The Shutdown, the Aftermath, and What Should be Done

We all have experienced the government shutdown, lasting for almost two weeks, due to a disagreement in whether to raise the debt ceiling.  Many Republicans, especially John Bohner and Ted Cruz, wanted to abolish ObamaCare before proceeding any further, going as far as to hold it hostage as the government shut down, and with a deadline looming on defaulting on the debt, causing a possible worldwide economic disaster should this occur.

Bohner, Cruz, the Tea Party, and the extremists on the right were willing to take this chance make President Obama blink and give in, but he refused.  After passing a bill to abolish ObamaCare 40 times, and getting vetoed 40 times, this was their last resort.

Approaching the debt ceiling, and proposing to raise it, the Republicans took the opportunity, in desperation, to hold the economy hostage until ObamaCare was abolished or changed.  It failed.

The shutdown is over, and we have lost $24 billion in goods and services, and nobody truly got what they wanted, especially the Republicans.  They gave in and were humiliated, and they deserved to be.  

Many have said that ObamaCare is draining the budget, but that program hasn’t even been implemented yet.  It has passed into law, and Congress has to realize that one, the 2012 election is over, and two, ObamaCare is now the law of the land.  Accept it!  

Give it a chance to see if it will work.  It is not free, anyone who wants it has to pay for it.  ObamaCare is not a handout, it is not socialize medicine, it is not a welfare program, it is an insurance policy, an affordable way for people to pay their medical bills without have to drain their life savings, or, in an emergency, sell their homes.  

Now there is the problem of computer foul ups for people trying to register, caused by computer programmers, and if that isn’t enough, many insurance companies are now canceling the policies of many of their beneficiaries, leaving them with no other choice but to register for the government sponsored program.

As far as ObamaCare is concerned, fix the computer glitch, let the program start up, and if there are any faults in it, and there will be, correct them.  Most of all, try and make the program self-supporting, like investing the money to multiply itself;  i.e. stocks, bonds, and real estate.

The problem of the budget hasn’t been solved, just postponed for another three months, until we hit the debt ceiling again.

We can’t go on like this, living off of borrowed money.

What should be done?

We have hit the debt ceiling many times, and have been forced to raise it, many time, and we will continue to do so, again and again.  As of right now, our national debt is officially $17 trillion, and climbing.  If we default, like we almost did now, the U.S. will lose it prominence in the world, and other countries will look elsewhere for guidance, and with the position we are in now, we cannot afford to lose this.  If our debt keeps increasing, and nothing is done, we will default, our economy will collapse, and we will lose our position in the world.  We are headed in that direction.  There will be a day of reckoning for us.

Something has to change.  A lot of things has to change, for we cannot remain in the position we are in, no matter what happens.

We cannot go on borrowing money into infinity.  Somewhere, this has to stop, and we must start repaying all our debts.  The deficit needs to be eliminated, and we need to have a budget surplus, like we did late in the Clinton Administration.  Then we need to start paying our debt, first to other countries whom we have borrow money, then to the Federal Reserve.  It won’t be easy but it can be done if we all set our energies to it.  I say “we all” and we are all in this together, whether we want to be or not.  No one is exempt.

I have a lot of proposals here to increase revenue, thereby lowering, and hopefully eliminating the deficit altogether.  Many of these proposals are radical, and will invite big controversy, some may even anger some groups of people, but one has to remember, we are in a big economic mess, and doing nothing is not an option.  We need to improve our economy and bring more money into this country, and the government, if we are to prevent not only a repeat of what happened, but a huge economic disaster further on down the road.

All this starts with our federal budget.  We need to wipe that slate clean and start from scratch.  Our money cannot be wasted, nor can it go to senseless, useless, and repetitive programs, and most of all, non-federal programs.  Our budget needs to go to federal matters only!  Period.  If a town, city, or state wants money for their own projects, they need to raise it themselves, in the form of state and local taxes, or donations from their own local populace. 

In rebuilding the budget, what really has to be focused on is what the U.S. desperately needs if we are to survive in the future:  education, science, engineering and technology, rebuilding our infrastructure, new research in new technologies, rebuilding our cities, and attracting new industries.  We need to invest in future technologies that we will need further on down the road  i.e.  new forms of energy, space technology, ways to deal with climate change, and new forms of medical technology, to name a few, in order to make this country competitive with other countries now investing in these very technologies.  The big problem here is that we are cutting these very assets we need from our present budget in leaps and bounds, not knowing, or caring, about the consequences of these very actions.  We need to sit down and point out this mistake and discuss what can be done. 

In our budget, billions of dollars are wasted on things we don’t need, even in the military.  All forms of waste needs to be eliminated.  One problem is that the government funds projects they have no business funding.  Some outrageous examples are:  an indoor rainforest in Iowa, a teapot museum, and a project polishing a statue of Vulcan in Alabama (yes, these are real).  There are grants the the government gives that focus on the ridiculous, such as the above mentioned examples.  I have also noticed that there have been advertisements, even on television, for “Free money from the government” for doing almost anything you want.  Is it any wonder why we are so deep in debt?

The military wastes money like crazy.  More money is spent of the U.S. military then in the next 13 countries combined.  Here, Congress is at fault.  They have forced the military to spend money they neither need nor want.  Weapons in excess, such as tanks, continue to be built, along with weapons that are never used.  In both these situations, the military does not want this.  They do not want an excess of weapons like tanks, they do not want useless weapons, and they do not want to spend money Congress forces on them and orders them to spend, strange as this may sound.  This may sound radical here, but could we cut the military budget in half and let the military decide for itself what money should go where.  

Cut back on foreign bases that are no longer needed, close domestic bases, if some countries need our protection, let them pay for it and apply that money to the military.  We shouldn’t be wasting our money while many of these countries we protect get a free ride.  (I am aware that we need to rearrange our military priorities, especially in the Pacific, but I’m sticking to my convictions, here.)

I have only talked about getting our budget back in line by investing in what can literally save the life of this country, and by eliminating waste.  This will not be easy, but it has to be done, or at least attempted.  The second step, which has to be done simultaneously, is to increase our budget to be able to afford all this, eliminate the deficit, and finally pay our debt.

The first step in increasing our budget will be controversial.  Some say we should raise taxes;  others say cut spending.  I say we need to do both.  California had a serious debt problem recently, and they chose to do both, and it worked.  They got out of debt and produced a surplus.

We need to raise taxes on demerit goods, such as liquor, cigarettes, junk food (apply this all to health care) and gasoline, applying the proceeds to rebuilding our infrastructure.  

Obviously, we need to raise taxes on those with the highest income, but it doesn’t have to be that much, and it can be in a way that the taxed will never miss the money.

There is a big problem in entitlements and pensions.  There are also many person receiving these who do not need them.  I propose here that we send out a letter and form stating that if they have a good income or savings account, and they are receiving government entitlements, but do not need them, to voluntarily give up their pensions, be it Social Security, Medicare, or otherwise, for the sake of fixing the economy.  Many of these people might be willing to do so, saving the government even more money.

Both parties in Congress have to cross the aisles and work with each other, respecting the other persons views.  

We need a third party, a common sense party, that can see the reality of the economic situation we are in, and knows that we have to sacrifice something.  Fixing this problem will not be painless, even though most of us want it to be this way.

II believe we should invoke term limits on U.S. Senators and Congressmen;  two terms for senators (12 years total) and three terms for representatives (six years).  In the latter case I feel we should extend their term from two to four years, and have them serve a maximum to two terms, eight years total.  If one were to serve in both houses, the total would be 20 years, and that is plenty of time to make one’s mark.

The reason why I am bringing this up is that many career politicians outlast their usefulness, and just fill space, with nothing new to contribute.  They also want to stay there because of the perks, and there are many to these.  Working only 140 days a year, with a huge salary, plus perks (free meals, free haircuts, six, yes six paid vacations per years to name a few), is a waste of good taxpayer money, and is one more reason why our debt is so high.   Of course, many of these “professional” politicians are responsible for this shutdown, which is another good reason for term limits. 

Originally, the congress was meant to attract ordinary people from all walks of life; farmers, teachers, laborers, etc., to come in, point out present issues, help to fix them, pass new laws if necessary, and leave, return to their old professions, and live under the laws they passed.  New, fresh blood will then come and focus their issues of the day, and so on.  This would be a continuous rotation of office, and we, as a whole, would keep on changing with the times.

With the advent of professional politicians, and them running for office constantly until death or retirement, we have become stagnant, and the officeholders change their position from serving the U.S. as a whole to serving their party, i.e. themselves.  This has to change back to where it was originally.

In the redrawing of congressional districts, we need to ban gerrymandering.  Districts are drawn in a very awkward manner to accommodate the political party that is presently in charge, and this has to change.

We need campaign finance reform.

Now that that’s off my chest, we need to focus on the budget, our deficit, our debt, and deal with it in a way so that what just happened will never happen again.

We need to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.  Many companies have been outsource to other countries, especially to Latin America and Asia, for cheap labor.  Many of these companies are returning because of the rise in labor and taxes, but we need to provide bigger incentives for more of them to return.   More companies in the U.S. means more jobs, less unemployment, and more tax revenue.

We also need to allow for new startups, and new technologies.

In addition, we need to reform immigration laws allowing more immigrants to come in the U.S.  Foreign college students who study here should be given the opportunity to work here and eventually, if they wish, be allowed to live here permanently.  This will help our industries a great deal with new minds and laborers contributing to our economy.

  

America is not broke.  We are (still) the richest economy in the world, and we, as a country, have plenty of money, enough to produce more wealth, get us out of debt, and once again, become a creditor nation.  To achieve this will take hard work, and it will be painful.  There is no way we can achieve this painlessly, no way.

The problem with the money in many private industries is that is sits on its ass.  We do not invest enough of it to keep it going.  You may have a trillion dollars, but if it just sits in a vault, doing nothing, it’s no good, except for acquiring interest, and that interest in very small, less than one percent.  With an amount like a trillion, you may be lucky to get two percent interest.  I remember back in 1970, when I had a savings account with five percent interest, but those days are gone.  Banking has changed, and not for the better.

To increase our wealth, we must invest the money we have.

I do not like to sneer at “the rich” or “the corporations,” for both do have a right to exist, as long as they do not influence the government into getting what they want.

Aside this, they do provide employment for masses of people.  If enough people were employed, there would be more tax revenue for the government, so they would not run out of money, creating situations like these.  We also must not waste it.

People sneer at corporations not paying their fair share, or even paying no taxes, but one little know fact is that corporations in the U.S. have the highest tax rate in the world, about 35%.  Many other countries, especially in Europe, have rates of only 20%, and that is why many of them leave here, to pay lower taxes.  

This next proposal will outrage some people, but here it is.  What we have to do is level the playing field, lower our corporate tax rate down to 20% as well, so that the corporations abroad will come back to the U.S. After the return, provide incentives for employing more Americans;  i.e. for every one million (a round figure, could be more) Americans employed, lower the rate by one percentage point, down to a floor of 15%.  More income can come from both the company, and the worker.  Many may not like this, but if this can lower unemployment and generate more tax revenue, then it has to be done.

Encourage philanthropy.  Many wealthy individual, from all professions, be it a computer company or a movie star, should be encourage to help rebuild society in a big way, even starting projects normally in the domain of the government.  If a wealthy person lives in a town or city that needs a new bridge, perhaps that person can be encouraged to pay for it, saving the government taxpayer dollars that can be used elsewhere.  It could be a bridge, a road, a hospital, a library, rebuilding or establishing a school, a youth center, and some other creative and useful project.  Obviously, the person donating the money has the privilege of naming it, either after himself, or some other name.

As stated, we need to have a campaign to not only reduce and eliminate the deficit, but the debt as well.   We owe very little of our debt to foreign countries.  Most of the debt we owe, we owe to the Federal Reserve, meaning we owe it to ourselves.  But let's focus on repaying our debt to other countries first.

We owe the most to China, about $1.6 trillion.  Why not pay it off using a barter system?  As an example, China, at present, needs coal, lots of it.  Make a deal with China to pay off their debt with shiploads of our coal, with us mining it and sending it over to China.  We would mine it, get paid, and the money would remain in the U.S.  (I am very much aware of the pollution it causes, and climate change, but China is working on cleaner coal technology, and we need to pay our debt somehow.)  Export other minerals and/or products if needs be.

This system can be adapted to other countries in which we owe money.  Another way is to point out what countries we owe money to that we have aided in the past, helping to build them up by sending them money.  If we were to converse with them to deduct the amount we have aided them from what we owe them now, our debts to them can decrease, possibly even cancel.  We have even sent foreign aid to China in the past, so they also should be included.

With these two proposals, we can pay off our debts as soon as possible.  We will then have the Federal Reserve in which to contend.

Our shutdown was a wake-up call for these country.  We needed to increase the debt ceiling, but that, too, is a bad sign, indicating that we needed to borrow more money to keep us going.  We need to stop.  Our annual budget needs to last the entire year, without the need to borrow another red cent.  We need to produce a budget surplus to pay our debts.  We need to invest in the things that we insure our survival, like education, science and technology, our infrastructure, our problems, and most of all, our people.  This can be done, but Congress needs to stop being at each other’s throats and cooperate, listen to each other, and listen to the American people.

The U.S. and Syria, Part Two: The U.S. Was Not Defeated

  

     As of this writing, the U.N. has confirmed that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria used chemical weapons, Sarin gas, on his own people.

     During this crisis, Secretary of State John Kerry made an offhand remark about Syria giving up its chemical weapons, and here, Vladimir Putin of Russia jumped in to take advantage of this situation, stating that he and Russia will help make it possible.  With that, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia and John Kerry got together and within days, reached an agreement that Syria gives a full account of their weapons for the U.N. to remove and destroy them.  The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China) have also drafted a resolution to make sure Syria keeps its part of the bargain.

     There is still a few rough spots in the agreement that still need to be settled.  Russia objects that if Syria fails to comply, the U.S. and France will reserve the right to take military action.  Russia and China would veto any resolution to do so, but that option is still on the table, and there are still U.S. Navy warships awaiting orders to fire missiles at Syria should it become necessary.

      Because of this resolution, many U.S. officials, especially those leaning towards the Right, feel that Obama is weak, and allowed himself to be taken in by Putin, handing him, and Russia, prestige, while the U.S. appears to have back down on this crisis.  The Wall Street Journal labels Obama as weak and feels that the U.S. has been defeated by letting Syria off easy and allowing Assad to remain in power.

     I beg to differ.

     I think Obama did the right thing, and should Syria follow through with its end of the deal, it will show the world that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.  Assad may have gotten off easy, for now, and may keep in position in power, but that’s beside the point.

     As stated, the U.S., still has warships out in the Mediterranean, with missiles still pointed at Syria, and should Assad renege on his part of the bargain, they will be fired at Syria.  Nobody is telling us to get our warships out of there.

     Russia, now that it has prestige once again, has to make sure that Syria keeps their part of the bargain.  I am aware the Russia does supply some rogue nations with weapons, and I am also aware that what they do, they do to their advantage, sometimes to the detriment to the rest of the world, and they don’t always keep their part of any bargain, but should Assad use chemical weapons again, the Russians will lose whatever international respect they may have recently gained.  

     Assad, now that he has agreed to give up his chemical weapons, has to keep his part of the bargain.  I know of the rebukes.  “The U.S. is letting Assad stay in power and he’s going unpunished.”  Well, maybe, but since the U.N. has now confirmed that chemical weapons were used, Assad, if he did use them, can no longer do so.  If he does, all bets are off, and he will be attacked, and he, Russia, and the world know this.  In addition, even if Assad does remain in power, he will still have to deal with the uprising by his own people, and that is not about to end anytime soon.

     So where is the humiliation for the U.S.?  I don’t see any humiliation, embarrassment, or defeat.  On the contrary, we won without firing a shot.  Should Syria live up to it’s part of the bargain, we will show the world that the use of chemical weapons are not tolerated, even if Assad remains in power, and even if Assad did use them once.  He cannot use them again.

     If the U.S. were to get involved in Syria, we would be bogged down in a war with no exit strategy.  Not only would American lives be lost, it would destroy our economy, not to mention the respect from the world we still maintain.  It would have been a disaster, and that is where our defeat would have lied.  Also, in many cases, the rebels are no better than their oppressors, themselves resorting to ruthless tactics and killing innocent people.  If there is a right side, we would not have found it.  Many, perhaps most, of the rebels themselves would fight against us, not with us.  We, the U.S., always end up taking the wrong side in wars, even when our intentions are good.  There would have been more atrocities on our part, and we would be hated by the world more, not less.  Once again, we would be stuck in a mire.

     It never pays to get involved in any war in the Middle East.  We no longer need their oil, and these countries, including Syria, don’t want us in there anyway.  The Syrians themselves have stated this.  Also, don’t forget Iraq and Afghanistan.

     No, we were not defeated or humiliated.  On the contrary, if the deal goes through, we will have won.   Russia has to watch itself and Syria has to give up their chemical weapons, which is what we wanted, and with our ships still in the Mediterranean, should something go wrong.  We, the U.S., and the U.N., will be watch to see if Russia and Syria keep their part of the bargain. 

     We got the best part of the deal.

The U.S. and Syria, as of September 2, 2013

          President Barack Obama is in what will probably be the toughest situation of his presidency, and how he reacts will either make or break his place in history.  He may end up making an unpopular decision that history will regard as a wise decision, or vice versa.

     From the title, I am of course discussing the situation in Syria.  As of this moment, President Obama is pondering on bombing Syria as punishment for using poison gas on its own people.  President Assad, whom many of the Syrians have been rebelling against for the past two years, has been tyrannical, and is fighting these rebels to preserve his place in power.  The rebels were winning at first, but Assad has struck back, using his military to strike back at the rebels, reclaiming much of the territory that the rebels captured.

     There are those around the globe who support these rebels, hoping that they would succeed in this endeavor.  Some of them hoping that the U.S. will come in, aid these rebels, and drive out Assad, just like they did Saddam Hussain in Iraq, with mixed results.

      Obama has tried very hard to stay out of this mess, and for good reason.  First, the American people are weary from being in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 (2003 through 2011 in Iraq), costing taxpayers money, not to mention human lives, and would now very much like to concentrate on fixing their own economy.  Obama, during his first presidential campaign, has vowed to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and not to get us into any more wars.

     Obama is now in a different situation.  When one becomes president, he or she finds that being in office is not so easy as running for it, and it is not so easy to keep one’s promises to change things.  He has a lot of outside forces to deal with, starting with Congress, and it gets even tougher when that particular Congress is determined to see you fail, at all costs, and that is the situation that Obama is in today.

     Obama tolerated the Syrian civil war, and he tried, with success, to stay out of it.  He did warn Assad that if he used chemical weapons, the U.S. will be forced to take military action.  That is the red line the Obama drew.

     The Red Line has been crossed.  Masses of people were killed, and there is a suspicion that chemical weapons, mainly Sarin gas, was used.  Assad denies it, and it has been said that the rebels themselves did it, and others say that there is no proof the these weapons were used.  The U.N. was in, examined the bodies, and as of this moment, they just left the country.

     As stated, many say that there is no proof that chemical weapons were used.  Syria, however does have them, and the manufacturing and storage facilities for them.  If they were not used, how did all these people die?  What was used to kill them?  How do you explain this mass killing, with all bodies not having a mark on them, if Sarin gas wasn’t used?  If they were used, should we go in?  Perhaps the Air Force should go in and destroy these plants and storage facilities.

     It was during the first World War that poison gas was used on both sides, and the outcome was so horrible, that at the Geneva Convention, held in 1925, all sides agreed that chemical weapons will not be used in any future war.

     Well, should it be found that Assad did use them, and evidence points out that they did;  so what do we do?  Should we bomb Syria as a message to Assad not to use them again?  Should Obama decide to do so, he, and the U.S., will be condemned for being war mongers and bullies.

     What if Obama decides NOT to go into Syria?  Will he be condemned by the rest of the world for looking the other way and doing nothing while masses of innocent people are being killed?  Will he be compared to those who stood by during the Hitler regime while six million people went to the gas chambers?  There is a Syrian family that lives in my vicinity that thinks just that of Obama, and wants the U.S. military to go in and bomb Syria for reasons I have already stated.  There is also the danger that other dictators that possess chemical weapons will use them with impunity, both on their own people and on other countries, and this act of inaction will be what triggers it off;  i.e. chemical weapons will become conventional weapons.

      Suppose Obama does decide to go in and bomb Syria.  Will the world condemn the U.S. for being war mongers and bullies, bombing innocent people?  Will we lose what’s left of our credibility, especially after invading Iraq?  If Assad killed 100,000 Syrians by conventional means, why should we go in when these weapons only killed about 1400 Syrians, with 400 of them being children?  Does that make sense?

     Either way, Obama will be condemned.  He is in a very tough situation.  What can be accredited to him now is deciding to obtain the approval of Congress before venturing out there.  Whatever is decided, Obama will be judged by the world in a very harsh manner.  It will be up to history to come up with the final verdict.

     My own opinion on all this is:  One, there is no way we can fix the situation in Syria and make peace there, no matter what we do.  Only the Syrian people can do that.  If we go in, it will be worse for everybody, especially us.  Two, wars cost money, and after Iraq and Afghanistan, we cannot afford to get involved in anyone else’s problems, problems that do not concern us.  Three, the Syrian people themselves have stated that, in spite of what is happening, they do not want us coming in there at all.  They want to solve their own problems, and keep the rest of the world at bay.  Four, that situation is so complex, we don’t know whose side to be on;  we just may end up choosing the wrong side, something that we are very good at doing.  Last, if we are going to attack Syria, destroy the chemical weapons plants and storage facilities, and then get out.  That, at least, will discourage other dictators from using theirs.

     It is my own conclusion that we stay out, completely.  Since we are becoming more energy independent, we should try and stay out of all the Middle East and its affairs, and let them settle it themselves, if they have the ability to do so.  They don’t want us in there anyway, and no one else can do it for them, especially the U.S.

Israel and Palestine: Is There a Solution?

     Author's Note:  I know this essay will be read by everyone, including those of the Jewish and Muslim faiths.  Please do not be angry should you read a passage in which you are in great disagreement.  The purpose of this essay is to help solve a decades long problem, that has an effect on the entire world, not in just the region in which you live.  I hope to present a solution that will be acceptable to all, with no further reason to be hostile.

     As we all know, the U.N. voted to recognize Palestine as a “state,”  in quotation marks.  Not a real state, but a place that has the right to become one.  Of the votes casted, 138 nations approved, nine opposed, and 42 abstained.  Israel, the U.S., and Canada were among those voting against it.  It makes us look bad, and perhaps, with me writing this article, you might think that anyone who supports a Palestine, or the Palestinian people, do not care about the Jews, or Israel.

     Wrong!  Israel is one of the most valuable allies we have, and we, the U.S. desperately need them now and in the future, perhaps forever.  I am totally supportive of Israel, and recognize their need, as a country and a people, to be safe and secure.  However, there has to be a Palestine.  A two-state solution is the only way there can be peace in that region, if that is possible.

     For decades, both sides have been pounding each other, committing massacres, from the killing of 11 Israeli athletes in the 1972 Olympics in Munich to the recent slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza (2012).  There is Hamas, along with other extremist groups, devoted to destroying Israel, and there is Mossad, a special unit of the Israeli Defense Force, killing leaders of these groups, and for good reason, I might add.  All of this has been happening since 1948, when Israel become a nation.

     Both sides have grievances that can match the other, and both sides can accused the other of genocide.  

     In order to understand the situation, we must listen to both sides, consider their wants and needs, and try to work out a viable solution, a win-win situation where both sides exist side by side in peace.  Is this possible?  I believe that it is.  

     Lets give both sides their due, starting with Israel.  From Biblical times, the Jews, being God’s chosen people, did have a rough time at it since their very existence.  They have always had to fight to survive, and like any race, they had times where they would win and be prosperous, and other times, lose, and the be forced to submit to the victor.  In 70 A.D., they were finally driven out of their homeland by the Romans and forced to wander the Earth.  They would settle in a country, spend a few centuries or so there, and then be expelled.  This went on up to World War II, where the Nazis herded them into ghettos, then death camps, where they were forced to go to the ovens like sheep to the slaughter.  A few rose up and fought back, like in the Warsaw Ghetto, but, in the end, six million Jews were murdered.  That is quite a scar for any race of people to handle, and it made succeeding generations determined never to let this happen again, and if they have to fight fiercely to prevent this, they will, and they do.  Can you blame them?  I certainly can’t.   When they finally settled, or resettled in what is now Israel, they became determined to keep their God given homeland, and never lose it again.  You can see that the Israeli army is one of the fiercest armies in the world.

     However, we cannot forget the Palestinians.  They have lived on the lands of Judea and Israel for millennia, occupied by other empires, but was never a country themselves.  After the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine came under the rule of the British, becoming the British Mandate of Palestine.  It was here that the Jewish race started to return in droves.  In 1948, after the war, Palestine was divided, giving lands to both the Arabs and the Jews.  When Israel was formed, many Palestinians had their land confiscated and were kicked out of their homes, many leaving for other parts of the Arab world, some becoming Nomads, but never assimilating into these other societies.  

     So the Palestinians became displaced by the Jews, and the Palestinians have resorted to violence to get their lands back, while the Israelis are fighting to keep their lands, and through four wars, have expanded, though not by much, but did reacquire Jerusalem and the West Bank (formerly Judea in Biblical times), and Gaza. 

     Now we have two distinct races of people each claiming the same plot of land as their own.  Both sides have their story, their reasons for fighting each other, and are now in what seems to be an eternal war.  Is there a way which we can settle this matter once and for all, where both sides win?

    From the Israeli side, there are six million Jewish citizens, but 1.6 million Arabs in Israel proper.  The West Bank is populated by 2.3 millions Palestinian Arabs and 311 thousand Jews.  Gaza is populated by 1.7 million Palestinians.  Israelis continue to build settlements in the West Bank.  Their ultimate scheme is to literally crowd the Palestinians out of the West Bank completely, so the Israelis will completely occupy it and eventually annex it to Israel.  The Palestinians, however, aren’t going to go quietly, if at all.  Ironically, many of these settlements are being constructed by Palestinians, paid employees of these construction companies, as a means to make a living.  

     The West Bank, let alone Gaza, is a difficult place for Palestinians to live.  There are check points, manned by Israeli soldiers, that make it difficult for Palestinians to travel from one place to another, literally taking hours to travel a short distance.  There are separate roads for each ethnic group, i.e. Palestinians aren’t allowed to travel on roads built for Jewish settlers.  Many Palestinian villages are in extreme poverty while Israeli settlements are opulent with the most modern surroundings, protected by barbed wire.  These settlements take up most of the water supply, using it for even swimming pools, while there is a severe water shortage in many Palestinian towns and villages.  Note well:  these statistics originate from a Jewish writer, Rabbi Michael Lerner, who lived in Israel and did research on this subject, and wrote books about it.  Is it any wonder why the Palestinians are so angry and filled with hate?

    In order to solve these problems permanently, there are only four options, as far as I can see.

1. Maintain the status quo.
2. Completely drive the Palestinians out of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, and if they refuse to go, kill them.  
3. Establish a bi-national state.
4. Grant the Palestinians their wish, giving them the West Bank and Gaza and make East Jerusalem their capital.

We shall go over these one by one.

The first isn’t working.  It has caused wars and will continue to do so.

As for the second, the world will take a very dim view of that, and Israel will lose the respect that they do have.

The third option will not work, because the birth rate among the Palestinians is much higher than that of the Israelis, and the Jews will become a small minority very fast, setting them up for eventual expulsion; and it will happen.

     This leaves us with the fourth option.  Give the Palestinians a homeland, a country they can call their own.  Give them the West Bank.  They already have Gaza.  Make East Jerusalem their capital.

Most of all, considering the settlements already in existence, don’t have the nation of Palestine look like a piece of Swiss cheese on the map.  They are not going to want that.

     Whatever traditions and history the Jewish people in Israel and Judea may have had in Biblical times no longer applies today.  They are going to have to leave the past behind and look at the situation as it is now.  Sacrifices will have to be made on both sides, and some traditional lands will have to be forfeited.

     Also, past wars need to be let go.  Palestine has had their people killed by Israelis in massacres, but Israeli can match that with their own victims.  Both sides have grievances against the other, and that, with respect to all victims, has to be put aside.  The past has to be left behind; period.

     Most of all, when an agreement is reached, the existence of both countries need to be recognized by the other;  Palestine must recognize Israel and Israel must recognize Palestine.  Whatever borders are drawn must be final.

     The rest of the Arab world will also have to recognize Israel as a sovereign state, their right to exist, and be willing to treat it like any other country, no more, no less.

     Gaza, the Palestinians already have.  Israeli settlements there have been disbanded, and all the Israelis have left.  Trouble is, extremists are using it for a base to launch rockets into Israel.  It is only natural that the Israeli army is going to come in and bomb it.  If the inhabitants of Gaza want this to stop, they need to end their aggression toward Israel.  It will be up to the new Palestinian government to enforce the new treaty and stop any faction from making any aggressive moves towards Israel, and use force if necessary.  This could be done with a joint Israeli/Palestinian force, and they would enforce ALL parts of the Palestine-Israeli borders, and in Greater Jerusalem.

     As for East Jerusalem, that city is a separate entity from Jerusalem.  East Jerusalem was annexed by Israel, and considers it part of a united Jerusalem, but the harsh reality is, it isn’t.  East Jerusalem is a separate city, occupied mostly by Arabs, with a few Israeli settlements.  Giving up East Jerusalem would be, in reality, no loss to Israel.  In fact, it would be beneficial, because they will no longer have to deal with a hostile population (Arabs) who do not want to be a part of Israel in the first place.  Israel would still have historic and traditional Jerusalem.  Perhaps they can allow Palestinians to patrol the Dome of the Rock.  

     In the West Bank, taken from Jordan after the 1967 war, which Jordan later relinquished at its own free will, there are hundreds of Jewish settlements, the majority being at the border of Israel proper.  I notice that regardless of any truce between Israel and Palestine, the Israeli government continues to build settlements in the West Bank.  Obviously, the REAL goal here is to have the Israeli people build up enough settlements, with a population to match, to literally push the Palestinians out of the West Bank completely.  When that time comes, Israel will be free to annex the West Bank to Israel proper, and have a bigger nation.  However, the Palestinians are resisting and are willing fight to the last man to prevent this goal.  I predict that it will be a blood bath before Israel succeeds in this goal.  Is it worth it? 

     How will the world look upon this should a goal like that is achieved?   My answer is, “not good.”

     The harsh reality is, neither the Jews nor the Palestinians are going anywhere!

     There has to be a Palestine.  There is just no way around it.  If there is any chance for the people of Israel to live peacefully, there has to be a Palestinian state.  That’s all there is to it.  

     I have already covered Gaza and East Jerusalem, so here is my view on the West Bank in general.  The West Bank becomes Palestine, with a few adjustments.  All the settlements along the Israeli border can go to Israel, but East Jerusalem, the Palestinian capital, will, of course be connected to the rest of the West Bank.  Whatever land from the West Bank the Palestinians lose from this deal can be compensated by land from Israel in equal size and value, attached to the West Bank, that they can forfeit, being the exact same amount they gained - a one for one land swap.  The rest of the West Bank goes to Palestine, including remote Jewish settlements.

     Here, the Jewish people in these settlements can be offered a choice.  First, they can continue living in these settlements, but under Palestinian rule.  They might not like this, and they many find this unpleasant, even threatening.  The second choice is, they can move back to Israel proper, and Palestinians to move into these settlements.

     The Palestinians will have to give up any claims that they may have in Israel proper, including land their forbears lost back in 1948 when the Jews came in to settle.

     In this new state of Palestine, there would be a police force, a Palestinian Authority, but no military, modeled after Costa Rica, in Central America.  This may not be a bad thing because since Costa Rica gave up their military in 1949, it has been a peaceful and stable country.

     Palestine can have a new Jordanian connection.

     All countries in that region, including Palestine, must recognize the existence of Israel and their right to defensible borders.

     There may be a cold peace between Israel and the new nation of Palestine, even a wall (there is in some parts), but perhaps in a generation or two, relations between the two countries may start to thaw and perhaps a new peace may finally be established.

     This, I feel, is the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.  It is the only way for hostilities to cease and for a peace to finally come.  Everyone has to make sacrifices, and everyone must respect everyone else’s right to exist.

    

Note:  This essay was not based on any book, but there is a book on this subject that I highly recommend:  “Embracing Israel/Palestine:  A Strategy to Heal and Transform the Middle East” by Rabbi Michael Lerner (Tikkum Books/North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California, 2012).  This book is from an objective point of view, and gives justice, and proper balance to both the Israelis AND the Palestinians, but also tells of the guilt of both sides, leaving no stone unturned.  Solutions are presented that are both fair and just in order to end this problem once and for all.  It is greatly detailed, tells of little known facts, and I recommend this book to ALL races and religions of people.

How The Rich Can Help Rebuild America

“I may not like the rich, but I would be a little ambivalent about that statement should the same opportunity ever fall to me.”

   
     The wealthiest one percent of the U.S. population, holds about 33% of the nation’s wealth, leaving the rest of us, being 99%, holding the remaining 67%.  By this I mean corporate executives, owners of big businesses, heirs living off trust funds, self-made people, movie stars, rock musicians, sports figures, the idle rich, all kinds.
     In their defense, I will say that this top one percent pays 38% of the federal income
taxes.  Also, the top 10% of the U.S. population spends more money than the bottom 80. (All the above figures are from The Wall Street Journal, October 22-23, 2011, pp. C1, C2.;  Robert Frank, “The Wild Ride of The 1%,”).  This, in turn, benefits the economy as a whole.
     The big controversy today is that the tax rate favors the rich, and it started when then-President George W. Bush decided to lower taxes for this class of people.  This resulted in helping to wipe out the current budget surplus acquired under President Bill Clinton, bringing back the deficit, and raising the national debt extensively.  I myself never forgave Bush for this, never mind what he subsequently did.
     One fear from all this is the middle class being wiped out, some going to the upper class, but most descending to near poverty levels.  It’s the classic example of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.  As for the country, we are now deep in debt, other countries, like China, are well on their way of surpassing us on the economic ladder, while we become a second rate power.  America will soon be unable to afford anything:  rebuilding the infrastructure, funding much needed social programs, cutting back on public services, research and development, education, pensions for the retired, the military.  Everything is now on the cutting block, and it’s our own fault.  What’s really sad is nobody wants to sacrifice anything to help a community, and a country, that’s going broke.      
          What do these people do with all the money they acquire?   Some, I admit, do good and creative work, like help the environment, the poor, campaign for a worthy cause, even help those in poor countries and contribute to finding cures for diseases such as AIDS and multiply sclerosis.  These people are the models that everyone else should emulate.
     One example is Jon M. Huntsman (Kirk Johnson, “A Billionaire WIth Distinct Ideas of Philanthropy and Presidential Politics,” The New York Times, National Section, Sunday, October 16, 2011, p. 21).  Owner of a chemical company that he started himself, Huntsman is now a multi-billionaire.  He suggested to Warren Buffett, also a philanthropist, that billionaires give away 80% of their wealth to worthy causes and projects.  Huntsman founded the Huntsman Cancer Institute, dedicate to research for finding cures for cancer, in addition to helping patients with cancer survive.
     As for many other people, much of the time, their money simply sits in their accounts, doing little or no productive work.  These people can’t even begin to spend it, and some spend it foolishly.  Inheriting wealth from their parents who earned it can be detrimental to the heir(s) if they don’t know how to handle it.  Many do become spoiled, stifling their own creativity, thus becoming idle.  This can lead to self-destructive behavior, as we have seen in many of our celebrities.  There are exceptions, where the child learns the trade, uses his or her own creativity and improves the company the father created, but that is rare.
     I would like to bring up a book by Andrew Carnegie, “The Gospel of Wealth.”  This is a book I strongly recommend for anyone who handles money in any way, being just about everybody in business.  In fact I recommend it for everybody.  He has also written other essays pertaining to this subject, and they have been put together in a book titled “The Gospel of Wealth Essays and Other Writings.”                
     Andrew Carnegie, an immigrant from Scotland, started working in a cotton factory, at the age of twelve, for $1.20 a week.  He worked his way up as an apprentice, established Carnegie Steel (later U.S. Steel), becoming the second richest man in America, possibly the world, after John D. Rockefeller.  When he retired, he collected a pension of one million dollars a month.  Carnegie then proceeded to give away much of his wealth, a total of $350 million, benefitting communities all over the world.  For example, he donated (bought) pipe organs for churches worldwide, established over 2,500 public libraries in the English speaking world, and of course, you know of the famous Carnegie Hall in New York City.
     Carnegie’s book, “The Gospel of Wealth”  emphasizes all this, for he has stated, and I quote, “The man who dies rich thus dies disgraced.”  (Carnegie did leave his children enough money for them to last the rest of their lives, but no further.  The grandchildren had to start fresh.)  You must note that Carnegie didn’t have anything against wealth itself, only the administration of it.  A lot of it goes to waste.  Also, flaunting wealth is not only a bad idea, it’s dangerous.
     This essay is based of what Andrew Carnegie has written on this subject, and I will apply this to the present problems of this country, the United States, in the year 2011 as of this writing.  What I am trying to discuss here is not socialism, but philanthropy.  In a bigger sense, this is giving back to the community, to society, and to the nation as a whole.
     Carnegie did not advocate giving money to any individual having their hand out, for the majority of the times, he or she would spend it on their own pleasure, moral or not, or they would use begging as a substitute for work, and that he despised.  Many do make this mistake, but it can do more harm than good.  It’s easier to give than to refuse.
     What Carnegie does advocate is giving to communities something that could be of great benefit, such as a theater of a community center.  Once that theater or community center is built, however, it would be up to the people of that community to maintain it.  What is pointed out here is helping people who can help themselves without the gift.  Being a recipient here is not for the lazy or incompetent.  If one receives a scholarship, that person/student has to study hard and maintain a high grade point average and be active in school to show for it.
     In his book, Carnegie listed seven objects of philanthropy: universities, libraries and museums, hospitals and medical research, parks and recreation, theaters and community centers, swimming, and churches (here you can add synagogues, mosques, temples of any faith).  Here, the philanthropist would donate money to build these institutions, and the public, from then on, would use and maintain it.
     I would like to add it all this.  At present, we have a very serious problem with the U.S. infrastructure; it is deteriorating.  The roads, the highways, bridges, railroads, tunnels. all needed for not only private but also public transportation as well.  Commerce, and even global trade in this country relies on well maintained roads and bridges, as well as high paying jobs.  If global commerce cannot function here in the U.S., companies will take their businesses elsewhere, meaning no jobs, and no money for us.  New companies will not come in either, so the situation will only get worse.
     With the federal, state, and city/town budgets as they are, and with the country needing to rebuild and renovate its infrastructure, perhaps the rich could supplement or substitute for the government in rebuilding much of this badly needed base.  This would be a form of both serving one’s country and giving back to the community, the society that helped the person to build his fortune in the first place.  If the government cannot afford to build some parts of the infrastructure that so desperately needs it, perhaps the very wealthy, foundations, private sector could fill in for it.  They can all help donate bridges, roads, new sewer systems, power plants, flood control systems, replant forests, even fund public schools that are closing, perhaps even buy newly required books and computers for the school he or she is sponsoring.
     For example, if there is a small community, with a very wealthy person living there, and a new bridge is needed, and the government can’t afford it, perhaps that particular person could step in and pay for it.  Employment would be produced, and the new bridge would then be built.  The person sponsoring it would have the privilege of naming it, be it after himself, the street, the town, or any other name he so chooses.
     One urban problem is that badly needed public schools are shutting down due to lack of funding.  One can come in, sponsor one school, buying updated educational materials such as text books, computers, sports equipment, artistic materials, whatever that particular school might need.  The school can be more demanding of the students, and inspire them.  New programs for that school can be established, such as the performing arts, or a new sports team.  An incentive can be given for college scholarships.  The people in the community would benefit, crime would go down, and more productive citizens would appear.  If the school is in a dilapidated neighborhood, the neighborhood the school is in can be improved, such as building a community center, repairing streets and sewers, and more employment would be produced in restoring this neighborhood.
    This is a problem in Los Angeles right now, with badly needed schools closing down, and the youth having nothing to do but get into alcohol, drugs, and gangs.  A few miles up the road is Hollywood, with movie stars and other wealthy people living in Beverly Hills, a world apart from these slums.  If we can convince many of the wealthy to sponsor one school each, the communities in L.A. would greatly improve, with renewed schools, infrastructure, more productive citizens, and a lot less crime.
     In addition to the infrastructure, new technologies can be sponsored, such as space exploration and development, electric automobiles, new power plants with little or no pollution, new forms of electronics, new recycling plants, and new forms of public transportation, such as high speed rail.  Here, the sponsor can profit from this, making even more money for himself.  This could also mean more money for more projects.  Previously cancelled projects, such as the rail tunnel between between New York and New Jersey, can go back on the board.  Many good projects have been cancelled due to lack of funding.
   
     According to Forbes, there are about 414 billionaires in the U.S., with a net worth of $1.53 trillion.  This is more than enough to sponsor projects that this country so desperately needs, and these people are a good resource to tap.  (Charles Landow and Courtney Lobel, “How Billionaires Can Build Bridges to the Middle Class,” The Wall Street Journal, October 17, 2011, p. A17).
     Much of the wealth is thrown into the hands of the few.  It is given to him to administrate it.  If this society, by its laws, freedoms, and laborers helped this person obtain the wealth he or she has, then he or she should give some of it back in the form of institutions, infrastructure, and facilities their community, society, and country badly needs but could no longer afford because of its present economic crisis.  It is up to them to help this country, since this country help him achieve the position he is in today.
     It is of no value to hoard his wealth, or leave it to heirs who will simply use it to remain idle and bask in luxury.  It would be a great disservice to his family should he decide to do so.  He should be able to use it to help others while he is still alive, not after he dies.  Doing so will earn him good standing while he is still living rather than after he dies.
     Obviously, he is entitled to keep much of his wealth for the lifestyle he so desires.  However, the vast majority of the wealth that has been given to him, that would otherwise be hoarded, where he can’t even begin to spend, should be put to good use to benefit society, especially at a time like this where it is badly needed, where the government itself is in financial trouble and cannot continue to carry out its duties in serving the American people.

Concerning Richard Nixon

     Just as he resigned from office, President Richard Nixon said to his White House staff in his farewell address, “Remember, always give your best.  Never get discouraged.  Never be petty.  Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win, unless you hate them.  And then you destroy yourself.”  These are not only good words for anyone to follow, they also sum up his career, and I feel that this may be the real reason why his presidency failed.

     I have always had a soft spot for Nixon.  I remember Watergate clearly, and I have seen his presidency from the very beginning, and I knew he wanted our involvement in Vietnam to end, so he hired a brilliant diplomat, Henry Kissinger, to accomplish this task.  While he did this, he slowly reduced the number of troops from half a million in 1969 to under 100 thousand in 1972.

     What has largely been forgotten is that in his first term, he set up a vast network of federal grants to social programs to state and local governments, for them to help the less fortunate in their own localities.  As for the environment, he helped to establish the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate air and water emissions, for pollution was a very serious problem back in the late sixties and early seventies.  Another agency, OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, was set up to protect workers from the hazards of their jobs.  Back then, “Nixon Republicans” meant working class people, as opposed to the Republican party of today representing the wealthy.  

     Nixon tried to go further in similar programs, but Congress wouldn’t support him.  Nixon tried to establish a living wage for all working families, so they can earn a decent living.  He even tried to establish a national health care plan before the concept was popular, by proposing to provide government insurance for low-income families, require employers to cover all their workers, and set standards for private health insurance.  Today, he would be considered a radical, supported by Liberals and despised by Neo-Conservatives, quite the opposite of what he was during his administration.

     Nixon had a foreign policy, one of the best in his time, that commanded the respect of leaders world-wide, and his crowning achievement was to open up China, then closed, to the world.

     As a politician, he was a man of great resilience who never let a defeat finish him, as he won the presidency in 1968 after suffering a defeat against Kennedy in 1960 and another defeat for governor of California in 1962.  No one can debate the fact that he never quit.

     How will history judge him?

     I believe that now, 20 years after his death, all the facts about him are now available, and in spite of Watergate, people will no longer be able to think of him as a liar, a scoundrel, a hater, a bigot, or just another politician.  He was all these things, yet so very much more that his life became one of the great tragedies of his time.

     It was a tragedy because Nixon had many enlightening qualities that could have taken this country on a road avoiding the many problems that are prevalent in our society today, such as health care and poverty, had Congress allowed him to proceed with his proposals.  Had Nixon decided to make peace with his opponents and win them over, he might have accomplished more of what he wanted.   He simply had to be willing to see eye to eye with more of these people.

     Early on in his career, Nixon was hard working, studied Law diligently and received all A’s in his academics.  He was very dynamic, and had high contacts with many other political figures, including John Kennedy.  

     How then, after Watergate broke out, did he allow himself to become involved with such corrupt men like Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell, Dean, Colson and the rest of the White House “plumbers”?  He knew the law and the consequences for breaking it, yet he allowed his staff to lie, cheat, and bribe people into silence, and cover up a burglary, even when the courts and Congress started to look into the matter.  How could he have revealed that he had tape recordings of the cover up, and not destroy them to protect himself?  Most of all, how could he have allowed all this to happen in the first place, in order to win an election that he was going to win anyway? 

     Had Watergate not occurred, Nixon would have won in a landslide, which he did, against any opponent, including Ted Kennedy.  Nixon, during his first term, had an obsession about Ted Kennedy, fearing that he would run and defeat him.  This fear was unnecessary.  Ted Kennedy slipped when Chappaquiddick occurred in 1969, where he drove off a bridge, drunk, resulting in the drowning of his secretary, Mary Jo Kopechne, and then running away from the scene.  In 1972, Ted Kennedy decided that he would not run for the office.

     Nixon had his faults, his racial prejudices, and was very paranoid.  In spite of all this, he managed to accomplish a great deal.  He had enemies, many of whom protested his handling of Vietnam, but he went ahead and withdrew troops, 25,000 in 1970, then 35,000, 50,000 and 100,000.  He sent troops into Cambodia and Laos to counteract the Viet Cong and their supply lines.  He used all this as bargaining chips to withdraw, get the South Vietnamese to fight the war themselves, and have the U.S. save face, leaving Vietnam without appearing to be defeated.

     Nixon had a great love for his country, and did not want to see it suffer it’s first defeat and humiliation.  He had many qualities which amazed both his friends and foes alike.  He stood up to his enemies, near and far, was very anti-Communist, yet was able to reach out to those leaders from behind the Iron Curtain and win them over as friends.  He played the China card against the Soviet Union, and opened up a closed and isolated giant to the world.  He no doubt changed the course of the Cold War for the better, commanding world-wide respect for the U.S.  

     No future historian can argue that even after Nixon left office, he managed to overcome his disgrace of resigning from the presidency, write books on foreign policy, and revisit China, six times, along with Russia, again to promote U.S. leadership, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union.  Many important officials did listened to his views of events that were unfolding after the Cold War.  One journalist quoted that “Nixon is running for elder statesman, and winning.”  This may have been his supreme victory.

     But, for all his accomplishments, there is one vice that Richard Nixon suffered that will prevent any history book from accepting him as a great man.  It was not the vice of vanity, which, when all is said and done, many a great man has suffered.  It wasn’t his hard driving and ruthless ambition, for that has carried many leaders to the top in times gone by.  It wasn't his political tactics, or “dirty tricks,” that outraged so many of his contemporaries, but is common practice in campaigns today.  It wasn’t even his talking to portraits of past Presidents in the White House late at night and drinking heavily in the last days of his presidency while sinking into defeat, because what else was there to do?

     The vice which Nixon suffered, in which all history books will undoubtably blame him, was his sheer hatred and his strong desire and attempts to destroy any and all of his political opponents.  That was his great crime.  It was this hatred, and paranoia, that led to Watergate, the cover-up, and the creation of his enemies list.  It was this hatred that led him to authorize the burglary of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, before Watergate, in order to obtain information to embarrass Ellsberg.  Most of all, it was Nixon’s hatred that caused his enemies to turn on him, leading up to his downfall and forcing him out of office.

     During the Cold War, Nixon was staunchly anti-Communist, yet he went over to China in 1972, shook hands with Chou En Lai (who remembered being snubbed by John Foster Dulles when he offered to shake hands) and became friends with Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, and visited him again in 1976.  He did the same in the Soviet Union with Leonid Brezhnev, along with other leaders behind the Iron Curtain.                   

      Nixon was once a close friend of John Kennedy, and even in 1960, John Kennedy’s father, Joe, decided that if his son didn’t win the Democratic nomination for president, he would go over and support Nixon.  Kennedy, however, won the election, and Nixon had never forgiven him, even though he himself won the presidency in 1968.  In addition, he was determined to “get even” with those who did not support him during his elections.  He simply would not let go.

     George McGovern, Nixon’s opponent in 1972, once stated in an interview that two days after his landslide victory, Nixon flew into a rage over his opponents.   McGovern was amazed how Nixon could have felt like that after winning his greatest victory in his career.

     We will never know why he could not have simply try and win over his political rivals.  Had he done so, perhaps he would have accomplished much more of what he wanted, Watergate would never have occurred, he would have completed two full terms of office, and maybe even gone down as one of the great presidents in history.

     But, as it turned out, the man who could make friends with his enemies abroad would not reconcile with his enemies here at home.  So his very quote at the beginning of this essay was self fulfilling and when Nixon said it, he knew that it applied to him, but it was too late.

     It was his hatred and attempts to destroy his opponents, to retaliate against those who did not support him, all of which finally led to his own self-destruction, for which history will not forgive him.   

Author’s Note:  I got the inspiration to write this essay from the epilogue of another biography, “The Reich Marshal: A Biography of Hermann Goering,” by Leonard Mosley, Dell Publishing Company, paperback edition, New York, 1975, pp.  431-434.  Some of these lines in this essay were taken out of context.  I have read this epilogue many times, and have always felt inspired, that I wanted to write something similar about Richard Nixon.  Mostly, this is in my own words, but a few lines were copied because I couldn’t say it any better.  All these facts I’ve pointed out about Nixon, however, are true.