So far in this series we’ve discussed various responses to an unconstitutional overreaching federal government. Tuesday’s column was about submission as a strategy. Wednesday we examined nullification as a means of counteracting big government, and yesterday we briefly reviewed secession as a means for thwarting an out-of-control federal monolith. Today, we take a look at sedition or resistance as a strategic vehicle for preserving individual liberty when confronted by an oppressive government. This is a difficult avenue to explore for a couple of reasons. One would pray that our situation doesn’t deteriorate to the point where sedition is necessary, and even with a successful outcome for the resisters, the tragedy of the process would be phenomenal.
Sedition is defined as an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government. Clearly by this definition, any seditious attempt to dislodge the federal government would be illegal or unlawful. Those who engage in the seditious activity would be subject to extremely harsh penalties. The moral justification for a citizen’s involvement and promotion of sedition is based on the premise that the federal government has exceeded its authority, exercises power beyond its mandate, and engages in practices and activities which are blatantly unconstitutional. In other words, if the government is illegitimate and operating illegally, then those who oppose it in the name of constitutional validity are functioning as lawful and legal enforcers of the Constitution. In the moral and philosophical universe the tables are reversed and the government and the resisters exchange places on the legitimacy scale. That’s the ideal. The reality is much different.
Over the years, film, television and literature have explored the nobility of a just resistance in the face of tyranny. (e.g. “Red Dawn.”). Generally the good guys win. Despite the evil government’s massive superiority in weaponry, personnel and power, the pure-of-heart remnant manages to prevail. That scenario is not real. Sedition and resistance are messy affairs. Former friends and family members will choose “security” rather than join the remnant of resistance. They may even report the resisters to the “authorities.” Trust will become a rare commodity. Fear of discovery will be a constant concern.
The fires of liberty will not be easily extinguished. While many will succumb to the power and illicit authority of the government, there will be those who yearn for freedom. They’ll have furtive encounters and obliquely test others as they seek new allies. Not all resisters will be militant warriors. Some will produce broadsides and pamphlets or sound the cry of liberty on pirate broadcast, hard-wired and satellite outlets. The huge government apparatus will be directed against the freedom fighters, and artificial crises will be generated to co-opt the people. The government will attempt to dam every rivulet of resistance and quell the flames of freedom. Because of its awesome power, and the fearful indifference of most citizens, the flame will be compromised. It will be smaller. The embers of liberty will not be extinguished however. People of faith, people of hope and people of strength will nurse the embers, and pray their prayers until the oppressive regime implodes. Liberty must prevail. For some generations it will be only in their hearts and in heaven. For others it will be a day-to-day effort to teach and inform their peers. Some generations may taste the fruits of freedom and flourish, but every generation will have those who cherish Liberty. The spark of liberty in the heart will not die.
Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com
Friday, December 17, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Unsuccessful Secession?
Secession as a strategy for states of the United States of America that resist imperial federal power has not been a successful maneuver for those who have attempted it. In the political context secession is the unilateral voluntary withdrawal from the federal compact. Actually, though, secession was successful in the short term for South Carolina and the other members of the Confederate States of America (CSA). It began to unravel as the numerical superiority and industrial advantages of the Union began to grind away the Confederacy. The secessionist movement was handicapped, too, because the abolitionists of the North used slavery as a rallying cry for inspiring the citizens and creating support for the war.
The secessionist argument was not only prevalent in the years leading up to the War Between the States, but had been on the burners, both front and back, since before the founding. For example, the slow process for endorsing the Constitution by the respective states is indicative that total membership or unanimity was not a given. If you recall, the first ten amendments (12 were proposed) were a product of some states’ hesitancy to enter the federation. They wanted stronger protection and a more emphatic confirmation for individual rights in the founding document. The clear evidence of the Framing Period is that the Constitution was a document that limited the federal government and provided for a contractual relationship among the various states to join together for those purposes expressly described in the Constitution. The federation was an alliance of convenience. The federal government would be given enough powers and resources to fulfill the functions that were defined for it. All other powers, duties and obligations were “reserved to the states, “or “retained by the people.”
It follows, therefore, that if all parties are legally and constitutionally executing their respective roles, a state may withdraw from the compact. Although the prospect of secession is not explicitly addressed, neither is any penalty contemplated for those states that may choose to suspend their involvement in the federation. The sections of Article I of the Constitution describe some prohibitions for states. Also, Article IV provides a more thorough view of the states’ position within the federation. There is no direct prohibition for seceding, but perhaps some would cite the portion of the Constitution in Article IV, Section 3, as an oblique denial of a state’s right to leave the federation. The clear reality is that for many decades the federal government has violated the Constitution, thus abdicating any contractual claim it may advance to prevent a state from leaving the federation.
Based on our last column (A Salvation Message) which discussed nullification as a means for states to resist unconstitutional federal power, secession is an option only if the state has diligently and consistently attempted to thwart excessive federal intervention via nullification. There are practical problems associated with this progression of response: 1) the state legislature must nullify because if they do not, then it seems rather logical that the political will to secede will not be present; 2) if the state does employ nullification against every instance of federal power abuse, there is no guarantee that the federal government will honor the individual state’s right to withdraw from the federation. We could have a flashback to 1861. The confrontation might be avoided, however, if the state refrained from occupying constitutional federal property such as military installations. One of the most important mitigating factors is that the federal government has become a self-perpetuating entity that seeks to command the states rather than serve them. The feds would, therefore, enforce their own preservation interests even if they did not have the support and acquiescence of the states that remained in the union. It has become a circular conundrum. A state secedes because the federal government exceeds its mandate, and the federal government in turn employs force to require the state to yield to its power and authority.
Although the secession remedy appears as the third alternative in this four-part series, it may be the most difficult to implement. Most states and their political leaders lack the will. If the federal government responds with all the power that it has available, the state may be incapable of any meaningful resistance. On the face of it secession is a lose-lose strategy. Achieving overwhelming support for leaving the union within any given state is probably impossible. A remnant of liberty loving patriots can resist an out-of-control federal government, but to marshal the citizens of an entire state is unlikely. Too many people will watch “American Idol” while the resistance is battling for freedom.
Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com
The secessionist argument was not only prevalent in the years leading up to the War Between the States, but had been on the burners, both front and back, since before the founding. For example, the slow process for endorsing the Constitution by the respective states is indicative that total membership or unanimity was not a given. If you recall, the first ten amendments (12 were proposed) were a product of some states’ hesitancy to enter the federation. They wanted stronger protection and a more emphatic confirmation for individual rights in the founding document. The clear evidence of the Framing Period is that the Constitution was a document that limited the federal government and provided for a contractual relationship among the various states to join together for those purposes expressly described in the Constitution. The federation was an alliance of convenience. The federal government would be given enough powers and resources to fulfill the functions that were defined for it. All other powers, duties and obligations were “reserved to the states, “or “retained by the people.”
It follows, therefore, that if all parties are legally and constitutionally executing their respective roles, a state may withdraw from the compact. Although the prospect of secession is not explicitly addressed, neither is any penalty contemplated for those states that may choose to suspend their involvement in the federation. The sections of Article I of the Constitution describe some prohibitions for states. Also, Article IV provides a more thorough view of the states’ position within the federation. There is no direct prohibition for seceding, but perhaps some would cite the portion of the Constitution in Article IV, Section 3, as an oblique denial of a state’s right to leave the federation. The clear reality is that for many decades the federal government has violated the Constitution, thus abdicating any contractual claim it may advance to prevent a state from leaving the federation.
Based on our last column (A Salvation Message) which discussed nullification as a means for states to resist unconstitutional federal power, secession is an option only if the state has diligently and consistently attempted to thwart excessive federal intervention via nullification. There are practical problems associated with this progression of response: 1) the state legislature must nullify because if they do not, then it seems rather logical that the political will to secede will not be present; 2) if the state does employ nullification against every instance of federal power abuse, there is no guarantee that the federal government will honor the individual state’s right to withdraw from the federation. We could have a flashback to 1861. The confrontation might be avoided, however, if the state refrained from occupying constitutional federal property such as military installations. One of the most important mitigating factors is that the federal government has become a self-perpetuating entity that seeks to command the states rather than serve them. The feds would, therefore, enforce their own preservation interests even if they did not have the support and acquiescence of the states that remained in the union. It has become a circular conundrum. A state secedes because the federal government exceeds its mandate, and the federal government in turn employs force to require the state to yield to its power and authority.
Although the secession remedy appears as the third alternative in this four-part series, it may be the most difficult to implement. Most states and their political leaders lack the will. If the federal government responds with all the power that it has available, the state may be incapable of any meaningful resistance. On the face of it secession is a lose-lose strategy. Achieving overwhelming support for leaving the union within any given state is probably impossible. A remnant of liberty loving patriots can resist an out-of-control federal government, but to marshal the citizens of an entire state is unlikely. Too many people will watch “American Idol” while the resistance is battling for freedom.
Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
A Salvation Message
One of the definitions for salvation is redemption, and redemption is precisely what is needed in the United States at this time. Anyone who has read all of the Constitution of the United States of America while doing so literally will understand that the current method of operation has strayed far off the path designed by the Framers and Founders. The procedures, policies and practices of the Federal Government bear a mere token resemblance to the original concept that was conceived at the founding. Throughout the decades of our Nation’s existence, the government and its power have grown to the point where they have become unmanageable and uncontrollable.
So if Big Brother has indeed become uncontrollable, how do we the people regain our control? How do we save or redeem our legacy of liberty? How do we reassert our power as a free people who hold the reins of power in our country? Prayer is a solid beginning, but if you’re a secularist, you may choose to study the Constitution for remedies that embedded there. On page 79 of his 1952 book, The Ordeal of Change, Eric Hoffer states “A society that in normal times cannot function adequately without unanimity is unfit for freedom.” (That title was prophetic, wasn’t it?). In other words Hoffer suggests the Rodney King lament (“Can we all get along?) undermines the cause of freedom. Attempts to secure universal results or broad based legislation to “level the playing field” are intended to force us all to get along. Much of our legislative agendas these days are directed towards the squeaking wheels. By greasing the lives of the petitioners government seeks to eliminate or minimize discord. As a result, government grows geometrically and individual freedom (and responsibility) shrinks accordingly. One cannot be all things to all people, and neither can government satisfy the whims of everyone. Discord, passion and inequitable outcomes are necessary for freedom to thrive. Complacent populations squander their opportunities, and liberty becomes a secondary preference.
Despite Judy Collins’ assertive claim, the answer isn’t “blowing in the wind.” The answer is found in the Constitution and reinforced by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799. Whereas individual outliers have little power when confronting an overly zealous federal government, their voices are magnified within the borders of their respective states. In Ohio, for example, the 132 state legislators are more approachable than the 535 members of the federal legislature. The drive from any point in Ohio to Columbus pales in comparison to the trek from Dayton to D.C. Accountability and responsiveness are more easily attained on a state level than federally. Clearly, an unengaged citizenry has allowed state governments in most cases to avoid constitutional scrutiny. When the people have become disgruntled, their wrath has often been directed at local dog wardens or focused on the incomprehensible federal apparatus. The states have often been spared the spotlight of review. State governments have coasted along under the radar despite some lurches into profligacy and power grabbing.
The salvation of our nation and our liberty is acquired in a fashion similar to spiritual salvation. According to evangelical Christian doctrine, the petitioner recognizes that he is a sinner, that she is estranged from God, and that he is incapable of navigating through life without Christ’s assistance. In a similar fashion the citizens must recognize that they have failed their responsibilities as watchdogs. The people should study and understand the Constitution so as to identify where government has corrupted the document, and then work together with like-minded patriots to grasp control of the state capitols throughout the land. State legislative candidates who are committed to the principle of nullification are the ONLY ones—regardless of party—who should be supported and elected. Principles must outweigh party labels if salvation or restoration is to succeed. The journey toward “we the people” must begin in the states….actually; the trip will begin in the living rooms of each respective state.
Once enough nullifying legislators are elected, they can begin to reject unconstitutional federal laws, mandates, rules and regulations. Those legislators can be held accountable by their respective constituencies who will discourage them from trading state overreaching for the federal version. This stratagem is constitutional, legal and much more quickly and effectively pursued than is a federal focus.
What if the state-based nullification strategy fails? Tomorrow we’ll discuss secession as a remedy. We’ll examine its viability and practicality.
Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com
So if Big Brother has indeed become uncontrollable, how do we the people regain our control? How do we save or redeem our legacy of liberty? How do we reassert our power as a free people who hold the reins of power in our country? Prayer is a solid beginning, but if you’re a secularist, you may choose to study the Constitution for remedies that embedded there. On page 79 of his 1952 book, The Ordeal of Change, Eric Hoffer states “A society that in normal times cannot function adequately without unanimity is unfit for freedom.” (That title was prophetic, wasn’t it?). In other words Hoffer suggests the Rodney King lament (“Can we all get along?) undermines the cause of freedom. Attempts to secure universal results or broad based legislation to “level the playing field” are intended to force us all to get along. Much of our legislative agendas these days are directed towards the squeaking wheels. By greasing the lives of the petitioners government seeks to eliminate or minimize discord. As a result, government grows geometrically and individual freedom (and responsibility) shrinks accordingly. One cannot be all things to all people, and neither can government satisfy the whims of everyone. Discord, passion and inequitable outcomes are necessary for freedom to thrive. Complacent populations squander their opportunities, and liberty becomes a secondary preference.
Despite Judy Collins’ assertive claim, the answer isn’t “blowing in the wind.” The answer is found in the Constitution and reinforced by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799. Whereas individual outliers have little power when confronting an overly zealous federal government, their voices are magnified within the borders of their respective states. In Ohio, for example, the 132 state legislators are more approachable than the 535 members of the federal legislature. The drive from any point in Ohio to Columbus pales in comparison to the trek from Dayton to D.C. Accountability and responsiveness are more easily attained on a state level than federally. Clearly, an unengaged citizenry has allowed state governments in most cases to avoid constitutional scrutiny. When the people have become disgruntled, their wrath has often been directed at local dog wardens or focused on the incomprehensible federal apparatus. The states have often been spared the spotlight of review. State governments have coasted along under the radar despite some lurches into profligacy and power grabbing.
The salvation of our nation and our liberty is acquired in a fashion similar to spiritual salvation. According to evangelical Christian doctrine, the petitioner recognizes that he is a sinner, that she is estranged from God, and that he is incapable of navigating through life without Christ’s assistance. In a similar fashion the citizens must recognize that they have failed their responsibilities as watchdogs. The people should study and understand the Constitution so as to identify where government has corrupted the document, and then work together with like-minded patriots to grasp control of the state capitols throughout the land. State legislative candidates who are committed to the principle of nullification are the ONLY ones—regardless of party—who should be supported and elected. Principles must outweigh party labels if salvation or restoration is to succeed. The journey toward “we the people” must begin in the states….actually; the trip will begin in the living rooms of each respective state.
Once enough nullifying legislators are elected, they can begin to reject unconstitutional federal laws, mandates, rules and regulations. Those legislators can be held accountable by their respective constituencies who will discourage them from trading state overreaching for the federal version. This stratagem is constitutional, legal and much more quickly and effectively pursued than is a federal focus.
What if the state-based nullification strategy fails? Tomorrow we’ll discuss secession as a remedy. We’ll examine its viability and practicality.
Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Active Submission
When we examine our options for engaging our government, we have arbitrarily defined them as submission, salvation, secession and sedition. These remedies appear to be graduated ones wherein one follows the other if the previous efforts were unsuccessful. Today we’ll focus on submission as a citizen’s response to governmental action. Historically, submission has been the most common reaction to governmental edicts and power. Throughout recorded human history, governments have primarily been patriarchal, tyrannical or imperial. Citizens have been little more than chattel or property of the ruling monarch. It was the Judeo-Christian tradition that recognized individuals as stand-alone entities capable of reasoning and executing sound decisions. The awareness of self probably occurred before Abram (Abraham), but our first consistent and recorded chronicle of individuality is found in the Old Testament.
Despite the clear biblical acknowledgement of an individual’s relationship with God, many Christians who belong to mainline denominations have succumbed to a passive stance of submission when confronted with an over-reaching government. Their justification for such a position is rooted in Matthew 22:21b: Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” The inference that is drawn by submissive Christians is that one must submit to the state in worldly matters and practice obedience to God in the spiritual realm. They fail to detect the difference between Roman governance and our constitutional republic as designed for our United States. There are three critical words that provide a stark line of demarcation between the system of Rome and our method of governance. They are “We the people”….the opening words of our foundational document. I haven’t authored a systematic theology, but it seems clear to me that Christ’s teaching was that the individual must conform to the practices of the system in which she/he found themselves while continuing to be a positive reflection for God. There are theological justifications for resisting an unjust government, but they aren’t necessary to further this discussion. “We the people” can stand alone as a reason for individuals, Christian and non-Christian, to become actively involved in determining the role of government in their lives. To passively submit to a government that habitually violates its own rules becomes a ringing failure to follow the biblical admonition to engage with Caesar. One who allows government to run roughshod over individual rights while claiming the mantle of Christ is failing others and the Lord.
Certainly, submission as an approach to government should not be universally rejected. That would be anarchy. There are instances, legal and spiritual, where submission is vital for the survival of the state and the protection of the citizens. The occasions are rare and should be judiciously undertaken. Theologically speaking in the context of a constitutional republic, the citizen should always trust the Lord completely while skeptically working within government to “secure the blessings of liberty.” The secular aspect of a citizen’s submissive role is much more clearly defined. While the Christian recognizes the supremacy of God, the secular citizen must first define the primary focus of his allegiance. “We the people,” it seems, directs the citizen’s fealty to liberty. Because the state is creation of the people, and the nation is a product of the states, the citizen must honor the individual. Individuality cannot flourish without liberty. Therefore, it follows that submission is a secondary element of citizenship. The preservation of liberty for every citizen must be the overriding impetus for involvement with the state. Any activity that arbitrarily undermines freedom for the citizens is contrary to good stewardship. Anytime a citizen voluntarily submits to an unconstitutional or unjust action by government, then that citizen is derelict.
Active, consistent and unyielding efforts for liberty are the defining elements of a good citizen. Unthinking submission to government’s abuses of its mandate is the equivalent of treasonous activity. When the citizen passively submits to an unruly government, he tacitly encourages tyranny. He or she violates the obligation to protect and defend liberty from the grasp of illicit government action.
Discipleship and citizenship are active endeavors and should be the norm for spiritual and governmental involvement. Submission should be a conscious reasoned activity and not the default mode. God wants pro-active disciples, and the state requires our action to hold it accountable. Tomorrow we’ll discuss the salvation aspect of good citizenship.
Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com
Despite the clear biblical acknowledgement of an individual’s relationship with God, many Christians who belong to mainline denominations have succumbed to a passive stance of submission when confronted with an over-reaching government. Their justification for such a position is rooted in Matthew 22:21b: Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” The inference that is drawn by submissive Christians is that one must submit to the state in worldly matters and practice obedience to God in the spiritual realm. They fail to detect the difference between Roman governance and our constitutional republic as designed for our United States. There are three critical words that provide a stark line of demarcation between the system of Rome and our method of governance. They are “We the people”….the opening words of our foundational document. I haven’t authored a systematic theology, but it seems clear to me that Christ’s teaching was that the individual must conform to the practices of the system in which she/he found themselves while continuing to be a positive reflection for God. There are theological justifications for resisting an unjust government, but they aren’t necessary to further this discussion. “We the people” can stand alone as a reason for individuals, Christian and non-Christian, to become actively involved in determining the role of government in their lives. To passively submit to a government that habitually violates its own rules becomes a ringing failure to follow the biblical admonition to engage with Caesar. One who allows government to run roughshod over individual rights while claiming the mantle of Christ is failing others and the Lord.
Certainly, submission as an approach to government should not be universally rejected. That would be anarchy. There are instances, legal and spiritual, where submission is vital for the survival of the state and the protection of the citizens. The occasions are rare and should be judiciously undertaken. Theologically speaking in the context of a constitutional republic, the citizen should always trust the Lord completely while skeptically working within government to “secure the blessings of liberty.” The secular aspect of a citizen’s submissive role is much more clearly defined. While the Christian recognizes the supremacy of God, the secular citizen must first define the primary focus of his allegiance. “We the people,” it seems, directs the citizen’s fealty to liberty. Because the state is creation of the people, and the nation is a product of the states, the citizen must honor the individual. Individuality cannot flourish without liberty. Therefore, it follows that submission is a secondary element of citizenship. The preservation of liberty for every citizen must be the overriding impetus for involvement with the state. Any activity that arbitrarily undermines freedom for the citizens is contrary to good stewardship. Anytime a citizen voluntarily submits to an unconstitutional or unjust action by government, then that citizen is derelict.
Active, consistent and unyielding efforts for liberty are the defining elements of a good citizen. Unthinking submission to government’s abuses of its mandate is the equivalent of treasonous activity. When the citizen passively submits to an unruly government, he tacitly encourages tyranny. He or she violates the obligation to protect and defend liberty from the grasp of illicit government action.
Discipleship and citizenship are active endeavors and should be the norm for spiritual and governmental involvement. Submission should be a conscious reasoned activity and not the default mode. God wants pro-active disciples, and the state requires our action to hold it accountable. Tomorrow we’ll discuss the salvation aspect of good citizenship.
Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com
Monday, December 13, 2010
UNmoving
For nearly my entire life I’ve heard “get the U.S. out of the U.N., and the United Nations out of the United States.” For a period of my life I found that sentiment somewhat curious. I suffered under the illusion (advanced by government-run school monopolies) that if all the people of the world could meet together, our problems could be resolved. Over the years, however, my position has shifted and hardened. The United Nations is the crucible of tyranny that encourages festering corruption and promotes the elitist mindset. Just as one must lance an infected area, the pus that the U.N. represents must be purged from our shores and cleansed from our nation’s agenda.
Looking back at 2009, United Nations diplomats and their flunkies had more than 18 million dollars in unpaid parking tickets to the city of New York and the five boroughs. Understandably, in the grand scheme of international finance and intrigue, this is a paltry sum, but it is representative of the parasitic nature of the United Nation’s presence in our land. When the elegant headquarters building was constructed at Turtle Bay in 1952, it appears likely that many were filled with hope and optimism for a new global initiative that would improve the lives of every global citizen. It was another utopian lie. Today the massive structure is crumbling and unsound. Billions of dollars will be required to restore the edifice overlooking the East River to a functional level. Unfortunately, a functional building does not guarantee a functional General Assembly or Security Council.
In a recent column in “Townhall.com” (10/17/2010), former Ohio Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, proposed relocating the U.N. to Geneva, Switzerland. The international clown school (UN) already has a satellite office there, so Blackwell reasoned that the move to Geneva would drastically lower the costs for maintaining the U.N. headquarters. Given that the United States contributes or is assessed 22% of the UN’s annual operating costs amounting to 1.8 billion dollars per year, Blackwell suggested that with a move to Geneva, the United States could reduce its portion to six per cent which is more in line with our portion of the global populace. The savings for our country would exceed 1.3 billion dollars annually. It isn’t going to happen. Our political class doesn’t have the courage or the foresight to pursue a policy that seems so reasonable. The striped-pant, tuxedo dressed diplomatic corps would vigorously howl if they believed that their opportunities for interacting with the tin-pot dictators of the world might be compromised or made somewhat more difficult.
In January of this year two columnists for “Forbes.com” had a better suggestion for relocating the UN. In my view, it’s an inspirational suggestion mainly because I have been promoting this idea since mid-2008. Joel Kotkin and Robert J. Cristiano (1/12/2010)were the authors. Their proposal was for the entire New York infrastructure of the United Nations to be transplanted to Dubai….among the United Arab Emirates. The world’s tallest building, the Burj Khalifa, was completed in January. It soars 2700 feet into the air, has 160 floors and contains 3.3 million square feet of unoccupied space. Only ten per cent of the structure is currently occupied, so the UN would have ample space, a world-class airport and every imaginable amenity available for its self-indulgent representatives and staff. In addition, there is ample parking space available so that New York wouldn’t shoulder the loss of all those unpaid parking tickets. By the way, that $18 million in unpaid tickets could fund 20-30 cops per year including bribes. This Dubai remedy seems to me to be a win-win-win-win solution. The building owners increase the occupancy, the UN gets a brand spanking new facility with much more space, the Third World nations will be gratified to have the global busy-body in their midst, and the United States’ taxpayers can save some bucks. To me, this is the perfect solution short of our total withdrawal from the UN (which I prefer). As a starter, I want them out of sight and out of mind. Instead of soiling Manhattan, the clowns can play in the Mid East litter box. As Iran becomes feistier, the elegant diplomats can stand on the helipad at the top of the building, and track the incoming ordinance.
If Frank Sinatra were still with us, he would probably sing, “Dubai, Dubai, Doooo.”
Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com
Looking back at 2009, United Nations diplomats and their flunkies had more than 18 million dollars in unpaid parking tickets to the city of New York and the five boroughs. Understandably, in the grand scheme of international finance and intrigue, this is a paltry sum, but it is representative of the parasitic nature of the United Nation’s presence in our land. When the elegant headquarters building was constructed at Turtle Bay in 1952, it appears likely that many were filled with hope and optimism for a new global initiative that would improve the lives of every global citizen. It was another utopian lie. Today the massive structure is crumbling and unsound. Billions of dollars will be required to restore the edifice overlooking the East River to a functional level. Unfortunately, a functional building does not guarantee a functional General Assembly or Security Council.
In a recent column in “Townhall.com” (10/17/2010), former Ohio Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, proposed relocating the U.N. to Geneva, Switzerland. The international clown school (UN) already has a satellite office there, so Blackwell reasoned that the move to Geneva would drastically lower the costs for maintaining the U.N. headquarters. Given that the United States contributes or is assessed 22% of the UN’s annual operating costs amounting to 1.8 billion dollars per year, Blackwell suggested that with a move to Geneva, the United States could reduce its portion to six per cent which is more in line with our portion of the global populace. The savings for our country would exceed 1.3 billion dollars annually. It isn’t going to happen. Our political class doesn’t have the courage or the foresight to pursue a policy that seems so reasonable. The striped-pant, tuxedo dressed diplomatic corps would vigorously howl if they believed that their opportunities for interacting with the tin-pot dictators of the world might be compromised or made somewhat more difficult.
In January of this year two columnists for “Forbes.com” had a better suggestion for relocating the UN. In my view, it’s an inspirational suggestion mainly because I have been promoting this idea since mid-2008. Joel Kotkin and Robert J. Cristiano (1/12/2010)were the authors. Their proposal was for the entire New York infrastructure of the United Nations to be transplanted to Dubai….among the United Arab Emirates. The world’s tallest building, the Burj Khalifa, was completed in January. It soars 2700 feet into the air, has 160 floors and contains 3.3 million square feet of unoccupied space. Only ten per cent of the structure is currently occupied, so the UN would have ample space, a world-class airport and every imaginable amenity available for its self-indulgent representatives and staff. In addition, there is ample parking space available so that New York wouldn’t shoulder the loss of all those unpaid parking tickets. By the way, that $18 million in unpaid tickets could fund 20-30 cops per year including bribes. This Dubai remedy seems to me to be a win-win-win-win solution. The building owners increase the occupancy, the UN gets a brand spanking new facility with much more space, the Third World nations will be gratified to have the global busy-body in their midst, and the United States’ taxpayers can save some bucks. To me, this is the perfect solution short of our total withdrawal from the UN (which I prefer). As a starter, I want them out of sight and out of mind. Instead of soiling Manhattan, the clowns can play in the Mid East litter box. As Iran becomes feistier, the elegant diplomats can stand on the helipad at the top of the building, and track the incoming ordinance.
If Frank Sinatra were still with us, he would probably sing, “Dubai, Dubai, Doooo.”
Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
