Under the proposal, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim officials chosen by voters to lead a tri-partite government would join in running Jerusalem and making sure that all three religions are adequately represented in the daily affairs of the holy city, which has a population of 760,000.

When I say that “conditions are ripe,” I am referring to the fact that Jerusalem has just undergone a critical election in which a secular businessman, Nir Barkat, has been installed as mayor, ending five years of what the Associated Press refers to as “ultra-Orthodox rabbinical leadership at City Hall.”

According to the A.P., Barkat’s victory resulted from his “promise to reverse the city’s slide into poverty and the exodus of the Jewish population” to other cities and towns in Israel.  Barkat won convincingly over Rabbi Meir Porush and Arkady Gaydamak, a Russian-born tycoon.

Here’s an important paragraph in the A.P. report:  “The election was part of a struggle between secular and religious forces over Jerusalem’s Jewish identity.  Most Arabs, who make up about one third of the city’s 760,000 population, boycotted to protest Israel’s claim of sovereignty over the entire city.”

You can see why I have described the situation as being “ripe” for consideration of the proposal to make Jerusalem the universal city it should have been for centuries since the birth of Christ.  It’s unfortunate that the universal-city status wasn’t implemented back in 1948, when Israel was born.

Perhaps America’s new President-elect, Barack Obama, can be persuaded to lead a movement, joined by the other Western powers, to demand that Israel agree to designate Jerusalem as a universal city, governed by all three major religions with ties to the holy city.   

Why do I place such great emphasis on the universal-city idea?  For several reasons, among them the fact that all three religions trace their origin to Jerusalem.  But the most important reason relates to the ongoing conflicts between Arabs and Jews and between Muslim extremists and the rest of the non-Islamic world.

With the universal city demonstrating peaceful co-existence of Jews, Christians, and Arabs, I believe it could be a powerful influence in the world at-large and the beginning of a new era in which all nations would be at peace.  It could mark the end of the international war on terrorism and cancellation of a Third World War.

Are you listening, Barack?                                                                                  

American and other inspectors say they have the word of onetime Iraqi scientists that Saddam moved his cache of mass-destruction arms to Syria. But, even without that confirmation from worthy sources, why do the Bush haters in the Democratic camp keep insisting that Saddam never had any WMDs?

The facts and history speak differently. First, it is known for a fact that Saddam murdered thousands of Kurds and his own people by subjecting them to severe gas attacks, against which they had no defense. If lethal gas is not a weapon of mass destruction, what is?

It is also known that Saddam’s military forces launched batteries of missiles against American forces freeing Kuwait and against Israel, as well. He himself bragged he could have filled those missiles with death-dealing gases.

These are WMDs, pure and simple. And there never was any doubt that Saddam was on the verge of manufacturing nuclear weapons — aided by our European “friends,” France, Germany, and Russia.

Why, then, do these loud-mouths persist in saying that Saddam never had weapons of mass destruction? It seems to me that murderous gases, germ-laden missilery, and nuclear arms, even though not fully developed, qualify too well as WMDs. What kind of evidence do the critics need to sustain their charge that the Iraqi dictator never had such weapons?

Now that Saddam has been tried and executed in his homeland for murder and for international war crimes, we should soon get the answers to where he dispatched his weaponry when President Bush and the U.S. signaled we were ready to invade in our campaign against terrorists, including Saddam.

Clean up the yard signs.

It’s a privilege for campaigns to have the ability to post campaign yard signs in not only the yards of private property but also in the public rights of way.

Don’t abuse the privilege by overstaying your welcome.  The campaigns are over.  Clean up the yard signs.  Show your good citizenship and clean up the litter.

Along with Roundup and a number of other scientific marvels that contribute enormously to the food crop in the U.S. and abroad, the advances in genetically improved food supplies are a boon to the American farmer — as they will be to many third-world nations struggling to keep their millions fed.

The pesky critics are making all kinds of charges in their effort to derail science and the fantastic new technologies designed to improve people’s lives — and, in the case of the genetically grown wheat, help prevent famine in many areas of the world.

One of the charges is that the creation of genetic foods will put so much power in the hands of a few large food-producing companies that they will control the world’s food supply and earn extraordinary profit in the process. What a ridiculous charge! So, let them profit from their new technology and science. If they succeed in eliminating hunger and starvation throughout the world, don’t they deserve whatever profit is made?

Once again I am reminded of an imaginative proposal made many years ago by my great friend, the late Dr. Dixy Lee Ray. She suggested that the smartest way to solve differences that evolved in all fields of science and technology was for Congress to create what she called a “Supreme Court of Science.”

Such a court would put an end to the frequent protests engendered by the anti-science crowd and would also provide the public, Congress, and all the print and broadcast media with basic judgments on scientific and even technological issues. The court would be composed of the best minds in the variety of scientific fields.

As Dr. Ray suggested, the Supreme Court of Science would not issue any judgments, level punishment or fines, or do any of the other things existing courts do. It would simply make reports on each scientific or technological conflict and leave it to the public, Congress, and the news media to take it from there. I still believe it is a superb idea.

In California, as well as in Florida and Arizona — and, predictably, in other states — voters have approved a measure that bans marriages of same-sex couples. Proposition 8 in California reverses a decision by the state’s Supreme Court ruling that the law permitting same-sex marriages was legitimate.

But gays and lesbians, joined by other groups, are already gearing for yet another battle to support the state court’s ruling and counter the decision made by voters in the California election. Gays and their numerous backers in the state have wasted no time and have filed three lawsuits designed to overturn Proposition 8.

So, the battle is on — or, rather, it will now continue on even a more dangerous path than before. To me, it is simply a battle of words, a battle that could be avoided, if only both sides would agree on a solution that is so easy to implement that one cannot understand why American adults on both sides have refused to adopt it.

Like many other observers, I have been proposing that solution for many years. It goes this way: No matter what laws are propounded, gays and lesbians will go on living together, virtually all of them carrying on in a manner that is lawful and does not interfere with the lives of others. Therefore, common sense decrees that the rest of us should accept that fact of life.

So, how do we resolve the problem easily and without fuss or conflict? We adopt a different word for “marriage” in the cases of same-sex couples. That word, already accepted in a few states, is “partnership.” It is a worthy and easily understood term that should satisfy both sides and prevent a conflict that threatens to become violent.

My guess is that even Mormons, who have raised hell over the issue, and all other Christians and Jews would eventually accept the new terminology so all of us can rest in peace. The partnership term should be accepted in laws passed by Congress and the legislatures of all 50 states.

Under the partnership principle, each state could decide which laws and which programs now applying to traditionally married couples would also apply to same-sex couples. It would be sensible for Congress to act first in order to set the stage for all states to follow suit.

Having Congress set the example would provide a measure each state could use a guide. The logic in that process would give us a national guide that would pacify both sides in the dispute. Also, it would remove problems that now prevail for same-sex couples moving from one state to another.

We would hope that President-elect Barack Obama would accept the partnership plan when he assumes the office next January. I think it would mark a good beginning for the new President and also for Congress.

I don’t foresee that kind of war at all. The Third World War I see will not be a conflict of nation against nation or many nations against many other nations. Nor will it be a conflict of one political ideology over another political ideology. The war I see brewing will — let’s face it — be a war of one set of religious values against another, in other words a gigantic religious war that will make the centuries-long Crusades seem like child’s play.

Specifically, it will be a war with Judeo-Christian forces on one side and Muslim extremists on the other. Which of these sides will the “outsiders” join — the outsiders being such nations as China, India, Japan and other Asian, African, and South American nations? The decision they make could very well decide the outcome.

What is the evidence for my alarming prediction? Of course, we see it right now in the suicide bombings and the roadside attacks by Muslim fanatics in Iraq and in other countries of the Middle East and Indonesia in the Southwest Pacific. Their tactics are like no other in the history of warfare.

To help make my point, I must refer to a message from Rick Mathes, a prison ministry leader, relayed to me by a California friend, Jack Mancinelli. I must trim it because of its length. Mathes, who attended a session in which Catholic, Protestant, and Muslim speakers appeared, wrote:

“After the Islamic Iman presented the basics of Islam, I asked: ‘I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad or holy war against the infidels of the world and that by killing an infidel, a command to all Muslims, they are assured a place in Heaven. Can you give me a definition of an infidel?’ His answer was that they were non-believers — that is, they don’t believe in the Islamic religion.

“I then said: ‘Let me get this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?’ He replied, sheepishly: “Yes.”’

Mathes continued:

“I have a problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Would you rather have your Allah, who tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven, or my Jesus, who tells me to love you because I am going to Heaven and He wants you to be with me.”

Mathes said the Imam hung his head and failed to reply as the room grew very quiet.

I rest my case. But I cannot rest my worrisome mind.

The Chicago Tribune’s John Kass writes about a middle-school student who conducted an experiment.  She wore a T-shirt blazoned with “McCain Girl” to a liberal school.  She recorded how both students and faculty reacted.

“People were upset. But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn’t be wearing it,” Catherine said.

Then it got worse.

Read more.  It’s really worth reading.

I am one of those who believes the federal commission that was selected to hear the evidence and issue a verdict, once and for all, was in error on so many points and either refused to hear or completely ignored much of the available evidence, evidence that could have drastically changed its finally verdict.

The commission, led (no, bullied is the better term) by the irascible FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, espoused the “single bullet theory” and never really investigated the probability that at least three bullets were fired and that Lee Harvey Oswald, who was arrested as the assassin, could not have fired them. The commission ignored evidence by doctors and examiners that the entry wound indicated the shot that killed Kennedy was probably fired near the street level, as the President’s auto sped by, not from one of the upper floors of the Book Building, where Oswald worked.

However, I believe the most important factor in the mysterious murder relates to Jack Ruby, the night-club owner, who drew a pistol on Oswald as he entered the detention building and killed him on the spot. Therein lies the ultimate tragedy. Because Ruby, who died in prison a short time later, and Oswald were not around to face interrogation, we’ll never have all the facts concerning the assassination.

Nevertheless, after having studied the final words of Oswald and details of the kind of life Ruby led, I think the Mafia was responsible for Kennedy’s murder and that the real killer may still be unknown and at large. Why do I believe that? Because the Mafia had a major score to settle with both the President and his brother and attorney general, Robert Kennedy, who was himself assassinated in California some time later.

Oswald was a bumbling, Communist-driven ne-er-do-well, who pledged his allegiance to the Soviet Union and happily pronounced himself a Marxist. He had no truly valid excuse to murder JFK nor his brother. The Mafia, on the other hand, had a grudge to settle with the Kennedys — and, this is extremely important, access to a great number of sharpshooting goons, who could have done the foul deed in Dallas — and probably did.

I believe Ruby was hired by the Mafia to make sure Oswald would never tell his real story from the stand in a courtroom. And what of Ruby’s death soon thereafter?

Will we ever know the truth and be able to put this recurring puzzle to rest once and for all? Some day, perhaps, someone in the Mafia hierarchy will feel compelled to “sing” and spill out all the details. I’m convinced it will happen. And someone with at least a partial conscience will explain why Jack Ruby agreed to be the murderer of Oswald, who might have turned the tables on the Mafia if he had lived to tell it.

According to the scuttlebutt, the lead player in the attack will be Senator Charles Schumer, who never met an ultraliberal he didn’t like. The Leftists’ main targets are no secret. Leading the Conservative political talk-show parade are Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Don Imus, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and the entire crew of the Fox News Channel.

Under the old Fairness Doctrine, which made no sense in the many years it hindered the operations of Conservative talk-show hosts, the law decreed by the Liberals in Congress required all political talk-show announcers to devote equal time on the air to anyone who disagreed with statements made by the hosts or their guests.

The doctrine didn’t work because, if anything, it was unfair and it cluttered up the air waves with nonsense. But, most important, it hindered the hosts from stating their own opinions on any and all topics of the day. Radio networks and stations breathed a sigh of relief when the doctrine was banished — and radio grew in popularity and interest.

In order to counter the Limbaugh-Medved-Hannity-O’Reilly-and-others contingent, which had become tremendously popular with listeners, the Liberals tried to mount their own answer on radio. As might have been expected, the Liberal effort was a complete failure and soon collapsed. That alone should have been a lesson to the Liberals and a warning to them to refrain from ordering a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

I say that all radio stations — like all newspapers, news magazines, and TV stations — have a right to whatever opinions or programs they wish to publish or air. The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees them that right in its proclamation endorsing freedom of the press.

That brings me to an opinion I have expressed many times concerning the Fairness Doctrine — or what should be called the “Unfairness Doctrine.” It is the strong belief of one who spent 55 years in the print and broadcast news media — a belief that a return of the malodorous doctrine would be fought most strenuously by the Liberal news media.

I have said that if the Coonservative talk-show hosts want to mount an offensive against the return of the doctrine, all they have to do is demand that the Liberal newspapers and broadcasters require a counter opinion to all the Liberal columns and Liberally-slanted news reports and editorials that are run.

Imagine what great amounts of space and time that would require in newspapers, news magazines, and television! I can already hear the growls and demands from them against the “Unfairness Doctrine.” When the moguls of the news media realize what a return of the doctrine could cost them in space and time, you can bet that they would warn the Libs in Congress against restoring the doctrine.

In the meantime, the Conservative talk-show hosts should step up their own plan of attack if the Obama-Schumer-Pelosi-&Co. Leftists insist on restoration of the foul doctrine.

For personal reasons, I will not use their last names. George was a brilliant writer with a tremendous future. Like me, he was interested in a career as a reporter and editor. I met him when I was a freshman at Western Reserve University in Cleveland. He was the editor of the university’s magazine, the Red Cat, and I succeeded him in that position when he graduated.

George was a first lieutenant with the U.S. Army infantry and was part of the American contingent in Great Britain that landed on the coast of Normandy, France, on D-Day June 6, 1944. Upon landing, he took his platoon into a trench about 100 yards inland. What he didn’t know until it was too late was that Nazi troops had their mortars zeroed in on the trench awaiting the invading Americans. George and most of his platoon were killed.

Andy was a Hungarian-born musician who was destined to be a composer and performer of worldwide caliber. Like me, he was a violinist; we played together in our high-school orchestra and he was the first violinist in our string quartet. I played second violin, because he was better than I was. Just a few days after George’s death, Andy and his platoon were machine-gunned to death by Nazi troops as they advanced into France.

Art was a fraternity brother at Reserve and always the life of the party at college. He was also something of a genius in business administration and, had he lived, would have been an extremely successful business man. An Air Force bombardier, he went down with his bomber just before George’s death on D-Day.

There were many others, of course, but these three symbolized for me what it means to make the ultimate sacrifice. They never had a doubt about why they were putting their lives on the line. All three loved life and were supremely ambitious. And they had so much to live for. I was in the Army in the Second World War, but I was luckier than my three great friends.

There was something George, Andy, and Art loved above all things — their country and the freedom it promised. They were willing to die to guarantee the nation’s freedom. We must never forget them — and all the other gallant men and women who have given their lives or suffered severe wounds in the service of the United States of America.

On this day, then, let us not forget our gallant heroes and those who now serve in all our armed forces today. We call it Veterans Day now, but, but not so long ago it was labeled Armistice Day with the hope that it would end all wars. We have not yet achieved the supreme memorial — world peace.

To honor my three wonderful friends who gave their lives for their country and for all those Americans who did the same for the United States of America, let us pray for them and devote ourselves to the cause of peace.