Who are the Birthers?

You might remember the Birthers. They made a lot of noise before the election claiming that Blacque Obammer* was not really a US citizen. Or at least not what the US Constitution would call a "natural born citizen." Their upshot: If Obammer* is anything other than a "natural born citizen," then he is ineligible to be our president - according to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

There had been a number lawsuits by private individuals attempting to force Hawaii to issue, for public inspection, a certified copy of Obammer's* original birth certificate - a version referred to as a "long form." The Birthers claim this document would show that Blacque* had been born in a foreign country, which would not make him [or so they claim] a "natural born citizen."

It seems the Birthers have re-emerged after a period of dormancy, pouring out a great deal of detailed argument on a variety of websites. They've even taken to haranguing Congressmen at town hall meetings. And of course the media is salivating over this.

Do the Birthers have a point?

I am absolutely:

• not going to burden you with a long summary of their arguments;

• sparing you the refutations of their detractors;

• refusing to weigh in on whether the Birthers have a point.

I spent much of yesterday on the web wading through the pros and cons of these arguments. Not only concerning BO's birth certificate but also whether he really registered for the Selective Service, which all male citizens had to do back then. Most of you have gone through the tedious task of following various internet threads only to conclude: "OMG, there's an awful lot of text to wade through." So I'm on your side here, in not wanting to dump on you.

I personally happen to enjoy occasionally wading through reams of tedious, lawyerly point/counterpoint. But that's usually just for my entertainment. To those who want to win people over, though, I urge them to embrace the KISS strategy: Keep It Simple Stupid.

A few simple things to keep in mind:

• Before the election, neither the GOP nor the McCain campaign made any effort to turn Obammer's* citizenship into an issue. Not even after the election, though before he had been sworn in.

• The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court personally administered the oath of office to Obammer*, knowing full well that his citizenship was being challenged in a variety of lawsuits.

• Before we had cast our ballots, We-the-People knew there were doubts concerning his citizenship - yet there was no massive hue and cry of protest over this issue.

• Last week, both the U.S. House and the Senate passed a Resolution entitled: "Recognizing and celebrating the 50^th anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50^th State." This was passed unanimously - that is, without one single Rep or Senator voting against it.

• Question: Why is the preceding point relevant? Answer: There's a clause in the Resolution that reads: "Whereas the 44^th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961." Upshot: Not one of our Congressmen could muster enough courage to state in the Congressional Record that this clause lacks proof, after which they could have voted present on the Resolution itself. [There weren't any nay votes nor any present votes, though 35 Democrats and 20 Pubbers are listed as not voting - which meant they were not in chambers at that time. For all we know, they might have been in another chamber - taking a crap.]

• The Birthers are making a lot of noise, mostly trying to cast doubt upon the President [Is he really an illegal alien? Is he really an alien from the planet Nibiru?]. They don't give a rat's ass about the Constitution - not really. For if they do, they should be insisting - equally loudly - that Maine and West Virginia had been granted statehood unconstitutionally**. They should be demanding these "states" revert to their former status and that all flags show only 48 stars. But...they're not going to do that, since it's not really the Constitution they care about.

• It's interesting that Obammer* has consistently resisted efforts to reveal his official Hawaiian birth certificate, though apparently he has the legal right to do so. There are a lot of conservatives out there who would resist any similar invasion of privacy. Hell, I remember back in the day (way back) that conservatives were worried about the proposed issuance of Social Security Numbers, since these might be used by Big Government for tracking purposes. [Remember when Conservatives didn't like the idea of BG intruding into the lives of private citizens? How things have changed, eh?]

• It seems there is not any existing legal mechanism for voters to challenge candidate eligibility for the presidency. Philip Berg's lawsuit was dismissed in federal court because (get this) he lacks standing. In the words of the judge [R. Barclay Surrick]: "...voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring." This is just another example of how this whole concept of standing (or lack thereof) is nothing more than an attempt by an arrogant judiciary to deny citizens due process of law. Suppose this Plaintiff had attempted to bring (what I call) a virtual class action lawsuit, presenting the judge with the names of one million voters on a petition demanding that Obammer* verify his citizenship. The judge would have still ruled the same: voters don't have standing.

About those who disrupt townhall meetings:

If I were a Congressman about to enter a townhall meeting, I would have the police present to remove any loudmouth who tried to take over my meeting. Then I would address the remaining members of the audience:

"Every single member of Congress has endorsed the President's lawful status as a natural born citizen, who is therefore eligible to be president [per the Resolution mentioned above]. Anyone who wishes to contest the president's status may do so through the courts of law or perhaps by holding their own meetings or through various media outlets. Nobody has a right to usurp a gathering where other citizens believe they have far more pressing issues to discuss.

"Since I believe in the rule of law, I will insist that disorderly conduct charges be pressed against those who attempted to disrupt this public meeting."

That's how to deal with the rowdy. Congressmen, please, this is really a no-brainer.

As for Clarence Page:

I take extreme issue with this statement by a senior member of The Chicago Tribune's editorial board:

QUOTE:

The "birther" nickname is half-adapted from the 9/11 "truthers" who hounded the previous administration, blaming shadowy homegrown conspiracies for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

I have a different nickname for both groups: sore losers.

:UNQUOTE [Clarence Page, in a recent editorial]

Clarence, Clarence, how can you disrespect yourself and your readers by this lame attempt to equate the 9/11 Truth Movement to the Birthers? There are still a lot of dedicated patriots out there who refuse to accept the official story of what happened on 9/11. Many of them are well-respected authorities from a wide variety of backgrounds. I proudly include myself among their number.

Not to worry though:

The Chicago Tribune is dying. It seems that each issue is skimpier than the preceding. The coin-operated newspaper boxes in my town are degenerating into a state of rust and abandonment. The Tribune's content lacks not only volume but also any vestige of quality. So when the day comes that it finally bites the dust - and all of its Clarence Pages are forced to find more honest employment - I will not mourn.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"Suppose there's proof that Obammer* is in fact constitutionally ineligible for the presidency. Suppose this proof comes out now and shows that Obammer* had lied about his background. I can see it now: Congressmen would be scurrying around, like cockroaches at midnight when the lights suddenly come on, trying to figure out what the hell to do. Now that would be entertainment!" - Steve.

Contact Steve Searle, founder of The Best Party Available, at: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

 * The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

 **  http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/5/constitutional_convention_definitely_needed

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Opening Statement:

I had problems with the film Unmistaken Child, especially since I happen to view Tibetan Buddhism as a serious hindrance to the worldwide attainment of enlightenment. For what the Dalai Lama preaches is not Buddhism but, indeed, is (only) Political Tibetanism.

The movie's basic premise:

A monk searches for his recently-deceased master, and finds him in the form of an 18-month-old child. There was a Q&A after the screening I'd attended which was hosted by a gentleman who mentioned something quite interesting. I didn't catch his name, but he was from a local Tibetan cultural society and was not an official spokesman for the film. [In fact, he made a pitch for donations for his local society.]

He said there are dozens of such young people in each of the Tibetan monasteries, who had been (basically) taken from their families after being declared reincarnated masters. My gut reaction upon hearing that: "Well, that's one way to ward off depletion of the ranks of monks."

Ty Burr, movie critic, had this to say in his July 17, 2009 review:

QUOTE:

We [the film's viewers] simply are present from 2001, when the 84-year-old Geshe Lama Konchog died, to 2005, when the toddler recognized as his reincarnation was presented to the Buddhist community of Nepal and beyond....The film's central character, actually, is Tenzin Zopa, the tenderhearted young acolyte whose life, since the age of 7, has been devoted to serving Geshe Lama. Upon his master's death, the grieving Zopa is instructed by the Dalai Lama himself to seek out the reincarnated boy, a task he feels unsuited for.

:UNQUOTE.

Some of the problems I had with this movie:

• "Existence after existence these living beings are reborn in company with that Bodhisattva, hear the Law from him, and all have faith in and understand it" - Lotus Sutra, Chapter 7. I understand the concept of living beings being reborn in company with their teachers. I'm not clear at all on the (apparently Tibetan) concept of teachers being reborn in the company of their disciples, especially so soon after they pass away. And even murkier to me is the idea that monks have to go scouring through the countryside to find their former masters in the form of newborn babes. My view? If he's truly any kind of master, he'll find his disciples (not the other way around)!

• The film shows 27-year-old Tenzin Zopa telling us how "lost" he felt after the death of his master, to whom he was faithful servant for 20 years. Zopa tells us, while lamenting his personal disorientation, "I didn't know what to do." If Zopa's master was truly worthy of the title "master," then he would have better prepared his young servant for the eventuality of his passing.

• I was amazed by the palatial residence of the Dalai Lama, and the huge throng of monks who live with him in Dharamsala. I couldn't help thinking: "Wow, where's all the money coming from to support this group?" I personally tend to be wary of worldly and wealthy monks, especially those who are international celebrities. And especially those who had accepted money from the CIA.

• Moviegoers were treated to the sight of a child crying (the Unmistaken Child, that is) as his hair is being shaved off with a razor. I might not be an enlightened Tibetan lama and never even went to barber school but I know this much: It causes a lot less pain to first give the initiate a haircut with an ordinary pair of scissors and then shave off what's left over. That's loving kindness! When the child wouldn't stop fussing and crying out "Please don't cut off my hair," at the half-way point of his tonsorial he was conveniently taken off camera to a private room to finish the job.

• The child's parents were asked to permanently give up their child to the monastery. The mother had trouble with this, but I was wondering if she really had the option of saying no. [You know, cultural pressure and all that; people, that's what theocracy looks like.] Also, the movie didn't make clear (didn't even bother to ask) whether the parents would have any visitations rights. My heart went out to the mother, who was "asked" by a benevolent kidnapper to give up the fruit of her womb.

• Unmistaken Child is really a terrible movie. I might not be a famous film critic like Ty Burr (quoted above), but I am absolutely amazed that any professional critic can fawn over such flawed minimalism when, indeed, a more in-depth treatment of this search-for-reincarnated-masters theme is called for. For instance, Ty might have started by looking at this movie's protagonist's website. That's right, the simple, unassuming disciple in search of his master is, upon closer inspection, quite a sophisticated fellow - which I suspected right away upon hearing how well he spoke English in the movie (an ability unnoticed by Ty). Anyway, for the curious, here's Tenzin Zopa's website: http://geshezopa.blogspot.com/

The larger issue of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism

Make no mistake about this: The Dalai Lama is a Pope. I have trouble with Popes. Don't much like them. They take too much and give so little in return. I've seen footage of Dalai Lama's supporters calling him a "god" or a Buddha. But I would ask them a few questions:

• "Why does your God need to refer to an oracle [Nechung - the State Oracle of Tibet]?"

• "Why was your God not able to protect Tibet from the Chinese?"

• "Why is the Dalai Lama afraid of the deity Dorje Shugden, going so far as to forcibly suppress his worship among Tibetan Buddhists? I understand that one who is a Buddha is totally without fear. So if the Dalai Lama is a Buddha, why is he afraid of Dorje Shugden? [Apparently, the Lama fears for his life and his followers believe this.]

• "The Dalai Lama admitted he himself once worshipped Dorje Shugden (whom he now refers to as ‘evil'), but now says that was a mistake. Let me see if I'm understanding this: Our Dalai Lama (the God King or, as some claim, a Living Buddha) actually admits to having made a mistake of this magnitude?"

• "How did it come to pass that the United States, back in the 1950's, allowed China to march into Tibet unopposed? Tibet must have had some terrible karma for it to have fallen so easily - at a time when the US possessed nuclear weapons and China did not."

• "How much money does the Dalai Lama call ‘mine' - what is the extent of his personal wealth? No one seems to talk about that at all."

• "Why does your Buddha lament the loss of Tibet's sovereignty, the loss of his country? Shakyamuni Buddha voluntarily gave up his kingdom, and lived to see it conquered by a foreign army. Perhaps the Dalai Lama should more deeply contemplate the notion of impermanence."

During my campaign against Blacque Obammer* for the US presidency, I had blogged frequently on my beliefs of the evils of national sovereignty. And I pledged to work for the elimination of nationalism and the concept of national borders. However, the Dalai Lama seeks to restore his old fiefdom. Maybe he should redirect his efforts toward making all land on earth an enlightened Buddha land. Nations come and go - that is the way of impermanence. Only the Buddhist path to enlightenment is worthy of any kind of serious attention as a global goal.

End note

This link is a fascinating view of what might be motivating the strange behavior of the Dalai Lama in his efforts to suppress Dorje Shugden's followers. Written by a westerner who had served on numerous occasions as the Dalai Lama's translator: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/articles/HelmutGassner01.pdf

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"The Dalai Lama is the head of the Yellow Hat Sect, while I myself (tongue in cheek) wear a paisley hat which is invisible - so what's the point, one might ask? As for the Dalai himself, as long as Shakyamuni Buddha is alive, we don't need a Dalai to play with. As for all these Tibetan masters flying around, well, the world really is full of magicians though one should carefully ponder the source of their magic" - Steve.

Contact Steve Searle, founder of The Best Party Available, at: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

 * The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Thesis:

Historians will look back, trying to answer this question:

Was there a critical event, a single defining moment, when the power of American Empire started its gradual (at first) though increasingly accelerated pace of decline toward oblivion?

Many will object to my question by saying:

"Historians would not ask such a question, for there was no single event - it was a combination of factors fueled mostly by hubris."

I will stand my ground by insisting that, at least in this particular case, there was indeed a defining moment. Though I will admit that historians will not be the ones asking that question. I am extremely interested, though, in how astrologers would view the position of the stars in the heavens at the exact moment when Senator Blacque Obammer* uttered these fateful words:

QUOTE [look for my emphases, below]:

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday. "My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course...I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage." ... Given that Bush is determined to veto a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Congress has little realistic choice but to approve money for the war, Obama said.

UNQUOTE [Source: Associate Press, Mike Glover]

The significance of Obammer's* words

Obammer*

told

a

bald-faced lie

when he said

no lawmaker "wants

to play chicken with our troops."

For that wasn't the issue at all and Obammer (then a US Senator, no less) knew it and could have stood up and loudly refuted the war hawks. They were busy painting a picture of our troops being overwhelmed by the barbarians if continued war funding had been denied. There were even scenarios being conjured of our soldiers running out of bullets in the middle of a firefight because evil Congressmen had cut their funding.

If Congress had cut the funding, then Bush would have had no choice but to yield to a Congress which had wanted a funding bill with a withdrawal timetable. If Congress had cut the funding, the ball would have been in Bush's court and he would have had ample time to change course in the name of, if nothing else, the safety of our troops. It would have been up to him to either provide a timetable for withdrawal (which is what Congress/We-the-People wanted) or find another way to finance/run this war (maybe by "taxing" our allies).

But, no. Instead, Obammer* allowed Bush to deny the will of the representatives of the people that this war be terminated in the foreseeable future.

That defining moment in time

I'll repeat the last part of the Obammer* quote:

"Given that Bush is determined to veto a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Congress has little realistic choice but to approve money for the war, Obama said."

This was the moment in time that marked the beginning of our decline. This was when the future president of the United States claimed that Congress did not have the power of the purse. Oh, to be sure, what he had said was, "Congress has little realistic choice," but actually that's another bald-faced lie. Congress was in a position to define "reality" to the Bush administration:

"You either give us a funding bill with a deadline for withdrawal or you get no funding. What part of no funding don't you understand?" [Yes, I would speak that frankly to the US President - even publicly, mind you - my God, someone has to.]

The power of the Congress to control the purse strings: That's reality. That was always reality, in terms of checks-and-balances.

And yet, at that critical time in our history, Blacque Obammer* lied about what was and what wasn't Congress's "realistic choice."

What difference does it make now?

What difference does it make to bring up this subject now, since it's been over two years since Obammer* had uttered these words? [Back when it seemed he was the anti-war candidate.] After all, it's now abundantly clear that we're "winning" in Iraq and the insurgency has been reduced to "tolerable" levels. There's no longer any public pressure to remove our forces from Iraq. Indeed, any pressure from any source comes in reaction to Obammer's* spastic efforts at health care reform and his spendaholic attempts to obtain prosperity by sinking us further into debt.

[I've heard of "spending our way to the poor house," but I've never heard of "spending our way to prosperity." Come again??]

No one even talks much about the war in Iraq any more, except the few leftist demonstrators (like those in my neighborhood) who (now) denounce our war-monger president. But that's more in terms of objecting to his widening the war to Afghanistan and (let's be honest here) to Pakistan and (even more honest) to Iran (folks, we've already got troops in that country).

So what difference does it make now? Why should I even ask such a question? Personally, I happen to think there's something to astrology and I think it would be interesting to see what an astrologer (the real deal type, not the celebrity hype) thinks of the astrological significance of the exact time when Obammer* uttered those words. So the "difference" it makes is to me - to satisfy my own curiosity.

As for "winning" the war on terror

As for "winning" in Iraq, I will say the same thing now that I've blogged about for the last three years: We cannot succeed by trying to remake other societies in our own image. There is no exit plan, there never was one, and there never even could have been one.

It only looks like the level of violence in Iraq has tamped down, but in reality it is only regrouping - silently and behind the scenes. But the US attempt to remake Iraq into a democracy (that is, a nominal democracy which will not oppose US interests) can be likened to attempts to contain a plasma by means of a magnetic field. That explosive energy will always seek a way to "leak" out of the magnetic containment bottle. And it will take eternal vigilance on our part to guard against leaks. And if that will turn out to even be possible, it will turn out to also be very expensive.

Better get used to the "very expensive" part - you're going to be hearing much more of that.

And multiply that effort of containment in Iraq by similar efforts to tame the explosive energy of the Taliban and Al Qaida in the other (we call them) "lawless" areas of the world.

I was amused by Senator Graham (GOP, S.C.), who said:

QUOTE:

"Let's not Rumsfeld Afghanistan. Let's don't do this thing on the cheap. Let's have enough combat power and engagement across the board to make sure we're successful. And quite frankly, we all have got a lot of ground to make up," said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "You cannot have political reconciliation, economic progress, the rule of law, when the judges and the economy is under siege by the enemy. ... When I'm saying 'Don't Rumsfeld Afghanistan,' don't resist the idea that we're going to need more, because we are."

:UNQUOTE [Foxnews.com, Sunday August 09, 2009]

"Don't Rumsfeld Afghanistan..." Are you kidding me? The Bush White House gained significant Congressional support precisely because it was saying: "I know you're worried about your constituents objecting to the cost of our venture in Iraq. But don't worry, we can do this thing on the cheap."

That's what they said. That was the general consensus at the time.

One of the biggest selling points was that Iraq wouldn't cost much and, to boot, that freely flowing Iraqi oil would help those balance sheets look even better.

So when I hear a Republican saying "Don't Rumsfeld Afghanistan," what I'm really hearing him say is, "Don't GOP Afghanistan" (but it's always easier to pick a scapegoat who no longer has a future in the party).

There was a time when South Carolina tried to secede from the union along with the other states of the Confederacy. Even though secession didn't work out, I think we should seriously consider kicking a state out of the union. Especially a state which can't do any better than elect the likes of a man like Lindsey Graham to the US Senate, for saying something as stupid as this.

But, alas, if we went around kicking states out of the union for the stupidity of their senators, we wouldn't have many states left, now would we?

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"Sometimes there really are defining moments which herald great rises or falls - but don't count on our media to even notice, let alone actually report on these" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Thesis:

The US President missed (another) opportunity to show that he can think outside the box. He could have done so by simply (and ironically!) invoking his oath of office.

Background:

This concerns Blacque Obammer's* reaction to the United States being sued by a same-sex couple (Smelt vs. USA) over the constitutionality of DOMA: The Defense of Marriage Act. Obammer* reacted in an uncreative, knee-jerk way by allowing his Department of Justice attorneys to respond to this lawsuit.

A recent Associated Press article contains these pertinent points:

QUOTE:

President Obama insisted Monday he still wants to scrap what he calls a discriminatory federal marriage law, even as his administration angered gay rights activists by defending it in court.

The president said his administration's stance in [Smelt vs. USA] is not about defending traditional marriage, but is instead about defending traditional legal practice.

...

[Department of Justice] lawyers are defending the law "as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged," Obama said in a statement.

:UNQUOTE.

What President Searle would have done

I would have ordered the Justice Department to stay away from this case, barring DOJ lawyers from responding in any way. Whenever the United States is sued, it is (as Obammer* correctly noted) traditional for DOJ lawyers to respond. However, I would have started a new tradition by invoking my presidential oath of office in a non-traditional way. Is that thinking outside the box or what?

QUOTE:

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

:UNQUOTE [Art. II, Section 1, US Constitution]

In short, I would claim:

"I am being faithful to my presidential oath of office - the part that says I will ‘defend the Constitution of the United States' - by prohibiting US government lawyers from defending an unconstitutional law." I know Bill Clinton didn't think DOMA was unconstitutional when he signed it into law, but as far as I'm concerned: He's no longer president, I am.

Just because I, as US president, would order US government lawyers not to respond to this suit, doesn't mean DOMA loses by default. Nor would it mean that the pro-DOMA views wouldn't be considered by the judge. I'm sure legions of DOMA supporters will file friend-of-the-court briefs amply defending their point of view. We don't need to waste taxpayer dollars by paying DOJ lawyers to defend an unconstitutional law in court.

Traditionalists would claim that I would not be doing my job as president (an impeachable offense) were I to prevent government lawyers from defending a federal law in court. Actually, there would be a lot of people out there wanting to impeach me for one reason or another. Or for no (real) reason at all, for didn't John Kerry (remember him?) once famously claim, "An impeachable offense is whatever the Congress deems it to be." [Way to go John, but...of course he's right.]

And it is surely an "impeachable" offense for a duly-elected US president to be removed from office simply because he's not a Democrat or a Pubber and because he is the only President to have ever served on the basis of a legally-enforceable contract with We-the-People.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"So there it is - President Obammer* is the defender of the way things are traditionally done. Tell me, is that change you can believe in?" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

I can understand why Quentin Tarantino didn't see Defiance (released in 2008) - or at least why he says he didn't. For if he had seen it, he wouldn't have made Inglourious Basterds - or at least he would have felt rather silly doing so.

If Tarantino had wanted to make a movie about Jews fighting back, he couldn't have done better than Defiance or The Grey Zone (released in 2001). [No, really, he couldn't have done better.]  I suspect, though, that Tarantino wanted to make the kind of movie that indulged his fantasies and served as a vehicle for his over-wrought (though well-written) dialogues, but (ultimately) which thoroughly disrespected its audience.

Yes, it was well-shot, and the performance of Christoph Waltz as the Nazi Colonel Hans Landa was incredible. But these considerations couldn't overcome the outlandish backdrop of the movie itself. For instance:

• We're led to believe, in the opening scene, that only someone like the clever "Jew Hunter" Landa would have thought to look under the floorboards of a simple farmhouse for hiding Jews. Previous searches by other Germans had apparently overlooked this clever hiding place.

• Hitler and the top three members of the German High Command are going to attend the premier screening of a film - in Paris? - after the Normandy invasion??

• Security was so lax in the theater, after the screening was underway, that someone as inconspicuous as a black man would be able to move freely throughout the theater in order to lock the exits thereby sealing the Nazis in the soon-to-be-ignited inferno.

• We're led to believe that the (now traitorous) Colonel Landa would actually be allowed to live while being transported to allied lines by the Brad Pitt character Lieutenant Aldo Raine. [Hey, "accidents" do happen.] This alternate universe proposed by Tarantino worships the rebellious odd-ball who, when push comes to shove, generally follows orders but indulges his sense of justice with a little extracurricular swastika carving (into the foreheads of his prisoners).

In the world of Quentin Tarantino...

In the world of QT, there's no problem with rewriting history simply because reality is somehow found wanting? Or there's a need to create heroes simply because there weren't enough of the right kind at the time? Or there's a need to show that, under some circumstances, torture is not only justified but it's called for and it works like a charm?

I was relieved that the film didn't claim to be "based on actual events." Some filmmakers make that kind of claim while thinking, "My film is only very remotely based on actual events." Since Tarantino's film wasn't even "very remotely based," I'd have to conclude that it was only done as a personal indulgence - and nothing more.

Steven Searle was a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"Quentin Tarantino owes us a good movie - for IG was certainly a bastard of a flick. Synonyms of bastard: fake, false, imperfect, inferior, sham, ungenuine." - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.