The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy

This is a brilliant and urgently needed analysis—P.E.

Courtesy of The Claremont Institute For the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.

War in the Absence of Strategic Clarity

More than merely winning the war in Iraq, we needed to stun the Arab World.
By Mark Helprin
September 17, 2003

America has approached the war on terrorism as if from two dreamworlds. The liberal, in which an absurd understanding of cause and effect, the habit of capitulation to foreign influence, a mild and perpetual anti-Americanism, reflex allergies to military spending, and a theological aversion to self-defense all lead to policies that are hard to differentiate from surrender. And the conservative, in which everything must be all right as long as a self-declared conservative is in the White House—no matter how badly the war is run; no matter that a Republican administration in electoral fear leans left and breaks its promise to restore the military; and no matter that because the Secretary of Defense decided that he need not be able to fight two wars at once, an adequate reserve does not exist to deal with, for example, North Korea. And in between these dreamworlds of paralysis and incompetence lies the seam, in French military terminology la soudure, through which al-Qaeda, uninterested in our parochialisms, will make its next attack.

The war is waged as if accidentally, and no wonder. For domestic political reasons and to preserve its marginal relations with the Arab World, the United States has declined to identify the enemy precisely. (more…)

Nazi Germany never attacked, killed or wounded a single American on the American continent. Yet the U.S. declared war on Germany, bombed its industrial and civilian centers, invaded its territory, but not before invading and liberating France—at the necessary cost of killing civilians. America’s war policy? “Unconditional surrender.” The outcome? Germany surrendered, unconditionally.

North Korea, a Soviet proxy, never attacked, killed or maimed a single American on the American mainland. Yet the U.S., under United Nations auspices, waged war against North Korea (some 10,000 kilometers away), bombed and invaded its territory, killing many thousands of civilians in the process, until driven out by the Chinese. America’s war policy? Restoration of the status quo ante. The outcome was precisely that: Korea remained divided. The U.S. did not win the war and did not lose—except tens of thousands of American soldiers. (more…)

If you are Jewish and have a stitch of Jewish pride, are you sick and tired of hearing how this or that president, or how this or that presidential candidate, is “good for Israel”?

Has there ever been an American Secretary of State—with the possible exception of Alexander Haig, who was promptly eased out of office—that has been “good for Israel”?

Do you know of a single American politician that emphatically opposes or campaigns against the establishment of a Palestinian state? Does Senator Joseph Lieberman?

Do you realize that all this talk about how this or that American president or politician is “good for Israel” renders Israel all the more pathetic and degrades the Jewish people?

Do you realize that American Zionist organizations that lobby for Israel have had no discernible, positive impact on Israel’s government, that is, have not affected Israel’s suicidal policy of territorial retreat, hence, have not made Israel’s government more sane or more Zionist? (more…)

The following, apart from the three concluding paragraphs, is extracted from my book A Jewish Philosophy of History (lightcatcherbooks.com [2006]).

Muslims have never had any doubts about the conflict between Islam and the West. They have always divided the world into the territory of Dar al-Islam, where Islam reigns, and the territory of Dar al-Harb, where infidels reign, but which the Sharia requires Muslims to conquer in the name of Allah.

Islam’s division of humanity suggests to Lee Harris [Civilization and Its Enemies] that Islam is the enemy of civilization [per se]. By civilization he means a standard that can be applied across cultures and across history. He sees civilization as having four prerequisites: a stable social order, the co-operation of individuals pursuing their own interests, the ability to tolerate or socialize with one’s neighbors, and a hatred of violence. Clearly, Islam lacks three of the four prerequisites of Harris’ view of a civilization. What is remarkable is that Dr. Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-born psychiatrist living in America, arrived at the same conclusion. She denied there was clash between the West and Islamic civilization because, in her words, Islam is not a civilization! (more…)

Every American—nay, all thinking people—should read Thomas Sowell’s A Man of Letters. Sowell would have my vote if he were any party’s presidential candidate. Sowell is not an “African-American.” He is an American who represents all that is great about the American heritage, today endangered by Barack Obama.

---

Courtesy of National Review Online.

An Old Newness

Obama is a hit with the media, but electing him would be a grave error.

By Thomas Sowell

Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits—one hit away from the 3,000-hit landmark—which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.

Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner’s 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top. (more…)

Please read Col. David Crockett’s speech as well as the speech of one of his constituents.

Light-years removed from Israel’s undemocratic system of government.

Thanks to Dr. Eugene Narrett.

---

Courtesy of Project Freedom and US Representative Ron Paul of Texas.

Colonel David Crockett, US Representative from Tennessee, Delivering His Celebrated Speech to Congress on the State of Finances, State Officers, and State Affairs in General.

Submitted by Dr. Eugene Narrett.

This is the most interesting thing I’ve read in a long time. The sad thing about it, you can see it coming.

I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it.

How Long Do We Have?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

‘A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.’ (more…)

The prevailing mentality of the United States—and this applies to Europe—undermines its ability to survive its relentless foes—the same foes of Israel.

This mentality has been diagnosed by Phillip E. Johnson, graduate of Harvard University and the University of Chicago Law School. Johnson is regarded as the most formidable critic of Darwinism by such notable atheists as Nobel Laureate physicist Steven Weinberg. I refer to Johnson’s Darwin on Trial (2nd edition, 1993) and Reason in the Balance (1995).

America’s mentality is dominated by Darwinian naturalism—an atheistic conception of man and the universe. Johnson quotes the famous paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, who, in speaking of Darwinian evolution, said: “man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, May 19, 2008.

Edward Lucas’s book, The New Cold War (2008), is must reading, especially for Americans wondering about whom to vote for in the November presidential election.

The subtitle of Lucas’s book is How the Kremlin Menaces both Russia and the West. The book has been endorsed by former prime minister of Estonia Mart Laar. Vladimir Bukovsky, a former Soviet dissident, also endorsed the book. Bukovsky warns that former KGB operator, Vladimir Putin, who came to power in 1999, is attempting to “restore the Soviet Empire.” Twice elected president, Putin is now Russia’s prime minister.

Lucas points out, however, that under Putin Russia “has dropped three Soviet attributes from its foreign policy: a messianic ideology [i.e., communism], raw military power and the imperative of territorial expansion.” This makes the Russian threat less visible but more dangerous. (more…)

Edited Transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, February 25, 2008.

I. Who is Zbigniew Brzezinski?

It was reported in The New York Sun on February 15 that Barack Hussein Obama has chosen Zbigniew Brzezinski to advise him on Middle East policy.

Back in 1985, I wrote an article on Brzezinski for The Intercollegiate Review. Before citing some of the more relevant passages of that article, it should be borne in mind that Brzezinski, a political scientist, served as President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser. One does not have to read Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to know that Carter is an anti-Semite. Brzezinski has earned the same reputation.

Not only has Brzezinski publicly defended the anti-Semitic canard that the relationship between America and Israel is the result of Jewish pressure, but he also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction. (more…)

Courtesy of Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief, February 1, 2008. Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.

Copyright Joel Skousen.

The US political circus is an amazing, if not agonizing, show to watch. First, we saw Rudy Giuliani, the establishment’s pre-election favorite (only because the media said so) go from front runner status to a disastrous showing in the primaries—garnering less votes than Rep. Ron Paul, who was systematically denied any meaningful media coverage at all. It appears the public is either fickle or the media polls were just plain lying—perhaps both. Then we saw John McCain with almost no support suddenly rise to front runner status after a barrage of big name newspaper and personality endorsements so unanimous that there had to have existed some guiding hand. The establishment boost for McCain is still ongoing in a big way and is intended to gain McCain a majority of delegates before the convention convenes—which would eliminate a brokered convention where deals and concession have to be made in order to gain that majority. In an up or down vote between McCain or Romney, without Huckabee to draw away votes from Romney, McCain would lose. That’s what the king makers are trying to avoid by manipulating the public during the primaries. It’s time to let America know more about the real McCain. Believe me, he is no hero. (more…)

Introduction

Although many of the framers of the American Constitution were not devout, their political mentality was shaped in universities whose curriculum was based very much on Jewish ideas. Accordingly, this essay will be divided into two parts. The first part will show how Judaism, in particular the Five Books of Moses, influenced higher education in 17th and 18th century America. The second part will examine the institutions prescribed in the American Constitution and show their roots in Jewish laws and principles.

A.   Historical Background^[1]

1.   No nation has been more profoundly influenced by the “Old Testament” than America. Many of America’s early statesmen and educators were schooled in Hebraic civilization. The second president of the United States, John Adams, a Harvard graduate, had this to say of the Jewish people:

The Jews have done more to civilize men than any other nation…. They are the most glorious Nation that ever inhabited the earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a bauble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily than any other Nation, ancient or modern.^[2] (more…)

Can you imagine Israeli military thinkers discussing the unthinkable—an Israeli coup d’etat?

Ponder over this question.

---

Courtesy of Harper’s Magazine.

American coup d’etat: Military thinkers discuss the unthinkable

April 2006

Eternal vigilance being the price of liberty, Americans—who spent decades war-gaming a Soviet invasion and have taken more recently to daydreaming about “ticking bomb” scenarios—should cast at least an occasional thought toward the only truly existential threat that American democracy might face today. We now live in a unipolar world, after all, in which conquest of the United States by an outside power is nearly inconceivable. Even the best-equipped terrorists, for their part, could dispatch at most a city or two; and armed revolution is a futile prospect, so fearsomely is our homeland secured by police and military forces. To subdue America entirely, the only route remaining would be to seize the machinery of state itself, to steer it toward malign ends—to carry out, that is, a coup d’état.

Given that the linchpin of any coup d’état is the participation, or at least the support, of a nation’s military officers, Harper’s Magazine assembled a panel of experts to discuss the state of our own military—its culture, its relationship with the wider society, and the steadfastness of its loyalty to the ideals of democracy and to the United States Constitution. (more…)

Courtesy of Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com

by Pamela Geller

The thing is, you can’t be a leader and not know what Islam means. The average Joe pumping gas on Route 66—okay, not on top of the issue. But there is no way you can be running for President and not know the hell being wreaked on the free and not-so-free world by Islamic jihad.

That said, Barack Obama went to a madrassa in Jakarta. A madrassa in a Muslim country. Whether he was devout or secular, he knows what was taught. He knows what is in the Koran. Even if he is ambiguous, he knows the stakes involved. His father was a Muslim who took three wives (without divorcing). His stepfather and close members of his family are devout Muslims. Not an unimportant influence.

Every Muslim who left Islam is very definitive about leaving and why. They are quite vocal—Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, Elijah Abraham, etc. If he left Islam, Obama must have very definite thoughts about it. (more…)

January 10, 2008

The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy urges public-spirited Americans to initiate a law suit against President George W. Bush in a federal district court for violating The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which says in part:

• Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected;

• Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel.

The full text of the legislation follows: (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, December 31, 2007.

Two Munichs occurred in 2007: (1) the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, and (2) the U.S-sponsored Annapolis Conference. The two Munichs may lead to a world war that destroys what is left of a decaying Western civilization.

The National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iran had stopped its nuclear-weapons development program in 2003. This gives Iran the green light to complete that program. A nuclear-armed Iran will control Saudi Arabia as well as pacifist Europe on which America’s economy and survival depend. Of course, a nuclear-armed Iran dooms Israel.

The Annapolis Conference buys time for the United States, while Israel retreats to its indefensible 1949 borders to accommodate the establishment of Palestinian state which, in a second stage orchestrated by Iran, will cover all of Palestine.

Pundits attribute the first mentioned Munich to a “shadow government” in the American State Department working in conjunction with dovish elements in American intelligence agencies. (more…)

To appreciate the injection of religion into the 2008 presidential campaign by Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, historical perspective is needed concerning the cultural context of the First Amendment of the American Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or precluding the free exercise thereof …”

The First Amendment was demanded not by secularists but by Christians. Historian William P. Grady notes that the Baptists in all the original states were appalled by the lack of specific religious guarantees in the proposed Constitution. In Virginia, the most powerful state, the Baptists expressed their concerns to James Madison, the father of the Constitution, who needed their support to win Virginia’s ratification.

The First Amendment was intended to prevent Congress from supporting sectarian institutions, not religious values. Its intention, therefore, was to prevent Congress from establishing a State religion. Revolted by the example of England, the Founding Fathers refused to sacralize the modern national state, which they deemed powerful enough without investing it with religious authority. (more…)

Edited version of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, December 17, 2007.

American foreign policy has two bases: stupidity and avarice. Admittedly, this may be said of the foreign policy of most countries. In Israel, however, whereas stupidity is the pilot and avarice the co-pilot, the reverse is the case of America.

Let’s first examine the evidence of stupidity in American foreign policy, since much of it is applicable to Israel’s government. And if you prefer the more polite term “naiveté” to stupidity, that may be nothing more than a distinction without a difference—only bear in mind there are different kinds of stupidity just as there are different kinds of intelligence.

According to historian W. P. Grady, “in the early years of WW II, American ambassador William Standley actually attempted to befriend the Russians by distributing Walt Disney Films.” Apparently, this was the State Department’s or President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s version of “confidence building” measures. (Perhaps Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, instead of releasing Arab terrorists, which arouses Arab contempt, should distribute Teddy Bears or Hershey Bars to the Palestinians to befriend them.) (more…)

The United States cannot win the war against international terrorism. It cannot win this war because President George W. Bush lacks the intellectual integrity and moral courage to name the enemy, which is not merely “IslamoFascism,” but Islam, whose followers, since the time of Mohammed, have murdered more than 200 million people in the name of Allah.

Mr. Bush is not serious about international terrorism. Otherwise, he would not hobnob with terrorists like Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas. He would not have invited Syria, a terrorist state, to the Annapolis Conference. Nor would he sponsor the Saudi “peace plan.”

The mere fact that the Bush administration has imposed obstacles to Israel’s war against Palestinian terrorism is enough to demonstrate that he is the lackey of oil-rich Saudi Arabia. (more…)

Sadat’s Strategy was published in Hebrew in December 1978, four months before the signing of the March 26, 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty. During the two weeks preceding the signing of that treaty in Washington, D.C., I was on a lecture tour in the United States warning various audiences—as I had personally warned Prime Minister Menachem Begin in September 1977—against signing any agreement with Sadat.

It took intellectual courage and integrity on the part of Dr. Daniel Pipes, a renowned expert on the Middle East, to admit he had erred in supporting that treaty. (more…)