The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy

ET came from subterranean Mars. He landed unseen near the Lincoln Memorial. Read the Gettysburg Address … “Four score and seven years ago …” Went to the Library of Congress. Studied American history to the present day. Saw that America had lost its way, no longer the home of the free and the land of the brave. Saw that cretins and cravens had gained political ascendancy.

Stupefied by “higher education,” Americans were oblivious of their internal enemies. Nor did they know of their most dangerous external enemy—Iran-centered Shia Islam, spreading into Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Gaza, the West Bank. Iran, positioned to turn the spigot off the oil flowing through the Strait Hormuz and thus collapse the West without nuclear weapons. Iran, whose Revolutionary Guard, Shia warriors, spearhead the new Persian Empire. Dedicated—not fanatics like Osama bin Laden—but Machiavellians experienced in asymmetrical warfare, the same that trashed Israel in Lebanon,

ET went to the Middle East. He saw that Shia Iran, which could field one million warriors and control more than 50 percent of the world’s black gold, was too clever, too disciplined, too quiet, too patient, too animated by imperial ambitions to concern itself any longer with suicide bombings.

Quietly it proceeded to convert Sunni Muslims to its cause. Quietly it accumulated more proxies. Quietly, with one fait accomplis after another, it gained more recruits, control of more sources of energy vis-à-vis Israel and the United States—two nations whose massive military power in the hands of secularists was nothing compared to the growing and increasingly sophisticated religio-military power of Shia Islam. (more…)

In view of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of America’s two major political parties, and regardless of the outcome of the November election, I urge Christian Zionists, religious Jews, and those dedicated to the Natural Rights doctrine of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution to form a new political party—to organize branches in every State of the Union to compete in the midterm elections of 2010.

Prof. Paul Eidelberg, President

Did those of you who are old enough thrill to these words of President John F. Kennedy: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Alas, they are unknown or forgotten by Kennedy’s Democratic Party, now headed by Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House majority leader Nancy Pelosi, who, in the midst of our war in Iraq, have vilified America’s commander-in-chief. Does this treacherous attitude trouble Americans?

It troubles the present writer, a former officer in the United States Air Force. I am dismayed by the new and unpatriotic Democratic Party that has arisen in America. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when America’s new Democrats compare Barack Obama with John F. Kennedy—Obama, so anxious for the United States to turn tail and withdraw American forces from Iraq. This is the same Obama that regards Iran, a nation of 70 million people, as a mere “nuisance.”

(This play-actor does not know that Iran is well-positioned to annex Iraq. He does not know that the combination of Iran’s current production of 4.21 million barrels of oil a day with Iraq’s 6 mullion would enable Iran to out-produce Saudi Arabia. He does not know that a 50 percent cutback of this oil would utterly collapse America’s shaky economy for which his party is primarily responsible. Goodbye Oprah!) (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, October 27, 2008.

The question raised in the title is intended to stimulate thought. For this purpose, I will cite some passages from Ralph Peters, Beyond Terror (2002), and intersperse them with statements by presidents of the United States and comments of my own.

Ralph Peters is a retired U.S. army colonel who served in the Executive Office of the President and is troubled by American foreign policy. He writes:

The diplomats and decisonmakers of the United States believe, habitually and uncritically, that stability is our most important strategic objective. They may insist … that democracy and human rights are our international priorities—although our policy makers do not seem to understand the requirements of the first and refuse to meet the requirements of the second. (p. 167, emphasis added).

Concern for regime stability has trumped concern for the spread of democracy since the first administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, when Roosevelt extended diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. By so doing, he abandoned the policy of his four predecessors, who scorned the Bolshevik regime—its contempt for democratic values and international law. (more…)

Dear Friends:

Here is an admittedly desperate message.

Please try to make contact, directly or otherwise, with Professor Henry Kissinger and urge him to announce publicly his support of Senator John McCain for President of the United States.

Please do not respond by saying this is far-fetched. Of course, I could mention other notable Americans who know that Barack Obama is not qualified for the office he seeks—as has been said by black ministers who are spreading the truth about the junior senator from Illinois.

I simply ask you to make an effort to get this message to Dr. Kissinger. He certainly knows what is at stake in the November election.

Thank you.
Prof. Paul Eidelberg

What Israelis and Americans should know about the cravens and cretins who rule their countries:

1. Your enormous military power is zero since your enemy does not believe you will use it.

2. Your power is nothing if you do not strike fear in your enemy. It has rightly been said that ferocity is the ultimate guarantor of peace.

3. Since this is beyond your leaders, Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thumb their noses on the Great Satan and the Little Satan.

4. How they will dance in joy when a fellow-Muslim enters the White House and converts it into a giant mosque!

5. Imagine his first “state of the union message,” when he tells his “fellow Americans” the Sharia “supplement” the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. (more…)

1.   The only way to win the war on terror (or on what is called “Islamism”) is to terrorize the terrorists.

2.   To refrain from doing so because Islamic terrorists do not fear death is a strategic error.

3.   There are two ways of making them fear death. One is their witnessing unceasing attacks and annihilation of Islamic terrorists; the other is their witnessing the destruction of the visible symbols of their deity.

4.   Of course, the West is incapable of this kind of offensive warfare. Humanism or liberalism, tolerance and multiculturalism, preclude such ruthlessness. Sending our enemies to paradise is too much for self-righteous liberals or compassionate conservatives. Which is why the former abhorred, while the latter gradually deserted, the Bush Doctrine, by which I mean the following: (more…)

If you are wondering why the deluge of information about Obama’s shady past has not eliminated him from the presidential race;

If you are wondering why Obama may become America’s next president despite voluminous evidence of his being a liar and a fraud;

Let me reveal the secret underlying this grotesque state of affairs.

We are living in a postmodern world where truth and falsity are no longer relevant. In Barack Obama postmodernism (moral relativism) unites with the modernism that began with Machiavelli, who deified the self—the self-creating self that dispensed with the verities of the Bible. (more…)

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, says, “Every [American] citizen interested in our survival as a free and safe country should read [Norman Podhoretz] World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, 2007, 2008.”

I fully agree, and would only add, please do so before the November election.—Paul Eidelberg

Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey express the highest praise for Norman Podhoretz’s book World War IV: The Long Struggle Again Islamofascism (NY: Vintage: 2007, 2008).

Iran, a nation of 70 million people, is the epicenter of Islamofascism. Its government may deploy nuclear weapons in less than a year. Senator Barack Obama regards Iran as a mere “nuisance.” This is enough to indicate that an Obama presidency would be disastrous.

Obama is so infatuated with his oratorical skills that he thinks he can persuade Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to halt Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. The junior senator of Illinois Obama ignores the fact that five years of American and European diplomacy and sanctions have only given Iran five more years to develop a nuclear arsenal. (more…)

Herbert Marcuse was the philosopher of the New Left, which surfaced in academia in the 1960s and has since permeated American higher education.

Marcuse’s philosophy is an amalgam of existentialism and Marxism with a dash of Freud. I limit myself to existentialism which more readily solves the mystery of Senator Barack Obama.

The most well-known existentialist in the 20^th century was Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre was a moral relativist who chose to become a Marxist—not because Marxism is true, but because he deemed Marxism a convenient suit for the “nothingness” of his soul—a tabula rasa inherently devoid of identity. Sartre is famous for his philosophical dictum “existence precedes essence.” This dictum raises the question of an individual’s authenticity. To be authentic, one must choose one’s essence, that is, one’s own identity, which may also be called one’s “narrative.”

Of course, the fact that Obama is biracial has intensified his quest for identity. But Obama has also been influenced by existentialism, which requires the individual to mold or create himself. He cannot be authentic by affirming and living according to the principles of his nation’s heritage.

Besides, in this postmodern era of multiculturalism, the heritage of each nation appears arbitrary, another “narrative.” For almost a century, America has been immersed in a partisan, “liberal-conservative” narrative. Obama transcends this narrative, or so he would have us believe. His views of government have much in common with Progressivism. (more…)

Senator Barack Obama personifies an American identity crisis, a crisis also evident among the nations of Europe (to say nothing of Israel).

In Obama we behold a man whose origin and religious faith are mysterious, a man whose patriotism has been placed in question. I do not mention this to disparage Senator Obama, but rather to indicate that America itself and its future have become fearfully problematic.

Professor Samuel Huntington, an eminent political scientist, recently wrote a book entitled Who Are We? The title is both fitting and ironic. Huntington sees in America the ascendancy of multiculturalism, which cannot but erode any clear sense of national identity among American citizens. But Huntington himself is steeped in multiculturalism, since he is a cultural relativist—a far throw from his ancestor, the Samuel Huntington who signed America’s Declaration of Independence.

As a cultural relativist, Huntington cannot affirm “the self-evident truths” affirmed in that Declaration, the truths which America’s Founding Fathers derived from “laws of nature and nature’s God.” Such truths transcend space and time. They transcend “culture” and reject cultural relativism. (more…)

When opinion rules, as it does in democracies, it is only necessary to examine, not its truth, but the number of those who express this opinion. It is not even necessary to examine whether any individual who expresses this opinion is serious or frivolous, whether his opinion is the result of reflection or of impulse, whether it is an abiding conviction or a passing fancy. Consequently, wherever opinions rule, people are less apt to take opinions seriously. Hence they will be less likely to develop the habit of critical thinking or of making logical and moral distinctions. Feelings or the emotions will thus tend to supplant logic. People will then become more susceptible to propaganda, whose target is the emotions.

It is in this light that we are to understand Senator Barack Obama’s use of such slogans as “Change!” and “Yes, we can.”

Since democracies, more than other regimes, are ruled by opinion, and since politicians modulate opinions with emotion, democracies are inherently prone to semantic subversion.. The adepts of semantic subversion use the media of democracy to concentrate public attention on emotionally appealing and simplistic solutions to complex problems. For example, the Arab-Israel conflict is commonly viewed as a territorial one. This is precisely how Senator Obama referred to the conflict when he visited Israel. Lacking a background of serious knowledge, he readily succumbs to the formula “territory for peace” as if it were the key to solving what in essence is a a religious conflict, or what Samuel Huntington calls a “clash of civilizations.” (more…)

Revisionist historians aside, or those who do not understand Lincoln’s statesmanship, the Civil War that broke out in America after the 1860 election was over the slavery issue. Stated more precisely, the issue was whether slavery was to be extended to the territories of the United States. At issue, along with slavery, was the Declaration of Independence and its fundamental principle of moral equality.

Lincoln understood that if slavery were extended to the territories, slave states would eventually outnumber free states, in consequence of which, the slave states could readily amend the Constitution and extend slavery to the free states. Of course, the exact opposite would happen if the territories became free states. Lincoln steadfastly opposed the extension of slavery, and this meant civil war. So it was yesterday.

Today, however, the government of the United States, with the servile compliance of the government of Israel, wants to extend slavery via a Palestinian state into the territory called the “West Bank.” I say “slavery” because a Palestinian state would be nothing less than a tyranny, and that means human servitude.

Out of ignorance or interest, the candidates in the U.S. presidential campaign have endorsed a Palestinian state even though reason and experience demonstrate that such a state would be ruled by Arab despots and thereby lead to Israel’s demise. Forgotten are the basic principles of the American Declaration of Independence. (more…)

The Palestinian Authority, a consortium of terrorist groups that bow to Mecca, has indoctrinated a generation of Arab children to hate Jews and Israel and to emulate suicide bombers. Even before they reach the age of ten, Arab children receive military training. Indeed, their games, their sports, their story books—and of course of their prayers—are designed to reinforce genocidal hatred of Jews and the Jewish State. This being the case—and much more can be said of the pervasiveness of this Islamic indoctrination—I ask the following question: “What would it take, and how long would it take, to undo this deeply engrained hatred?”

Unless this question is faced honestly, one cannot begin to offer any rational or realistic “solution” to the 100-year war that Muslim Arabs have been waging against Jews and Israel. Indeed, I dare say that unless one can answer that question honestly, one does not even have a right to propose any “solution.” Hence, what I see among countless pundits and politicians who speak of a “two state” solution to this conflict is not only the arrogance of ignorance, but a failure to take Islam seriously—an insult to Muslims!

The Torah urges us to seek justice. However, before one can talk intelligently about “justice” from a Western perspective, one has to understand what “justice” requires from an Islamic perspective. In fact, one has to understand the role of speech or reason in the Jewish tradition vis-à-vis the role of speech or reason in the Islamic tradition. Eventually one will have to understand the difference between Jewish monotheism and Islamic monotheism, and few indeed are qualified to enter this domain of knowledge. (more…)

In an article dated October 14, 2008, Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri writes: “Prepare for a new America: That’s the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at [Evian, France] … last week.” Jackson went on to say: “Obama is about change. And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it.”

Jackson has more or less confirmed the present writer’s assessment of Barak Obama or what I perceived in his campaign slogan of “Change.” But let me be more precise.

Senator Obama has nothing less in mind than regime change—a radical change in the political philosophy on which the American government is based, namely, the basic principles and values of the American Declaration of Independence.

This revolutionary document affirms that man is endowed with certain inalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. An Obama government would substitute a right to happiness for the pursuit of happiness. Such a government would thus be utterly paternalistic—a tyranny. (more…)

Israel desperately needs professionalism. Needed is a presidential system that relegates to the dust heap the system of multiparty cabinet government that enabled the Kadima-led coalition to achieve power and degrade as well as endanger this country.

One thing lacking in Israeli government is professionalism. What is a profession? What makes medicine, physics, mathematics, political science, architecture, astronomy, law, “professions”? They are also called “disciplines” because they require sustained and systematic learning. Professions, however, involve the transmission, from generation to generation, of organized knowledge and methods of inquiry that enable us to comprehend and perhaps control various domains of reality. Such knowledge is not necessarily progressive. Alfred North Whitehead, a philosopher-mathematician and historian of science, notes that “In the year 1500 Europe knew less than Archimedes who died in the year 212 BC.”

One finds in all professions outstanding minds. The history of philosophy, Whitehead remarked, is little more than a series of footnotes to Plato. Plato’s greatest student was Aristotle, the founder of political science who wrote treatises on 150 different regimes, in addition to original works on ethics, rhetoric, logic, poetics, physics, metaphysics, etc. The unequaled vastness of Aristotle’s knowledge dominated the curriculum of Western universities for two thousand years, and much of his knowledge is still relevant, especially Books III to VIII of his Politics. Indeed, what Machiavelli, the father of modern political science, knows compared to Aristotle can be put on a postage stamp! (more…)

According to one study, 97 percent of all teachers in Nazi Germany were members of the Nazi party. Many of these teachers taught the humanities, for example philosophy, literature, the fine arts. Many others taught various social sciences, such as sociology, political science, psychology, anthropology, history.

Clearly, the study and teaching of the humanities and the social sciences do not make people virtuous. We should not be surprised. For the prevailing doctrine in the humanities and the social sciences in our time is moral relativism, which holds that there are no objective standards of good and bad, right and wrong.

As for the exact sciences, such as physics and chemistry, they are more obviously “value-free” or ethically neutral. Still, how did German scientists respond to Nazism?

In Walter Moore’s Schrodinger: Life and Thought, we read: “There is no known instance in which a professor of physics or chemistry without any Jewish family ever made any open protest against Nazi activities. Even among the German intellectual elite, the scientists were conspicuously unanimous in this respect, since a few protests can be found among scholars in other fields.” (more…)

1.  The people of Israel have been mesmerized by the Oslo or Israel-PLO agreement, or what the Prophet Isaiah calls a “covenant of death.” Stated another way, Israel’s government has been paralyzed by the mendacious and suicidal policy of land-for-peace. No matter how much criticism is written about the Oslo Agreement, and no matter how many times the Palestinian Authority violates this agreement, the government, regardless of which party is at the helm, continues to surrender Jewish land to our sworn enemies who teach their children to be suicide bombers.

2.  So, the question is: what can be done to derail the Oslo train, the train that is leading Israel to what Abba Even called the Auschwitz lines?

3.  Here is what I recommend as a political scientist. When you can’t beat the enemy by the direct approach, by simply attacking Oslo, you try the indirect approach. You raise a controversial issue that will grab public attention and distract the government from its lethal Oslovian policy. I recommend that you raise the issue of sedition committed by Arab Knesset members, especially their violation of the Party Law that prohibits any party that negates the Jewish character of the State. (more…)

The formation of a Livni government would be a disaster not only for Jews but also for Christians.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the new leader of the ruling Kadima Party, wants to surrender eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount to the Arabs. She is utterly oblivious of the fact that the Temple is intended for the redemption of all people, not only Jews. If the Arabs control eastern Jerusalem, Christians will be denied access to the Temple Mount.

Strange as it may seem, the Jewish Sages have said that the Temple Mount is of greater significance to the Gentile world than it is to Israel. Listen to the voice of the disparaged Pharisees regarding the sacrifices of seventy calves during the eight days of Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles, and note their humanitarianism:

From Leviticus Rabbah: “If the nations of the world had known how useful the Temple was to them, they would have surrounded it with fortified camps to protect it, for it was more useful to them than to Israel.” (more…)

Former CIA covert operative Robert Baer asserts that Iran, an Islamic nation of 70 million people, is building an empire in the Middle East, believing it should be the “citadel of Islam.” He warns that Iran is probably months away from war with Israel. That’s the message of his new book, “The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.”

Baer argues that Iran so situated that it may have more ability to alter America’s destiny than China or Russia. “With Chinese Silkworm missiles pointed toward the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has the ability to cripple the world economy in a matter of minutes by shutting down the flow of oil. That’s even before it gains a nuclear missile.”

Apparently, Baer regards Iran not as a messianic terror group such as al-Qaida, but as a nation with imperial aspirations like the former Soviet Union. “Historic compulsions inspire Iran’s leaders to re-create a Persian empire throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.”

This is dangerously misleading. Islam has always been a messianic terrorist entity with imperial aspirations. In his superb book Islamic Imperialism, Efraim Karsh documents Islam’s world-historic aspirations as follows: (more…)