A Holiday Goose Personally Presented to American's Worth Less Than Millions of $s by Donald Trump and Republicans
The Donald often declares directly and/or indirectly the stupidity of "experts". For example, he has often claimed that he knows more than our Generals about ISIS insisting upon the tactical stupidity of giving up the element of surprise in attaching Mosul. He is so very WRONG.
Statement by a supporter at a Pence rally:
"My name is Rhonda. …I will tell you for me personally if Hillary Clinton gets in, I myself, I'm ready for a revolution because we can't have her in"
Pence, “Don’t say that.” And subsequently, Pence stated that there will be a revolution in November, implying that he and Trump would win the election?
Pence did NOT condemn her statement in the strongest of terms.
In this important circumstance, Pence is demonstrated to be an irresponsible, injudicious man running for Vice-President of the United States.
Government is NOT a business! Although there is some utility of business principles in managing government, administration of government is not the same as running a business!
If a business fails, goes bankrupt, people are hurt...employees without work, business contracts broken, invoices unpaid. But the extent of damage is limited, usually proportional to the size of the failed corporation. If the Federal government fails the extent of harm to our society would be ...uugh!
More importantly, public debt is not the same as commercial or personal debt.. From statements made, it is apparent that Trump and many of his minions do not understand this fact. Trump has stated that if he were to become President that he might renegotiate US foreign debt. This would be a "shot heard around the world", a cataclysm for world financial markets leading to a global financial crisis. No longer would foreign investors trust that American debt is backed by "the full faith and credit"* of the United States government. *(An unconditional commitment to pay interest and principal on debt issued or guaranteed by the US Treasury or other government entity.) So U.S. public debt needs to be understood related to global finances, international socioeconomics and geopolitics.
Public vs. Private Debt
Incurring debt, private or public, can be beneficial and/or detrimental. Taking on debt is a financial tool. Tools such as a hammer can be used to build but it can also demolish. How does this apply to our national debt?
Creditors-Domestic vs. Foreign:
Public vs. Private economy and debt:
External debt is owed to outsiders; internal debt is owed to those who, at least in part, are obligated to pay the debt.
Employment, Economy and Debt
Debt and credit are the gas driving the engine of the economy. When driving uphill, one must keep the foot to the petal increasing fuel usage. Even as the upward slope begins to diminish, one’s foot must continue to press the accelerator or momentum will be lost perhaps resulting in going backwards down hill. But once comfortably over the peak, the driver can safely let up on the fuel pedal reducing the need for gas. As it is in driving up and down hill to reach your destination, so it is with the ups and downs of the economy.
The absolute national debt and national debt relative to the GDP will rise, going “uphill”, in response to government spending in a recessionary economy since the growth in the GDP is slowed. Public investment in the US economy leading to job creation in stagnant economies has lead to recoveries resulting in significant decrease in the debt to GDP ratio. There are many historical and contemporaneous examples.
Mitt Romney who rails against federal deficit spending and the national debt has made his fortune by using leveraged debt. His business experience is primarily in vulture capitalism-the business of putting large sums of money in his hands and his wealthy investors while letting employees and taxpayers suffer the consequences in many “investments”. A Bain Capital prospectus claims an annualized return of 88% for over a decade. This unbelievable rate of return was significantly “funded” indirectly from the public coffers and workers pocket books. For instances, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a government created corporation insuring private-sector employee defined benefits, has provided tens of millions of dollars to employees of a company which Bain Capital bankrupted while still making tens of millions of dollars. Debt is good for Romney, bad for many others who were never involved in his speculations. As a venture capitalist, Romney helped fund Staples, a corporation whose CEO made $15.2 million in 2011 while the lowest paid employees including computer repair technicians and copy center specialists starting at $8/hr to a maximum of approximately $13/hr, nearly a 1000:1 ratio in pay scale. Gross disparities in income with the middle and lower socioeconomic classes suffering loses in earnings reduces demand resulting in reduced business and tax revenues.
An unprecedented drag on the recovery
By Josh Bivens | April 5, 2012
Since the recovery from the Great Recession officially began in June 2009, private-sector jobs are up by 2.8 million, but public-sector jobs (the combined employment in federal, state, and local governments) are down by 584,000. The figure below compares trends in public-sector employment in the last four recoveries. The current recovery is the only one that has seen public-sector losses over its first 31 months.
If public-sector employment had grown since June 2009 by the average amount it grew in the three previous recoveries (2.8 percent) instead of shrinking by 2.5 percent, there would be 1.2 million more public-sector jobs in the U.S. economy today. In addition, these extra public-sector jobs would have helped preserve about 500,000 private-sector jobs.
There is reason to be optimistic, though, as public-sector losses have moderated recently. If the sector begins to actually add jobs in the coming months, the economy could benefit significantly in the future.
NATIONAL DEBT INCREASED BY WEALTHY
Quotes from Adam Smith
REVENUE AND SPENDING CUTS
Who Pays No Federal Income Tax:
· 50 percent are in this category because their incomes are so low that they are less than the sum of the standard deduction and personal and dependent exemptions for which the household qualifies. As TPC Senior Fellow Roberton Williams has noted, “the basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax.”** Some 62 percent of the households who will owe no federal income tax in 2011 have incomes under $20,000.
· Another 22 percent do not owe federal income tax because they are elderly people who benefit from tax provisions to aid senior citizens, such as the exemption of Social Security benefits from income tax for beneficiaries who have incomes below $25,000 for single filers and $32,000 for joint filers and the higher standard deduction for the elderly.
· Another 15 percent (of the households who don’t owe federal income tax) don’t owe the tax because they are low-income working families with children who qualify for the child tax credit, the child and dependent care tax credit, and/or the earned income tax credit, and the credit(s) eliminate their income tax liability.
REPUBLICAN VS. DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS
Who wins the economy ball game? Growth in GDP...
1948-1952 (Harry S. Truman, Democrat), +4.82%
1953-1960 (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican), +3%
1961-1964 (John F. Kennedy / Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +4.65%
1965-1968 (Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +5.05%
1969-1972 (Richard Nixon, Republican), +3%
1973-1976 (Richard Nixon / Gerald Ford, Republican), +2.6%
1977-1980 (Jimmy Carter, Democrat), +3.25%
1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), 3.4%
1989-1992 (George H. W. Bush, Republican), 2.17%
1993-2000 (Bill Clinton, Democrat), 3.88%
2001-2008 (George W. Bush, Republican), +2.09%
In this Presidential campaign, we are looking through Alice's Looking Glass which has confounded reality so that a provable lie is NOT a lie and an alleged lie is considered a proven lie.
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
Howard Dean, MD, speculated that Donald Trump's recurrent snorting during the First Presidential Debate might be secondary to cocaine use. Potentially correct speculation without real evidence. President Obama not being a citizen of the USA as cultivated by the Donald for years was potentially correct without real evidence. So Donald, as President Obama responded, it is your obligation as a Presidential candidate to provide the nation with documented lab results from drug screening of your blood and urine. Don't need to test your crap...we already know it is BS!
A bunch of deplorables
In a red red basket
50%, No! 100%
Will never ever have my consent
On my campaign I dropped it
I dropped it, I dropped it
Yes on my campaign I dropped it!
But Hillary, should you have dropped it?
Trump has espoused and doubled down on, so many disgusting incredulous declarations...declarations without any merit…and still retains his followers.
Hillary, what you were declaring had important merit…not just 50% merit but 100% value. Alt-right Trump supporters are DEPLORABLE! And since it is well known that Trump has the support and advocacy of these hate-mongers, those who continue to support Trump are, I believe, also deplorable.
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Pastor Martin Niemöller
OK Hillary, why didn't you make public your episode with pneumonia? By publicizing your illness, you could have made an important public health narrative while defusing the oppositions negative publicity? Why were you not open about your illness? In doing so, you could have educated the public about the importance of having the pneumonia vaccination shot. You could have informed our citizens about how common pneumonia is and how immunizations can be preventative or reduce its risks. If you had received the pneumonia immunization, you could have stated that it likely reduced the severity of your illness. If you had not had the immunization, you could have informed the public of the importance of being immunized and encouraged them to be immunized. You could have had a significant public health impact by acknowledging your own vulnerability .
I recently spent a day at our county superior court going through the process of being selected for jury duty. The process was interesting. Once in the court room, observing fellow potential jurors, their attitudes and reactions, was intriguing, sometimes amusing, sometimes disturbing. The primary concern in the court room process was to determine that each and every juror selected would be impartial…impartial to the defendant, to the prosecutor and to all the individuals giving testimony particularly police officers. Our verdict was to be rational, based on evidence…NOT on emotion or prejudices. To reach this goal several hours of questions were asked which might indicate our biases. Out of 50 people questioned, all said or implied that they felt they would be fair-minded. But the elephant in the room was not recognized. Several individuals raised personal concerns about their objectivity but all said upon discussion that they “felt” they could overcome whatever issues troubled them…that they could be impartial. Really?
We have many historical examples of that lack of understanding of influences which color are decision making. Scientists paid by tobacco companies finding no link between smoking and cancer. Scientists doing research paid for by the petroleum industry finding no evidence for climate change. A supreme court justice who stated that because of his religious belief that death was no “big deal”, twice support capital punishment for persons under the age of majority. The primary argument in these cases was: Is capital punishment for minors “cruel and unusual punishment.” This Supreme Court Justice had the temerity, the lack of insight, to state that his decision was NOT influence by his religious belief that death is “no big deal”, therefore not cruel. Many great scientific discoveries throughout history were initially scoffed at, scorned, because dogmatic beliefs resulted in intolerance to new ideas. Spherical earth, heliocentricism, germ theory, expanding universe…
Determining whether consciously prejudicial, which was the intention of the questioning in the court room, or subconsciously so, we all are encumbered by biases color our decision making which if not understood by the individual, by the juror, may be detrimental to the justice sought in our court rooms. Many people cannot shed their deeply held, particularly subconscious, beliefs and prejudices when making judgements “requiring” objectivity…we are who we are! It is really hard to know who we really are…so that we may have the ability to be more than we are.
We the bigoted, fearful, unstable people of the United States of America in order to form a less perfect union, establish injustice, insure domestic incivility, provide for de,,,fence on our southern border, promote the general discontent and secure the blessings of disenfranchisement of a police state do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America,
Trump stated about his new Preamble, "It's great, really great...believe me1 It's U-U-GE!"
Similarities? Frauds...liars...deceivers of their acolytes... One kind and compassionate after his racket is unveiled...the other, always mean-spirited....
I'm tired of self-righteous American citizens who disparage illegal immigrants because they have broken the law. Many have done so because their lives were threatened by gangs, drug dealers, corrupt police...their lives a living hell of destitution, of hunger, of illness, of inadequate healthcare. The vast majority of illegal immigrants risk crossing into the US to work hard, frequently to do work that Americans will not do. Their reasons for breaking immigration law are most of the time substantial...the need to survive and flourish...the need for economic and physical sanctuary/security. These are honorable motivations. They are motivations that have driven people to migrate throughout the span of history.
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."
On the other hand, Americans break our laws regularly for self-indulgent selfish reasons. Driving under the influence being highway "terrorists", cheating on their taxes, speeding on our roads without the slightest consideration of the speed limits, not obeying traffic control devices and many more ways.
So I believe that individuals who risk breaking immigration laws to better their lives, the lives of their children and the lives of their families are of greater moral character then those who claim to respect the rule of law but egotistically, self-servingly break it.
The American Eagle is sick!
Trump's wall, so he tells us, will be a triumph, such a triumph, so beautiful. Perhaps, he will have it decorated with murals, graffiti, wild wall flowers! Head south! We have a lot of wall to paint.
But while painting, we might just be surprised by earth worms. The ingenuity of people south of our border in digging tunnels has been demonstrated time after time. Mexico's most sought after drug lord, jailed in one of their high security prisons, escaped through a tunnel which hit its target--the shower floor in his jail cell--from approximately a mile away.
So I ask, just how deep are you going to make the foundation of your wall...Donald? Will Mexican laborers dig the ditch?
Mitch McConnell stated shortly after the death of Antonin Scalia, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this (Supreme Court) vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."
The American people have SPOKEN!!! President Obama has been elected by the American people, not by leprechauns, not by martians He has been elected TWICE!
And if we were to ask most any Republican--a candidate for President, member of Congress, etc: "If a Democrat is elected to be our next President would you support a liberal nominee for the Supreme Court bench since the people have spoken?" I am quite certain the answer would be....NO!
And what if a Democrat is elected President and Democrats also win a Senate majority, the Republicans run the risk of a liberal rather than moderate nominee being confirmed,
Also, the hypocrisy of Republicans, who claim to be strict constitutionalists, "Scalian" originalists and textualists, demanding the President ignore his Constitutional responsibility, duty, by not putting forth an individual for consideration is indefensible and is a detestable, purely political action.
UPDATE: The Electoral College has spoken giving us President-elect Trump. The American people have voted giving Hillary the majority in the popular vote. So again the American people have spoken...therefore any Supreme Court nominees must be chosen based on how the people have voted...as the Republicans demanded!
It is estimated that in the 1970's Donald Trump inherited a minimum of approximately 35 million dollars to a potential maximum of 200 million dollars. $35,000,000 invested with a rate of return of 8.0% would yield in 40 years approximately 800 million dollars. 200 million dollars also invested at the same rate would yield several billion dollars. Thus The Donald's "net worth" has little to do with his business "acumen" and a lot to do with the amount of money he inherited.
"I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay. Because somebody doesn't think the way I do, doesn't mean that I can't care about them or can't love them. So if one of my daughters happened to be that, of course I would love them and I would accept them. Because you know what? That's what we're taught when we have strong faith."
"Because somebody doesn't think the way I do..." Homosexuality is not a way of thinking. It's NOT: I think I want to be...therefore I am. Its cause is unknown but is likely biologic. Biological theories of causation suggest a complex interaction of genetic, endocrinological and social factors. To assert that a homosexual person thinks themselves into a "state" of homosexuality is absurd leading to inappropriate therapies such as behavior modification and intolerance based on the debunked belief that sexual orientation is a personal choice. Does Kasich think himself into heterosexuality? Does he actively choose to be heterosexual rather than homosexual?
"That's what we're taught when we have strong faith." Why then are the most virulent homophobes overwhelmingly bible thumpers.
Were over 3 thousand people kept safe on 9/11?
Your brother was proud of his close relationship to the Saudi royal family. Was he unaware of their funding of Osama bin Ladin? Did he confront the Saudi royal family when it became known that the majority of the perpetrators of the attack were Saudi citizens.
Did your brother pay attention to the PDB suggesting an attack on the US by Osama bin Ladin was imminent. What actions did he take to protect us?
Your brother only had an inane response in the elementary school classroom when informed of the terrorist attack--his vacant stare suggesting he no idea what to do, no knowledge of a protocol to be used, no anticipation of such an attack.
No! He did not keep us safe and his unwarranted attack of Iraq proves to this day his gross failure. His bellicose call for revenge does not require great courage or intellect or demonstrate great contemplative leadership but a mere visceral reaction.
I think it is SAFE to say that your brother DID NOT KEEP US SAFE!
Was just watching a cable TV discussion of football concussion injuries. Two things I found striking. One was a comment by a sportscaster who stated that playing pro football is entirely volitional. Not quite right!
Many who play pro football come from socioeconomic backgrounds which markedly constrain their opportunities to improve the quality of their lives. This is the very same circumstance that provides human resources for undesirable, often high risk, jobs, for example the military. Additionally, there was no mention of boxing,, a sport in which the objective is to injure your opponent's brain--to knock 'em out. If you review the population of boxers, you will find that many come from poor families or disadvantaged childhoods. Boxing is their way out of the "hood." Why is boxing not a significant part of the discussion of sports-related brain injury?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…
No Thomas, all men are NOT created equal! All PEOPLE are NOT created equal. Not equal physically, not equal intellectually, not equal emotionally, and not equal socioeconomically. Nor are all men created with equal opportunity. Nor are all men treated equally before the law.
The ideology of equality at birth, professed in The Declaration of Independence, implies that each and every individual begins life at the same starting line, at parity, with the same merits, capabilities and opportunities., That "winning" the race of life is won merely as an attribution of the merit of the winner's character. But in reality, people are born with handicaps and unearned advantages….winning or losing the race of life, whatever its meaning, is significantly bound to socioeconomic circumstance and biological endowment at birth. And in addition, the race of life is "fixed" by the politically powerful, often adding an overwhelming burden to those with innate physical differences such as race, gender and ethnicity as well as circumstantial "inequalities" such as religious belief.
"The ark was built by amateurs and the Titanic was built by experts!" Ben Carson
If you believe the biblical story, do you not assume that Noah needed help to build an ark that could hold God's commanded cargo (two of each and every animal including, according to some, dinosaurs). to collect that cargo and maintain "seaworthiness?" Who would be the most likely to assist Noah? Would it not have to be God--either by direct intervention or by expansive divine inspiration--God an amateur ark builder? Really?
Each and every one of us faces the potential of a devastating physical and/or cognitive illness that may rob us of any reasonable quality of life. Most of us would hope to avoid the prolonged suffering and the indignities of incurable illnesses. The alternatives to end one’s life are limited by the constraints of public policy and legal statutes. Self-inflicted suicide bears social stigma. The not infrequent failure of suicide attempts often results in compounding the suffering of the survivor and the survivor’s loved ones. At present, there is no legal right, no statutory civil right, to permit bedside medical intervention for individuals to take control of ending their lives. Currently there is no reasonable alternative, no legal choice, to avoid spending one’s last years in constant physical and/or mental pain, to die comfortably with physician assistance at home, when desired, easing the emotional and economic burdens for patients, their friends and families.
Therefore, we believe that the right to choose bedside life-ending medical intervention must be legalized.
Is not one of our most precious civil rights—a ”blessing of liberty”-- the right to control how we die? Do we not own our own lives?
In so doing, one can look to the future with less anxiety, knowing we are not limited in how we will meet our death. Having this CIVIL RIGHT, would be comforting to many individuals and their loved ones by knowing that one has the ability to alleviate the emotional and monetary burden for themselves, their loved ones and our society.
We all will die—after all being alive is a terminal illness--let individuals have the option to meet death on their own terms. Death too late, as well as too early, is a tragedy. Death planned and assisted by medical bed-side facilitation is sad but comforting. To go quietly and gently into that “good night” at home or in other comforting surroundings, assisted by a trained physician at bedside, with loved ones at your side would provide a peaceful, compassionate and loving end to life.
WHY BEDSIDE PHYSICIAN LIFE-ENDING INTERVENTION SHOULD BE A LEGAL OPTION:
· Prevent unsuccessful end of life intervention.
· Assure comfortable competent ending of life.
· Support patient and patient’s loved ones prior to and during intervention.
· Provide intravenous life ending medications when necessary particularly when swallowing is impaired.
· Voluntary PHYSICIAN provider.
o Impartial witness acting as barrier against abuse.
o Confirmation of death.
o Provide data for death certificate.
o Documentation of end of life intervention.
o NO PROFIT/COSTS ONLY
Suicides committed by gunshot, carbon monoxide, jumping, drowning, cop and numerous other means might be converted to physician-assisted intervention eliminating the associated negative collateral consequences. Perhaps, suicide by the aforementioned means might be reduced by the knowledge of available physician life ending intervention.
Take action! Download file by link below.
The God-designed (?) human reproductive system creates in fertile men trillions of sperm, the vast majority dying, producing only a few progeny. Trillions die never fulfilling their potential to produce a human being. A pathetically flawed inefficient means of reproduction, especially if devised by an intelligent designer.
The God-designed human reproductive system creates in fertile women thousands of ova, the vast majority dying, producing only a few progeny. Thousands die never fulfilling their potential to produce a human being. A pathetically flawed means of reproduction, especially if devised by an intelligent designer.
God allows to die or executes approximately half of all gestations by missed spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). Millions die never fulfilling their potential to be a human being. A pathetically flawed means of reproduction. God--the most prolific abortionist of all?
God by inelegant unintelligent design causes or allows myriad complications of birthing, resulting in fetal and/or maternal death. Millions of babies have died during delivery and during the neonatal period, abandoned by God for millennia, never fulfilling their full human potential. And for hundreds of years, clerical hiarchy of the Catholic Church have debated whether a baby that dies without being baptized goes to Hell or Limbo. Shameful! Ludicrous! A pathetically flawed means of reproduction. Intelligent design?
God by inelegant unintelligent design creates or allows myriad complications of pregnancy/delivery resulting in terrible maternal death rates from time immemorial. Mothers dead, babies deprived of their milk, their love, their nurture. Recall the millions of women abandoned by God for millennia who have died in childbirth and the extraordinary death rate of children who were not provided maternal or divine protection. Intelligent design? It was not God that was their savior but modern medical science.
God’s failure to command against rape and incest, to prevent rape and incest, creates circumstances that lead to abortions. Shame on Him!
And who between mother and fetus does He value more when one must die? And if the one not saved is in a “better place”, what difference should it make to us?
And is not every aborted fetus loved by God? Even if not sprinkled with holy water? Would not a loving God gather up these aborted tiny spirits and rekindle their lives?
And if He is real and demands judgment for the mother who by circumstances, whether under her control or not, has an abortion, will He not pass His judgment for eternity? The temporal judgment of delusional egotistical human beings assuming His regency, His surrogacy, is an abominable abortion of justice. And so His judgment shall also be upon those who presume to administer divine punishment.
And might He judge Himself for His own actions and failures? Should He condemn humane intervention when He gave us intelligence and empathy to intervene? It seems wrong to make the merit and to punish it as well.
"Civil liberties don't matter much if you're dead" Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) Statement supporting the Patriot Act
If our founding fathers had not been willing to take the risk of being hung to death for treason (fighting for civil rights), the United States would not exist.
I have a pet peeve about nothing. So I wonder…am I making something out of nothing? NO! I am making something out of SOMETHING!
When learning to count my grandchildren proudly recite:
Great…but where is zero? Zero, this immensely important concept, acts as nothing more than a placeholder in the number ten. The mathematical term "zero" is neither counted, nor accounted for, nor expressed in its proper place.
After all, when counting backwards from ten, we always reach zero triggering a rocket to blast-off!
So I encourage my grandchildren to count:
Zero---the boundary between the “real” and “abstract”.
Zero---the factor that changes something to nothing…5 X 0=0.
Zero---the gatekeeper of infinity…5/0=∞.
Zero---an important key to the calculus of the infinitesimal.
Zero---shunned by the Church for more then a millennia, its forced sabbatical resulting in the decay of mathematics, science and technology...a significant victim, perhaps partly a cause, of the Dark Ages.
Zero----a concept ironically easy and yet difficult to understand…a concept necessary to modern science, a concept that our children should be comfortable with and hopefully comprehend…a concept that needs to be a part of their earliest learning of numbers.
From nothing comes a vast something…
So we all should count…
The following was written many years ago when there was optimism for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. At that time, Jerusalem and the West Bank were the most crucial considerations in the negotiations. Unfortunately a peace treaty was never signed and the current situation in the Middle East makes the potential for Palestinian Israeli peace even more implausible. The following may be fantasy but after nearly 70 years of animosity, 70 years of violence bringing violence, a new approach, if there is an opportunity for diplomacy, would seem appropriate.
“…To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield…and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.”
John F Kennedy, 1961
“Ask Not What Your Country Can Do for You”
Perhaps these words provide a key to opening the door to peace in the Middle East? The following concept is idealistic, but then idealism and the willingness to espouse and implement policy based thereon, can create great changes. Presently, in the mid-east, Jerusalem is the city that divides…a core issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But this holy city should, ideally, be the city that unites. It should realize its prophetic stature as the “City of Peace”.
Under the political leadership and diplomacy of the United Nations and the United States, Jerusalem could be made an international city-state, a “corpus separatum”, as has been previously suggested by UN General Assembly Resolution 181 and as lobbied for by the Holy See. In support of this action, MOVE the UN TO JERUSALEM making this assembly of sovereign states the foundation of the new government of the “new” Jerusalem. By doing so, and for the following reasons, a lasting peace may be established—this holy place may fulfill its “destiny” as a truly holy city becoming a model for peace and the betterment of all mankind.
This newly established sovereign international city-state, Jerusalem, would require a new means of governance. This new government might be modeled on a bicameral system with two legislative/administrative “branches” having coordinated interdependent responsibility and unified authority. The representatives of one branch would be designated by and responsible to the United Nations. The other branch would be composed of equal numbers of representatives from both Israel and a new Palestinian State. Additionally, each of the three religions that consider Jerusalem a Holy City would be included; having non-voting advisory/consulting representation with perhaps the right to cast deciding votes, under specified circumstances, if the upper two branches were deadlocked on an issue that must be resolved.
Why would either side in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict even consider such a plan?
· The UN would enhance its position as the premier institution of world statesmanship being at the fulcrum of one of the most volatile sites of conflict in the world.
· The UN would create a new Palestinian State as it established Israel in the past.
· If the UN were moved to Jerusalem, it would bring economic growth with an influx of capital, international diplomatic prestige requiring/producing stability, an impetus for responsible social and political policy and a decrease in the likelihood of local aggression and war.
· Moving the United Nations, or at least its major diplomatic departments, from New York to Jerusalem would require development of new office space, embassies, hotels/motels, transportation infrastructure, housing, etc. In this effort many new jobs would be created. This massive economic development and the capital that it would produce would be a boon to Israel and a new Palestinian State that could be used as an enticement toward accepting the parameters of this agreement. The intense economic benefits, and hopefully the social interdependence produced, could be the buttress for this entire governmental structure.
· Generated funds could also be utilized for free loans, low-interest bearing loans and/or restitution/compensation of monetary/real estate claims of both Arab and Jewish displaced persons. A judiciary, selected from the local population by the UN governing wing, subject to review/veto by the Israel/Palestinian branch of government, might decide these dispensations. This judiciary could also be in place for civil and criminal matters.
· The prestige of being a major center of world politics would hopefully create a deep sense of the need for responsible diplomacy locally and a profound understanding of the necessity for regional stability. Under this plan several diverse groups would be “forced” or compelled to work together to provide a viable government and through open discussion circumvent violent aggression. Terrorist acts in Jerusalem would no longer be only an act against Palestinians or Israelis but also an act against the new Jerusalem City State, as well as, and most significantly, the UN representing the world’s nations. To agitate for war in the region at the footsteps of the house of the cooperating sovereign nations of the world, now making its home in Jerusalem, would hopefully be understood to be injudicious.
· By its local presence, the UN and its guiding principles might influence acceptance of diversity, social justice, and reinforce the precept that differences in viewpoints need not lead to enmity and that open debate may prevent military hostility. The UN would hopefully “walk softly” but let it be known, that if it must, it could wield a “big stick”. In addition, this would place the UN more proximate to the regions of the world needing its influence most while shedding its physical connection to the USA, which would be perceived by some, both foreign and domestic, as a positive evolution of this organization.
· Allow the new Palestinian state to be included in the deliberations of the UN Security Council perhaps attaining voting membership by establishing a stable government committed to ending terrorism and the acceptance of the State of Israel.
Additionally, creation of the new Palestinian State would include:
The local presence of the UN, the “mother” of Israel and hopefully the future "mother" of a new Palestinian State, would legitimize/integrate both nations’ visions of Jerusalem. And in partnership with the UN, Israel would maintain partial control while the new Palestinian State would be enfranchised with each being voting partners in Jerusalem’s governing body. Both will have to accept compromises—compromises through which each will have something to lose and something to gain—most significantly gaining long-lasting peace secured by the commitment of the international community as represented by the UN. In this manner, the mission of the UN and the interest of the world would resonate with the prophetic ideals that Jerusalem ought to represent. Perhaps, the over sixty- year moebius of violence might come to an end. And in so doing, the UN would “enlarge the area in which its writ may run”. Might it create a shelter of peace spreading over the Middle East and mankind? May it begin in Jerusalem, the City of Peace!
This plan in no way is meant to condone or reward extremists. It is meant to hopefully bring to an end the nearly 70 year on-going cycle of violence resulting in the maiming and killing of innocents. Additionally, the prospect of the region being politically stable as well as sharing in an expanding economy would hopefully strengthen moderate political and social attitudes supported by an improving quality of life for all. Optimistically, new benevolent perspectives may prevail so that people will no longer feel constrained to battle for their humanity with violence but rather with cooperation and amity.
written by cjstegman