of a written contract. No other such candidate in the entire history of this country has done this. The basic idea is quite simple: If I violate any of my campaign promises which are listed in my written contract, I would be forced to give up the presidency.

And why not? Every American understands the importance of a written contract as it applies in our daily lives. If two people sign a contract, both are obligated to follow the terms of that contract. If they don’t, they have to pay some kind of penalty. In this case, the two “people” who are “signing” this contract are:

1)   Me…My signature will be on a document which details what I will do if elected, although I intend to do much more than what I list in that document.

2)   I said there are two “people” who are “signing” this contract. I am the first person; the American people are the second of these two “people.” The American “people” can’t sign my contract – at least not directly. But by voting for me, they are entering into a contractual relationship with me, which has the same force as their signatures.


My name isn’t Barack Obama – who offered you “Change you can believe in.”

My name is Steven Searle – who offers you my legally-binding contract which tells you exactly what I’ll do if elected.

I am proposing a trade: If you give me your vote, I’ll do what my contract says I must do. It’s important to note here that I will only list the goals which I myself can accomplish. These are kind of goals that won’t need the support of Congress. To show you what I mean, I will repeat the four goals listed above, but this time I’ll state why I can meet these goals by myself, without needing the support or approval of anyone else:


·       If elected, I will grant diplomatic recognition to Palestine. [The US president is the only person with the power to grant or revoke diplomatic recognition. It’s true that he cannot appoint ambassadors without the approval of the Senate, but that has no effect on his basic power to grant or revoke such recognition.]

·       If elected, I will revoke US diplomatic recognition of Israel. [I could do this for the same reason as listed immediately above.]

·       If elected, I will withdraw all US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan – withdrawal to be completed within 90 days of my inauguration. [The President, who is the Commander in Chief of all US armed forces, doesn’t need the approval of any other person or agency to stop US participation in a war. The President, and only the President, is the supreme and final authority on the placement and behavior of our military forces.]

·       If elected, I will order US forces to stop attacking Libya. [Same reason as above.]



You are intelligent people, so you surely must know that no political candidate can be taken to court for violating his campaign promises – not even if those had been written down. Most people understand this to mean that no candidate, once elected, can be held to account for failing to keep his word. But that’s not true. I have thought of a way to force a presidential candidate to keep his word, which I will quote from my 2008 contract (from the time I had run against Obama and McCain):


QUOTE:

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

:UNQUOTE.


If you are interested in what my 2008 contract looked like, you can see many of its 47-points here: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/written-political-contracts.html

However, I have not completed my 2012 contract yet, though I am working on it. There are parts of my old contract which won’t be included in the new version. Obviously, you would be wise to wait until I post my 2012 contract before making any final decision about voting for me. You would also be wise to thoroughly review my blog at: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/ . There is much on that blog that has nothing to do with politics, which will however give you an idea of the kind of man I am. And that’s important to know.

I want you to know that I myself am not a Muslim. I am a Buddhist, the details of which I’ve written on my blog.


Other aspects of my political contract

I have already given you enough information, above, to make some kind of initial determination about supporting my candidacy. Of course, to be fair, there are other candidates for this office, and you should give them a fair and honest evaluation as well.

For those of you who are curious, though, I will offer more information in this section. The following links are to essays I’ve written on a variety of topics:

·       This link describes a system I invented called Cross-Sectional Representation, which I propose as the basis for a new U.S. Constitution, to completely replace the old:



·       This link connects to an essay called, “Why we fear Muslims…really!”



·       This link describes how a Zero Party could replace the Democrats and Republicans:



·       This link describes a practical method which can be used by activists in order to effectively challenge the current governing system. Its title: General Strike Declared by Steven Searle. Though the idea of a General Strike is well known, I offer a unique variation:



·       This link is called Palestinian Possibilities, analyzes the current situation in that region:



The Supreme Court

I will leave you with this final example of the power of the political contract:

Supreme Court judges are not given a “lifetime appointment.” The Constitution says these judges “…shall hold their offices during good behavior …” This allows for an innovation I’m introducing in the upcoming campaign. If I have a chance to appoint a Supreme Court judge, I will insist (as a condition of my nomination) that he publicly sign a written contract. This will stipulate:

·       He can serve for only five years after which he must resign;

·       If he doesn't resign, he will most surely be impeached and removed from the bench since he had admitted (in this contract) that failure to resign would constitute the impeachable offense of failing to maintain “good behavior.” [NOTE: If a man swears an oath and violates that oath, he is guilty of bad behavior – and all of my nominees will swear an oath to uphold his nomination contract.]

·       When he resigns, he could be eligible for renomination.


My intention, which will be stated on my own contract, is to demand that all currently sitting Supreme Court justices resign immediately upon my inauguration. My contract will state that I will automatically renominate them for the Senate’s consideration, but only if they sign a contract limiting their term to five years. If the American people would actually vote for me with this kind of language in my contract, the currently sitting justices would be hard put to defy the will of the people.


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

Conclusion:

Once again, I appeal to American Muslims for their support. If you help elect me as your next president, I will not disappoint you. Most importantly, my contract will not let me disappoint you. As I’m fond of asking, “If you wouldn’t sell your house without a written contract, why just give your vote away?


Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

      “If you decide to support someone else for President, I hope you will encourage him or her to give strong consideration to at least some of the proposals I’ve detailed here.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Friday, June 3, 2011

A casino for Rahm Emanuel?

Thanks to the Illinois state legislature, Chicago might soon become the only municipality in the United States to own a casino. To make that happen requires only Governor Pat Quinn’s signature. According to the June 2 issue of the Chicago Sun-Times:

Quinn repeatedly refused to say whether he would veto the package, pledging only his intent for a ‘microscopic review’ of the first significant gambling expansion package in Illinois in more than 20 years.”

I’m not a gambling man but if I were, I’d bet Quinn will go ahead and sign this package. To be sure, he will claim to have given this bill that promised “microscopic review.” He’ll probably also echo the same sentiment expressed in his press release after recently signing the state’s redistricting bill:

“Ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard in government is crucial to our democracy. For the first time, the people of Illinois have been able to participate in public hearings and have their voices heard in drawing their legislative districts.”

Oh, “everyone’s voice” may well have been heard…but then the Democrats proceeded to redraw that map as they saw fit, completely ignoring those voices. Voices may well have been heard but (needless to say) the resulting map still ended up heavily favoring the Democratic (that is, the Governor's) Party. And voices may well be heard arguing against the wisdom of expanding gambling in Illinois in general and a casino for Chicago in particular, but hey…Mayor Rahm wants a casino, therefore a casino he shall have.

I genuinely hope I am wrong in predicting that Quinn will sign this bill. However, I feel the governor will not be able to resist the overwhelming pressure which will be brought to bear by those mighty forces working to elect Rahm as US President in 2016. I blogged on that possibility on April 30, 2011 here:


And I’m not the only one talking that talk. For instance, during his May 31 interview with Rahm, lamestream lapdog media stooge George Stephanopoulos participated in this exchange:


QUOTE:

GS: Well, we’re out of time. But, you know, if you do a good job here, a lot of Democrats are going to be talking about you to run for president in 2016.

Rahm: I got a job to do here and that’s all I’m focused on.

GS: You never think about it?

Rahm: You know my wife. No.

:UNQUOTE.


Oh, by the way, if anyone actually thinks that exchange was spontaneous, just keep in mind: George and Rahm are good friends. For my money, this part of the “interview” was scripted in advance. As for Rahm saying, “You know my wife. [Therefore] No [I don’t think about running for US President]” – that’s just a bit of disarming deflection. With all due respect to Rahm’s wife, I can confidently say she has never had any input concerning his politics or his political behavior. Rahm’s too bull-headed and ambitious for that. She knows her place, and he believes he knows his – in the White House.

Normally, I don’t indulge in the antics of friends involved in scripted or bogus interviews. However, I happened to catch this bit spoken by Rahm in this same very same interview:

“I looked at the whole speech.  I looked at everything [Obama] said in support of Israel, with its security and safety.  And I saw the president that I worked for.  And he’s been consistent about Israel's security and safety, as his number one concern.”

I don’t suppose I really have to say this but I will anyway: Those last three words were boldfaced and italicized for emphasis by me. But they might as well have been emphasized by Rahm as well: Israel’s security and safety are indeed Obama’s number one concern. That wasn’t any exaggeration on Rahm’s part, though I’m sure he wishes he could have rephrased that. Or maybe not…after all, I seem to be the only one who noticed.


On the wisdom of allowing a Chicago casino

This sentiment appeared in the Chicago Tribune on June 1 in John Kass’s column:


QUOTE:

“There are a lot of things in Mayor Emanuel’s transition report that I can support,” [Alderman] Pawar told me. “But I can’t support a Chicago casino.”

Why?

“Because a city that acts as the ‘house’ is a city that bets against its own people,” said Pawar. “And that’s a race to the bottom.”

:UNQUOTE.


Rahm Emanuel doesn’t care how many lives he’ll destroy due to the pernicious effects on society wrought by gambling. Nor does he care if the mob (I’ll spell it out M-O-B) shoulders its way in for a cut. The bottom line is, Rahm will have access to cash directly from the profits of the casino itself. This will be used to help make him look like a mayor good enough to be elevated to the presidency. And he’ll benefit from the “goodwill” he’ll have earned by making sure the “right” (that is “connected”) people are involved in bringing this casino to life. And that will also be used to help make him look good.


In closing

You can’t tell me it’s a coincidence that Rahm Emanuel just got elected mayor of Chicago and (voila) a casino is about to magically appear. Mayor Daley didn’t get one after trying all these years – so how is Rahm so special that he gets one? No sir…this is not coincidence.


Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Keep paying attention and listening carefully – it won’t be long before other members of the liberal/“independent” members of the political chattering class get on the Emanuel-for-President bandwagon. They jumped on board blindly for Obama, they’ll do it again for Rahm.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Thursday, June 2, 2011

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:



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 for US President in 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?”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com