Category Posts by Others

Nov 2 2015

On the Original Mode of Electing a president


Post By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Having elsewhere reconstructed the 1787 debates at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention on the Presidential Electoral System, I shall here proceed to analyze the system by itself, and with a view to elucidating its underlying purposes as well as its philosophical implications for the character of the American Presidency. My point of departure is Hamilton‘s commentary in Federalist 68.

“It was desirable,” wrote Hamilton, “that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust [as the Presidency] was to be confided.”

Hamilton’s discussion begins on democratic grounds. The sense of the people is to operate in the choice of a President. Hamilton continues: “This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

Therefore, the right of choosing a President is not to reside in the people, but with men chosen by the people for this particular purpose. The Constitution is established by the people and the people divest themselves of the power to choose the Chief Executive!” But this is not all. For as Hamilton well knew, the Constitution does not even grant the people a right to choose Electors! Article II, Section 1, provides that “each State shall appoint [the Electors] in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct …” The manner of appointing Electors is absolutely under the control of the state legislatures, at whose discretion the people may exercise the privilege which is now accorded them. That privilege may be withheld. The legislatures have the constitutional power of themselves choosing Electors as indeed was the practice of most of the states during the early presidential elections.

But even if the state legislatures were to accord to the people, as some did, the privilege of choosing Electors, for example, by a general ticket or by electoral districts, the nomination of Electors would not be made by the people. The people would still be at least twice removed from the election of the President. However much the sense of the people may be operative in the choice of the President, the immediate choice is to be made, as Hamilton pointed out, “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station.” Who would these men be? Again employing democratic language, Hamilton professed to believe they would “be selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass.” However, as Hamilton must have known, and as the early elections bore out, the Electors of the President would generally be drawn from the more distinguished and influential members the community. [The roster of the early elections reads like a “Who’s Who” in State Governments!] It was precisely such men whom Hamilton had in mind when he said that the persons selected “will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations” as the choosing of a President.

The President was to be chosen by men who possess information and discernment, and they were to act, said Hamilton, “under circumstances favorable to deliberation.” The circumstances favorable to deliberation are these: First, each college of Electors should consist of a small number of persons. Hence they would be relatively free from faction. Second, the Electors in each state would assemble in the state in which they were chosen and would vote on the same day. “This detached and divided situation,” said Hamilton, “will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.”

Furthermore, because the electoral colleges were not to assemble in a general convention, the Electors would be less subject to “cabal, intrigue, and corruption.” In other words, the electoral college of one state would not be in communication with the electoral college of another; no college would know how the others were voting; there would be no “negotiations,” no “deals,” no prostitution of votes. Third, each college of Electors was to deliberate in secrecy. They would not only be insulated from each other, but from the public at large.

Fourth, no Senator or Representative, or any person holding office under the federal government, could be appointed an Elector. Removed from the influence of congressmen, and insulated from the general public, the Electors could ballot for the person of their own choice. They would not be automatons registering the will of congressional parties or of popular majorities. They would not be pledged to some presidential candidate, or as Hamilton remarked, they would be “free from any sinister bias.” In short, Hamilton, and the Founders generally, anticipated and sought to avoid all the evils of tumultuous party conventions! They clearly understood that the independence and integrity of the Presidency would depend very much on the independence and integrity of his Electors.

Although the electoral colleges were intended to have absolute control over the nomination of persons for the Presidency, we have seen that the final choice from among those nominated might, under certain contingen­cies, devolve upon the House of Representatives. Thus, either the Electors might fail to give a majority of their votes to a single candidate, or they might bestow equal electoral majorities on two, and possibly even three, candidates. However, neither of these contingencies was likely to occur often; the first, for obvious reasons, the second, if only because the Electors would frequently favor an incumbent President. This being so, the House of Representatives would usually be spared the task of electing the President of the United States.

Now the point I wish to elicit from the preceding paragraph is this: In deliberating upon possible candidates for the Presidency, the Electors would almost certainly nominate persons of national reputation. In this respect, Electors would not differ from the delegates at today’s national party conventions. But unlike these delegates, the Electors would choose presidential candidates without thought that the candidates chosen would have to engage in a popular election. This has profound implications for the intended character of the Presidency, indeed, for the government as whole.

The first implication is this. Because a President, under the constitutional or de jure electoral system, would not have to engage in a popular election, presidential candidates would be chosen more on the basis of ability and less on the basis of popularity. Second, because a President would not campaign for his election, he could enter upon his office virtually unencumbered by “political debts.” Since relatively few men will have contributed to his election, relatively few men could claim his favor. As a consequence, executive patronage would conform more to the principle of merit, less to the principle of spoils. This being so, the election of a new President would not result in a wholesale change of public office-holders. The administration of government would be more stable, and the very tone of political life more elevated.

Third, because a President would not have to campaign for his election, he would assume the duties of his office unencumbered by party platforms. Unburdened by such commitments, he could then promote public policies truer to his own principles and with the energy of his own convictions….

A fourth implication of the intended electoral system is that its operation, considered by itself, would contribute little to the political education of the public. Since there would be no campaign for the Presidency, candidates for that office would not engage in public debate or discussion of national issues. However, that such debate or discussion, except perhaps in few instances, has really served to elevate the public mind, or that it has not been attended with effects more harmful than good, is questionable. Certainly the Founders regarded the prospect with skepticism, to say the least. If the people, as Hamilton intimated in Federalist 68, are incapable of analyzing the qualities required of a President, they are surely incapable of analyzing the complex issues confronting a nation. Hence, a system which makes the choice of a President dependent upon public debate or discussion of national issues would be regarded by Hamilton as an absurdity.

No doubt this will sound strange to modern ears. Perhaps it will be explained away by referring to Hamilton‘s aristocratic “bias.” But it was George Mason, a man of supposedly democratic inclinations, who said: “… it would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for Chief Magistrate to the people, as it would to refer a trial of colors to a blind man.”[i] This is not to suggest that the Founders were unmindful of the need to educate the people. They simply felt that an election, upon whose outcome hangs the personal ambitions and material interests of so many individuals and groups, is a most dangerous means of providing public education. For the Presidency is so replete with the power to dispense goods and favors that, were an election for this office predicated upon public debate and discussion of national issues, not reason so much as passion, not candor so much as deception, not statesmanship so much as demagoguery, would too often prevail over the public mind. Far from educating the people, such elections would lead to their corruption.

Now let me sum up the principal intentions under-lying the constitutional mode of electing the President of the United States. We have seen that the President was never intended to appeal to the suffrages of the people. The people might or might not choose his Electors. But however chosen, the Electors were to nominate for the Presidency the person whom they themselves deemed best qualified for the office. Deliberating in secrecy, the electoral colleges were to insulate the future President from the democratic and oligarchic influences to which he would be exposed were he nominated by the likes of present-day national party conventions. Indeed, let it be said here and now; “It was the design of the Constitution, though it is not expressed, that the President should not know the characters of those to whom he is indebted for his election.”[ii]

Clearly this electoral system was intended to favor neither the interests of the many nor the interests of the few. It held another promise. It held the promise of insuring wisdom in the choice of a President. It held the promise of securing the President’s independence and integrity. It held the promise, so far as institutions can, of compensating for the frailties of human nature, those frailties which so often emerge when men actively seek or campaign for public office.

The President, I repeat, was not to appeal to the suffrages of the people or of any electoral body whatsoever. The dignity and powers of his office were to be conferred upon him by a select body of men unknown, as it were, to himself. He was to assume office without any obligation on his part other than to uphold and defend the Constitution. This is not simply an idealized picture. It is simply the ideal which guided the architects of the Presidency.

This ideal may be deemed monarchic in principle. And it is precisely this principle which, by its effect upon the choice of a President, was to guard the Republic against the extremes of oligarchy on the one hand, and of democracy on the other.

Nov 2 2015

On Nominating a President of the United States


Post By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Since America is suffering from collective amnesia or from generations of educators lacking a due sense of national pride and purpose, allow me to say a few words about the original and now obsolete method of nominating a President of the United States.  The following is only an extract from my book on the Constitution…..

  1. The method of nominating the President was the most protracted issue of the debates of the American Constitutional Convention. A dozen methods were considered until James Madison put the issue to rest by pointing out that the nomination of the President should not depend on any fixed or permanent institution of government, for the President would then be dependent on that institution, especially if he sought reelection. Such dependency would lead to political intrigue and undermine the President’s integrity.
  1. For these and other reasons, the Founders designed the Electoral College system. Although this system never worked effectively after 1800, its underlying principles actually reveal the highest caliber of statesmanship. Under this system, a President would enter office without knowing who were his electors, since they would meet in their respective state capitals and ballot secretly for two candidates, at least one not from their own state. Given the lack of communications in those days, a President would enter office without the “political debts” that have long encumbered presidents since the ascendancy of nationally organized political parties, presidential primaries, massive fund-raising, and the omnipresent media. Therefore, it behooves us to design a method of election that fosters, rather than undermines, the independence and integrity of a President. We need to design a method conducive to the formulation of wise national policies, policies that will enhance the people’s sense of national dignity and national purpose…..
Oct 18 2015

Natural Disasters and Barack Obama


Post by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Various Jewish scientists, not given to mysticism, affirm the Jewish concept that God uses nature – as He did in the Deluge – to punish nations steeped in paganism.

America is wallowing in “neo-paganism” – “neo” because some pagan nations, such as Athens and Rome, did believe in a deity, be it Zeus and Jupiter, that transcends mankind.

Today, America is succumbing to “evangelical” atheism, which believe in Nothing. This is nihilism.

Now, as Jews understand, the God of Israel is the God of Nature as well as of History. Hence, it follows that the many “natural” disasters occurring in the United States at this time represent divine punishments.

Of course, I am speculating, but this is rational speculation, for I have in mind the deluge of movies – most conspicuously from Hollywood – that depict bloodshed and violent death. Many of these films reduce the human to the subhuman.

Many films foster gross immorality. They make public what is distinctively private. There is not a town or hamlet where young and old are not exposed to the obscenity of violence, the obscenity of language, and the obscenity of sex devoid of love. This paganism promotes atheism.

As an experiment, I would suggest that the people of California, now suffering from a water shortage and other “natural” disasters, scorn Hollywood for five years.

Speaking of a water shortage, consider the one that is depopulating Iran, and which may be reckoned as punishment for the evil acts and vicious attitudes of that Muslim country. During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, Iran, under the leadership of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, murdered thousands of Iranian children by using them to explode and clear mine fields to facilitate the movement Iranian troops in their attack on Iraq.

To this paganistic mega-crime of Shiite Iran, add the following. First, Iran is the epicenter of international terrorism. Second, Iran has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Third, Iran is the spearhead of Islamic supremacism. Fourth, Islam’s murderous attitude toward “infidels” is akin to racism, and it violates the Bible’s concept of man’s creation in the image of God.

Fifth, since Iran’s sacrifice of children is performed in the name of Allah, Islam should be recognized as paganism, and would be if it did not adorn itself in the veneer of monotheism, but which is so distorted as to be a form of idolatry!

Hence, I will not be surprised if Iran’s vow to wipe Israel off the map is precisely the punishment in store for Israel’s enemy.

Oct 7 2015

Eidelberg writes eloquently on why the Muslim’s do what they do and by extension, if we do not adapt, we will also all be Muslims by the end of this century, maybe sooner..


The Poodles Among Us 

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

In his 2002 foreword to Raphael Patai’s 1973 classic, The Arab Mind, Norvelle  B. de Atkine writes: “This book … forms the basis of my cultural instruction, complemented by my own experiences of some 25 years living in, studying or teaching about the Middle East.”

De Atkine notes that “officers returning from the Arab world describe the cultural barriers they encounter as by far the most difficult to navigate, far beyond those of political perceptions.  Thinking back on it, I recall many occasions on which I was perplexed by actions or behavior on the part of my Arab hosts—actions and behavior that would have been perfectly understandable had I read The Arab Mind.”

To speak of Arabs is to speak of Muslims, for Arab culture is permeated by Islam. Islamic hatred of America and of Israel is more intense and more widespread today than it was in 1973. American pop culture and commercial imperialism constitute a threat to the Arab’s tradition-based society, and Muslims see Israel as America’s vanguard in the Middle East.

Patai, says de Atkine, does not deny the virtues of Arab culture. “The hospitality, generosity, and depth of personal friendships common within the Arab world are rarely encountered in our more frenetic society.  The Arab sense of honor and of obligation to the family—especially to the family’s old and young members—can be contrasted to the frequently dysfunctional family life found in our own society…”

But such is the burning hatred Arabs bear toward Jews that many willingly used their own children as human bombs, while the Arab street cheers such barbarism. Hatred trumps love.  Arab hatred was not born with the Balfour Declaration or the establishment of the State of Israel. It precedes Muhammad and remains deeply ingrained in Arab culture.

Patai quotes Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), the greatest historian ever produced by the Arabs. Khaldun’s portrait of Arab national character is that of a historian who could look back on seven centuries of Arab history.

The Arabs, he says, “are people who plunder and cause damage.” The civilizations they conquer are “wiped out.” “Places that succumb to the Arabs are quickly ruined.”

“The reason for this is that [the Arabs] are a savage nation, fully accustomed to savagery …”  “Savagery has become their character and nature. They enjoy it because it means freedom from authority and no subservience to leadership.  Such a natural disposition is the negation and antithesis of civilization.”

“Because of their savagery,” saysatai, “the Arabs are the least willing of nations to subordinate themselves to each other, as they are proud, ambitious, and eager to be the leader.”  (Recall Genesis 16:12 on the character of Ishmael: “He will be a rebel.  His hand will be against everyone, and everyone’s hand will be against him.”)

The Arab’s sense of honor is notorious.  Any insult or injury, let alone defeat in war, must be avenged.  The Yom Kippur War was nothing less than an act of revenge for Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War—and that is why the war was launched on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar.

Any bellicose people are well-practiced in deception; as for the Arabs, however, one must add they are unequalled in the art of ingratiation.  Khaldun’s disciple, Taqi al-Din Ahmad al-Maqrizi (1364-1442), an Egyptian, writes that Egyptians “are extremely inclined to cunning and deceit, from their birth they excel in it and are very skillful in using it, because there is in their character a basis of flattery and adulation which makes them masters in it more than all the peoples who have lived before them or will live after them.”

Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s campaign of deception before the Yom Kippur War is documented in my book Sadat’s Strategy.  But he was also a master of ingratiation. He constantly referred to Secretary of State William Rogers, whom he had met for the first time, as “Bill.” When Secretary Kissinger replaced Rogers, he became “dear Henry” just as quickly.

Countless pundits were deceived by Sadat. A few quotes may dispel their naiveté. In an interview with al-Anwar on June 22, 1975, Sadat said:  “The effort of our generation is to return to the 1967 borders.  Afterward the next generation will carry the responsibility.”

In a New York Times interview dated October 19, 1980, he boasted:  “Poor Menachem [Begin], he has his problems … After all, I got back … the Sinai and the Alma oil fields, and what has Menachem got?  A piece of paper.”

A year after signing the March 1979 peace treaty with Israel, Sadat ominously declared:  “Despite the present differences with the Arab ‘rejectionist’ rulers over the Egyptian peace initiative, the fact remains that these differences are only tactical not strategic, temporary not permanent.”

By the way, in his Knesset speech of November 20, 1977, Sadat used the name of God 10 times in his first ten sentences.  Surely a man of God would not lie about his desire for “peace”—a word he used 95 times in his 50-minute performance!

With astonishing insight, Ibn Khaldun points out that “The Arab can obtain authority only by making use of some religious coloring, such as prophecy or sainthood, or some great religious event in general.”

Patai’s 1973 classic, says de Atkine, “has not aged at all.  The analysis is just as (prescient and on-the-mark now [in post-9/11, i.e., September 11, 2001]) as on the day it was written.  One could even make the argument that, in fact, many of the [Muslim Arab] traits described have become more pronounced.”

Israeli politicians and diplomats are children compared to the likes of Muslim leaders like Palestinian chief Mahmoud Abbas. Benjamin Netanyahu’ ardent desire to negotiate with Abbas would be laughable if it did not have tragic consequences.

Despite Israel’s overwhelming military power, Israel has been retreating toward her indefensible 1949 borders. Like other Israeli leaders, even a savvy politician like Netanyahu has been one of the Arab’s Jewish poodles. Isn’t there an alternative?☼

Oct 4 2015

Obama Wants Your Guns


Post By Jeff Longo

Once again Barack Obama showed incredibly bad judgement when he declared war on the Second Amendment before he had any knowledge of the facts surrounding the Oregon college shootings. With the dead bodies still warm, this president said “states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths”. We need only look at Obama’s home state of Illinois to realize what an irresponsible lie this was. Could he possibly believe we’re all as gullible as the clueless zombies that make up his base? The poor souls murdered in Oregon are being used by a president who always puts his legacy and destructive liberal agenda ahead of America and her people.

As with all of these mass-shootings, this cowardly animal chose a gun-free zone to carry out this carnage. These zones provide ample time for these freaks-of-nature to kill as many people as possible with little or no resistance. What the left refuses to grasp is that only law abiding gun owners will comply with gun-free zones. Criminals seek them out. Here’s how the Blaze’s Dana Loesch so aptly described them; “gun-free zones are criminal protection areas.” If Obama truly wants common sense gun legislation, he should suggest doing away with them so Americans can be free to protect themselves and their families.

 

 

Oct 4 2015

Clearly Treason


Post by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

http://www.hngn.com/articles/135332/20150930/argentine-president-obama-administration-tried-convince-give-iran-nuclear-fuel.htm

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner claimed Monday afternoon at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City that in 2010, the Obama administration tried to convince the Argentinians “to provide the Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear fuel,”
Isn’t this, arguably, a prima facie case of treason?
If so, why hasn’t any presidential candidate supported the charge of treason which former Congressman Allen West has leveled against Obama?
Is it only the color of Obama’s skin that is protecting him? Or it there a pathetic lack of patriotism among the candidates running to replace Obama in the White House? Are they afraid a that a charge of treason against Obama would result in riots in urban centers with large black populations?
If so, the rule of law is no longer functioning in America. And if this is the case, will there be more Ferguson riots and anarchy in America?
Is this Obama phenomenon equivalent to an effective abrogation of the Constitution?
Does the Obama regime nullify the principle of “Government by the consent of the governed” — a principle enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, in fact, the principle that justified the American Revolution?
Patriotic Americans should rally behind the impeachment movement of former Congressman Allen West. Peaceful demonstrations should take place in Washington, D.C. calling for serious public debates  on whether Obama has violated the Constitution. Collateral evidence of Obama’s contempt for Constitution and the Declaration is readily available.
A team of Constitutional Lawyers should document acts of Obama that clearly indicate violations of , and contempt for, the Constitution.
Sep 30 2015

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”


A Lecture on the Declaration of Independence

Post By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

May 17, 2009

[A prefatory remark: In view of the myopia and shallowness of today’s presidential candidates, Americans are in need of some Jewish wisdom. Accordingly, I am going to speak of an extraordinary Italian Rabbi, Eliyahu Benamozegh, a philosopher and Kabbalist who was fully conversant in European culture. His magnum opus, Israel and Humanity, was published after his death in 1914.

Rabbi Benamozegh saw three major problems confronting humanity: (1) the conflict between religion and science, (2) the conflict between various religions, and (3) the conflict between religion and state.  In this lecture I will speak primarily about the deeper levels of the American Declaration of Independence of which very few Americans are cognizant.

Benamozegh deemed it of vital importance to clarify the Jewish doctrine of religion and state. Analysis of this doctrine casts significant light on the compatibility of the biblical ideal with the political institutions not only of present-day Israel, but also of the United States. Benamozegh writes:

“To grasp the central idea of the Israelite doctrine [of religion and state], let us first determine what this doctrine categorically rejects. Now the question arises, where is the supreme authority to be found in Israel [under a Torah government]? Does it reside in a man or in a family [or tribe] invested with supreme power? The very idea of a Revelation [such as the Sinai Revelation] which embraces all of life, public as well as pri­vate, precludes any such possibility. A Revelation so total cannot speak through any single entity whatever, whether priest or monarch…. Neither the king nor the priest can possess unlimited authority, for each [operates] in a well-defined sphere and his function is circumscribed by impassable limits.

“Nor is supreme authority vested in a privileged class, an oligarchy or an aristocracy. The provisions of the Law and the … concep­tion of the [Sinai] Revelation itself, prove, if proof be needed, that there can be no such class. Neither is it to be located in the totality of Israelites, at least not in the sense of an absolute power residing in the people as a whole, which would legitimize all that the people might decree. As for the authorized interpreters of the Revelation, however, the people convey their sovereignty in this matter to those whose place in the hierarchy renders them qualified, according to established rule. This role of the community is the only one that is logically possible in a state faithful to a Revelation.”

“If then, according to Judaism, supreme authority adheres neither to the high priest, nor to the king, nor to an elite, nor even to the entire people as a collectivity, where is it to be found?  In God alone, which is to say, using modern categories, in absolute reason and justice. God is the only legislator, and the people His only interpreter on earth. Such is the Jewish ideal.”

The same conclusion may be deduced from the political theology of the American Declaration of Independence. Suffice to consider two of its primary principles.  Its First Principle inheres in these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These rights are “unalienable” because man is created in the image of God, and therefore possesses free will and the capacity to distinguish good from evil. In other words, it is from God, and not from any Government or body of men, that we derive the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Imago dei is what makes those rights “unalienable,”  and these are the ends of legitimate Government.

Accordingly – and this is the Second Principle – “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Emphasis added.)

The people, therefore, are sovereign under God, which means, in the final analysis, that the People are His interpreters through their chosen representatives!

However, since the phrase “any Form of Government” obviously includes Democracy, it follows that the People or their Representatives are (theologically) prohibited from establishing a Government or enacting laws that violate “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” or, again using modern categories, that violate “absolute reason and justice.” The Declaration of Independence is therefore basically consistent with Jewish law, and it provides no justification for the establishment of a secular democratic state!

This said, let us put to rest certain errors. The “Creator” referred to as the First Principle must be construed as a theistic, not a deistic God, otherwise, and regardless of their private convictions, it would have made no sense for the signers of Declaration to appeal to “the Supreme Judge of the world,” or to express their “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.”

Moreover, and of paramount significance in interpreting the meaning of the Declaration, its language should be construed in terms of the understanding of its audience, which was overwhelmingly Christian, consisting, therefore, of theists, not deists.

Now consider the phrase “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”  The term “Nature” is foreign to the Torah. Moreover, the notion of “Laws of Nature” suggests autonomous or independently self-sustaining eternal laws, something impossible in a created universe.  And since Greek philosophy never conceived of creation ex nihilo, let us put to rest the prejudice about Stoic basis of the Declaration.

We thus see that Rabbi Benamozegh’s teaching can provide a novel and profound understanding of the American Declaration of Independence.

Although the Declaration does not explicitly refer to any Revelation, its reference to God as the Creator of man excludes Greek philosophy as the ultimate authority of the Declaration. Moreover, by appealing to “the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of [their] intentions,” yet relying on “the protection of Divine Providence,” the fifty-six signatories tacitly affirm that the Declaration is ultimately based on theological ideas derived primarily from the Judeo-Christian heritage, which is obviously rooted in the Sinai Revelation.

That “Revelation” belongs to all the people.  Its laws are activated by the people or by their representatives.  Benamozegh elaborates:

With regard to the exercise of the Law, there is no doubt that this is by the people itself as manifest … in its authorized bodies, which, by virtue of the way they are formed and the persons who compose them, represent the people as an aggregate—all the better, indeed, since the obligation imposed on every Israelite to educate himself in the various parts of the Law inevitably gave to society an influence and a role similar to those of public opinion today. God is God and King, and the people is His prophet: Such is the true Jewish theocracy.

It is to the Lord that supreme authority belongs and not to the priests, and is exercised by the people, whose representatives are the public officials of all ranks, together with the priests and the king himself.  Everyone could aspire to the high positions of the state. The most notable example is the Sanhedrin, which was open to all citizens” (289, emphasis added).

“The people is His prophet” – what an extraordinary idea!  Coming from Rabbi Benamozegh, it casts an entirely new light on the concept of “popular sovereignty,” a concept that has been trivialized and secularized by scholars and laymen alike as the basic principle of democracy. Popular sovereignty in a Judeo-Christian monotheistic culture is not the sovereignty of a people whose educators are virtual atheists. Nor is popular sovereignty meaningful in a monotheistic culture whose educators are sheikhs or mullahs.  Here let us consult James Wilson, America’s first professor of law.

Wilson, who taught law at the University of Pennsylvania, was widely deemed the most learned man of his generation. Although he was perhaps the strongest advocate of popular sovereignty, he was very different from doctrinaire democrats if only because, like Rabbi Benamozegh, he regarded God’s will, as interpreted by the people acting through their representatives, as the source of obligation.

Wilson was a signer of the Declaration of Independence.  Moreover, his contribution to the deliberations of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 was second only to that of James Madison.  Wilson was also one of the six original justices appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court of the United States. His influence on the founding has been obscured, even though he is the only founder that undertook to formulate a systematic legal and political philosophy, one grounded in theological principles (a fact that stands in striking contrast to scholars who regard the Declaration and the Constitution as “Lockean” documents). In one of his law lectures, Wilson declared that “The laws of nature and the law of revelation are both divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source.  It is, indeed, preposterous to separate them from each other. The object of both is – to discover the will of God – and both are necessary for the accomplishment of that end.”

Wilson’s political theology illustrates that the United States of America was originally based on the Seven Laws of Noah, which is to say Jewish law!

If we define “theocracy” literally as “rule of God” and understand by the “rule of God” that God is the ultimate source of law and authority, this definition renders the American Declaration of Independence a theocratic as well as a political document! We see that the signers of the Declaration justified their rebellion against the laws of Great Britain by appealing to a Higher Law, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” As previously indicated, not the laws of parliaments and kings, but the laws of God endow man with the “unalienable rights” to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Without this “Higher Law” doctrine, the Declaration’s long list of grievances against the British Crown would be nothing more than arbitrary expressions of discontent having no moral justification.  Nor is this all.

It is hardly known that most of the original thirteen states of the American Union incorporated the Declaration of Independence into their own state constitutions.  Abraham Lincoln saw in that political-theological document the moral foundations of the Federal Constitution. In his Gettysburg Address (“Four score and twenty years ago …”), Lincoln linked the beginning of the nation with its Declaration of Independence.  Reason compels us to conclude that the Constitution provides the means of implementing the political theology of the Declaration. Stated another way, since the laws and institutions prescribed in the Constitution were designed to preclude the grievances enumerated in the Declaration, we may logically conclude that the Constitution translates into political terms the theological principles of the Declaration. It is hardly a stretch, therefore, to say that the Constitution is based the Seven Laws of Noah!

This theological interpretation conforms to contemporaneous statements of Harvard president Samuel Langdon and Yale president Ezra Stiles who held that the American Constitution was very much rooted in Jewish ideas and tacitly based on the Ten Commandments.

Nevertheless, no one deemed the Government established under the Constitution a theocracy, and quite apart from the First Amendment. That amendment, as initially understood, simply prohibited Congress from establishing a State religion. Revolted by the example of England, the American Founding Fathers refused to sacralize the modern nation-state, which they deemed powerful enough without investing it with religious authority or even a unitary form.  Instead of a centralized-bureaucratic system of government, they established federalism, which requires local self-government (as does the Torah, under which each tribe, later called a “district,” had its own Governor and Small Sanhedrin).

Moreover, in a monotheistic culture rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, not the State but the people are sovereign, of course under God.  If we but think within the context of such a culture and maintain intellectual detachment from our present culture of Triumphant Secularism, it will be obvious that the First Amendment does not prevent Congress from passing laws supportive of the ethical monotheism or universal moral principles of the Declaration of Independence. But let us provide further evidence of the ethical monotheism of early America, which very much influenced the constitutions of the original thirteen states.

Many early American statesmen and educators were schooled in Hebraic civilization. The second President of the United States, John Adams, a Harvard graduate and signer of the Declaration of Independence, 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.

The curriculum at Harvard, like those of other early American colleges and universities, was designed by learned and liberal men of “Old Testament” persuasion. Harvard president Increase Mather (1685-1701) was an ardent Hebraist (as were his predecessors, Henry Dunster and Charles Chauncey).  Mather’s writings contain numerous quotations from the Talmud as well as from the works of Sa’adiah Gaon, Rashi, Maimonides and other classic Jewish commentators.

Yale University president Ezra Stiles readily discoursed on the Mishna and Talmud with visiting rabbinical authorities. At his first public commencement at Yale (1781), Stiles delivered an oration on Hebrew literature written originally in Hebrew.  Hebrew and the study of Hebraic laws and institutions were an integral part of Yale’s as well as of Harvard’s curriculum. Much the same may be said of King’s College (later Columbia University), William and Mary, Rutgers, Princeton, Dartmouth, and Brown University. Hebrew learning was then deemed a basic element of liberal education. Samuel Johnson, first president of King’s College (1754-1763), expressed the intellectual attitude of his age when he referred to Hebrew as “essential to a gentleman’s education.”

This attitude was not merely academic.  On May 31, 1775, almost on the eve of the American Revolution, Harvard president Samuel Langdon, addressing the Congress of Massachusetts Bay, declared: “Every nation … has a right to set up over itself any form of government which to it may appear most conducive to its common welfare.  The civil polity of Israel is doubtless an excellent general model.” (Emphasis added.)

Unfortunately, all this is more or less unknown to the American people, and it goes a long way to explaining why so many eminent Americans today fear that America is going the way of decadent Europe.  They see how in his Inaugural Address, President Obama jettisoned the long-established locution that embodies the generally-accepted notion of “the Judeo-Christian tradition.” As Professor Edward Alexander pointed out, “That tradition, in America, mandates the phrase ‘Christians and Jews,’ with Christians in first place for the good reason that the roots of this country and most of those who founded it are Christian. In contrast, Obama said in his first Inaugural Address: ‘We are a nation of Christians and Muslims,’ and then, after a slight pause, ‘Jews and Hindus,’ another slight pause, ‘and unbelievers.’”

Later, in his Al-Arabiya interview, he demoted the Jews still further, calling America a country of “Muslims, Christians, Jews.” Obama’s actions (and inactions) with respect to Jewish concerns suggest that this demotion is real and not merely verbal.

But this means that by ensconcing Barack Obama in the White House, America has taken a giant step toward abandoning the basic Judeo-Christian principles of its heritage.◙

Sep 30 2015

The principle of Occam’ Razor proves Obama is a Muslim


The “Hidden” Agenda of Barack Obama

Post by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The old concept of “world government” has surfaced again, this from more or less elusive statements of Barack Obama, a self-professed multicultural moral relativist.

Barack Obama’s political objective has ever been to emasculate the United States.  He abhors the concept of American exceptionalism, which represents the antithesis of everything he stands for as a pseudo-Muslim with a Marxist agenda.

As I have demonstrated in books and articles, American Exceptionalism is rooted in America’s primary foundational document, the Declaration of Independence. The pivotal concept of the Declaration is, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The God affirmed in the Declaration is none other than the God of Israel.

In fact, James Wilson, next to Madison the most important participant during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, regarded the concept of the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” an abbreviation of the Seven Noahide Laws of Universal Morality embodied in the Book of Genesis.

Wilson was a professor of law. He was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President George Washington. His position regarding “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” was shared by educated men of the eighteenth century, in Europe as well as in America.

America’s Founding Fathers never harbored any doubt about the wisdom and propriety of the Nation State system. Indeed, the concept of the nation state is sanctioned and exemplified in the Bible of Israel, hence long before the 1648 Peace Treaty of Westphalia. 

 
Moreover, it was the nation state system that produced the extraordinary intellectual and political freedom as well as the material progress of Western Civilization – the progress that led to the abolition of slavery and the alleviation of toil, poverty, and disease  – and not only in the western world.

Although the nation state system has not eliminated war, the basic fault lies not in the “system,” but in the frailties of human nature, that is, in mankind’s failure to abide by the Seven Noahide Laws of universal morality, which no form of World Government can provide or effectively prescribe short of tyranny.

Indeed, a World Government would require an absolute monopoly of military power, as well as a worldwide network of spies in every country to thwart any local attempt to develop weapons that could challenge that central power.

Such a government would be no less tyrannical than any Mullocracy or Islamic dictatorship.  Is this the hidden agenda of the Obama-Iranian nuclear agreement?

Consider the following facts:

First, Obama has shown nothing but scorn for America’s foundational documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Second, Obama, as a self-professed Muslim, indicates that he rejects the Biblical as well as American principle that all men are born equal.

Third, consistent with the preceding, Obama genuflected to King Abdullah, a Muslim despot. He thereby displayed a foreign loyalty antithetical to America.

Fourth, Obama has displayed a hostile attitude toward Israel, America’s most important political and ideological ally.

Fifth, Obama has undermined America’s worldwide standing as a nation dedicated to freedom.

Sixth, Obama has devastated the American economy and saddled the country with enormous debt.

Seventh, Obama has slashed U.S. defense expenditures.

Eighth, Obama’s multicultural moral relativism undermines American pride in the nobility and justice of the nation’s cause, as exemplified in America’s rescuing Europe from Nazi and Communist tyranny.

Ninth, Obama has displayed a less than tepid attitude toward Islamic terrorism.

Tenth, Obama’s appointment of Muslims to key positions of his administration, such as the Department of Homeland Security and the CIA, indicates that he does not regard Islam as an adversary of the United States.

For these and other reasons, the present writer regards Obama as America’s most dangerous enemy, hence, that every lawful means should be taken to remove him from office as soon as possible!

Sep 29 2015

The Democratic-Aristocratic-Synthesis of American Exceptionalism


The Democratic-Aristocratic-Synthesis of American Exceptionalism

Post by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

It hardly seems exceptional to say, as stated in my bookBeyond Detente: Toward an American Foreign Policy, that “the American republic is ultimately based on the principle that all men are created equal.” Nevertheless, and “contrary to universally accepted opinion, this principle, far from being wholly democratic, is the precondition for any genuine aristocracy”!

“So shocking or paradoxical an assertion requires supportive argument, for which purpose I must refer to my work On the Silence of the Declaration of Independence[the most obvious source of American Exceptionalism].”

“Viewed within the proper political context, the statement of the Declaration that all men are created equal was intended to inform mankind in general, and the British government in particular, that Americans belong to the same species as Englishmen, hence that they are endowed by nature with certain unalienable rights peculiar to that species.

These rights constitute an unalienable possession, because man is a created being who did not create himself. More precisely, inasmuch as man did not create his own nature, he did not create the rights he possesses in virtue of his nature. In consequence of this, he cannot be justly divested of those rights so long as he does not violate his nature or the distinction between man and beasts. In short, only because man is homo rationalis et civilis does he possess (or can he reasonably claim) the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

“Notice, however, that while the statesmen of the Declaration claimed that the Americans possess these rights as species, they were being prevented from exercising these rights as individuals.  This implicit distinction between the possession and exercise of rights is of profound significance. For nothing in the Declaration suggests that all men as individuals are entitled to the actual exercise of their rights without qualification.

In proof of this it is sufficient to point out that that preamble of the Declaration or its equivalent was incorporated into most of the state constitutions, many of which prescribed property and other qualifications for voting and for office. An implicit distinction was therefore made between men’s rights and their privileges. Whereas the rights men possess as species are defined by nature, the privileges they exercise as individuals are defined by law, whether written or customary.

“Accordingly, the equality spoken of in the Declaration does not extend to privileges. Nevertheless, and strange as it may seem, the notion of privilege is a logical consequence of the Declaration’s principle of equality. For the principle that all men are created equal should be understood as a moral prohibition against any and all privileges based on race, nationality, class, or parentage.

The only moral title to any privilege which society may confer must be based on individual merit. In other words, what the equality of the Declaration requires is that no person be precluded by law from earning any established privilege on the basis of factors extrinsic to human nature or to those intellectual and moral qualities that distinguish the human from the subhuman.

Examined in this light, the principle that all men are created equal – which does not mean they are born equal in their intellectual, moral and physical endowments – may be regarded as the precondition of any aristocracy. As Jefferson wrote to John Adams: ’I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents….The natural aristocracy I consider the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, trusts, and government of society.’

“It thus appears that the American polity had its origin in a synthesis of democratic and aristocratic principles….

[T]his democratic-aristocratic synthesis underlies The Federalist Papers and is most clearly evident in its recurring theme of deference to merit. In Federalist 36, Hamilton [who was born out of wedlock] declares: ‘There are strong minds in every walk of life that will rise superior to the disadvantages of situation, and will recommend the tribute to their merit, not only from the classes to which they particularly belong, but from society in general. The door ought to be equally open to all.’”

Therein is the democratic-aristocratic synthesis of American Exceptionalism!

Epilog: Of course, America has degenerated into a normless democracy. Its vaunted equality and freedom are devoid of any rational and ethical constraints. This is why Barack Obama, whose Muslim faith rejects the principle that all men are created equal, was twice elected President of the United States.  The full reckoning of this travesty is yet to come.◙

Sep 10 2015

The Brzezinski/Obama Axis


Post By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

[September 23, 2009] Updated September 9, 2015 with a shocking epilogue]

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. It behooves us to understand the mentality of Obama’s [former] Middle East adviser.

Long before he became Mr. Carter’s national security adviser, Brzezinski rejected what he and most political scientists term the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet political systems.  “This image,” he says, “is held by traditional anti-Communists.”  Brzezinski thus affirmed he is not quite an anti-Communist.  In fact, he deplores anti-Communism as “a relic of the Cold War, of the age of ideology.”

Not only did Brzezinski reject the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet forms of government, he rejects the very notion of good and bad regimes!  Brzezinski is simply a moral or cultural (or historical) relativist, and relativism has certainly modulated Barack Obama’s mentality.

The influence of political scientists like Brzezinski is wide and deep. His relativism prompts him to negotiate with and appease terrorist regimes.  With Brzezinski as his adviser, Obama will be more disposed to appease Iran and betray America’s allies, above all Israel.

Since Brzezinski is a relativist, he denies the existence of objective or trans-historical standards for determining whether the way of life of one nation, group, or individual is morally superior to that of another.  (The members of the UN General Assembly must be pleased to hear this, despite the UN’s notorious record of condemning Israel without having ever condemned an Islamic state.)

Brzezinski’s relativism also makes him a “weather-vane” political scientist.  He turns with the winds of power. Working in a pluralistic and egalitarian country like America – a secular society – he conveniently adopts tolerance as his operational principle on the one hand, and equality as his primary value on the other.  He is quite at home with the moral equivalency that has shaped US foreign policy toward Israel and Islamic dictatorships.

Brzezinski views history through the lens of Marxism, which, despite its atheism, has much in common with Islam.  Both Communism and Islam are universalistic ideologies that reject the idea of the nation-state.  Both do not regard adherence to treaties between nations as obligatory.  Both Communism and Islam are militaristic and expansionist creeds that do not recognize international borders. Brzezinski’s globalism is evident in Jimmy Carter.  Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter lowered the defense budget and pursued a soft line toward the Soviet Union. Obama is pursuing a very soft line toward Islam.

As a crypto-Marxist, Brzezinski deplores the nation-state. His book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, declares that “With the splitting and eclipse of Christianity man began to worship a new deity: the nation.  The nation became a mystical object claiming man’s love and loyalty.  The nation-state along with the doctrine of national sovereignty fragmented humanity.  It could not provide a rational framework within which the relations between nations could develop.”  Brzezinski sees the nation-state as having only partly increased man’s social consciousness and only partially alleviated the human condition.

“That is why Marxism,” he contends, “represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man’s universal vision.”  Marxism, he says, “was the most powerful doctrine for generating a universal and secular human consciousness.” Embodied in the Soviet Union, however, Communism became the dogma of a party and, under Stalin, “was wedded to Russian nationalism.”

Although Brzezinski poses as a humanist, he makes a most inhumane statement by saying that: “although Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy, for both the Russian people and Communism as an ideal, there is the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large it was … a blessing in disguise.”!!! Brzezinski could as readily say: “Yes, Muslims slaughtered more than 200 million people, but Islam brought hundreds of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist communities under a single universal vision, that of the Quran”!!!

Brzezinski, a self-professed secularist, is an internationalist whose moral relativism contradicts the moral law or natural rights doctrine of America’s Declaration of Independence. His relativism and internationalism contradict the teachings of the America’s Founding Fathers, who endowed the United States with a national identity and character, as that which animated Abraham Lincoln.  To put it more bluntly: Brzezinski’s political mentality, like that of countless other American academics, is anti-American. An Obama-Brzezinski axis has revolutionary significance. It may accelerate the de-Americanization and decline of the United States [as I warned six years ago.]

 

Epilogue September 10, 2015:

Obama’s nuke deal with Iran is the offspring of Brzezinski’s mentality.