More than forty years have elapsed since I wrote “The Crisis of Our Times,” which was printed in the Congressional Record (U.S. Senate, July 31, 1968, pp. E.7150-E.7157).

The article revealed that the doctrine of moral relativism permeates all levels of education in America and even influences decisions of its Supreme Court. I warned that moral relativism was undermining America’s political heritage and that it would lead to America’s demise. Enter Barack Obama, the first moral relativist in the White House. Before continuing, I had better define relativism.

Moral relativism (like cultural relativism) denies the validity of any standards by which to determine what is good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust. Hence there are no rational or objective standards by which to determine whether the way of life of one individual, group, or nation is intrinsically superior to that of another.

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton quotes Obama as saying: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” “This answer,” says Bolton “proves precisely the opposite of what Obama is ostensibly saying. If every country is exceptional, none is”—yes, but Obama’s answer reveals he is a cultural relativist.

Relativism undermines a nation’s conviction in the justice of its cause. It diminishes a nation’s ability to persevere in a protracted conflict—as was evident to students of mine returning from Vietnam in 1975. I therefore deemed it my duty to write books and articles to combat the subversive influence of relativism. This I did prior to immigrating to Israel in 1976.

Unsurprisingly, relativism was also thriving in Israel’s secular universities. This boded ill for a nation surrounded by fanatical religious regimes. Israel’s decision-makers and opinion-makers consisted primarily of secular Jews, and not a few were tainted by relativism, for example, the late professor Y. Harkabi. When I met Harkabi in 1976, he was head of Israel Military Intelligence as well as the mentor of Shimon Peres—and he was a leading advocate of a Palestinian state. Harkabi had also served as head of Israel’s Command and Staff College—two of whose graduates, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak, influenced by relativism, eventually succumbed to the anti-Jewish idea of a Palestinian state. Alas, the government lacked the stamina to uphold Israel’s territorial integrity and national honor. And if this were not enough, Israel’s system of multiparty cabinet government was dysfunctional.

So I proceeded to write books and articles to interface the Torah with the political wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers. It was obvious that only the Torah could unite the Jewish people as a people. Less obvious was that multiparty cabinet government fragmented the people and magnified political egotism. Urgently needed was a unitary executive or presidential system as the Torah itself enjoins.

Unfortunately, moral relativism and the egotism built into multiparty cabinet government were too deeply entrenched to be overcome by philosophical criticism and conventional politics. The country’s ruling elites lacked national pride and political fortitude. They succumbed to a policy of Jewish self-abasement via territorial self-denial. They were bent on undoing the miracle of Israel’s victory in the Six-Day war and Jewish repossession of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. By squandering Israel’s victory, they undermined Israel’s national reputation, for who would respect a nation whose Government was willing to renounce the Jewish people’s sacred birthright for “peace” with an organization led by a thug like PLO chief Yasser Arafat?

Once the Government negotiated with the PLO, there inevitably followed an erosion of Jewish national pride—and note well that Jewish weakness magnifies overt anti-Semitism. This two-fold phenomenon became conspicuous after the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of September 1993. To Israel’s disgrace, Oslo allowed Arafat to set up an armed camp on Jewish land.

Contempt for Israel and anti-Semitism reached obscene proportions under the Likud Government of Ariel Sharon, which reacted intermittently to Arab terrorism. Sharon shamefully retreated from Gaza, expelled its Jewish residents, destroyed their synagogues, and openly supported a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the Jewish people. It was under Sharon’s premiership that a French diplomat compared Israel to feces—and without a word of rebuke!

Israel’s humiliation continues unabated under Netanyahu, whose reputation as a “right-winger” is laughable. French President Nicolas Sarkozy displayed his disdain for Israel when he advised Netanyahu to replace Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman with Tzipi Livni! No reproach from this spineless prime minister—not a word to uphold his country’s honor. Such is the contempt for Israel that the Obama administration issued an ultimatum: no more Jews beyond Israel’s pre-1967 borders? The Obama government has thus adopted—for starters—the negotiating position of the Arabs! But what else should we expect when Israeli governments have abandoned the only solid justification for Jewish statehood—the Torah.

Now let us consider Israel’s humiliation from a secular Zionist perspective. Secular Zionism has not restored Jewish dignity, and Israel has not won the respect of nations, by removing the Torah from the domain of statecraft and from the lofty pursuits of national life. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch writes:

you will not win respect, real and lasting respect … so long as you cultivate art and science and the literature of all peoples … but disdain and despise your own proper knowledge and wisdom, the spirit of your own literature which alone gives you a place among the great nations of history and the cultivation of which alone enables you to command respect….

Do not deceive yourselves. For your artistic talents, for your scientific achievements, for your learning, for your philanthropy … [P]eople … respect in you only that which you follow on the steps of non-Jewish thinkers and great men. But with all this you win no honour for yourselves, for the Jew in the Jew, for Judaism in the Jew, for your own proper nature.

Because you do not … revive your own spiritual inheritance, because the Torah has long ceased to be for you the holy fire of enlightenment and spiritual life, because you do not develop and perfect your culture on your own soil … Therefore it is that that with all your art and science and learning and participation in public life the Jewish spirit is not displayed in a way that would make it a force and win for it respect. Therefore your estrangement from the Torah does not secure for you the one object [the respect] for which you estrange yourselves from the Torah.

Rabbi Hirsch’s Torah perspective is far more meaningful and important than the most perceptive political analyses of Israel’s current malaise.

Note well that Israel’s malaise has become more ominous under the Netanyahu government—more so since it coincides with the election of Barack Obama.

Of the many factors that contributed to Obama’s election, none is more significant than the abysmal ignorance of the American people about their own political heritage. This ignorance is to be attributed primarily to Progressivism on the one hand, and the related doctrine of historical relativism on the other. Progressivism emphasizes Change as the paramount principle of political life. Historical relativism reinforces Change by denying the existence of permanent or trans-historical truths concerning how man should live.

Unbeknownst to most Americans, their country has undergone a fundamental revolution. This revolution antedates the ascendancy of Barack Obama. Obama was weaned by anti-American internationalists—academics who rejected the Judeo-Christian tradition embodied in America’s Declaration of Independence. This document, and the Constitution that followed, affirmed truths that transcend historical Change, truths concerning Individual Liberty on the one hand, and Limited government on the other.

Obama’s anti-American internationalism is analogous to the anti-Zionist internationalism of Shimon Peres, the architect of Oslo. Oslo—which Netanyahu never dared abrogate despite countless violations by the PLO. Oslo—which has led step by step to Netanyahu’s betrayal of Israel’s heritage at the religious Bar-Ilan University. Oslo—where he desecrated God’s Name by supporting a Palestinian state—and with hardly a protest from Israel’s religious parties. No wonder: they too have been complicit in Oslo.

Having worshipped the sacred cow of peace, Israel will have to go to war on its own terms of it is to survive—and now it is confronted by a Washington-Islamic axis of evil. No Israeli politician appears equal to this challenge. And none will arise or succeed unless Israel is galvanized by the Torah.

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg, who wrote Silence of the Declaration of Independence and Philosophy of the American Constitution.

Is Christianity in the U.S. Doomed? This is the question headlining the front cover the World Magazine. The inveterate optimist and editor-in-chief, Marvin Olasky, answers this question in the article titled “The Sixth Wind?” The content of his positive response to recent gloom and doom of hopeful secularists, atheists, and Muslims comes from interviews with several different authors.

One of his sources were the co-authors of the best seller God is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is Changing the World, John Micklethwait and Adrain Woolridge of The Economist. As their title suggests, they fail to see Christianity as a dying religion. On the contrary, it is becoming more relevant as is other faiths.

Jon A. Shileds, who wrote The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, also see a different picture of the politically involved religious right than the fearsome fascist described by the Left. Here again, his book title suggests what he discovered while hanging around the Right. He witnessed their leaders seeking to train there rank-and-file activist to practice respectful deliberation. He failed to infiltrate their terrorist plots against the left’s political agenda.

Olasky apparently drew on the works of other authors like Terry Eagleton’s Reason, Faith, and Revolution. His book answers the question why people are suddenly talking about God: Because “nothing else–not science, not reason, not liberalism, not economics–works.” Atheism has nothing to offer humans, only God offers hope. Even A.N. Wilson is said to have dropped his atheism.

Olasky finally directly addresses the question whether the trends represent a sixth wind of Christian revival in America. He says, “I don’t know. He says that past experience informs him that there is no reason to be depressed about our current problems. “Truth trumps everything, including liberal cleverclogs.

Olasky’s began his article with poll data that reported a 10 percent drop of Americans who identified themselves as Christian. Previously, 86 percent of Americans claimed to be Christians. Does this mean 24 percent are now atheists or agnostics? No. it just meant 8 percent more (16%) disassociated with any religion or denomination. Most still believe in God and regard religion as important to their lives.

Christianity is alive and mostly well in America.

The problem is the disassociation of the original Christian values from institutional and political affairs. The values of secular fundamentalism–atheistic humanism–pervade our key public institutions like education, big business, and government. If you do the research, you will find Darwinian evolution is underlying dogma justifying both secular fundamentalism and values of atheistic humanism. Our social problems are directly linked to the prevalence of those values in our public institutions. In education, this is called the hidden curriculum that is taught to every child and adult most of the lives most of the time. We all believe what we value and act according ly.

Source: World, June 20, 2009

First, her record reveals that she is perfectly willing to lift the blindfold of justice to achieve her desired result. In 2005, she told students at the Duke University School of Law that the U.S. Court of Appeals is “where policy is made.” Most Americans are tired of judges who make laws rather than interpreting. Judge Sotomayor appears to be a judge who believes the courts should make policy.

Second, gun ownership cases in which she has participated have been flippant toward the Second Amendment. In the case of United States v. Sanches-Villar she joined with other judges in saying that “the right to posses a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” Most Arkansans would disagree with Judge Sotomayor. They believe the Second Amendment does guarantee a fundamental right to own a gun.

Third, her record reveals that she has paid no attention to the rights of the unborn. When asked by Sen. Jim Demint if the unborn had any rights whatsoever, she answered that “she had never thought about it.” During her confirmation hearing she testified that the Roe v. Wade abortion decision is “settled law.” Most Arkansans believe unborn babies have rights. Most Arkansans oppose Roe v.Wade.

This is why the Southern Baptist Church, the National Rifle Association, and Americans United for Life are contesting the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor.

Source: Arkansas Family Council, July 14, 2009

Is the Neanderthal the genetic link in the evolutionary tree of homo sapien sapien, otherwise known as modern humans? Not very likely.

In the the newlatter Connections, Fazale Rana summarizes research by Palaeontologists Ian Tattersall and Jeffery Schwartz that refutes the belief that the Neanderthal contributed to modern human evolution–many through interbreeding. Rana presents evidence from a study of Neanderthal and modern human dna that again refutes the connection between human and Neanderthal dna. This research was conducted by David Serre and associates at the Max Plank Institute, and was published in the journal PLOS Biology.

I guess Darwinists will have to find a different tree to climb or at least another imaginary branch. It seems the Neanderthal limb is a little to weak and shaky.

As I was opening some previously unopened e-mail newsletters, I came across another Bill Bonner financial commentary that I just could not resist posting. An American, held up in London’s financial district, Bonner’s insight are as enlightening and they are through-provokingly ironic. The Bonner bite tickles something between the large funny bone atop the shoulders. And, though the Madoff scandal is not really funny, his accusers are likely chuckling at the rest of us for believing them. That is, if Bonner’s insight are more true than not.

Hmmm … let’s see.

Poor Bernie. The man has been ordered to spend 150 years in the hoosegow. What for? Who did he kill? A century and a half seems a little excessive for a financial crime. You could hold up three liquor stores and rape a whole convent and still not get 150 years. With a little bit of good lawyer-ing, a history of child abuse in the family, and good behavior in the big house, you’d be back on the street in 18 months.

But all the papers seem delighted. “Locked up for Life!” says one of today’s headlines. The judge “threw the book at him,” says another. His victims wanted him to get no mercy. The judge gave him none, imposing the maximum sentence. He is “extraordinarily evil,” said the man on the bench.

Justice has been done. Right?

Here in the building with the gold balls on the roof, we’re not so sure. We stand up for lost causes…die hards…and scalawags. Besides, we’re not convinced that Bernie is extraordinarily evil at all. He seems much more like an ordinary evil to us.

They say he defrauded investors out of $65 billion. The amount is unusual, but the crime is as common as income tax evasion. Who gets 150 years for evading income taxes? Heck, in civilized countries it’s not a crime at all – but a civil misdemeanor, subject to fine and retribution, not punishment.

But didn’t he lie to investors? Well, yes…he exaggerated the returns investors were likely to get from his fund. But if you put every fellow on Wall Street who does that in jail, you wouldn’t have any room for stick-up men and wife beaters.

Isn’t he the biggest financial scammer of all time? Well…he’s the title-holder now. But he has a lot of competition close on his heels. Bernie’s crime was taking money from people under false pretenses…and then being unable to give it back to them. How is that different from the financing activities of the US government?

This year alone, the feds will borrow 50 times as much money as Bernie managed to take in during his whole 20-year career. They can only pay it back by borrowing even more money from more lenders. This is not very different from the typical “Ponzi” scheme, except that it’s the government doing it. Eventually, the suckers are going to lose a lot of money.

And when you balance Bernie’s sins against his virtues, we’re not sure the man doesn’t come out at least as well as many of his accusers. While Bernie was pretending to make his investors rich, the SEC was pretending to protect them from Bernie. In fact, neither were really doing what they claimed. Which is to say, both are guilty of ordinary evil.

As we pointed out yesterday, nothing is as dangerous as good luck. Madoff was not extraordinarily evil; he was just extraordinarily lucky. He was plying his trade when the feds were pumping up the biggest financial bubble in history. No wonder so much hot gas came his way. His luck ran out when the bubble popped. And now a court has found him guilty of fraud and a judge has ordered him locked up for a period equal to roughly the time between the end of the US War Between the States and the resignation of Richard Nixon.

While Bernie is behind bars, the SEC and FED officials are still at large. Both are clearly guilty of dereliction and negligence.

But, what is the point of keeping Madoff in prison? He represents no threat. Rather than pay $30,000 per year to keep him locked up, we suggest that he be forced to do community service work. He should be pressed into service as the next head of the Federal Reserve after Ben Bernanke’s term expires in December. With Madoff in the big office, there would be no longer any illusions about what sort of bank the Fed is running.

What a minute! In other commentary Bonner, John Mauldin, and other financial experts claim that the federal government stimuluses and bailouts are only making the situation worse. They claim when economic misbehavior occurs long enough a correction always takes place. It the world of parents and children a correction is called a spanking or a loss of desert, playtime, texting, or some other consumptive privilege. However, the parental federal government in all of their secular wisdom is desperately trying to convince us that bad behaviors don’t have bad consequences. It’s the mentality that you can steal and kill without the blow-back called justice if, and only if, you play by their unnatural rules. In this case, they are desperate to overcome the moral discipline of capitalism. (No wonder they are pushing socialism so fiercely.)

All of the above reveals Madoff is merely a smoke screen diverting the public attention away from their own misbehaviors. While making the Madoff look like the bad guy, the federal government is getting away with …..

To read the rest of Bill Bonner’s commentary, go to The Daily Reckoning.

In his recent financial commentary titled “When Zombies Attack,” Bill Bonner wrote,

“Rise of the Zombies,” is a headline in today’s Financial Times. It tells a familiar and predictable story: the feds have propped up businesses coast-to-coast. Instead of being allowed to fail, they are kept alive by the government…and continue to take resources that could be redirected to more promising competitors.

But don’t bother telling the feds that. They don’t care. The old, worn out zombie businesses still make campaign contributions and employ voters. The businesses of tomorrow don’t. The present votes. The future does not.

After telling us how the feds are ripping the taxpayers off to keep worthless business because of political cronyism, Bonner expands his coverage to include state revenue and a equation of political economy.

The feds and the states are losing income. When businesses lose revenue
they cut back expenses. But governments – at least those that are
modern popular democracies – find that they need to increase spending. They have more people asking for help. And they have programs that become automatically more expensive – such as unemployment benefits – when the economy softens.

Now, the equation of political economy:

Let’s see. Expenses down, income up = happiness.

Expenses up, income down = misery.

See how simple it is?

In another commentary titled “Stay Out of the Water,” Bonner get more patriotic meaning the Londoner mentions July 4th. Leading up to this holiday some news we all could believe in. It casued reveling among economists, investors and politicians. First, the report about Madoff’s sentencing for lying to investors was followed by reports from Bloomberg, General Electric’s CEO, and George Soros’ pronouncement that the “crisis is behind us and that growth will begin again next year.” But, on Thursdays, all of their hopes crashed after hearing the official employment report. Instead of going down as predicted, another 467,000 people joined the Democrats unemployment plan.

Bonner’s not-so-happy commentary continues,

And so…this weekend, investors walk along the beach deep in thought. Is it safe to go back into the water…or not? They should listen carefully. That gurgling sound they hear is not mermaids singing, it is the world economy, drowning.

As we reported in this space, the feds’ bailouts, boondoggles and bankers’ bonus plans aren’t working. At the end of last year, they predicted unemployment over 8% in 2009 – if the stimulus plan were not enacted. But it was enacted. Unemployment is at 9.5% already and it is still rising. It will be over 10% before the end of the year. Global trade is collapsing; exports from Germany and Japan are down about 40% from a year before. Prices are going down too – with a report this Wednesday that the entire Eurozone has slipped into negative inflation. And from Britain came data showing a contraction of 2.4% in the first quarter, bringing the year-to-year decline to nearly 5%. “Economy shrinks at 1930s rates,” said the headline in Wednesday’s Telegraph.

When we look at America’s employment numbers, we feel like a school doctor. We would call the authorities, except that it was the authorities who should be arrested. After the feds got finished with them, the numbers told of a better-than-expected drop in May U.S. payrolls. The key to this uplifting news was not a genuine improvement, but new and improved techniques in torture. Water-boarded with seasonal adjustments and birth/death models, the numbers began to see jobs
everywhere. As for “discouraged workers”, meaning those who gave up
looking because they couldn’t find a job, these unfortunate souls
disappeared from the jobless figures altogether.

John William’s Shadow Government Statistics reports that without these twists, the numbers tell the same story they’ve been telling all year – unemployment is still getting worse, at about the same pace as earlier in the year. “The unadjusted annual decline in May payrolls was the worst since May 1958,” says Williams. And if they were allowed to speak freely – as they did in the ’30s – the figures would show real unemployment at over 20% of the workforce…or about 30 million people. That approaches Great Depression levels…and we’re still only in 1930, not 1932. As for those still working, an additional 1.5 million U.S. workers have been “forced into part time work” according to the Financial Times.

Analysts compare these trends to post-WWII pattern, which result sin a 62 year cycle of credit expansion. That’s a long time of debt-based economic growth. That cycle is coming to an end and a new cycle begins. “It is the beginning of a major credit contraction, with no pent-up demand, no savings, and too much capacity to turn out too much stuff that too many people don’t have the money to buy.”

“With incomes falling and house prices weak, consumers will miss
payments, default, and cut back spending. Business earnings will
decline; bankruptcies will increase. This economic undertow is
treacherous. Investors should stay out of the water,” says Bonner.

For more financial insights of Bill Bonner, visit The Daily Reckoning.

The American Declaration of Independence embodies a doctrine of revolution. The Declaration teaches us that the people of any country are not obliged to obey the laws of the State if these laws violate the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” But who is to judge whether the laws of the State violate the “Higher Law”? This question involves another: “Where is the supreme authority in a State that recognizes a ‘Higher Law’”? That crucial question was addressed by the Italian rabbi, theologian, and philosopher Eliyahu Benamozegh (1823-1900) in his magnum opus Israel and Humanity.

Rabbi Benamozegh asks: “Where is supreme authority to be found in Israel?” To answer this question, he ponders the Law-Giving at Sinai Revelation. He writes:

In order to grasp the central idea of Israelite doctrine on this crucial matter quickly and accurately, let us proceed by a process of elimination and determine first of all what that doctrine categorically rejects…. Does supreme authority reside in a man invested with supreme power? The very idea of a 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 moves 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, the history and concep­tion of 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 which 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 American Declaration of Independence. Suffice to consider two of its 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, which means that man alone 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 our rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Imago dei is what makes those rights “unalienable” and establishes them as basic ends of legitimate Government.

Therefore—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.” The people, therefore, are sovereign under God, which means, in the final analysis, that the People are His interpreters!

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 that violate “absolute reason and justice.” We see here that the Declaration of Independence is basically consistent with Jewish law and provides no justification for the establishment of a secular democratic state!

Having said this, let us put to rest certain errors. The “Creator” referred to in the First Principle must be construed as a theistic, not a deistic God, otherwise—and regardless of their personal convictions—it would have made no sense for the 56 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 self-sustaining and eternal laws, something impossible in a created universe. And since Greek philosophy never conceived of creation ex nihilo, let us put to rest the Stoic basis of the Declaration. The truth is that the Declaration is an eclectic but nonetheless magnificent document into which Jefferson injected Greco-Christian nuances, which Christian nuances, however, are rooted in the Torah, the source of monotheism. Evidence of this will be found in the law lectures of James Wilson of whom a brief statement is necessary.

Wilson, who taught law at the University of Pennsylvania, was widely deemed the most learned man of his generation. Wilson was not only a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His contribution to the deliberations of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 was second only to that of James Madison. Moreover, like Rabbi Benamozegh, he regarded God’s will, as interpreted by the people acting through their representatives, as the supreme authority.

This means that the concept of “popular sovereignty” must be understood within the context of a monotheistic culture, and it is only within such a culture that can one rightly understand the American Declaration of Independence.

One more thought. The Declaration, as Abraham Lincoln understood, embodies the political philosophy—more accurately the “political theology”—of the American Constitution. Here is what John Adams, another signatory of the Declaration, said of the Constitution: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” That religious morality is crystallized in the Declaration of Independence on which America stands and which is now being subverted.

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg, retired professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University and author of On the Silence of the Declaration of Independence.