28^th AMENDMENT by Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci

120 pages

3 June 08

Florian Henckel Von Donnersmarck attached to direct.

Set up at Warner Bros.

Orci & Kurtzman also producing.

No current actor attachments.

Say what you will about the grand doyens of crazyscript, these guys have a lock on big-and-wild movies.  They’re a brand name now, producing films like Eagle Eye and The Proposal, scripts which weren’t written by them but certainly feel like they could’ve been.  Whatever you think of Star Trek (like) and Transformers (uh…) and Mission Impossible III (no), box office doesn’t lie.

I'm certain they had nothing to do with the minstrel show characters in Transformers 2.

What’s interesting about 28^th Amendment is that this isn’t based on a previous property.  That’s a first for them (in terms of produced scripts).  Even The Island wasn’t originally written by them; it was a rewrite.  It sold to Warner Bros. some time ago.  Denzel and Tom Cruise were attached at one point (although what isn’t Tom Cruise attached to these days?) and then in March, WB announced they’d attached Florian Henckel Von Donnersmarck, the German Oscar-winning director of The Lives of Others.  Whether or not this actually comes to pass remains to be seen.  As my habitual readers might recall, Donnersmarck is also attached to The Tourist, which seems to have a clearer path to production.  I’ll bet that one gets made first.

The script is described as The Firm in the White House, but that’s like saying Where the Wild Things Are is Die Hard with muppets (when really we all know it’s a Woody Allen movie).  BEN has just been elected President but he finds out that the President is little more than a figurehead when a black bag op in Macau goes wrong and the US is brought to the brink of war with the Chinese.  Turns out a secret organization runs the country.  They’re led by HAWTHORNE, a Senator, and they want to start a war with China.  Special Forces soldier GRAY escapes Macau after the bungled job and he’s prodded into killing Ben by Hawthorne’s group, but Gray realizes that Ben is one of the good guys and together they team up to stop the war, keep Hawthorne’s men from killing Ben’s family, and restore the Presidency.

Here’s a script link for you.  I say it every time; let me know if you’re the copyright holder and you’d like me to take it down.

Roberto & Alex:

Hey guys.  Great seeing you at the premiere last night; those Bob Zemeckis movies are wild, huh?  My wife wants to replace me with a fully-motion-captured animated character now.  I might have to get myself one of those ping pong ball leotards.

So the good news is that I’ve dug up the June 08 draft of 28^th and it’s aged well.  The bad news is that it’s still a long way away from getting into fighting shape.  I still like the core idea, but there isn’t much underpinning the story.  It’s something of a mess and it’ll take a lot of digging to extract it.

The script starts too early.  You spend an inordinate amount of time on Ben, the inauguration, setting up that he’s a maverick, showing us around the White House, introducing the concept of the bunker, the chip, and it takes you 14 pages to do it.  Everything up until the hit in Macau feels clumsy, too long, and overly indulgent.  Every time you cut to a talking head on television, you’re just giving us exposition.  Cut every last one of them – they aren’t necessary.  Show us how he’s a maverick, don’t just tell us.  Gray’s scene with Anna is a flatliner and the very next scene with Ben and Hawthorne going toe-to-toe is equally wan.  C’mon, you can do better.

Do we need an entire sequence devoted to the inauguration?

I’ve got an idea for the first act.  I think the script needs to open on an operation or a moment of crisis that sets up a couple of ideas: first, we need to establish that this young, new President is an independent thinker who works against the system (although that describes every President ever portrayed on screen); second , we need to show the details of the world Ben exists in and how crisis can change it (here’s where we set up the bunker, the chip, the ever-present Secret Service, and Ben’s family); third, and most importantly, Ben’s behavior during this crisis has to push Hawthorne to reveal the existence of the 28^th.  Everything at the open of the script is static and expository; throw it out.  Let’s see these elements in action.

The script cannot work unless Hawthorne’s revelation of the 28^th to Ben makes sense, and right now it doesn’t make any sense at all.  Hawthorne has no reason for telling him, regardless of how he tries to spin it right now.  Telling Ben about the group only puts it in jeopardy.  You’ve got that moment right before the reveal where the cabal of men talks about how it’s necessary, but you don’t show us that it’s necessary.  We have to understand on a gut level that if they don’t tell Ben, it’ll end badly for everyone.  Back them into a corner and force it out of Hawthorne somehow.  Maybe they’re telling Ben because they want to bring him in; maybe he’s been nominated to join them.  Maybe they realize that for the first time they’re dealing with a President they have to bargain with.  What if there’s a period in the script when Ben assumes that every President is part of the 28^th?  What if he thinks they’re benevolent at first, and then only later does he realize how horrible they are?  Maybe that’s the moment when he finds out they were responsible for JFK.  That moment should still come at the end of the first act.

Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left.

And just as an addendum – you have to show that the 28^th is responsible for way more than just the JFK assassination.  I want to understand how their hands are dirty with every single foreign policy decision of the last 60 years.  I want their manipulation to be fascinating, all-encompassing, and fucking scary, because that’s the only way the stakes get raised here.

Gray is a great character, but his arc happens way too quickly.  I do not believe in any way, shape, or form that he’d so immediately turn into wanting to kill the President.  I like the concept of the scene where he’s about to kill the President but realizes that Ben is in the same predicament as he is, and I like the placement of it, smack in the middle of the script, but no way, no how do you sufficiently motivate him turning into an assassin.  Besides, you establish with the JFK footage that if the 28^th wants to kill a President, they need a patsy but they have redundancies in place.  Gray wouldn’t be the only one there and the other sniper wouldn’t hesitate.  This presents a sticky problem – you’ve gotta come up with some way to keep the core of the scene but making sense of it this time.  I don’t have an answer there; we’ll have to brainstorm some ways of working that out.

The very next scene, with Hawthorne confronting Ben in the interrogation room, points out a particular problem with the script.  It’s filled with these monologues and clumsy, blustery exchanges between characters that don’t amount to much of anything.  Hawthorne doesn’t need to threaten and pound his fist like this – it’s false, contrived, and uninteresting.  All he apparently needs to do is hold up a picture of Ben’s family in order to get what he wants.  And yet I’m not convinced that Ben would choose family over country here.  I think he might consider sacrificing his own family in order to keep the world from falling into World War III.  Hawthorne, then, needs another tack, another way to convince Ben to do his bidding.  Considering just how powerful you’ve set up the 28^th to be, I’d think they’d have no problem manipulating the situation so that Ben makes exactly the decision they want him to.

What if Hawthorne makes it look like the Chinese are planning on assassinating his family?  That brings the threat against Samantha and Marisa into the China storyline.

This presents an interesting option.  Could we delay the revelation of the 28^th?  Could the first half of the script be all about Hawthorne manipulating Ben, Ben getting suspicious that something isn’t right but almost coming to the brink of war with the Chinese, and then finding out the truth?  It might take care of a lot of the script’s clumsiness and if Ben discovers the 28^th rather than is told about it by Hawthorne, we avoid the entire issue of Hawthorne’s motivation for telling Ben when no one has ever told any other President ever.

Small note: I’d like to see a quip about how originally, they were the 23^rd Amendment, but they keep getting pushed back when a new amendment is enacted.  Also, a history note: the 22^nd Amendment which created term limits was created out of recommendations from the Hoover Commission during Truman’s presidency.  No one ever talked about term limits during FDR’s presidency.  The Hoover Commission could be the genesis of the 28^th, actually – maybe they were the first members of the society now run by Hawthorne.

There are a few other, larger logical missteps.  Ben and Gray’s team get to the Chinese premier’s plane way too easily – you have to explain why the Secret Service isn’t able to cordon off the plane, set up a perimeter.  Something like the plane doesn’t land where it’s supposed to, just to establish how the Secret Service is caught off guard.  And through that whole assault on the air base, you show Samantha in the bunker as the bad guys are getting closer, and then, suddenly, Ben and his forces take out the bad guys and magically show up.  Exactly how far away is the air base from the White House?  How easy is it for Ben to extricate himself from the Chinese premier’s plane, get back to the chopper (keep in mind the Secret Service is still going to be pursuing him this entire time), get to the White House, and then fight his way in?  It’d take Jack Bauer at least three episodes.  I’m thinking Ben is no different.  The way it’s written here?  He wraps things up with the Premier and then five minutes later, he rescues Samantha.

With all due respect, Madame President -- ask around.

And about Samantha in the bunker: the script expends a remarkable amount of energy setting up the idea that neither Samantha nor Ben know if the other is alive, and each frets interminably about the other’s safety.  Except we know both are alive, so the question is completely moot.  You know better than to set up a situation where the audience is waiting for the characters to catch up.  The Samantha bunker sequence can be pared down extensively; end it on a cliffhanger where we don’t know if they made it and then have us find out when Ben finds out.

I love how much of a two-hander the script is, and I love how it’ll really only work with stars.  It’s a big sweeping scope of a film; the only trick now is making it great. Consider the gauntlet thrown.

John

I was thinking about the career politicians in the Senate and the House are right now. That led me to thinking about term limits and I believe in term limits but sometimes we get good politicians in there so this is my proposed 28th amendment;

Section 1: No person shall be elected to the Senate and serve more than six years, but shall be eligible for re-election in two years following their last term of service.

Section 2: No person shall be elected to the House and serve more than four years, but shall be eligible for re-election two years following their last term of service.

I am curious as to your opinions on this amendment, please leave your comments or at least answer the poll below.

Thanks,

~James Dalley

The president takes a page from the Chavez playbook and makes an end-around for dictator-for-life.

by Michael Naragon

Economic expert Milton Friedman long believed that one of the weaknesses of the American system was that Congressmen were not limited in the number of terms they can serve.  With the right constituency and/or control of redistricting, some politicians have managed to stay in office for decades, thereby becoming entrenched in the politics of corruption and quid pro quo that Washington has become.  Now, the president may receive the Constitutional right to remain in office just as long.

On January 6, 2009, days before Barack Obama was sworn in as president, amid the pomp and circumstance of his coronation, a resolution was quietly advanced in the House Judiciary Committee.  The resolution, HJ Res. 5, reads as follows:

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

Article –

“The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”

In essence, what the resolution and a subsequent 28th Amendment would do, if passed, is make it feasible for a president of the United States to remain in office as often as he can win elections.

George Washington set a precedent by remaining in office for two terms.  Every president following our Founding Father replicated this tradition.

Only a Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt, in a time of national crisis, dared to presume the American people needed more than eight years of his guidance and rule.  Using the crisis, he was elected four times, convincing Americans not to “change horses in the middle of a river.”

Now, the man who would be Roosevelt and Lincoln rolled into a smooth, apologetic package, can seek to use his own crisis, including the parts of his own making, to continue his tenure in the highest office in the land.

Some will say, “You’re nuts.  He’ll lose in 2012, much less three terms from now.”  To that belief, I counter with some other nuts–specifically, ACORN.  Now it has, hopefully, become more clear to you why ACORN has received millions of taxpayer dollars for its operating costs in the stimulus plan advanced by Obama and passed by Congress.  Remember, the stimulus bill granting them that money was passed in February, more than a month after HJ Res. 5 had been advanced.

It should also start becoming painfully obvious why ACORN will be involved with the Census in 2010.  This “nonpartisan,” now-taxpayer-funded group could/will be key to keeping Democrats, including Obama, in office indefinitely.

The Democratic machine in Minnesota has already managed to reverse the Senate election there in favor of Al Franken.  How difficult would it be to do so on a national level?  Throw in the potentiality of legalizing millions of illegal immigrants in the next year, and we could all grow old with Barack Obama as our caretaker-president, unless something is done to stem the tide that is washing us onto the desolate beach of Marxist communism, Soviet style.

The members of the House Judiciary Committee are listed below, as is a link to the Library of Congress entry on HJ Res. 5.

Democrats:

• John Conyers, Chairman, Michigan
• Howard Berman, California
• Rick Boucher, Virginia
• Jerrold Nadler, New York
• Bobby Scott, Virginia
• Mel Watt, North Carolina
• Zoe Lofgren, California
• Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
• Maxine Waters, California
• Bill Delahunt, Massachusetts
• Robert Wexler, Florida
• Steve Cohen, Tennessee
• Hank Johnson, Georgia
• Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
• Michael Quigley, Illinois
• Luis Gutierrez, Illinois
• Brad Sherman, California
• Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin
• Charlie Gonzalez, Texas
• Anthony Weiner, New York
• Adam Schiff, California
• Linda Sánchez, California
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida
• Dan Maffei, New York

Republicans:

• Lamar S. Smith, Ranking Member, Texas
• Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin
• Howard Coble, North Carolina
• Elton Gallegly, California
• Bob Goodlatte, Vice Ranking Member, Virginia
• Dan Lungren, California
• Darrell Issa, California
• Randy Forbes, Virginia
• Steve King, Iowa
• Trent Franks, Arizona
• Louie Gohmert, Texas
• Jim Jordan, Ohio
• Ted Poe, Texas
• Jason Chaffetz, Utah
• Tom Rooney, Florida
• Gregg Harper, Mississippi

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.J.Res.5:

“Key Speaker at Young Democrats gathering in Denver Colorado “

This should apply to the EU, also. The “third way” has had its day.

More information regarding this video can be found at The Huffington Post.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Dr. Riki Ott is launching the movement for the 28th Amendment to the Constitution: Separation of Corporation and State. In the video above, she explains what a 28th Amendment will accomplish, how it is possible, why it is necessary for our democracy.

++++

propz: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/fishermaam-proposes-28th_n_142735.html

            Nearly every day I check this blog to see a.) how many people come to visit our cozy little corner of cyberspace and b.) by what means they came to click here.  Lately, I have been somewhat bemused at the large quantity of people who were linked to the site after searching on the web for “28th amendment.”  There are, in my mind, three reasons why such high traffic exists: people want to read this website (not likely); people are checking to see if there is an actual 28th Amendment in our Constitution (until I can get ¾ of state conventions to ratify this site [keep writing to your congressmen, people! I know we can do it someday], there is no such article); or, there is some porn/gay porn/bestiality site of the same name (probably the case) whereby people are mistakenly led here.  My apologies to the many horny visitors for that misunderstanding.

            That having been said, consider this formula: if young people are the future, and young people compose the Democratic Party, is the Democratic Party our future?  California Republicans seem to fear so, because they are blocking two bills in the State Assembly that would allow sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds to preregister to vote, as well as allow seventeen-year-olds to vote in primaries if they will be eighteen by the general election.  Naturally, since young people tend to be more liberal—and since eighteen- to 29-year-olds prefer Barack Obama to John McCain by roughly two-to-one (with party identification mirroring that margin)—and liberals tend to cling to the Democratic party, Republicans are unsupportive of these measures.  One representative, Anthony Adams, said that “I’m a pretty conservative guy now, but when I was seventeen I was a raging liberal….You start to see problems as you get older. As you get older, you get wiser.”

Those remarks translate to: young, dumb liberals grow into old, wise conservatives.  Of course, liberalism is not exclusively the domain of the young—half the wrinkled heads on the Supreme Court at any given time are bound to bend liberal, as is currently about half of Congress, not to mention the elderly Jewish community in Florida who mistakenly voted for Buchanan in the 2000 election.  Nor is liberalism a sort of naiveté or recklessness with the country’s values: from the liberal civil rights agenda of the sixties to the liberal gay rights agenda of today; from the liberal cause of Medicare to liberal national health care; young people in America expect to be prosperous, healthful, and to respect the color and gender barriers that will continue to be knocked down throughout their generation.  Young people, in supporting these points, are merely looking out for their generation just as every generation has done.  Some of them may agree with the Republican agenda, but all of them have a right to be suspicious of the political party of rich, white men who are trying to block their ability to vote.  Maybe the best measure to supplement voting rights for new registrants is to abolish the requirement to register with one party or the other.

The Republicans’ argument seems to be that young people are not mature enough to pick their representatives, rather than being unknowledgeable about politics.  But the people who are elected are knowledgeable—the voters’ job is to pick the candidate whose agenda on the issues is preferable.  Besides, is the middle-aged conservative who believes that Barack Obama is a racist Muslim less dangerous to the political process than a college student who knows otherwise?  Is it fair that young Barack Obama should be left to resolve the Iraqi war, whereas wise old Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were unable to do so?  And really, what has youthful liberalism ever brought America?  There was 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson’s anarchist scheme that all men are entitled to “life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness”; 25-year-old James Madison’s idea that the freedom to practice any religion or no religion should not be infringed upon; seventeen-year-old Benjamin Franklin’s anonymous observation that an honest atheist is superior to a hypocritical holy man.  Thank goodness none of those indiscreet radicals were able to hold positions of power in the American republic.

Certainly older conservatives have more experience with the socioeconomic forces at work in this country, but does that mean that young, idealistic liberals should not have a say in current affairs (which is also the theme of the 2008 campaign)?  As for “seeing problems” when they get older, are issues such as providing the opportunity to marry for gay couples, welcoming immigrants, and supporting health coverage for each American really going to ruin the country when all is said and done?  Young people are living in a country with more freedoms, more people who are of different colors and lifestyles, with better medicine, and with the ability to receive and dispense information faster than any other generation, so it only makes sense to want to improve on that standard of living and to see results quickly.  I suppose most governmental creations do run awry sooner or later: civil rights reform now has to contend with affirmative action lawsuits; Social Security is a broken system; but those reforms were necessary at the time and continue to be necessary.  It is up to the young people to adapt new solutions to the old problems of social and economic injustice.

7/6

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/19/roland.martin.05.19/index.html
By Roland S. Martin, CNN:

     I’ve watched this debate reach the levels of absurdity this year because journalists and commentators have raised the question to Sen. Barack Obama, “Why don’t you wear a flag lapel pin?”
     I really got a kick out of that one during the ABC debate last month because not one person on stage — Sens. Hillary Clinton and Obama, along with moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos — bothered to accessorize their attire with a flag lapel pin.
     Sen. John McCain has been traveling the globe as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and this former Navy pilot often doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin.

snip

Since it is clear that our nation is paralyzed and so not able to close our borders, feed the homeless, develop businesses in the inner cities and save people from having their homes taken by foreclosure due to ruthless mortgage companies, all because some folks don’t wear a flag lapel pin, we need to lead a national movement to demand that Congress and the states make requiring officeholders to wear a flag lapel pin the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

See, if it is so important, then take it all the way. Don’t make it optional. Don’t leave it up to someone to choose to wear a flag lapel pin. Let’s really show those politicians that nothing is more important to us than seeing them with the U.S. flag on our chest.

That’s what zealots do. They take something so simple, so personal, so voluntary, and absolutely lose their mind, trying to force someone else to do as them, and everyone else be damned.

Folks, the first year I ever cast a ballot for political office was in 1988. And in the last 20 years, whether it was mayoral, school board, city council, or a statewide, congressional or presidential campaign, the thought of what was on a politician’s lapel never entered into the equation as to whether they are worthy of office.

“I’ve watched this debate reach the levels of absurdity this year because journalists and commentators have raised the question to Sen. Barack Obama, “Why don’t you wear a flag lapel pin?”

“I really got a kick out of that one during the ABC debate last month because not one person on stage — Sens. Hillary Clinton and Obama, along with moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos — bothered to accessorize their attire with a flag lapel pin.”

“Sen. John McCain has been traveling the globe as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and this former Navy pilot often doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin.”

Roland comments, “Shouldn’t we insist that our politicians all begin to sport red, white and blue socks in order to feel good knowing that they are walking as Americans?”

Mr. Martin that truly is a laugh out loud, but I’m sorry I’ve got first dibs on what the 28th Amendment should be and that is a ban on any further discussion of religion in politics as it pertains to public forums debates campaigns etc.

read the commentary in full Make wearing a flag pin the 28th Amendment.

- TOM CRUISE PRESIDENTE DOS EUA

O novo filme de Tom Cruise já está em fase de pré-produção. A Warner escalou o astro de “Top Gun” para encarar no presidente dos EUA em um suspense político chamado 28th Amendment. Na trama, Tom interpreta Ben Cahil, jovem presidente que se vê ameaçado por uma sociedade secreta que tenta tomar o governo americano desde a Segunda Guerra Mundial e agora atenta contra sua vida. O líder de tal sociedade será interpratado por ninguém menos que Denzel Washington. Apesar do furor a filmagem ainda não têm data para começar.

- WOODY ALLEN EM CANNES

O excêntrico diretor americano Woody Allen, que está em cartas com o longa “Sonho de Cassandra”, está lançando em Cannes seu novo filme “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”. Na trama protagonizada por Scarlett Johanson, Penelope Cruz e Javier Barden, acontece um círculo de paixões entre o pintor catalão intepretado por Barden, sua ex-namorada interpretada por Penélope e duas outras turistas americanas de passagem pela Espanha. Há quem diga que o ponto alto do filme é uma cena ardente entre Scarlett Johansson e Penelope Cruz. O filme ainda não tem data para estrear no Brasil. Assistam o trailer em primeira mão:

Se rumorea que Tom Cruise obtendría en breve un gigantesco ascenso en su carrera convirtiéndose en Presidente de los Estados Unidos. En la ficción, por supuesto. ¿Aliviados?

El actor daría vida en 28th Amendment a un recién elegido mandatario que descubrirá que su país ha estado desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial en manos de un siniestro gobierno paralelo.

Para aumentar sus problemas, el comité que dirige este gobierno en la sombra tiene por costumbre asesinar a aquellos que se oponen a sus designios. El personaje de Cruise se convertirá por tanto en su primer objetivo.

El proyecto lleva años dando vueltas e incluso se llego a tener a Jan de Bont fichado como director. Sin embargo será Phillip Noyce el que lleve a las pantallas una de las teorías de la conspiración más famosas, y para la que ya cuenta con Denzel Washington como villano.

There are too many so called Christians I mean Bible toting Holier than thou, I really truly don’t know the real meaning of Jesus or His Spirit, I’m only filled with hate and judgement.  I’m consumed with it.  And, they feel if you’re not a Christian, then you are anti-America.  Thereby, rendering you not an American – Wow! 

I awoke this morning to Ann Curry from the ‘Today Show’ interviewing Senator Barack Obama.  I caught the tail end of it, but “Oh My” was it ever powerful.  Potent enough to make me throw up at 7am this morning.  Well, not literally but you catch my drift right?

The ending was much to do about nothing - his lack of bowling skills, if he was embarrassed to have bowled a score of 37?  A series of multiple choice questions regarding favorites in sports. Then out of nowhere came the God questions.  ‘Do you pray? Do you pray to God and How often do you pray?’ (seriously I was mad at myself for rolling over at this time.)

Of course Senator Obama responded with the correct answers.  Yes he prayed to God and not a red monkey who ate green bananas and flies.  He shared that he prayed on a daily basis.  However, on some days he even prayed twice.  Both giggled in agreement those must have been on the very challenging ones.  If Senator Barack Obama would have said that he reads the Holy Koran, but he considered himself a Christian I wonder how it would have played out?  Something like this - he is a practicing Muslim, which makes him a terrorist and although the Senator was born in America – he is not American. 

 There’s only one criteria that will qualify you as not American and that’s if you were not born in America.  The presumption that being a Christian makes you a lover and protector of this great country is dangerous.  To presume if you’re not a Christian, then you’re an evildoer of this land is fatal. A Muslim a Jew an Atheist or the person that simply claims to be nothing other than a believer a Child of God is no less patriotic as the next man or woman saluting their red white and blue flag.

The United States Constitution clearly states that Everyone born in America is an American, it is not stipulated on your practice of chosen religion or faith.  Your religion has absolutely no baring on your citizenship.  The constitution does not declare our Nation, as a Christian nation.  Our nation was not founded as such, but rather It guarantees freedom of choice regarding ones religion. 

If you were born in the United States and deem yourself an Atheist or Satanist it’s not relevant to your citizenship.  Ones religious belief is a private affair to be practice in the synagogue, church or whatever building or structure that you deem fit.  It’s a sacred affair.  The constitution states, that the government must remain neutral when it comes to religion.  Our theological beliefs aren’t and should not be a concern of the governments.

It is time for a 28TH amendment repealing any further discussion of religion in politics. 

I must say great minds do think alike.  This is the very thought I had just pondered the other day.  Therefore, I do not find this proposal for an Amendment 28 the least bit outlandish.  Now, I can’t necessarily agree with each item, that was put forth.  Like shipping those candidates in direct violation of — off to France — not the best idea in the world to me, but I get the meaning.  

And, it makes me revel with joy even in the remotest of possibilities, that we could have an issuance of a 28th Amendment, to ban all further discussion of religion in our political campaigns, forums and arenas.  Especially in our presidential debates.

At this time, I’m not sure which I’ve grown the most tiresome of ? 

The candidates pledging their allegiances to their religion God & Jesus.  Or the pastors vehemently spewing their venom on who they’re endorsing, so in return we should thereby vote for them, which is solely based on the Bible scriptures [their interpretation].  Everyone of us should have grown weary by now – just from listening. 

What if The 28th Amendment, read:

Section 1. The right of presidential aspirants to discuss religion, invoke sacred texts, or mention God on the campaign trail is hereby repealed.

Section 2. Whenever a religious figure endorses any candidate for the presidency that candidate must reject aforesaid endorsement.

Section 3. The Congress shall have power to have the offending religious figure immediately deported to France.

Sally Quinn & Jacque Berlinerblau on Race and Religion in Politics – How about a 28Th Amendment? (video)

Bringing religion into politics is a recipe for disaster, hasn’t it been proved?  There are too many denominations and each declare, that theirs is the absolute truth the one we all should model. 

This weekend I tuned into ‘Nightline’.  There was a segment on Atheists/Atheism –yeah yeah, I hear you booing.  I found it fascinating, that on Sunday mornings they hold not only church services, but Sunday School.  Granted their teaching is absent of there is a God or a Jesus.  Yet, the very ideals being taught and the very doctrine which they follow is in the absolute realm of the love & spirit of Jesus/God.  And, to witness this service even if it was only by way of television - I felt the spirit of who they profess not to believe in, which is their right.

Here is an ‘Atheist Prayer’ I’d like to share with you, keep an open mind: 

Let us remember our brotherhood with others as we hear this prayer,
which is addressed to us, rather than to our Gods

Let us rise each morning and strive each day to do only that which brings happiness and joy to others, an avoid doing things that cause others hurt and pain,

Let us use our minds and our reason to force a behavior, based on the mutuality of reciprocity inherent in human relationship,

Let us always respect the dignity and worth of each other,

And, above all else – love one another not to obtain rewards for ourselves now, or for the hereafter to avoid punishment 

But, rather to always bring each other contentment and peace.

If I had a choice I’d prefer for my president or any of the presidential hopefuls to operate off the premise of this atheist prayer, than to adhere to any scripture in the Bible, that gives them a belief, that war is okay.  So, let’s go bomb them even if we have to stay there 100 years.

Listen in on BlogTalkRadio/LibertyTalkRadio – The Separation of Church and State,
Host: Joe Cristiano