United States District Court____________________________x
L. Lee Whitnum and the State of Connecticut
The United States of America
1. L. Lee Whitnum is a Senator from the State of Connecticut. She resides in Greenwich, Connecticut.
2. Plaintiff Whitnum brings this lawsuit on behalf of the people of the State of Connecticut. Plaintiffs do so with the authority granted through the Supreme Court ruling of McCullough v. Maryland which grants states the right to sue the federal government.
3. According to the Congressional Research Services, US Foreign Aid to Israel, in 2011 The United States of America agreed to fund the country of Israel $30 billion dollars over ten years, which does not include another 800 million dollars for the Iron Dome Project and other specifically named projects.
4. Connecticut’s portion of the funding consists of 600 million dollars (estimated total divided by 50 states).
5. The people of Connecticut believe that this money can best be spent in Connecticut, and are demanding its return in the form of block grants and functional grants to repair our crumbling infrastructure, and to fund teachers, police officers and schools.
6. The money returned to Connecticut, instead of being given to Israel, would go far in supplying jobs to our population and eliminating unemployment, which would boost the overall American economy. People who work, buy more goods, etc.
7. We believe, that given the fact that a Christian or Muslim child in Israel receives only 25% of the educational funding afforded a Jewish child that the discrimination in Israel is not something that we in Connecticut should support. As Americans, we abhor racial discrimination. And there are many examples of this, including the people of the West Bank who are unable to enjoy the seaside because they are not the approved ethnicity in Israel. Imagine never being able to take your kids to the ocean because the government doesn’t allow people of your racial background to go there, etc. The examples of the cultural divide and discrimination are too numerous to list.
8. Funding to Israel is agreeing to racial discrimination, of which there are many instances. We do not feel the people of Connecticut should fund Israel.
9. In Connecticut we are a peace-loving people, and we live by the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all people are created equal…." which is what we believe. Therefore, we cannot fund a county that is so grounded in racial discrimination. We believe, based on Israel’s state-sponsored discrimination, one cannot be pro-peace and pro-Israel simultaneously. Israel’s history of violent discrimination against its non-Jewish underclass is unacceptable.
10. If we cannot bring back the money, we would like the opportunity to at least designate where it is spent.
11. Israel refuses to absorb its non-Jewish underclass for fear of losing a Jewish majority, choosing instead to make life as miserable as possible for Christians and Muslims so they will leave voluntarily. This injustice is in lieu of providing Eminent Doman and paying the inhabitants a fair market rate for the property Israel wishes to acquire for Jewish people. Israeli Settlers just take it - usually forcefully.
12. In 60 years the Christian population in Israel has dropped by 75%.
13. We know that based on the words of General Patreas in April of 2008, and the testimony of FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald at the 9-11 Commission hearings, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the impetus for the 9-11 tragedy. The Isreali-Palestinian Conflict makes us unsafe.
14. The aforementioned, and the fact that Bin Laden’s own words stated that the 9-11 tragedy was the result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
15. Additionally, we also know that then-candidate Ariel Sharon’s action on September 28, 2000 was the use of violence as an election ploy. His purposeful provation at the al Aqsa Mosque resulted in the Second Intifada (uprising). The Palestinian Christians and Muslims paid for it in blood. The United States paid for it in blood (9-11) and in money in the form of loan guarantees (information provided by the Congressional Research Services, US Foreign Aid to Israel):
Since 1972, the United States has extended loan guarantees to Israel to assist with housing shortages, Israel’s absorption of new immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia, and its economic recovery following the 2000-2003 recession sparked by renewed Palestinian uprising.
16. Based on these facts, and the fact that Connecticut, as a state, suffered the second-most casualties in the 9-11 tragedy, we feel uniquely qualified to demand where our money goes, as the continued funding of the Israeli war machine makes the residents of Connecticut unsafe.
17. We feel that the funding for Israel is counterproductive, and we are literally - based on the aforementioned - paying to be unsafe, which is contrary to our own welfare, to our rights under the law to self-preservation and self-protection.
18. We, the people of Connecticut, choose that the Connecticut portion of the money ear marketed for Israeli weaponry be diverted. Since 2009 100% of the US funding is military, and recent shift away from economic aid - not counting grants and loans. Therefore, we are requesting that all funding to Israel instead go to non-weaponry and life-creating, peace-creating enterprises.19. The aforementioned option is a viable one considering how much the United States has contributed to Jewish refugees to Israeli which contributing to Settler encroachment. According to the Congressional Research Services,
US Foreign Aid to Israel:
Between 1973 and 1991, the United States gave about $460 million for resettling Jewish refugees in Israel. Annual amounts have varied from a low of $12 million to a high of $80 million, based on the number of Jews leaving the former Soviet Union and other areas for Israel. The Migration and Refugee funds for Israel are earmarked by Congress; the Administration usually does not request specific amounts of Migration and Refugee assistance for Israel.
20. CAUSE OF ACTION: Misuse of funds.
21. CAUSE OF ACTION:
Wherefore, we demand …
DRAFT by Lee Whitnum