Category Posts by Others

Jul 1 2015

Novelists versus Political Scientists


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Oftentimes we can learn more about Israel’s Arab enemies from a good novelist than from a political scientist that specializes on Arab affairs and serves as an adviser to political decision makers.

One reason for the disparity is that unlike the typical political scientist, novelists have a license to write candidly about ugly things.

         The disparity becomes very serious when one thinks of Israel’s self-destructive quest for peace with the PLO-Palestinian Authority. Not only did Israeli political scientists such as Y. Harkabi champion statehood for that terrorist organization, but so have renowned American political scientists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski. I’d put my money on a novelist like Leon Uris.

In The Haj, author Leon Uris has the famous Orde Wingate say:  “… every last Arab is a total prisoner of his society.  The Jews will eventually have to face up to what you’re dealing with here.  The Arabs will never love you for what good you’ve brought them.  They don’t how to really love.  But hate!  Oh G-d, can they hate!  And they have a deep, deep, deep resentment because you [Jews] have jolted them from their delusion of grandeur and shown them for what they are–a decadent, savage people controlled by a religion that has stripped them of all human ambition … except for the few cruel enough and arrogant enough to command them as one commands a mob of sheep.  You [Jews] are dealing with a mad society and you’d better learn how to control it.”

Can you imagine a political scientist advising Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bear this Arab profile in mind when dealing with Mahmoud Abbas? Uris would deem Netanyahu an abysmal fool to negotiate with Abbas on the basis of “reciprocity.”

In The Haj, Uris has the novel’s central character, Haj Ibrahim confide to a Jewish friend:  “During the summer heat my people become frazzled…. They are pent up.  They must explode.  Nothing directs their frustration like Islam.   Hatred is holy in this part of the world.  It is also eternal…. You [Jews] do not know how to deal with us.  For years, decades, we may seem to be at peace with you, but always in the back of our minds we keep up the hope of vengeance.  No dispute is ever really settled in our world. The Jews give us a special reason to continue warring.”  Contrast Netanyahu continuing quest for peace in dealing with Abbas.

In The Haj, Uris has the cultured Dr. Mudhil elaborate:  “We [Arabs] do not have leave to love one another and we have long ago lost the ability.  It was so written twelve hundred years earlier. Hate is our overpowering legacy and we have regenerated ourselves by hatred from decade to decade, generation to generation, century to century.  The return of the Jews has unleashed that hatred, exploding it wildly …  In ten, twenty, thirty years the world of Islam will begin to consume itself in madness.  We cannot live with ourselves … we  never have.  We are incapable of change.”  (Actually, Dr. Mudhil is only elaborating what Genesis 16:12 tells us about the descendants of Ishmael.)

Later in the novel, Mudhil says:  “Islam is unable to live at peace with anyone…. One day our oil will be gone, along with our ability to blackmail.  We have contributed nothing to human betterment in centuries, unless you consider the assassin and the terrorist as human gifts.”

Some left-wing pundits may call Uris a “racist.”

They lack the novelist’s sensitive and clear-headed understanding of Arab culture.  Unlike maudlin peace enthusiasts, Uris appreciates the tragedy of a few insightful Arabs who know they are trapped in the savage and Janus-faced nature of Arab-Islamic culture. Abbas, like his mentor, the arch-villain Yasser Arafat, is a creature of that culture, something beyond the comprehension of Secretary of State John Kerry and his boss Barack Obama.

.           America under the mentality of Obama is too effete to deal effectively with the barbaric Arab-Islamic world, whose pathological hatred of the West prompts the leaders of that world to use children as decoys and human bombs.

            What shall we then say of political scientists that have foisted the policy of “conflict resolution” on Western decision makers? Pity these decision makers haven’t read Uris or taken him seriously
Professor Eidelberg is an eminent scholar in political philosophy who has given me permission to post his work in my bog. This one is relevant since the issue of “conflict resolution” is so ingrained in our society today. As this story Uris related the Muslims are incapable of co-existing with any other society — and everyone up until present times knew that. Islam is evil to its core and making any agreement with them is no better than play Russian roulette.
Jun 25 2015

A Matter of Courage and Wisdom


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

There are many people in Israel, even in the Knesset, that regard Bibi as intelligent but timid. Caroline Click of the Jerusalem Post called him a “hack politician” when he released Arab terrorists in subservience to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry, in lock-step with President Barack Obama, is hardly an admirable personality. Any fool or coward can urge Israel to retreat to her 1967 Auschwitz lines. But there is some confusion here between moral and intellectual virtues.

As may be gleaned from Plato’s dialogue, the Apology, where Socrates is condemned to death for undermining the attachment of youth to the gods of democratic Athens, where the moral relativism of the Sophists reigned unchallenged, courage is a precondition of wisdom. People lacking courage tend to be “politically correct.”  They will not be inclined to think of some way of avoiding intellectually complex and life-threatening situations.

Israel’s situation is certainly complex and life-threatening. Not only is Israel threatened from afar by genocidal Iran; she is also assaulted close at hand by Palestinian Jew-killers – and both enemies are supported by a multicultural or cockamamie Muslim in the White House. Barack Obama is not likely to go down in history as a man of wisdom and courage.

Wisdom and courage represent, respectively, intellectual and moral virtues. What is not common knowledge is that courage is a precondition of wisdom, but by no means a sufficient precondition. Israel’s most highly decorated general, former PM Ehud Barak, a smiling clod, not only deserted Israel’s Christian friends in Lebanon, but also offered Yasser Arafat Judea and Samaria, Israel’s heartland. Sadly, Bibi’s Osolovian predecessors are examples of buffoons if not poltroons. Calling any of them “hacks” is flattery.

What makes Bibi particularly unpalatable as Israel’s prime spokesman is that he knows, better than most, the utterly malicious and mendacious character of the Palestinian, the Arabs whom he appeases, and with whom he yearns to negotiate on the basis of “reciprocity.”

He also knows that that the idea of “reciprocity,” foreign to Islam, appears eminently reasonable and fair-minded to benighted Americans. Habituated to compromise at home, Americans still genuflect to “détente” abroad. Recall Kissinger’s morally neutral policy of “détente” with the Soviet Union, which Ronald Reagan, to the consternation of many academics, called the “Evil Empire.”

As for Barack Obama, he chokes on the term “Muslim terrorists” to describe members of another Evil Empire, Islam.

To be fair, however, Truth is out of fashion in post-modern America and in post-modern Israel, where political scientists have replaced the word “evil” with the “Three blind Mice” concept of “conflict resolution,” in consequence of which concept decision makers “See no Evil,” “Hear no Evil,” and “Speak no Evil” about the disciples of Mohammad.

Bearing this optical situation in mind, let us now take cognizance of the recent eruption of racial violence in some American cities. How easy it is to trace the causes of that violence to unemployment. Who would hasten to say the upsurge of that evil is tacitly encouraged by the occupant of the White House: a post-American multicultural moral relativist, who often attended a church whose pastor preached “god damn America” without a murmur from the man so many “educated” Americans twice elected their President? To see and say this does not require much wisdom and courage.

Jun 8 2015

What the Brelo verdict means for us


Post by Jeff Longo

The Guest column (In the Cleveland Plain Dealer) “What the Brelo verdict means for us” uses half-truths, made up innuendos and outright lies to advance AJ Barrington’s anti-cop agenda. He uses the word “murders” when referring to the deaths of the two suspects in Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo’s case as well as Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Tamir Rice. These assertions are void of facts and indicate little, if any, research was done by Mr. Barrington.

In the Brelo case police were responding to a report that shots were fired. While it was later determined the shots heard were probably a backfire from the suspects’ car the officers in pursuit had no way of knowing this. After a 22 mile chase the judge ruled, correctly in the opinion of many, that Brelo rightfully feared for his life and his actions were justified. One of the suspects tested positive for drugs and alcohol. .

Michael Brown was a young 300 pound black man who was falsely turned into a martyr. Brown attacked a Ferguson, MO. police officer and attempted to take his gun. He had just finished assaulting and robbing a local store clerk. Brown tested positive for marijuana. Even the Obama “Social” Justice Department discredited the phony “hands up don’t shoot” lie delivered by liberal politicians and a corrupt main stream media. .

The autopsy in the Eric Garner case attributed his death was at the hands of another party – but not murder. The 400 pound Garner died thanks to acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and pre-existing heart disease. Prior to the struggle the police had no way of knowing about his preexisting health issues.

All of these suspects died while they were resisting arrest. Mr. Barrington also includes the Tamir Rice case in his Guest column. As I write this letter there has still been no decision rendered in the criminal investigation of this tragic event. Including this case in his column adds to the suggestion that Mr. Barrington spent little time researching these cases.

Until recently our nation has enjoyed a two decade long decline in violent crime. Experts credit proactive policing for this trend. Now thanks to liberals like AJ Barrington police officers are being told they’re racists. Police are being targeted for death as the crime rate spikes throughout the country. These anti-cop attacks are forcing dedicated men and women to avoid proactive law enforcement. Those that will suffer the consequences from this police slow-down the most are the poor black families who live in crime infested neighborhoods. As long as they keep electing Democrats that’s where they’ll stay.

 

 

 

May 25 2015

The LIERs


Post By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Who are the “LIERs”? The LIERs are a consortium of Libertarians, Internationalists, Egalitarians, and Relativists. These LIERs dominate the news and other opinion–making media.

A favorite pastime of the LIERs is Israel-bashing.  Media bias against Israel assumes obscene proportions whenever Israel retaliates against Arab terrorists—be it Hamas in Gaza, Fatah in Jenin, or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Some commentators attribute the media’s anti-Israel bias to Arab threats against journalists.  Probably true in some cases, but Arab threats do not account for all the venom the LIERs spew against Israel.

Other commentators attribute the mediacracy’s bias to anti-Semitism. There’s some truth in this, but it’s superficially understood.  I’ll come back to this later.

Still others ascribe the anti-Israel bias to the LIERs’ underdog mentality.  Israel is portrayed as the Goliath in its conflict with those poor, little people, the “Palestinians,” who are compelled to use their own children as human bombs in this uneven conflict.

But is it right to sympathize with Arab terrorists that use women as human shields? I ask these questions because it’s absurd to apply the Geneva Convention to Arab terrorists.  When you think seriously about these terrorists, when you behold their cruelty, their inhumanity, their contempt for human life, it’s not only absurd to endow these monsters with the rights of the Geneva Convention; it makes that Convention a mockery of human dignity.  But for the Vatican to join the LIERs and align the Church with the Palestinian Authority’s quest for statehood  when the PA virtually drove Christians out of Bethlehem is more than hypocrisy. It’s using the PA to gain control of Jerusalem!

This may explain why the “Religion of  Love” denounced the IDF’s counterattack against Hezbollah operating from Lebanon.  Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has repeatedly said that Israel has a right to defend itself. Whoever questioned this right? Isn’t national self-preservation an axiomatic duty of government? But having descended to psycho-babble about Israel’s right to defend itself, Bibi has repeatedly implored the PA to recognize Israel as a Jewish state! Where does this Jewish Don Quixote come from?

Probing deeper, where did this ridiculous need to invoke the axiomatic principle of national self-defense and consequent use of force against foreign aggression originate? Here’s the story.

Back in the 1920s, Julian Benda, a most insightful Frenchman, warned of the pacifist mentality that was emasculating France, a mentality that would lead to the Second World War. In The Treason of the Intellectuals, Benda anticipated what I call the LIERs—the Libertarians, Internationalists, Egalitarians, and Relativists of today’s opinion-makers. He noted that in the perverse minds of these LIERs justice becomes suspect when backed by force.

I am not suggesting that “might makes right.” But to denigrate right when it is invested with might is to ensure the victory of the wicked.  This is the crime the LIERs of the media perpetrate by their slanderous attacks against Israel. Let’s probe deeper into these LIERs.

Given their Libertarianism, LIERs oppose all restraints on their freedom of expression.  As a case in point, a member of their ilk in the U.S. Senate fantasized about getting the FCC to shut down Fox News!

When all is said and done, however, it’s hard to understand why LIERs, given the meaning of each letter of this acronym, side with illiberal and despotic Arabs and are so often hostile toward democratic Israel.  Here we return to anti-Semitism.

Israel, perceived as a Jewish state, symbolizes nationalism.  This offends the Internationalism of the LIERs. Moreover, the Bible refers to the Jews as the “Chosen People.” This offends the Egalitarianism of the LIERs. The LIERs also oppose any display of the Ten Commandments in the public domain. This offends the moral Relativism of the LIERs.

Israel therefore represents the absolute antithesis of what the LIERs represent. Now one can better understand why the LIERs demonize and want to delegitimize Israel, the Nation which, through blood and tears, carried the Truth from Sinai.

May 21 2015

The Most Highly Educated Citizens of America


Post By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Americans spend an enormous amount of money for the education of their youth. Hardly anyone draws a connection between the content of this education, as articulated in the social sciences, the humanities, the law schools, and America’s decline as a world power. Let me illustrate this phenomenon by means of the character of President Barack Obama.

If Mr. Obama is rightly called an “Empty Suit,” this may be construed to mean that Obama is a deceptively “Invisible Man” in a visible suit. What made him invisible from the beginning is that he has no obvious or substantive national identity. Has he not called himself a “cosmopolitan,” a man without a country?

Has he not been rightly denominated as a “post-American” president? What does this mean in depth, in truth, and not in journalese? It means that Obama lacks any moral or intellectual attachment to America’s two foundational documents, the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution.

Moreover, since the definitive and pivotal concept of the Declaration of Independence is “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” which are obviously universal and immutable. Obama has effectively defined himself as a multicultural moral relativist, which means that Obama is a functional atheist or pagan nihilist.

Unsurprisingly, this defines the mentality of his Supreme Court appointments. Like Obama, the Court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, which is rampant in the Third World, especially in Africa with which Obama is very much identified. Obama, wherever he was born, is anything but a “red, white, and blue” American.

Indeed, his denial of “American Exceptionalism” is consistent with his multicultural moral relativism. But this relativism is nothing more than a euphemism for atheism, more precisely, nihilism. Nihilism has been rampant in American higher education for many decades, as may be seen in my essay, “Intellectual and Moral Anarchy in America Society,” which was published in the Congressional Record (Senate) in 1968.

We must therefore conclude that Obama represents the mentality of most university professors (roughly 80%), and that his election to the highest office in the land may be attributed primarily to America’s most highly educated citizens and opinion makers!

May 18 2015

Baltimore’s Problems are self-imposed


Post By Jeff Longo
The problems in Baltimore have nothing to do with a racist police department or racism in general. The mayor and police commissioner are black. The police department is made up of a majority of minority police officers. The entire city council and a majority of the school board are black. Three of the Baltimore cops arrested are black and they were indicted by a black State’s Attorney.
Nor do the problems have anything to do with a lack of funding. $2.8 billion of the Obama stimulus slush fund was directed to Baltimore with nothing to show for it. The public school system pays $16,000 per student per year making it the second highest in the nation. And for all of that only 56% of the students end up graduating from high school.
Like many large American cities the problem is the corrupt ideology of liberalism. After five decades of uninterrupted Democratic rule the city of Baltimore is collapsing and those responsible are scrambling to deflect blame. Welfare programs have done more to harm the black community than any police department ever could. Fifty years ago liberals thought it was a good idea to pay women who had babies out of wedlock and no man in the house. Today a shocking 72% of black babies are born out of wedlock. 
The Democratic Party needs to maintain and grow an underclass of uninformed voters dependent on government hand outs and looking for more. As long as the citizens, trapped in poverty and violence, keep checking the “D” on their ballot they will remain prisoners of liberalism and its failed welfare programs. And as always the Democratic Party can rely on the corrupt cowards in the main stream media to provide cover for the damage being done to our Republic, and its people.

 

May 6 2015

Freedom of Speech: Introduction


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

A lot of sophomoric trite has been uttered in the media about freedom of speech in reaction to the terrorist attack at Muhammad Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas, 3 May, 2015. Let’s be serious about a most serious subject.

Freedom of speech is of course a fundamental human value.  This value seems to have its home in liberal democracy. In fact, liberal democracy exalts freedom of speech over all other values. Unfortunately, the exaltation of this freedom has led to its degradation. Today, freedom of speech lacks rational and ethical constraints.  Divorced from truth, freedom of speech has become a license not only to lie but even to incite people to murder, as witness Harvard’s defense of Oxford poetaster Tom Paulin who urged that Jews living in Judea/Samaria “should be shot dead”.

To redeem and elevate freedom of speech, let’s explore its pristine origin, the Bible of Israel.

Recall Abraham’s questioning the justice of G-d’s decision to destroy Sodom:  “Peradventure there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou indeed sweep away and not forgive the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?  That be far from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked, that so the righteous should be as the wicked; that be far from Thee; shall not the Judge of all earth do justly?”

G-d permits Abraham to question Him.  By so doing, the King of Kings affirms freedom of speech as a fundamental human right.  But clearly this right, from a Judaic perspective, can only be derived from man’s creation in the image of G-d. Only because man is endowed with reason and free will does he have a right to freedom of speech.  This right, however, must be understood in terms of the purpose or function of speech.

Speech is not an end-in-itself or mere exercise in self-expression. Rightly understood, speech is a manifestation of reason, the quintessential function of which is to communicate ideas and inquire into their truth or falsity, their justice or injustice.  Hence, speech is an intellectual-moral phenomenon.  To divorce speech from truth is to relegate this distinctively human faculty to a mere instrument of self-aggrandizement and to reject the biblical concept of man’s creation in the image of G-d.  This is the current tendency of liberal democracy, a tendency that degrades man and makes a mockery of his right to freedom of speech.

It cannot be said too often – it is hardly said at all – that if freedom of speech is divorced from truth, democracy is no more justifiable than tyranny.  More precisely, if there are no objective standards by which to distinguish right from wrong, or modesty from shamelessness – whether in speech or in behavior – then there are no rational grounds for preferring democracy to totalitarianism.

Notice, moreover, that the denial of objective moral standards does not logically justify the toleration of all lifestyles. Moral relativism undermines any objective grounds for preferring tolerance to intolerance, hence freedom of speech to censorship.

It has been said that the only rational defense of freedom of speech or of intellectual freedom is that it can facilitate the quest for truth, including the truth about how man should live.  But no such quest can even begin unless we already know, in some general and authoritative way, what is right and wrong.  Clearly, the claim to academic freedom can have no justification unless it is commonly understood that it is wrong to cheat or deceive, to plagiarize or steal, to defame or murder.  This suggests that moral relativists, who very much dominate the academic world, take civilization for granted.

The true father of civilization is none other than Abraham who, by discovering the Creator of man, discovered the moral unity of human nature.  The moral unity of human nature presupposes the rule of reason over self-regarding passions, of moral suasion over brute force and arbitrariness.  It is in this light that we are to understand the destruction of Sodom.  G-d tolerates Abraham’s questioning because Abraham’s speech is not a mere ventilation of emotion. To be sure, Abraham is the exemplar of compassion. But Abraham’s compassion is informed by truth, that is, by his knowing the difference between righteousness and wickedness.  Apart from such knowledge, freedom of speech is noise or nonsense.

–  –  –  –

To be continued

$4,800.00

May 5 2015

On Dealing with Obama?


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Let us assume, to begin with, that Islam influences Obama’s behavior.  For some observers of Islam, this assumption does not flatter Mr. Obama.

For example, Syrian-born psychiatrist Wafa Sultan has said, in a derogatory sense, that Islam is not a civilization.

Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders agrees. He denied the existence of a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West because Islam, he says, is not a civilization but a form of barbarism.

Now ponder this. That Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there is no clash of civilization in the Middle East suggests the possibility that he may harbor a fallacious hence precarious understanding of Islam, one that has induced him to engage in peace negotiations with the Islamic Palestinian Authority for more than two decades, despite the absence of any positive results, to say nothing of the terrible loss of Jewish life.

That Wafa Sultan and Geert Wilders have a more candid – I do not say clearer – understanding of Islam, is confirmed by this report of Dr. Arieh Eldad, an M.D. at Hadassah Hospital in Israel.

I was instrumental in establishing the “Israeli National Skin Bank,” which is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for every day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations. This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in Jerusalem where I was the Chairman of plastic surgery.

This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza, who was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheva, after her family burned her. Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are suspected of having an affair. We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment. She was successfully treated by my friend and colleague, Prof. Lior Rosenberg and discharged to return to Gaza. She was invited for regular follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic in Beersheva.

One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt. She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life. It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her.

This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel. It is not a territorial conflict.

Dr. Eldad concluded his report by asking everyone to forward it onwards so that as many as possible will understand radical Islam, that this not merely a territorial conflict. [As Geert Wilders put it, “this is a  war between civilization & barbarism.”]

Now, returning to Obama, the question arises: how does one deal with an individual who has been described as an “empty suit”? Such an individual can hardly be called a real person, since he has no solid identity. He may speak like a human being, but he is just as likely to speak honestly as dishonestly, sensibly as well as foolishly – as when Obama said he was a Muslim and that America was founded by Muslims!

What such an individual says should therefore be taken with a grain of salt. One can’t safely rely on what he says as a basis for policy.  Any conversation with Obama should be as brief and as casual as possible. Also, anything he says should not only be recorded, but also witnessed, if possible, by a third party.  One must never assume that Obama means what he says and says what he means, or that even understands what he says or means – from one day to the next. This is the dilemma in dealing with an “empty suit.”

It follows that Israel must reduce to a minimum her dealings with American officials insofar as such dealings may be intersected by whatever Obama, by chance or by design, may say or do. This means that Israel should regard Obama as a punctuated or virtual enemy.

 

Apr 28 2015

A Perilous Situation


Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Thanks primarily to President Barack Obama, Iran is on a short path to becoming a nuclear power. Iran will then become the rulers of the Middle East. The Mullocracy in Tehran will then control the oil resources on which the economy of Europe depends. Since Europe is America’s greatest trading partner, a nuclear Iran would be in a position to undermine the survival of the United States.

The Mullocracy of Iran, formerly Persia, is animated by uncompromising religious and imperial objectives. When Iran’s former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, brazenly screamed “Death to America,” and also vowed to wipe Israel off the map, he was not engaging in grandiloquent rhetoric to inflate Iranian pride. His maledictions simply expressed Islam’s 1,400-year ambition to rule the world, an ambition more realistic than that expressed in Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

This being the case, the critics of Obama’s flimsy nuke agreement with Iran were quite right in comparing Obama to Chamberlain. However, if Obama is animated by the “Munich syndrome,” or if he harbors Islam’s desire to eradicate the “small Satan, Israel does not have to become a “one bomb state” or passively wait for dooms day.

Even if Obama is not a closet Jew-hater, he is clearly a hater of Western Civilization, symbolized by his return of a bust of Winston Churchill to London.  Such was Churchill’s greatness as a scholar-statesman that he was made an honorary citizen of the United States by President John F. Kennedy. Churchill was far more American than the current occupant of the White House!

Perhaps Obama’s animus toward Churchill may be attributed to British imperialism. Alternatively, perhaps Obama was aware of Churchill’s’ contempt for Islam. Indeed, Churchill once said that Islam “paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

In contrast, Churchill greatly admired the Jews. “Some people like the Jews,” he said, “and some do not. But no thoughtful man can deny the fact that they are, beyond any question, the most formidable and most remarkable race which has appeared in the world.”

It thus appears that Obama, who speaks glowingly of the Qur’an, and who genuflected to Saudi King Abdullah, had all the more reason to abhor a bust of Churchill on the one hand, and to support the Islamic Palestinian Authority’s war against Israel on the other! Nor is this all.

Obama, a radical left-wing Democrat, may also be cultivating a personal vendetta vis-à-vis Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As is well known, Netanyahu was invited by Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner to address a joint session of Congress, surely to warn the Americans of Obama’s appeasement of Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program.

There is good reason to liken Obama’s appeasement of that tyranny with Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler at Munich. Whereas Hitler was rearming Germany in violation of the Versailles Treaty, Iran was acquiring more and more centrifuges for launching nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles in violation of an international treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology.

After more than a decade of failed diplomacy exploited by Iran, there was no solid reason to believe that the U.S. could succeed in curtailing Iran’s nuclear ambition. Indeed, Iran’s obtaining nuclear weapons is consistent with Teheran’s malediction of “death to America” and its vow to wipe Israel off the map.

Since Iran is also the epicenter of international terrorism, it’s only a matter of prudence to regard Iran as the spearhead of Islam, whose world-historical mission is to eradicate Christianity and Judaism.  Therefore, it should be the objective of Israel to heed the advice of John Bolton, America’s sagacious former ambassador to United Nations.

Ponder this. Just before the presidency of George Bush Jr. came to an end, hence just before Obama’s first presidential inauguration, Bolton, who was experienced in arms control, wisely advised Israel to attack Iran, hopefully with help from the United States! However, Bolton understood that with Obama in the White House, no such attack would take place, and that Iran would have a free pass to becoming a nuclear power.

Indeed, it was to prevent this eventuality that House Speaker Boehner invited Prime Minster Netanyahu to address Congress. Boehner surely knew that at stake with an Obama Presidency was nothing less than the survival of Western civilization. This is probably what prompted him to take the unprecedented step of inviting a foreign statesman to address the U.S. Congress: he wanted Netanyahu to hamstring the President of the United States!

Therefore, given this assessment of the concerns and motives set forth in the previous paragraph, I venture to say that to save Western civilization from the scourge of Islam, Israel will have to destroy, in one way or another, Iran’s command and control centers along with its ballistic missile facilities – a daunting but utterly necessary task.

Apr 28 2015

A Wake-Up Call


By Paul Eidelberg

Is there any intelligent patriot in the United States unaware that the most important cause of America’s decline in foreign affairs is the same cause of the mayhem erupting in its domestic affairs?

Is there any intelligent person in America unaware that Barack Obama, who genuflected to Saudi King Abdulla, and who did not join other nations in Paris to protest against Islamic terrorism, is not qualified to deal with the Islamism  or with domestic mayhem, that he woefully lacking in political wisdom as well as in spiritual integrity?

Is there any intelligent person in this country unaware that what facilitated the election of this “post-American” President is precisely that which will prevent his impeachment?

How long will Americans tolerate a President who brazenly scorns their foundational documents, hence its Judeo-Christian way of life, while undermining America’s economic ability to preserve our freedom against a remorseless foe?