Is the Soka Gakkai a cult?

Opening Statement

I think everybody should join a cult at one time or another in their twenties. It doesn't matter if you really "believe," since the experience itself will be an eyeopener for the rest of your life.


Sample Anecdote

I'm going to end this essay with a series of anecdotes concerning my religious cult experience, but I can't resist offering a sample now.

In the mid-70's, I attended a chapter meeting which was held in a member's apartment. After the meeting, the group leader made an announcement. He said the leader directly over him was getting married and he thought we should all chip in to buy him a wedding gift - a $2,000 stereo system. That was a lot of money at the time, and when he sensed a bit of hesitancy from the members, he sternly declared, "I'll pay for it myself if I have to."

Everybody loved this particular groom-to-be, but I thought it was a violation of our principles for this guy to be soliciting money like this. Yes, money was periodically solicited for the organization, but never for the benefit of leaders. I wish I wasn't so shy back then, or I would have spoken up and said, "This is wrong." For the record, I didn't donate a dime.

Later, this groom-to-be was heard to declare, "So-and-so should get a job and not have to crash on other people's couches. This is why we're practicing Buddhists - to prove that we can get whatever we want by chanting for it." Yeah, right.


Statement of Purpose

In my early twenties (back in the mid-1970's), I was a member of a religious cult which is still around today and is currently known as the Soka Gakkai International. I was a member of this pseudo-Buddhist laymen's group for about two years, though I don't know if it's as cultish now as it was then. My purpose today is not to determine its current status, for these simple reasons: it failed in its mission to bring about world peace (as it promised it would) when twenty-years passed (it's been almost 40 years now), and its current membership is about the same now as it was in the 1970's - having become irrelevant.

In the USA, that translates to about one in every 1,000 being SGI members. That's a pretty miserable showing for over 40 years of trying to grow this organization in an environment that has such a vast Buddhist-friendly potential.

My purpose today is to relate some anecdotes stemming from my direct experience, not only during those initial two years but also during a period when I rejoined - from 1993 until I was barred from meetings in January of 2009.


SGI-USA background

SGI-USA = Soka Gakkai Interntional - USA region.

When I joined the SGI-USA in 1974, I was 23 years old and living with 3 roommates in a 4-bedroom flat near Chicago's hillbilly heaven neighborhood - near Wilson Ave and Clark. My share of the rent was $40 per month out of my $5,200 per year US Dept of Labor salary. That's right - I worked downtown across the street from the just about completed Sears Tower, making the lordly sum of $100 per week. Don't laugh - I was actually able to save money back then.

A lot of young people hung out in this flat, since they were friends of my roommates. One day, I walked in on a group of 4 of them in the living room chanting to a scroll in a box. They were recent converts in an SGI-USA street recruitment campaign. I decided to give it a shot, so I joined too, though not immediatelys. Once a week I would go to District meetings - the District being the basic building block of the SGI organization. These meeting took place in a members' homes and typically included between a dozen and 20 members.

These members were divided into Men's, Women's, Young Men's, and Young Women's groups, each having their own leaders and assistant leaders. Two or more Districts made up a Chapter. I know there was at least one level higher than Chapter, but all together these groups made up the Chicago region which had exactly one Community Center. We didn't call it a temple or church, but in all of Chicago, there was only one such Center. I liked the idea that most of the meetings took place in people's homes, but we were encouraged to go to the Center once per week in order to connect with our larger community.


The Promises

There were several promises made to SGI members. The first one: You can chant for anything you want. That is, you could chant for a new car, a job, a girl friend...anything. And you were encouraged to be specific instead of just chanting for happiness (or even enlightenment!) in general.

The second promise: You can attain enlightenment in this lifetime in your current form. That was a little tricky, since we weren't told we could actually become fully-enlightened Buddhas equal to Shakyamuni Buddha. In fact, much later I heard this revision: "Buddhahood is not a destination but a journey." When put that way, it sounds like a carrot on a stick being dangled just out of reach but never to be reached. I rejected the SGI's view of Buddhist practice, since I believe the purpose of practice is to become a Buddha. Maybe not in this lifetime, but I certainly believe it is possible. And I came to see why that state could not be reached in one lifetime - at least not for 99.9999% of us. It certainly didn't happen in the case of SGI President Daisaku Ikeda - that should have been enough to warn us away.

The third promise: We will realize world peace in our lifetime. In fact, in the 70's we used to sing a song with the line, "Keep chanting, keep chanting, we've just got 20 years to go." The idea was to convert one-third of the world's population so they would become active chanters. Another third was needed to support the first third, and the last third was expected to not actively oppose the chanters. These are the three promises I heard in the early seventies. Obviously, the SGI failed as far as their 20 years to go promise was concerned.


Give them something to do

One of the basic rules of any organization is to give its members something to do. Just chanting and studying about Buddhism is too passive. So in the 60s and 70s, the SGI had this idea to form marching units to participate in local community events. For the young men, there was the Brass Band; for the Young Women, the Fife and Drum Corp. So I bought a saxophone and joined the Brass Band, with our most ambitious plan aimed at New York City in 1976. At that time, NYC was so broke, the city wasn't even going to stage a bicentennial celebration on the Fourth of July. So the SGI-USA leadership said, "We'll do it!"

And so I, along with members from all across the country, prayed and practiced for a year in advance so we'd be ready to do our part for the Big Show. Of course, each of us paid our own air fare and living expenses for the three days we'd be there. No problem - it was honor to step forward and save the world. We really felt like pioneers in the vanguard of a new social movement. We felt such a movement was necessary after we had lived through the horrors of the unrest caused by the Vietnam War and Civil Rights riots.

But...after we came home from New York, we were exhausted, burned out from our massive, year-long, labor of love. A lot of the members even stopped going to district meetings, since they felt a bit lost at sea with this huge campaign being over with thereby giving us a lot of time on our hands. The leadership then declared Phase Two as the new order of the day. We were no longer expected to sacrifice so much of our time and energy to the organization, but to personal growth instead and to the nurturing of new members.

I didn't hang around long enough to find out exactly what Phase Two was supposed to entail. I quit, and didn't have any contact with SGI members again until 1993. At that time, I met a member who invited me to an SGI meeting. She was a student at the university where I worked, who informed me that the "excesses" (read: cult-like behavior) of the past were growing pains that had been overcome. She told me that President Ikeda cleaned up our act in the USA. I thought, "What? He was part of the problem, since nothing could have happened here without his approval." But I said nothing, merely making a mental note to myself.

In 1993, I rejoined. But I was determined to do it my way. That year, by the way, I bought a copy of the newest English-language translation of a core Buddhist text, the Lotus Sutra. This version, previously unavailable, was sponsored by the SGI itself but was actually written by a non-SGI scholar - an internationally recognized translator from Japanese and Chinese into English. Dr. Burton Watson, an American, who had received his PhD from Columbia University.

Dr. Watson's translation became a great source of joy and personal enrichment for me. It also opened my eyes to how badly the SGI had gone astray. Local SGI members came to know me as someone who asked a lot of questions, which had proved awkward for members and leaders alike. No doubt, this is why I was finally told to leave the SGI in 2013. Leadership decided to circle the wagons and purge undesirables like me - before they started losing members.


Anecdotes

ONE:

Local district meetings gave members a chance to chant together but, more importantly, to introduce guests to our practice. Hence, these were called discussion meetings. After we chanted, if there were any guests, a few of us took turns explaining the history and nature of our particular brand of Buddhism. Then the chant leader, or a visiting higher-up, would offer closing comments followed by a Q&A.

So far, so good. But...these were never really discussion meetings. If a guest had some in depth questions and tried to pry more info from the leader, he would always be told (something like), "I could try to describe to you what a chocolate cake tastes like. But until you try it, you'll never know." End of story - end of discussion. I all the years I was with SGI-USA, I never found anyone who would (or could) directly answer my questions. I was usually encouraged to, "Chant on it."

The three local-level leaders I had the most contact with in the 1970's never tried to have a real conversation with me. Such conversations that we had were minimal, to say the least (literally). Ironically, this even extended, years later, when one of our particular yearly campaigns was dubbed "The Year of Friendship and Dialogue." Yeah, right.

TWO:

In the early 70's, I was invited to a district-level Young Men's Division chant session. There were four of us present, including the Chapter chief. He chanted the sutra so fast, I couldn't keep up. Another guy had the same problem. After we finished chanting, there weren't any words of encouragement, no "thank you for giving up part of your Saturday for this activity," and certainly no dialogue. We just got a disapproving look from the leader who said, "At least this guy (the fourth in our party) tried to keep up." And then he left!

Years later, I ran that episode by one member who (I thought) was capable of occasional flashes of honesty concerning the practice - but only if he and I were out of earshot of other members. His comment? "Anyone who's chanting that fast isn't practicing correctly." My take? This was just a cheap attempt by this chapter chief to make us think we weren't trying hard enough, just trying to make us doubt ourselves. As I found out years later, it wasn't ourselves we should have doubted.

THREE:

David's 900-page letter to me. When David passed away (in the 90's), I went to a memorial service held for him at the Chicago Community Center. And I got up to speak, holding up a bundled stack of 900-handprinted pages. David had spent about a year writing this epic response to the many questions I had concerning our mutual faith. I thanked his spirit before the congregation, many of whom had heard of this heroic effort of penmanship. He didn't have to do this, but he did. And it made for interesting reading. But...it didn't really answer my questions.

And there couldn't have been any doubt as to what my questions were, since I had gone to several chanting meetings with handouts I'd prepared. These cited, chapter and verse, what my very specific questions were. My intention was to find answers from the members - from ordinary members or leaders, I didn't care which. I had even put my personal contact info on these handouts if anyone wanted to call me later. Sometimes good answers to questions don't occur immediately, so I wanted to let people know I really wanted their opinions, even if offered on another day. But nobody ever spoke to me about these issues; no one ever contacted me.

When the prayer bell was sounded to close the memorial, the guests stood up and mingled. Dale, a veteran member of 30 years, whom I'd known in the 70's, walked up to me as I was showing my letter to a number of people. He heard me repeat that this was David's response to my questions, to which he offered, "Well, I guess that showed you." His unmistakable meaning was: "Well that ought to shut you up."

Dale and I didn't have much contact in the early years of my practice, but I do know that some of my questions made him bristle. And his blind faith made me bristle, but I tried to be a non-confrontational gentleman about this. After all, he was the leader of the district I was in when I rejoined SGI in 1993. However, it seems he still harbored at least a mild distaste for me personally. In any event, no one there asked if they could borrow this letter to read for themselves. Somehow, I wasn't surprised.

FOUR:

Joe and Phil were two members I'd known in the 70's, both of whom were low level leaders. Joe actually introduced me to this Buddhism and Phil had been one of 3 roommates I lived with during a six-month period in the 70's. I don't know what happened between the two of them. But I remember sitting in a car with Phil, when Joe approached and starting pounding on the window. I could see he really wanted to have words with Phil and looked violently angry. He kept yelling, "Open the door." And Phil kept saying, "Fuck you."

Phil didn't open the door and Joe eventually left, after which we drove away. Neither of them ever spoke of this incident again to me. I can only guess that, perhaps, there were tensions due to their roles in the organization that had caused them to cross swords. Or maybe it was a case of one guy hitting on another guy's girlfriend, or disparaging words having been spoken publicly. I had no idea, but I remember being very upset by this. I am very slow to accept anybody as a role model for anything, since I'd come to know that many gods have feet of clay. But these were people I knew who were putting in an awful lot of time and effort to realize world peace. And yet they weren't being very peaceful toward each other.

Later, as I came to study Buddhism in greater depth, I learned about the virtue of not giving rise to anger. Perhaps so, but it is hard to be young and dispassionate.

Years later, I heard that Joe had moved back to his ancestral home in the south, becoming a born again Christian. Strange as it might seem, I didn't have a problem with that. I feel that Jesus Christ is a bodhisattva - a stealth Buddhist - who presented Himself to the world in a form that was agreeable to the hungry multitudes of the West. It might appear that Joe had given up on Buddhism, but then I remembered something I read in the Lotus Sutra (a core text of the SGI which, I'm sad to say, too many members only gave lip service to). It said (something like): "It is hard to uphold this sutra, but the buddhas of the universe will be pleased to witness anybody who can uphold it even for a short while."

Translation? You did good, Joe. I hope you'll reconsider Buddhism - this time, not in the SGI context - and find your own meanings from these profound teachings. And when you do, I hope you'll share them with me.

FIVE:

We were getting ready for the New York City bicentennial parade, which meant we did a whole lot of chanting at the Community Center. That's also where we had practice drills for what we'd be showing off to the world as we marched down the Avenue of the Americas. I was chanting with a half-full room of members, when I remembered an announcment made earlier: "Let's chant until 10 o'clock (pm)." That was said hours ago, so as 10:00 approached, I rang the bell to signify that the chant session was officially over. So the room fell silent, but it didn't take long for two firebreathing young men to run up and scold me: "What are you doing? There are people here - leaders - who want to continue chanting."

They were obviously angry at me, but later I thought: "So what's stopping them? We've rung that bell before to officially close a chanting session, only to have those who wanted to continue chanting do so." Then I thought, "What a bunch of Nazis."

SIX:

It was almost time for us to fly to NYC for the Fourth of July, 1976 celebration. Hey, Liz Taylor was going to be our parade's Grand Marshall. Good times, right? We had a few more Brass Band practices at the Chicago Center, one of which featured a leader "encouraging" a member to get a haircut. This member had long hair, but that was the style back then among many countercultural groups. Lo and behold, I saw this same member with a haircut at the next practice. But the result was a bit of a compromise, being longish yet obviously styled by a pro. I could tell this wasn't quite what the leaders had in mind, but they didn't say anything - at least not in front of the rest of us.

When I first joined, I was told I didn't have to give up anything. SGI wasn't like the Hare Krishnas insisting upon a certain style of dress. And we could even continue practicing our lifelong faiths, as long as we included Buddhist chanting among our other practices. I guess, when push comes to shove, members of groups should expect pressure for at least some degree of conformity. But...of course we weren't told that when we first joined.

SEVEN:

In the early 90's, I went to the Center and walked in on a leaders' meeting. In those days, such meetings weren't closed off to non-leaders. I heard one young woman explain the Three S's - in this order: Sensei, Soka Gakkai, Self. We were supposed to support the International leader, Daisaku Ikeda, above all else. Then we were to chant for the mission of the Soka Gakkai, which was the vehicle by which world peace would be realized. Finally, we could chant for our own happiness.

Then I remembered something that Ikeda's predecessor said. Tsunesaboro Makiguchi told his members that his own life was nothing compared to the importance of the Soka Gakkai. Looks like Ikeda reversed the order of the first of the two S's. What happened?

END COMMENT:

If it looks like a cult and acts like a cult, it is a cult. It takes a lot of effort to decultify a movement, but sometimes that's exactly what we have to do in order to protect the core teachings from corruption. As time goes by, I'll be posting more of these revealing anecdotes.

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

Steven Searle, Just another member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The Filibuster Rule Revisited: Part 1

Teaser

I propose that the Republican Party can vastly improve its fortunes in the long-term by taking several (highly unlikely) steps right now:  Openly declare its opposition to the US Senate's filibuster rule, arrange for at least some of its senators to join the currently pending lawsuit in opposition to this rule, and encourage GOP candidates for the Senate to campaign against that rule by declaring they will vote in favor of any cloture motion.

I will also encourage these candidates to include such a declaration as part of an enforceable, written contract, any violation of which will mean forfeiture of (if not their Senate seat) sizable personal assets. I consider this to be a form of bonding which, according to wikipedia*, means: "In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders." In exchange for your vote, the candidate holds himself to be "indebted" to such an extent that he would suffer financial loss were he to violate the terms of his written contract with you.

My proposal would make great strategic sense if the GOP calculates that it will never again be the minority party. By allowing the Democrats to have their way by simple-majority vote in the Senate, whatever evils come to pass could be laid directly on their doorstep. That would help in the GOP's 2016 campaign for the Presidency. And it would end the perception in the public's mind that Senate Republicans are obstructionists whose party richly deserves being labeled "The Party of No."

The national GOP needs to do whatever it can to clean up its image so it can become as successful as state GOP's have across the nation. According to Governor Scott Walker's book Unintimidated (pages 2 and 3):

QUOTE:

• The number of GOP governors has risen since 2008 from twenty-one to thirty - just four short of the all-time high of thirty-four Republican governors in the 1920s.

• When President Obama first took office Republicans controlled just sixteen state houses of representatives and twenty state senate chambers. Today they control twenty-eight and twenty-nine, respectively. And they hold veto-proof majorities in sixteen states - a gain of three during the 2012 election that sent Obama back to the White House.

• Four years ago, Republicans controlled both the legislature and governor's mansion in just eight states. Today, the number is twenty-three - and nearly half our citizens live in states where both the legislature and the governorship are in Republican hands.

:UNQUOTE.

[As a side note here, I have bragging rights to having been the only candidate for President in the entire history of the United States who offered an enforceable, written contract* to the voters in exchange for their votes.]


Introduction

Certain developments have compelled me to update my reflections on this topic via today's post, which includes in its title "Part 1." I'm not sure I'll ever write more - Part 2, 3, etc. But I wanted to leave open the possibility, just in case any movement against the filibuster rule gains traction. Personally, I think that rule will survive all challenges. I further believe that that will be the primary cause of the destruction of the United States of America.

That's right, I said "destruction" rather than "decline as a world power." But I am not writing today to prove that claim. My primary goal is to inspire my readers to rethink any of their currently held prejudices concerning the logic and fairness of the filibuster rule, as well as what might be done to eliminate this rule.

I have posted on this blog concerning the US Senate's filibuster rule, including the following on April 27, 2013, entitled: "Invitation to sue Senate for filibustering":

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/04/invitation-to-sue-senate-for.html

As it turned out, my invitation to sue wasn't necessary, since (as I was unaware on the date of posting) that Common Cause had already brought suit. In fact, this press release link states that a 3-judge panel in DC was scheduled to hear this case on 1-21-14 at 9:30 AM, though as of this writing, these judges haven't yet rendered their opinion:

http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773613&ct=13602233


An initial set-back

On Dec. 12, 2012, a judge dismissed Common Cause's lawsuit. I'm going to quote portions of an article about this dismissal, inserting my comments within green-highlighted brackets:

QUOTE:

(source: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/12/judge-voids-challenge-of-senate-filibuster-rule.html ):

(Note: I took the liberty of highlighting in yellow certain portions of the linked article.):

A federal judge in Washington this morning [12/12/12] dismissed a lawsuit [filed by Common Cause] that alleged the U.S. Senate filibuster rule is unconstitutional.
...

"The court acknowledges at the outset that the Filibuster Rule is an important and controversial issue," Sullivan wrote. In recent years, the judge continued, "even the mere threat of a filibuster is powerful enough to completely forestall legislative action. However, this court finds itself powerless to address this issue for two independent reasons."

[Powerless? A rule exists which prevents the Senate from doing its job - voting on the merits of a bill or nomination - and the Court claims it is "powerless" to intervene? And yet, that same Court has no problem declaring laws to be unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Even though the Court would be thwarting the outcome of both houses and, possibly, the Executive Branch. Even though such laws were passed by those sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution, and who therefore (presumably) have some competence as to its meaning.]

Sullivan said the plaintiffs,...Common Cause, four members of the House of Representatives and three individuals, do not have legal standing to challenge the filibuster rule. The judge rejected the argument that vote nullification—the alleged injury among the House members—reaches the threshold for legal standing.

[Legal standing...I take a very broad view of who should have legal standing when it comes to Constitutional issues. Since the Preamble states, "We the people...ordain and establish this Constitution...," then any citizen should have legal standing to issue a challenge whenever any part of that Constitution is being violated.]

[Suppose one of the plaintiffs happened to be a man who was denied an extension of his unemployment benefits simply because the Senate (as recently happened) fell one vote short of breaking a filibuster. The House had passed this bill and the President said he'd sign it. So it was a done deal except for the fact the Senate requires a supermajority (by means of the filibuster rule) to pass any legislation. Regardless, the judge would still rule this man didn't have standing to sue.]

... [Sullivan said,] "Nowhere does the Constitution contain express requirements regarding the proper length of, or method for, the Senate to debate proposed legislation."

[The Constitution doesn't mention the concept of debate at all. Since Senate rules allow filibustering Senators to talk about anything (even Green Eggs and Ham, per Senator Cruz), it's conceivable that the topic of debate wouldn't be addressed at all! And yet, the Court would find itself powerless to even address debates that are so grossly off-topic. "Debate" on the floor of the Senate isn't necessary since pro- and con- Senators (not to mention lobbyists) are more than capable of creating lists of bullet-points in an attempt to change minds. Not to mention engaging in dialogue in each other's offices.]

The internal proceedings of the legislative branch, Sullivan said, "are beyond the jurisdiction of this court."

[So why was it necessary to address the issue of legal standing at all?]

...

The plaintiffs in the case include undocumented residents who would have been granted a chance to obtain citizenship through the DREAM Act. The legislation died in the Senate amid a filibuster. "The majority was not allowed to even debate on it," Bondurant said at the hearing. "The majority is hamstrung by its own rules."

[Hamstrung? It could be argued that both political parties find it to their advantage to keep the filibuster rule on the books, since they each realize they might be the minority party in the future and would like to have this blocking mechanism at their disposal at that time. So this rule exists for the benefit of the political parties, which were not even mentioned in the Constitution. Frankly? I would consider the Dem/Pub parties to be unconstitutional or at least to be a monopoly in restraint of the free and open exchange of ideas - here I'm trying to invoke the rationale underlying the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.]

The Office of Senate Legal Counsel urged Sullivan to dismiss the suit on standing grounds and the judicial branch's lack of authority to change internal Senate rules. "That's not vote nullification if the Senate fails to make a vote," Senate lawyer Thomas Caballero said at the hearing on December 10.

[But the Senate did make a vote - a vote to invoke cloture (that is, to end debate). It's true enough, as Caballero was trying to say, that the Senate failed to make a vote directly on the bill itself. But that failure was due to the existence of the filibuster rule which requires at least 60 Senators (a supermajority) to vote to end debate. Even if all of the Senators felt there was really nothing left to say, opponents wouldn't vote to end debate since that was to be their only way to defeat a popular bill. Therefore, their true motive had nothing to do with debate.]

[And, as I'd posted earlier (see the first link cited in this post, above), requiring a supermajority vote is in violation of our "one man, one vote" rule (that is, that all Senators are to be equal to all other Senators). Wouldn't we find it outrageous if Senate rules allowed male Senators to have two votes, while females got only one? Or if those with more seniority would get (say) an extra tenth of a vote each time they got reelected? And yet, as things stand now, a senator who is in the majority during a cloture vote finds that his vote is in fact not equal to the vote-power of a minority Senator.]

...

:UNQUOTE.



Why bother?

I am amazed that the mainstream media has totally downplayed the possibility that the filibuster rule is unconstitutional. That lack of criticism is one of the prices we pay in this country for having a corporate media beholden to whatever official party line comes out of Washington, DC. More and more people are starting to notice this, which encourages a deepening resentment of both the media and their party masters.

Hopefully, this will in turn cause people to ask themselves, "What can I do about this?" We're not as powerless as we think. At this point, I direct you to "Independents, it's time to seize the primaries" at this link:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/10/independents-its-time-to-seize-primaries.html

Even if (as I feel) the Common Cause lawsuit will be, once again, thrown out of court, it has the great value of raising consciousness.

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

Steven Searle, Former Candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnotes:

wikipedia* - source of definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_(finance)


enforceable, written contract* - A copy of this contract can be seen via this link:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle.html

"No," Noah...a soliloquy in the dark

About Your threatened flood, I still stand by my refusal to build the Ark. I speak these words even though I don't know if You hear them. But I guess all I have is time, though I don't know how much, in which I'm to remain in total darkness with no bodily sensations. Maybe You have shorn me of my body, leaving behind only my spirit. I'm not sure what to make of that, though I'd like to think You're testing me.

That's what I thought when You first ordered me to build an Ark, since You were about to destroy all of the world's living beings. I tried to wrap my mind around that but was too overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all. Especially for the sake of the animals who wouldn't be brought on board the ark. What did they do to deserve death by drowning?

I know I should have been thinking of all of the people who would perish, people whom You called wicked. So why did the animals come to mind? I asked if You could have merely willed the wicked off the face of the earth. With all of Your power, I wondered why You felt it necessary to flood the world. That seemed like overkill to me. I thought, "Surely my Lord must be testing me." But even if You weren't, there was no way I could be a party to such a massacre. You said I was the only righteous man left in the world. That must mean, You at least respected my judgment, my ability to tell right from wrong. And what You were proposing was certainly wrong - no two ways about it.

Which is why I thought You were testing me. And I still think You're testing me, but it's hard for me to bear Your absence and Your silence. You used to walk with me, which made me want to please You with the best behavior I could muster. Maybe the world wouldn't have degenerated into such an evil state if You had walked with the others. Many others. I don't understand Your aloofness and Your apparent indifference. In Your Holy Presence, say in the middle of a raging battle, I know soldiers about to kill their enemies would behold Your Holy Countenance and would drop their weapons and drop to their knees, asking You for forgiveness for what they were about to do.

But You were nowhere to be found, except - on occasion - with me.

So I told You I would not build the Ark. But I also said I would not advise my sons to also refuse should You decide to order them instead. I simply said No, turned my back on You, and walked away. My aim was to live in the wilderness but You had other plans. I didn't get far, when all of a sudden I found myself in total darkness without any bodily sensation. My feet didn't feel the ground they might have been standing on. I didn't even feel that I still had feet.

You surrounded me with Void, so now I ask a favor. If You intend to keep me in this state forever, I ask that You dis-create me. Rather than punish me for eternity, I would rather "become" as if You had never created me in the first place. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust - it is written. But the truth is: Nothingness into somethingness back into nothingness if Your humble subjects should request this - and if You should approve.

You told me of this ark I was to build and of details concerning my survival at sea. I had a dream that I slaughtered animals from among the ark's passengers so as to make for You a burnt offering. I know this is a common practice dating back to the first family. But in my dream, I saw the faces of the other animals as I killed, gutted, cleaned, and then roasted the sacrificial animals. Those onlooking faces were so sad, I vomited with disgust upon waking from this dream. If I could be so disgusted, how not You? Who could think You could possibly be pleased by the scent of roasting animal flesh?

Of course I don't know if You went ahead without me and flooded the world anyway. Maybe You decided to also destroy my sons and their wives, deciding to start all over again and create a new Adam. I found myself hoping You would never tell him what happened to his predecessors. Best to let the new Adam think he is the only Adam. Or maybe You decided not to flood the world, instead deciding to adopt my suggestion that You walk more frequently among men - as many men, women, and children as You could.

Maybe someday I'll be allowed to know what You decided. After You finish testing me. You are testing me, aren't You?

Hello, Hello?

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and
former candidate for President of the United States of America (in 2008 and 2012)

"I got to thinking of this whole Noah's Ark episode when a very Christian friend of mine concluded, 'Whatever caused that Flood wasn't the Lord God in Heaven - there's simply no way He would have murdered all of those innocent animals."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Scott Walker for President....in 2016?

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker for President? I'd love to see a race between him and presumed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Hillary has so much baggage as being solidly, ethically-challenged, old guard Democratic establishment, she would lose much in comparison to the much younger and better looking Scott Walker.

Scott has a major and politically potent accomplishment under his belt due to his having severely curtailed the collective bargaining "rights" of public service unions in Wisconsin. His side of this story is told in a fascinating book (I'm on my second reading) entitled: "Unintimidated: A Governors Story and a Nation's Challenge." This first-time governor also survived a recall election instigated by those same unions, winning "reelection" by an even greater margin than when he first won the governorship.

By "fascinating," I don't mean that I agree with his politics or worldview as expressed in his book. In fact, I sense that Walker might well turn out to be a one-trick pony. It's one thing to put a state's financial house in order, it's quite another to do that for the entire nation. That, plus the fact that we have no sense of Walker's vision of foreign policy. I just hope that Walker's supporters don't fall for the same scam as did Ron Paul's backers: The idea that one man can fix it all. As I'd blogged before, what's wrong with the USA can only be righted with systemic change. This included my call to elect only independents to elective office and to replace the US Constitution - not amend but actually replace it.

Walker's term as governor expires on January 5, 2015, which will bring up an interesting scenario. If he runs for reelection, surely his opponents will press him to promise: "If reelected, I will serve out my full term, which will expire on January 5, 2019. I will not actively seek nomination for the US presidency in 2016 and I hereby declare I wish to remove myself from any possibility of a draft."

I'm sure Walker will seek reelection as governor because, frankly, he needs the job. And any job would surely have to be a political one, since he is a career politician lacking a resume. He never finished his bachelors degree, being at least 34 credits short of graduation. And his course of studies - political science, economics, and philosophy - would be of no use in a job market without advanced degree work.

If Scott doesn't seek a second term as governor and should he should fail to win the GOP nod (and win the general election) in 2016, he'd be out of work.  And as his resume indicates, his employment prospects outside of politics would be miserable. Of course, he could run for president while being in his second term as governor. And that might be his best course of action, since timing doesn't appear to be on his side.

Right now, he's being hailed as a conservative, union-busting hero, who got his state's financial house in order. Even though he's young (at age 46) and could well afford to wait until after the 2016 election to seek the presidency, his record and accolades will have dimmed in the public's mind. Not only that - it's hard to predict who will be anointed as the GOP's new "it" prospect in the future. Perhaps Scott should strike while the iron is hot and run in 2016.


Refining Scott Walker's rhetoric

If Governor Walker ever decides to mount a serious campaign for the presidency, I hope he stops making blunders like this one:

QUOTE*:

Collective bargaining also prevented other commonsense reforms to improve services and save taxpayers money. For example, in Racine County, when the state cut back on the amount it would pay to mow along state highways during the summer months in the past, officials had begun using inmates to cut the grass in medians. The inmates volunteered to do the work at no cost to the taxpayers. The program not only saved money for the county, it also helped the prisoners by giving them skills and work experience they could carry with them once they returned to the community, which would ultimately help reduce recidivism.

Seems like a commonsense solution?

:UNQUOTE.

In an otherwise well-written book, this quote sticks out like a sore thumb. There are other flaws which I'll address another day, but surely this much is ridiculous: "...it also helped the prisoners by giving them skills and work experience they could carry with them once they returned to the community..." Walker is saying that, arranging for inmates to mow grass will give them "skills and work experience." Just try putting this on your resume: "I'm an ex-con who mowed grass, so that gives me the skills and work experience needed to do the job I'd like you to hire me to do. Governor Walker said so himself."

This is almost as precious: "The inmates volunteered to do the work at no cost to the taxpayers." As Walker explains later, these inmates were given time off their sentences for "volunteering" to (in effect) work on a chain gang mowing grass. As for "no cost to the taxpayers": Sure, the state didn't have to pay for the use of slave labor, but the taxpayers will pay plenty when these ex-cons are released early and (some of them) go back to committing crimes. [Memo to Scott Walker: Nothing is free.]

I'm surprised this claim made it into Walker's book, especially since (as the book's jacket indicates) Walker authored this book with Marc Thiessen. Whatever "with" happens to mean. You might remember Thiessen: former chief speechwriter for Dubya and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. I sure hope Walker includes more that just this type of dubious fellow to be among his White House advisers should he get elected.


Appearances do matter

Scott Walker is a fine-looking young man - as was Mitt Romney. But Mitt looked too wooden at times, whereas Scott seems more natural. I despise the philosophy that a person is somehow worthy of our vote simply because he fills out a suit impressively. But American political reality being what it is, there's no way Hillary Clinton could survive side-by-side photo ops with the governor - not to mention the comparison to be made when they debate. As for Clinton having a lock on the female vote, Scott Walker's personal life, values, and background seem a lot more savory. Besides, did I mention he's good-looking?

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnote:

QUOTE* - source: This book, authored by Scott Walker with Marc Thiessen: Unintimidated: A Governor's Story and a Nation's Challenge.

Yahoo! - Stop your sabotage

I have ranted, several times on this site, about my suspicions concerning Yahoo being a censor when it comes to comments posted on its news articles. I can only speak from my personal experience, though I have read posts from others with similar complaints as well. As I've written before, I feel strongly that Yahoo! divulges the identities of its "fringe" posters to the NSA. I'm sure they feel they're doing their part to protect national security. But...that doesn't make it right and that doesn't mean I have to like it. And...it doesn't mean national security will be enhanced, but could be severely weakened instead.

About two years ago, I found it very difficult to post my comments on Yahoo's message boards. Most of my comments managed to reach an audience. But a significant minority didn't make it at all or were deleted by Yahoo after making a brief appearance. Recently, I tried to post a comment on Israel which had an entire paragraph deleted. And a few days ago, my comment on the US Constitution's Second Amendment was sabotaged.

This is what I tried to post (note my highlight in yellow):

QUOTE:

The 2^nd is the only amendment that has its reason for being incorporated into the text of the amendment itself. Ask yourself why the amendment didn't simply say: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Short and sweet, right? But those preceding words are a defacto kill-mechanism. If the reason for being no longer exists, then the 2^nd becomes null and void.

To wit, A well regulated Militia is NOT necessary to the security of OUR state [or “nation,” if you prefer], has not been for well over 50 years, and will never be in this modern age. It is not needed to repel foreign invaders, since our best-in-the-world, regular armed forces are more than up to that task. As for providing a check on an over-reaching central government, please – that same best-in-the-world force would squash either of these militias like ants – all National Guard units as well as the (never well regulated) at-large militia. You know, the one that all able-bodied males belong to, from ages 18-45.

NRA: Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!

:UNQUOTE.

As for the words I highlighted above - itself. Ask yourself - this is how Yahoo! rendered them: itsel#$%$rself. I know Yahoo uses symbols such as these (#$%$) as substitutes for profanity. But, as you can see, I wasn't being profane. There was nothing in my post that could be so construed. Though these symbols might be seen as merely irritating, I argue that they disrupt the flow of a poster's arguments. And, since I don't think Yahoo! is incompetent, I'm forced to conclude these substitutions are deliberate.


A Warning

Yahoo, NSA, and any others who act against Buddhists are opening themselves up to karmic retribution. And this applies even if the offending parties don't know their targets are Buddhists. So I urge these offenders to reconsider their actions and to think about the following two examples:

• The Muslim persecution of Buddhists in India is responsible for the persecution of Muslims by Western nations. The destruction of the great library in Nalanda (see QUOTE below), especially the anti-intellectual sentiment involved, is responsible for the rise of Islamic militants who, through their ignorance of Islamic law (anti-intellectualism fueled by illiteracy), are not only giving more moderate Muslims a bad name but could be responsible for the destruction of Islam itself.

• The nation of India could find itself in great peril, due to persecution of Buddhists by Hindus. Take a good look at a map of India and its neighbors - it's not too hard to see that India is far from its friends and is surrounded by nations either hostile or indifferent to its fate. Perhaps a resurgence of Buddhism in India might save it from Chinese conspiracies, which would be helped immensely if Buddhism were to experience a resurgence in China.

QUOTE:

[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda ]

Evidence in literature suggests that in 1193, the Nalanda University was sacked by[13] Bakhtiyar Khilji, a Turk.[14] The Persian historian Minhaj-i-Siraj, in his chronicle the Tabaqat-I-Nasiri, reported that thousands of monks were burned alive and thousands beheaded as Khilji tried his best to uproot Buddhism. The burning of the library continued for several months and "smoke from the burning manuscripts hung for days like a dark pall over the low hills."[15]

:UNQUOTE.

End Comment

I know my warning might sound extreme. But I not only believe in karmic retribution but also in the protection Buddhism extends to its followers. That last is why I have no fear when it comes to publishing my comments under my own name. Of course, I could find myself - in spite of this protection - sharing the fate of those monks who were killed at Nalanda. I am only flesh and blood and am as vulnerable to attack as anyone else.

But there's a difference for Buddhists. Those who offer even the slightest persecution against us will suffer immensely disproportionate pain. And any early termination of a Buddhist's life will serve to expiate mountains of negative karma he'd acquired in past lives, thereby bringing him that much closer to himself becoming a Buddha.

I personally am more than willing to make this trade. As for Yahoo et al: Your call.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and

former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Slamming my own religion?

Today, I want to give equal time. I've expended a lot of effort on this blog slamming the Abrahamic wisdom traditions and promoting the alternative I've embraced - Buddhism. But I realize my faith's worldview has its shortcomings, which I feel duty-bound to mention. These stem from my immersion in the Lotus Sutra*. I don't intend for this post to cover all of my concerns or doubts but I want to at least broach these few*:

• The infinite number of emanation buddhas which Shakyamuni Buddha was able to generate;

• The infinite number of meanings which are generated by the One Great Fundamental Universal Law;

• Why it bothers me that the Buddha lied to us.

Emanation Buddhas

Shakyamuni Buddha wasn't the only entity able to generate an infinite number of emanations of himself to teach the path to enlightenment in other worlds. This was an ability shared by all other buddhas as well as highly advanced bodhisattvas. And this is an ability mentioned frequently in the Lotus Sutra. But then a question formed in my mind: "Are all of those emanation buddhas of Shakyamuni also able to generate an infinite number of emanations; and are those emanations able to, in turn, do the same; etc, etc?"

If the answer is "yes," then credulity is strained, but perhaps that's the point: To force the believer to either rise to the occasion and come up with "the" answer, abandon his faith, or modify it somehow. I'm almost afraid of modification since some of my fellow Buddhists have accused me of trying to create my own religion. But I rarely allow what people think of me to have any appreciable influence.

I realize that the word "infinite" as used in the Lotus Sutra simply refers to a monstrously large number but is not really infinite, mathematically-speaking.

In any event, I don't know why this particular question occurred to me as late as it did. After all, I've recited the entire Lotus Sutra well over 150 times over the past 7 years. So why didn't this question occur to me much earlier? Perhaps my tardiness was due to a blind spot I had in my own enlightened nature. Or maybe my karma was at work. If so, I admit I'm a bit embarrassed by my flaw, even though I can mitigate that somewhat by saying, I've gained a number of insights which (so far as I can tell) no one else has realized. [I can only hope these are really insights and not just self-indulgent delusions!]

One valuable lesson I'd learned from my years in the Soka Gakkai International: "Try to develop doubt-free faith." Too many of my fellow SGI members took that to mean, "We shouldn't ask questions or probe too deeply into the doctrines." But then I remembered another SGI lesson, about the value of having a seeking mind. I shudder to think perhaps SGI was only paying lip service to that lesson. If so, how ironic, that a group that extols the benefits of chanting should be reduced to "paying lip service." [Sorry, I could never resist a good pun - or even a bad one, for that matter.]

Undaunted, I will cherish the title of the Lotus Sutra's fourth chapter ("Belief and understanding" - how important it is to have both), and the urging of the Buddha to "ponder this Lotus Sutra." So I will undertake to reflect deeply on the implications of the infinite emanations of the buddhas. For now, I want to offer a few tentative thoughts regarding this issue:

• Though buddhas might have the ability to create these emanations, perhaps not all of them do so.

• Not all buddhas have identical practices. I don't know if any buddhas other than Shakyamuni recruited and taught the massive number of unique disciples known as the Bodhisattvas of the Earth, as introduced in the Lotus Sutra's 15th chapter entitled "Emerging from the Earth." They are "unique" in terms of the totally renunciative life they led. Then there's the case of Many Treasures Buddha (introduced in Chapter 11 of the Lotus Sutra) who had taken a vow to travel with his funerary tower (comparable in size to the moon) to any place in the universe where the Lotus Sutra was being preached.

• If a disciple was being taught by Shakyamuni Buddha on planet earth, did emanations of this buddha teach emanations of this disciple? That leads to the question: Do each of us have an infinite number of versions of ourselves dwelling in an infinite number of universes which, once we make up our minds to seek enlightenment, will be taught by an infinite number of emanation buddhas?

• Is such a large number of emanated buddhas necessary so that the Law could be preached to animals, plants, or even to inanimate(?) beings such as stars, rivers, and rocks? Even these are supposed to have a buddha-nature which could enable them to become buddhas someday.

I'm going to be thinking about all of these possibilities - and any others that might pop into my mind - as time goes on. For now, I can only be amazed at the wonder of it all.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and
a former candidate for President of the United States of America (in 2008 and 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnotes

Lotus Sutra* - This refers specifically to the version translated into English by Burton Watson and published in 2009 by the Soka Gakkai International, which bears this title: "The Lotus Sutra and It's Opening and Closing Sutras," commonly referred to as the Three-Fold Lotus Sutra. If you want a free, on-line version of a Burton Watson translation (though not the one published by the SGI), go to:  http://nichiren.info/buddhism/lotussutra/

broach these few* - Today, I will only address the first of these three topics; within the next week or so, I hope to address the others.

Contempt of Court? Contempt of defendants

Today, I'll open with: Meanwhile, an 83-year-old nun shivers from the cold while waiting to be sentenced - bail denied.

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

Before, I quote from an article about this nun, I will tell you what I would have done had I been on that jury - I would have voted "not guilty." To be sure, Sister Megan Rice and her two co-defendants were guilty of "something." But I am not one of those people who would blindly follow a judge's instructions to the jury. I don't believe in giving any judge the kind of discretion in sentencing this judge enjoys.

In fact, I advocate that anyone serving on a jury consider my example. But do be careful. When sitting with the other members of a jury in deliberation, don't participate. If asked why you're being silent, just say, "I will listen to your deliberations and make my decision from there." Note: I didn't say, "...and base my decision on your deliberations." I'm not sure how the jury process works, but don't expose yourself to any danger by trying to convince the Sheeple on your jury to vote as you'll vote. Word might get back to the judge who would all too happy to slap you with a contempt of court citation and make you pay for a new trial with a new jury.

I'm not sure if it's against the law for me to advocate this form of jury tampering, but I don't care. There are a lot of things against the law that are just plain unfair, and I feel someone must speak out against them. The judiciary in this country has way too much power, and the unfairness of minimum sentencing guidelines - though not a factor in this case - makes justice a difficult outcome in a USA courtroom.


Details of the case

I can't do better than to quote from a January 27, 2014 article concerning this case, so here goes:

QUOTE [Note the sections I highlighted in yellow]:

[source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-security-nuclear-20140128,0,4144945.story ]

An elderly nun and two other activists were ordered to pay about $53,000 restitution for breaking into a Tennessee defense facility, but must wait [until Feb. 18] to hear how much prison time they could face after a judge [on Jan. 27, 2014] suspended sentencing due to bad weather.

Sister Megan Rice, Michael Walli, and Greg Boertje-Obed admitted cutting fences and making their way across the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in July 2012, embarrassing U.S. officials and prompting security changes.

U.S. District Judge Amul Thapar in Knoxville on Tuesday ordered the protesters to pay $52,953 to cover repairs to the facility where enriched uranium for nuclear bombs is stored...

Rice and the others admitted cutting fences and making their way across the expansive grounds of the complex to spray-paint peace slogans and hammer on exterior walls. When a guard confronted them, they offered him food and began singing.

The three were convicted by a federal jury last May of damaging national defense premises under the sabotage act, which carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years, and of causing more than $1,000 of damage to U.S. government property.

Federal sentencing guidelines call for Rice, 83, to receive up to a little more than seven years in prison; Walli, 65, more than nine years; and Boertje-Obed, 58, more than eight years. The defendants have been in custody since their conviction.

...

Prosecutors have asked that the defendants receive sentences in line with federal guidelines. The defendants have asked for lesser sentences [which could include "time served," since there is no minimum sentence required].

Bill Quigley, one of the attorneys of the defendants, said in an interview last- week all three are in good health, but Rice, who turns 84 January 31, is "freezing cold in jail."

Defense attorneys argued in court documents that the three were "completely nonviolent" when they were arrested.

"They used the occasion to present symbolically their passion for nuclear disarmament," defense lawyers wrote.

...

Prosecutors contended the break-in at Y-12, the primary U.S. site for processing and storage of enriched uranium, disrupted operations, endangered U.S. national security, and caused physical damage.

:UNQUOTE.


My reaction to this article

No, they didn't endanger U.S. national security. If anything, they enhanced it by bringing to the attention of the authorities (and the voting public) how easily this secure site could be compromised. I'm sure the resulting measures to increase security will make it impossible for any terrorists out there to duplicate or surpass their feat.

A possible 20-year sentence for cutting fences and spray-painting slogans? Are you kidding me? That might be how the law reads and how the Sheeple on the jury ruled, but where's the justice? If any kind of additional jail time is ordered by the judge, I would see that as his agreement that there must be payback for this hippie-scum having embarrassed the authorities. It bothers me that the prosecutors added a charge of sabotage against these defendants. It bothers me even more that a compliant jury went along with this. And it bothers me most of all that this judge has this kind of latitude in deciding how much jail time must be served - ranging from time served to 20-years.

If I would have been on that jury, I would have turned a deaf ear to even making these defendants pay for damages. Instead, they should be given a medal for their service to humanity.


More on judicial arrogance

I'll close by citing two stories illustrating how our judiciary has become less of a force for justice and more of a force for oppression.

The President's Power to Pardon

This is an example of an increase in power by means of an "interpretation" of the law:

QUOTE:

[source: http://people.howstuffworks.com/presidential-pardon4.htm ]

When it was established that the pardon is to be used solely to grant reprieve from affronts committed against the United States, a loophole was opened. Pardons have been demonstrated to not legally have an effect on contempt of court charges since, like a civil case, a contempt charge isn't considered an affront to the United States; instead, it's considered an affront to the court.

:UNQUOTE.

Since when is "the court" (or at least, any of the federal courts) not considered part of the United States? The courts must obey rules set down by the United States - in the form of guidelines legislated by Congress. So the Courts don't stand alone, to be regarded as outside of the United States. Article II of the US Constitution makes this clear when it says:

"...and [the President] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Nothing is mentioned about sparing the federal courts from the President's power to "grant reprieves and pardons." Besides, who cares if the court is affronted? The entire nation was affronted when the Confederacy sought to secede from the Union, yet the President granted pardons to thousands of that union's officials. How does the Court rate (what basically boils down to) a created exemption from the Constitutionally-granted power of the President?

Answer? It doesn't.

Bonanza

I was in a courtroom once, as a defendant in a case. I chose not to stand when the judge entered the courtoom and the deputy announced, "All rise, court is now in session." I knew I was risking a contempt of court citation even though I had my reasons for not standing, including: "It's against my religion." Fat lot of good that would have done me if the judge had felt offended. But she chose to ignore my seated self.

That made me think of an episode of an old TV series from the 1960's, which had run for 14-seasons - Bonanza. Anyone USAer growing up in the era would remember the Cartwright family. They owned a ranch in Nevada (bordering Lake Tahoe) called The Ponderosa in the 1860's. That particular episode showed a trial with a very unusual aspect - at least "unusual" to my modern eyes. After the trial was over and the judge read the verdict, he gaveled the session to a close BUT...nobody said, "Please rise." The pounded gavel indicated the session was over, so court was no longer in session. Hence, no "need" to rise at the conclusion of this trial.

In fact, those present stood up and engaged each other (including the judge) in casual conversation.

I didn't see the beginning of this trial, so I don't know if a deputy had said, "All rise..." But my sense of what I remember led me to conclude: If the judge bangs the gavel, that alone should start the proceedings without any necessity to rise in the presence of an authority.

How times have changed!

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

Today, I'll close with: Meanwhile, an 83-year-old nun shivers from the cold while waiting to be sentenced - bail denied.

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com