The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy


The American & Anti-American Revolution

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, August 17, 2009.

The monumental significance of the American Revolution is articulated in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration teaches that to merit obedience, the laws enacted by any State must be consistent with the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” This “Higher Law” doctrine provides grounds not only for civil disobedience, but even for violent revolution if the acts of the State evince a design toward tyranny. Not the State but God is the ultimate source of authority.

Such is the profundity of the Declaration that it was incorporated in most of the thirteen original state constitutions. Abraham Lincoln regarded the Declaration as the credo of the American people and the political philosophy of the American Constitution. Thus understood, the Constitution is based on certain immutable ethical and political principles. Most fundamental is the primacy of the individual, from which follows the principle of limited government. Limited government requires separation of legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This produces institutional checks and balances to prevent majority as well as minority tyranny. The Constitution thus prescribes institutional means to safeguard the individual’s rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

It may shock you to learn—but some scholars believe I am the first political scientist to reveal—that the seed of the anti-American revolution was planted by Woodrow Wilson. Influenced by German historical relativism, Wilson rejected the natural rights doctrine of the Declaration of Independence. Instead of immutable “laws of nature” he posited evolutionary laws of history. He originated the idea that the Constitution must evolve with the changing circumstances of society. The Supreme Court must therefore interpret the Constitution not according to the intentions of its Framers, but according to the progressive opinions of the day—the opinions of the “enlightened” members of society ensconced in academia. (more…)


Российская карта: Израиль должен дистанцироваться от Вашингтона

Filed under: US & Global PolicyIranian ThreatРусский — eidelberg @ 11:01 pm Edit This

Перевод Аркадия Гинзбурга. Translation by Arkadiy Ginzburg.

Российская карта:
Израиль должен дистанцироваться от Вашингтона
Пол Эйдельберг

Не может быть сомнения в том, что Барак Хуссейн Обама разыгрывает мусульманскую карту в ущерб Израилю. Его умиротворение Ирана, эпицентра глобального терроризма, особенно тревожно для американцев, равно как и для израильтян. Советники Обамы по Ближнему Востоку общались не только с Хамасом, иранской марионеткой, но также и с Сирией, террористическим государством. Правительство Обамы помогает сейчас палестинской террористической власти основать военную тренировочную базу в Иерихоне. Всё это обосновывает отчёт в газете Israel Today от 19 марта 2009 г. Я цитирую:

Бывший глава официального разведывательного управления США предупреждает, что администрация Обамы близка к тому, чтобы сломать длительную дружбу Америки с Израилем и, возможно, даже предпринять шаги к ликвидации государства Израиль. Говоря на условиях анонимности с Дугласом Хагманном из северо-восточной разведывательной сети, этот источник сказал: «Администрация Обамы… готовится предоставить больше поддержки арабским странам путём финансовой и военной помощи, парализуя оборонительные усилия Израиля и толкая Израиль на уступки давлению необоснованных требований, направленных в конечном счёте к его политическому уничтожению как нации».

В статье “Sleeping with the Devil” («Сон вместе с дьяволом») бывший агент ЦРУ Роберт Баэр показывает, что бывшие высокие официальные лица в Вашингтоне в восторге от финансовых сделок с Саудовской Аравией. Саудовцы побуждают США усилить поддержку палестинского государства. Саудовские нефтедоллары используются на строительстве мечетей и на покупку влияния в американских университетах. Они вбивают клин между Америкой и Израилем, и Обама ускоряет этот процесс. (more…)


Muslim Riots

Filed under: Islam & ArabUS & Global Policy — eidelberg @ 9:35 pm Edit This

From Samuel Huntington, Who Are We? (Simon & Schuster, 2004, p. 188):

“Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims, seem slow to assimilate compared to other post-1965 groups…. A study of Los Angeles Muslims found ambivalent attitudes toward America: “a significant number of Muslims, particularly immigrant Muslims, do not have close ties or loyalty to the United States.” When asked whether they had “closer ties or loyalty to Islamic countries (perhaps your country of birth) or the United States,” 45 percent of the immigrants said Islamic countries, 10 percent the United States, and 32 percent about the same. Among American-born Muslims, 19 percent chose Islamic countries, 38 percent the United States, and 32 percent about the same. Fifty-seven percent said that “if given the choice, [they] would leave the United States to live in an Islamic country.”

Now for a problem of national interest:

Suppose the United States attacked Iran to stop its development of nuclear weapons.

Alternatively, suppose Israel attacked Iran for the same reason—and it was believed, rightly or wrongly, that the United States had helped Israel.

Could the police or the National Guard quell Muslim riots in any of the major cities of the United States—riots instigated by imams?


Only Dead Fish Go With the Stream

Filed under: US & Global PolicyIranian Threat — eidelberg @ 5:24 am Edit This

Comments submitted by Prof. Eidelberg, Dec 30, 2008 on article: Insight into Obama’s Middle East Policy? at .

Judging from Daniel Pipes’ lucid critique of the Bush administration’s failings in the Middle East, the Brookings/CFR study, Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President, seems to be following the same path with respect to Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Its co-authors, Richard Haass and Martin Indyk seem wedded to the tried and ineffectual path of negotiating with despotic regimes. They ignore the global ambitions of Iranian President Ahmadinejad—basically a disciple of the Ayatollah Khomeini. They virtually ignore the geo-strategic dimensions of the Iranian threat. Iran is not only the epicenter of international terrorism. Of immediate concern is Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and its present ability to turn the spigot off the oil flowing through the Persian Gulf.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s incantation “death to America” is not merely a metaphor. Nor should the next president downplay Ahmadinejad’s vow to wipe Israel off the map—something Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority has already done in its maps of the Middle East. (more…)


Pipes on Bush et al.

Filed under: US & Global Policy — eidelberg @ 8:22 am Edit This

Daniel Pipes has written an excellent critique of the Bush administration, as well as of the liberal mindset of the Brookings Institute/Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) study, Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President. This study bodes ill for both America and Israel.

View article by Daniel Pipes.


Tea vs. Jewish Blood

Filed under: Israel's NationalsUS & Global Policy — eidelberg @ 8:01 am Edit This

Americans were prompted to start a revolution against England because of an increase in the price of tea. Israelis do nothing while their government makes Jewish blood cheap.

How Dictatorships Stay in Power

Filed under: Democratic MethodsUS & Global Policy — eidelberg @ 7:48 am Edit This

Only From Yamin Israel.

To stay in power, dictatorships make their subjects feel dependent on their rulers. To this end they must (1) concentrate decision-making in their own hands;   (2) dominate the economy;   (3) control the mass media;   (4) breed mutual distrust among their subjects to make them incapable of joint action;   (5) break their spirit by arousing fear of war.

Contrast the preceding with the situation in Israel, reputedly a democracy.

(1)  Decision-making in Israel is concentrated ostensibly in the Cabinet but actually in the Prime Minister. The PM can take unilateral actions the Cabinet dares not veto lest new elections result and terminate the posts and powers of cabinet ministers. This is why no Labor-led, no Likud-led, and no Kadima-led government has ever been toppled by a vote of no confidence. This means that the Cabinet pretty much controls how their colleagues vote in the Knesset. Furthermore, since members of the Knesset, hence MKs appointed to the Cabinet, are not accountable to the voters in constituency elections, they can ignore public opinion with impunity.

(2)  The government owns or controls most of the nation’s assets. (more…)


Kill for Peace

Filed under: Islam & ArabUS & Global Policy — eidelberg @ 8:08 am Edit This

Part I. Analysis

The best analysis I have read of America’s foreign policy failings since the unfinished Persian Gulf War of 1991 will be found in the writings of Ralph Peters, a retired American army Intelligence officer who worked and studied in dozens of countries as well as in the U.S. Executive office.

If there is a single power the U.S. underestimates it is the power of collective hatred, meaning the hatred that animates the Arab-Islamic world. This failing applies to Israel.

Like their American counterparts, Israel’s ruling elites do not “understand the delicious appeal of hatred.” They will not face the fact that man is a killer. They have learned nothing from the genocidal wars and wholesale massacres of the twentieth century, not merely in Nazi Germany, but also in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Iraq, Sudan—to name only a few.

There is at least a minority of human beings who enjoy killing. That minority may be small, says Peters, but it does not take many enthusiastic killers to trigger a genocidal war. The Arab Palestinian Authority consists of such killers. Indeed, they have educated a generation of Arab children to become killers. (more…)


How To Save America From Its Enemies

Filed under: Islam & ArabUS & Global PolicyMulticulturalism/Moral Relativism — eidelberg @ 8:15 am Edit This

1.  America is threatened by two enemies: one internal, the other external. America needs a non-governmental organization consisting of the finest minds to formulate and implement a comprehensive strategy to overcome these two enemies.

2.  The internal enemy is the university-bred doctrine of moral relativism also known as multiculturalism. Relativism is demoralizing the American people; it is eroding their heritage, their sense of national pride and purpose. Relativism permeates every level of American education. It infects the news and entertainment media. It influences all three branches of American Government. It therefore corrupts the opinion-makers and policy-makers of the United States. (This same doctrine has emasculated England and Europe.)

3.  America’s external enemy is Islamic imperialism. This enemy has two power centers: Iran and Saudi Arabia, the former involves Shi’ite Islam, the latter Sunni Islam. These two countries control most of the oil flowing through the Persian Gulf—the energy sources on which the American and the world economy largely depends. Petrodollars have built thousands of mosques in the United States and Europe. These mosques propagate ideas and values subversive of civilization: respect for human life and individual freedom as well as humane desire to resolve differences through speech and moral suasion as opposed to force and violence.

4.  We cannot expect the Government of the United States to initiate and pursue the policies required to overcome its internal and external enemies, if only because the Government has been corrupted by moral relativism. (more…)


How To Deal With Islamic Jihad

Filed under: Islam & ArabIntifada & TerrorismUS & Global PolicyUN — eidelberg @ 7:29 am Edit This

A day after 9/11, the present writer pondered the problem of how to deal with Islamic Jihad. Here is a brief scenario.

The President calls in the ambassadors of every Islamic country. He hands them the draft of a message and instructs them to send to it the heads of their respective states. The message reads something like this:

The President of the United States requests that you assemble your religious leaders and inform them that, unless they publicly renounce the ethos of Jihad and abrogate Islamic verses referring to non-Muslims as subhuman, the United States will take the following actions:

  1. The American ambassador to your country will be recalled. (more…)


Alexander Hamilton

Filed under: PoliticiansUS & Global PolicyIranian Threat — eidelberg @ 2:41 am Edit This

Alexander Hamilton was regarded by no less than Talleyrand as the greatest statesman of his age, greater than Pitt, Fox, and Napoleon. Hamilton was not only George Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury, he was, in effect, Washington’s “prime minister.” He wrote most of Washington’s “Farewell Address,” widely regarded as America’s greatest state paper.

Hamilton’s state papers on Manufactures and on a National Bank contributed greatly to America’s ascendancy as the most powerful nation on earth. No less significant are his contributions to The Federalist Papers, whose essays on presidential government are unsurpassed in depth and clarity. Would that Israel had statesmen to assimilate Hamilton’s wisdom and apply it to the reconstruction of Israel’s decrepit system of multiparty cabinet government.

But I have another reason for speaking of Hamilton, especially now in the context of a secret war that has been going on between the United States and Iran since 1979.

Let’s first go back to 1793, when France was under the Directory, which in fact was a military dictatorship. The issue arose as to whether the United States should accord the French government diplomatic recognition. (more…)

John Bolton and Iran’s Development of Nuclear Weapons

Filed under: US & Global PolicyIranian Threat — eidelberg @ 2:32 am Edit This

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, November 17, 2008.

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a man of superlative intellect, political integrity and moral clarity. Germany’s President Angela Merkel told President George W. Bush, “I like your ambassador to the UN more than I like mine…. I understand [him] much better than my own. I’ve been thinking about having your ambassador represent Germany.”

What follows is based very much on Chapter 12 of Bolton’s book Surrender is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad (2007). The chapter is entitled “Iran in the Security Council: The EU-3 Finds New Ways to Give In.” EU-3 stands for Britain, France, and Germany—three members of the European Union. Despite Bolton’s heroic efforts, the EU-3 failed to obtain Security Council resolutions calling for serious sanctions against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, a program that violated the International Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Unfortunately, Bolton was encumbered by Colin Powell, secretary of state during George W. Bush’s first term, and Condoleezza Rice, who succeeded Powell during Bush’s second term. Neither of these secretaries of state possessed an adequate understanding of Iran. Iran is the key player of the “axis of evil.” Iranian control of the oil flowing through the Persian Gulf would make it a superpower if this nation of 70 million people produced nuclear weapons. Imagine how Islamism would skyrocket throughout the world if Iran obtained, through its proxies, control of Jerusalem. (more…)


America, Israel, and the Malaise of Democracy

Filed under: US & Global PolicyMulticulturalism/Moral Relativism — eidelberg @ 4:53 pm Edit This

“Labor, Kadima: ‘Republican’ Bibi can’t be Obama’s counterpart”
The Jerusalem Post, November 6, 2008

It is unquestionably legitimate for any native-born American, be he or she black or white, Hispanic or Asian, Christian or Jewish or Muslim, to become the country’s president. Indeed, some wonder whether one need any longer be an American to become the nation’s Chief Executive.

Be this as it may, if all nations were to imitate multicultural America, all would cease to have any distinct national identity. This is the malaise of multicultural democracy, where moral and cultural relativism flourish. This malaise is evident in Israel.

Israel’s left-wing parties, Labor and Kadima, like America’s left-wing dominated Democratic Party, are committed to multiculturalism. This attitude cannot but eventuate in the extinction of their respective country’s heritage. We see this in Europe, with Sweden as the trend-setter. Sweden’s left-wing government recently renounced the country’s Swedish nationality by enacting multiculturalism into law in recognition of Sweden’s East Asian minority.

To appreciate the ascendancy of multiculturalism in Israel, consider the titles of its advocates: (more…)


Truth Versus Democracy

Filed under: Democratic MethodsJudaismUS & Global Policy — eidelberg @ 10:54 pm Edit This

Although democracies are hospitable to philosophy, it does not follow that democracies are truth-oriented. To the contrary, the freedom of speech and press enjoyed in democracies is actually rooted in the denial of truth. If democracies were truth-oriented they would not be tolerant of error. But as everyone knows, tolerance is a fundamental prerequisite of all democratic or pluralistic societies.

The pluralism of which democracies boast is another indication of their lack of truth-orientation. For this pluralism extends to the question of how should man live, and who does not know that democracies tolerate virtually every kind of “life-style”? Thus homosexuality has become as respectable as heterosexuality, and cheating has become a commonplace in high schools and colleges.

Democracies reduce truth to a private possession. Each individual becomes his own source of truth regarding good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust. This is why public opinion polls have become the standard for public policy. In other words, opinion polls are required in democratic societies because in such societies each man’s opinion is deemed as valid as the next. This equality of opinion, manifested in the principle of “one adult, one vote,” is logically related to the denial of objective truth, the denial of objective standards as to how man should live or how society should be governed. (more…)


ET From Mars

Filed under: Islam & ArabUS & Global PolicyHumor — eidelberg @ 7:02 am Edit This

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…)

A New American Party

Filed under: Democratic MethodsParty StructuresUS & Global Policy — eidelberg @ 6:15 am Edit This

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


Barack Obama: Has America Gone Mad?

Filed under: PoliticiansUS & Global Policy — eidelberg @ 11:36 pm Edit This

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…)

Does America Deserve Barack Hussein Obama? Not Yet!

Filed under: Islam & ArabUS & Global Policy — eidelberg @ 12:45 am Edit This

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…)


A Desperate Message

Filed under: PoliticiansUS & Global PolicyLetters — eidelberg @ 10:49 pm Edit This

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


Thoughts Out Of Season II

Filed under: Islam & ArabIsrael’s SovereigntyUS & Global Policy — eidelberg @ 11:55 pm Edit This

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…)

      — Next Page »