John Boehner on Ted Cruz


“I have never worked with a more miserable son-of-a-bitch in my life”. These words, aimed at Senator Ted Cruz, were delivered by former Speaker of the House, John Boehner. How sad Boehner refused to show this type of contempt toward Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed while they rammed Obamacare down our throats and added $5 trillion to our national debt. He’s a political coward and deserved to lose his job. There are many who deserve the same fate.

There are no longer two parties in Washington, there is only one corrupt mess of big government progressives from both sides of the isle.  Getting re-elected and amassing power is what they seek and the American people always take a back seat to these goals. We don’t need to be lectured by out-of-touch political hacks like John Boehner. Unless the status quo is challenged, and defeated, the rotting of our Republic will continue and the Constitution of the United States will disappear.

Jeff Longo
North Royalton

A Unity of Opposites: A Jewish Teaching that Private Vice Can Serve Public Virtue


Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Consider Donald Trump vis-à-vis these extracts from my book American Exceptionalism:

  • The Father of America, George Washington, envisioned in this nation the growth of a great commercial Republic. He understood that a commercial Republic will inevitably foster, along with competition and self-interest, the passions of ambition and avarice, which would augment dissension and litigation. However, he agreed with his great Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, that under the rule of law and well-designed institutions, “ambition will check ambition,” and that avarice, rightly directed, “may serve the public as well as the private good.”
  • Hamilton also discerned that commercial republicanism can foster rationality, creativity, co-operation, as well as thrift, frugality, and even civic virtue.
  • The philosopher-scientist Alfred North Whitehead observed that “Commerce is the great example of intercourse by way of persuasion.” It transforms self-interest into “enlightened self-interest.” Thus modified, self-interest will produce public benefits, while public benefits will enable a larger number of citizens to prosper and contribute to the common good.

********

Strange as it may seem, Donald Trump has been more or less influenced by the teaching of the above paragraphs. His pompous boast “to make America great again,” his enormous avarice primed by vulgar egoism, should be viewed with the above paragraphs in mind, to justly evaluate the man who may become the next President of the United States.

Trump make americ great

Modern Liberalism and the Death of Civilization


Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The Nihilism (involving moral relativism) that contaminated higher education in America begins with the early 20th century flood of European philosophy in American academia.  Most influential was Germany’s (or Hegel’s) historical relativism, which contradicts the biblical narrative, as did England’s (or Hume’s) atheistic empiricism. Both dominate higher education to this day, even in the “Jewish” state of Israel.

As Leo Strauss has shown, the father of modern liberalism is none other than Spinoza. Spinoza is also the father of biblical criticism. This made Spinoza the darling of Germany, of the nineteenth-century German school of Bible Critics.

Spinoza must therefore have encouraged the European-educated John Stuart Mill, whose mid-nineteenth essay On Liberty made him the world’s leading exponent of unfettered freedom of speech, hence of the free speech Liberalism that continues to predominate the mentality of American law schools and judicial institutions.

Paradoxically, however, free speech Liberalism is now eviscerating academic freedom in the United States. American colleges and universities have succumbed to the virtual totalitarianism underlying the prohibition of what is called “hate speech,” speech that offends the sentiments, above all the religious beliefs of Muslims, The ban on “hate speech” means the end of the liberal dogma of unfettered freedom of speech. The ban on “hate speech” may readily be construed as indistinguishable from speech involving, however remotely the character of other human beings.

What irony! The unrestrained permissiveness of Liberalism regarded obscenity as a protected form of speech by the American Supreme Court. This ruling at least denied the existence of truth and of evil, hence of that which denies the existence of a rational God, as well as the distinction between the human and the subhuman.

That denial can readily undermine the distinction between the polite speech appropriate in the company of woman and the obscene speech typical among vile men. This involves a degradation of language. The foulness of language violates the language of Holy Writ, which utterly avoids obscenity and employs only euphemisms to avoid any degradation of the human body, the creation of God.

This lofty attitude toward speech or language was overruled by Israel’s ultra-Liberal Supreme Court president, Judge Aharon Barak, who nullified a law permitting the Film Censorship Board to ban pornographic movies by ruling that nothing can actually be declared pornography, “as one man’s pornography is another man’s art” (Station Film Company v. Film Censorship Board, 1997).

As a free speech Liberal, Barak seems to have been very much influenced by the academic doctrine of moral-cum-cultural relativism. Moral-cum-cultural relativism was, and effectively still is, the ruling dogma of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The most famous and influential intellectual founder of this university was the German-educated Martin Buber. Buber, who renounced Judaism to the extent of marrying a Gentile, propagated the anti-Jewish Hegelian doctrine of Historical Relativism (or moral pluralism). Buber’s book, Two Kinds of Faith, happens to provide a philosophical basis of the “two-state solution” to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Buber wrote Two Kinds of Faith to justify by his marriage to a Gentile, a convenient academic justification for a Jew-turned cultural relativist!

 

Epilogue

The free speech Liberalism underlying American as well as Israeli law has sanctified public obscenity and even pornography, which are rooted in atheism. The denial of God, evident in contemporary Liberal education, engenders the denial of all moral distinctions. An important set of moral distinctions is related to men and women. The ascendency of free speech Liberalism, of unfettered freedom of speech, diminishes the differences in the language used in speaking to and about men and women.

This unrestrained Liberalism encourages not only homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage. By its denial of truth it generates nihilism which in turn undermines any normative understanding of Islamic terrorism, as is evident in President Barak Obama’s attitude toward that savagery.

Same sex marriage, like Islamic terrorism, is a rejection of Western Civilization. Women (hence children) will be the first victims of this Liberalism, beginning, as mentioned, with our attitude toward Language. Since language distinguishes the human from the subhuman, its degradation in obscenity cannot but degrade human life. This is also the consequence of Islamic terrorism which, consistent with Islamic theology, substitutes the primacy of force over the primacy of reason.

Summing up: free speech Liberalism – with its denial of truth – is actually a negation of rational speech, hence of God’s gift to man. Unfettered freedom of speech, the tendency of modern Liberalism, and implicit in the above-mentioned decision of Judge Aharon Barak, signals the death of rational speech, hence of civilization.

With Barak-type Liberals laying down the law concerning what was traditionally known as distinctively human, and therefore hence of what is decent and indecent, the word “terrorism” will become as meaningless as the term “marriage.” Small wonder that neither Israelis nor Americans know where they are going, although there are signs that their ultimate destination is the grave.◙

Hate Can Be a Virtue


Progressives talk a lot about the evil of hate. We are told that if we object to Sharia law and jihad, then we are intolerant haters. But what about hating what harms people?

I hate wife-beating, yet the Sharia, Koran and Sunna support it.

I am intolerant of child abuse, including child marriage, but the Sunna and Sharia support it.

I hate the jihadist killings of Christians, Jews, Buddhists and apostates.

I am intolerant of religious leaders, such as the Pope and Dai Lama, who will not condemn the jihadic killing of their groups.

I hate dualistic ethics, which lack integrity.

I am intolerant of face coverings, since it cuts off open communication.

As a society, we have lost the ability to become morally outraged and are incapable of anger about the Islamic harm of innocents. I hate that.

Subject: A History Lesson: Thomas Jefferson VS Muslims


Post by  Paul Eidelberg

An INTERESTING INFORMATIVE and WORTHWHILE READ Oh for the days when elected officials had backbones

THOMAS JEFFERSON VS. MUSLIMS, 1785-1815

 When Thomas Jefferson saw there was no negotiating with Muslims, he formed what is now the Marines (sea going soldiers).  These Marines were attached to U. S. Merchant vessels. When the Muslims attacked U.S. merchant vessels they were repulsed by armed soldiers, but there is more.

The Marines followed the Muslims back to their villages and killed every man, woman, and child in the village.

It didn’t take long for the Muslims to leave U.S. Merchant vessels alone.

English and French merchant vessels started running up our flag when entering the Mediterranean to secure safe travel.

Why the Marine Hymn contains the verse, “To the Shores of Tripoli”.

This is very interesting and a must read piece of our history.  It points out where we may be heading.

Most Americans are unaware of the fact that over two hundred years ago the United States had declared war on Islam, and Thomas Jefferson led the charge!

At the height of the 18th century, Muslim pirates (the “Barbary Pirates”) were the terror of the Mediterranean and a large area of the North Atlantic.

They attacked every ship in sight, and held the crews for exorbitant ransoms.  Those taken hostage were subjected to barbaric treatment and wrote heart-breaking letters home, begging their governments and families to pay whatever their Mohammedan captors demanded.

These extortionists of the high seas represented the North African Islamic nations of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers – collectively referred to as the Barbary Coast – and presented a dangerous and unprovoked threat to the new American Republic.

Before the Revolutionary War, U.S. merchant ships had been under the protection of Great Britain.  When the U.S. declared its independence and entered into war, the ships of the United States were protected by France.

However, once the war was won, America had to protect its own fleets.

Thus, the birth of the U.S. Navy.  Beginning in 1784, 17 years before he would become president, Thomas Jefferson became America’s Minister to France.  That same year, the U.S. Congress sought to appease its Muslim adversaries by following in the footsteps of European nations who paid bribes to the Barbary States rather than engaging them in war.

In July of 1785, Algerian pirates captured American ships, and the Dye of Algiers demanded an unheard-of ransom of $60,000.  It was a plain and simple case of extortion, and Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to any further payments.

Instead, he proposed to Congress the formation of a coalition of allied nations who together could force the Islamic states into peace.

A disinterested Congress decided to pay the ransom.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain to ask by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran that all nations who would not acknowledge their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Despite this stunning admission of premeditated violence on non-Muslim nations, as well as the objections of many notable American leaders, including George Washington, who warned that caving in was both wrong and would only further embolden the enemy, for the following fifteen years the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages.

The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to over 20 percent of the United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Jefferson was disgusted.  Shortly after his being sworn in as the third President of the United States in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli sent him a note demanding the immediate payment of $225,000 plus $25,000 a year for every year forthcoming.

That changed everything.

Jefferson let the Pasha know, in no uncertain terms, what he could do with his demand.  The Pasha responded by cutting down the flagpole at the American consulate and declared war on the United States.

Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers immediately followed suit.

Jefferson, until now, had been against America raising a naval force for anything beyond coastal defense, but, having watched his nation be cowed by Islamic thuggery for long enough, decided that it was finally time to meet force with force.

He dispatched a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean and taught the Muslim nations of the Barbary Coast a lesson he hoped they would never forget.  Congress authorized Jefferson to empower U.S. ships to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli and to “cause to be done all other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war would justify.”

maxresdefault

When Algiers and Tunis, who were both accustomed to American cowardice and acquiescence, saw the newly independent United States had both the will and the right to strike back, they quickly abandoned their allegiance to Tripoli.

The war with Tripoli lasted for four more years, and raged up again in 1815.  The bravery of the U.S. Marine Corps in these wars led to the line “to the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn, and they would forever be known as “leathernecks” for the leather collars of their uniforms, designed to prevent their heads from being cut off by the Muslim scimitars when boarding enemy ships.

Islam, and what its Barbary followers justified doing in the name of their prophet and their god, disturbed Jefferson quite deeply.

America had a tradition of religious tolerance. In fact Jefferson, himself, had co-authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but fundamentalist Islam was like no other religion the world had ever seen.

A religion based on supremacy, whose holy book not only condoned but mandated violence against unbelievers, was unacceptable to him.

His greatest fear was that someday this brand of Islam would return and pose an even greater threat to the United States.

This should concern every American.  That Muslims have brought about women-only classes and swimming times at taxpayer-funded universities and public pools; that Christians, Jews, and Hindus have been banned from serving on juries where Muslim defendants are being judged; Piggy banks and Porky Pig tissue dispensers have been banned from workplaces because they offend Islamist sensibilities; ice cream has been discontinued at certain Burger King locations because the picture on the wrapper looks similar to the Arabic script for Allah; public schools are pulling pork from their menus; on and on and on and on..

It’s death by a thousand cuts, or inch-by-inch as some refer to it, and most Americans have no idea that this battle is being waged every day across America.  By not fighting back, by allowing groups to obfuscate what is really happening, and not insisting that the Islamists adapt to our culture, the United States is cutting its own throat with a politically correct knife, and helping to further the Islamists’ agenda.

Sadly, it appears that today America’s leaders would rather be politically correct than victorious!

If you have any doubts about the above information, Google “Thomas Jefferson vs. the Muslim World.”

The Presidential Election 2016, make or Break the Republic, Part Three


Great people can make a Great Country and all the American people are Great

If you are in doubt of American Exceptionalism:

  • Think of America as the nation that saved mankind from the tyranny of Nazi Germany;
  • Think of America as the nation that saved mankind from the tyranny of Soviet Communism;
  • Think of America as the only nation that can save mankind from Islamic totalitarianism;
  • Think of America and the sonnet written by the Jewess Emma Lazarus and engraved on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
  • Think of the Jewish navigator that discovered America;
  • Think of Divine Providence and elect a President that can make America Great Again.

Trump 11

The Presidential Election 2016, make or Break the Republic, Part Two


America at the Crossroad

Prof. Paul Eidelberg
If Ted Cruz, a constitutionalist, is not the choice of the GOP, America’s 2016 presidential election will probably be a contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton; and if Mrs. Clinton is elected, this would be a national disaster of the profoundest dimensions.

Without ignoring Trump’s vulgarity and egoism, this in-your-face tycoon is a populist or nationalist, whereas Mrs. Clinton is a self-effacing globalist or internationalist.

If elected President, Hillary, following two example of President Obama, would soon have the opportunity to fill two Supreme Court vacancies with liberal or left-wing internationalists.

This would effectively terminate America’s national sovereignty, together with the democratic principle of government by the consent of the governed. A revolution would then be around the corner.

On the other hand, if Hillary is the Democratic Party’s candidate, and if Trump is the choice of the GOP, the tycoon would have more than enough evidence to so expose Hillary – if he so desired – that she might never again be invited to give a public lecture!

However, such an exposé would be so sordid that it would demoralize the American people and trash the exalted principle of government by the consent of the governed!

America’s 2016 election may thus be the last of a once free and proud people, a people, however, that had already betrayed their Judeo-Christian heritage by twice electing a self-professed Muslim as their President.

! Am OBAMA

The Presidential Election 2016, make or Break the Republic, Part One


The Decadence of the Presidential Debates
Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Hardly any present-day political analyst dares say that the decadence of the current presidential debates in America is a reflection of Democracy, a form of government that was scorned by all political philosophers until Machiavelli.

Democracy is the religion of the modern world, and though it has liberated the masses from slavery and tyranny, it has not fostered virtue and loftiness of mind. Indeed, the highest end of democratic politics today is comfortable self-preservation.

How ironic! While the college-educated leaders of American democracy are preoccupied with nothing higher than comfortable self-preservation, America’s deadly enemy, Islam, exalts death! Indeed, the mantra of Islam is encapsulated in Sura 9:111 of the Qur’an, which exalts the Muslim who “slays and is slain for Allah.” And lo and behold, some Americans, bored with the hedonism conspicuous in American democracy, have joined ISIS! I wonder whether any of them have gone to college where they imbibed the charming campus adage “I’m okay, you’re okay,” which in principle makes ISIS okay!

Let’s face it: America is steeped in moral anarchy or nihilism, but you would never know of this from the presidential debates. These so-called debates are not only intellectually dismal, they display a shameless egoism. They constitute a commentary on the dismal level of higher education in America. This education has stultified the minds of one generation of college students after another.

We are witnessing this degradation in the current presidential debates. It would be a grave error, however, merely to single out a particular culprit, since none of the participants exhibits either the intellectual capacity or the moral courage to expose the pernicious pedagogical doctrines that have been corrupting the minds of college students for at least two generations, as I have documented in a 1968 article published in the Congressional Record, an article emphatically relevant to decrepit foreign policy of the Obama Administration.

obama_sleeper_cell_1-12-15-2

Great people can make a Great Country and all the American people are Great


If you are in doubt of American Exceptionalism:

  • Think of America as the nation that saved mankind from the tyranny of Nazi Germany;
  • Think of America as the nation that saved mankind from the tyranny of Soviet Communism;
  • Think of America as the only nation that can save mankind from Islamic totalitarianism;
  • Think of America and the sonnet written by the Jewess Emma Lazarus and engraved on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
  • Think of the Jewish navigator that discovered America;
  • Think of Divine Providence and elect a President that can make America Great Again.

Trump 11