jump to navigation

Cap-and-Trade Legislation Will Torpedo American Economy July 2, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Congress, economy, energy, environment, globalism, news, politics, United Nations.
add a comment

When it comes to a consensus on global climate change, there really isn’t a consensus among scientists, and apparently there isn’t among the Democrat majority in Congress either.

On the evening of June 26th, the Democrat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives passed a massive tax increase (H.R. 2454) commonly known as the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, by the non-consensus vote of 219 – 212.

Also known as a “cap-and-trade” bill, this legislation is truly an unprecedented tax increase in the form of an “energy tax” that will affect everyone, regardless of income level.

Obviously, this will offend some adherents to the climate change religion but a tax is exactly what this is. And everyone will pay it in some form or another – higher utility bills, higher gasoline prices, higher food prices and higher prices for anything which requires energy to manufacture, transport, warehouse or stock.

If this bill becomes law, it will go into effect in 2012 which means we will start paying higher prices almost immediately. According to the Heritage Foundation, the average family of four will see their energy bill increase by $436 the first year; it could reach as much as $1,241 by 2035, or an average of $829 per year over that time period. That’s just the energy cost impact. The cumulative cost of living impact is estimated to average $2,979 per year. The first five years of this bill could cost the average family of four almost $15,000; the first ten years would be almost $30,000.

In addition, the Heritage Foundation projects unemployment will increase by two million the first year of the program. The Heritage Foundation is not alone in this estimate. The Brookings Institute, a liberal think tank, and the National Black Chamber of Commerce both project job losses in the millions and similar economic losses.

The sheer size and scope of this massive energy tax increase should drive Americans to the streets in protest. The bill totaled 1,200 pages prior to the 300-page amendment which was added at 3 a.m. the morning of the vote. Consequently, it is likely that few, if any, of the 219 members of the House who voted for it read the entire bill prior to voting.

Moreover, those who voted for this bill are either unaware of, or chose to ignore, the growing body of scientific research which counters the theory that human activity is causing global warming.

It’s not just Congress who is ignoring the scientific evidence on global climate change. Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), submitted a report based on research he initiated himself that documented scientific findings that human activity has had minimal impact in terms of global warming.

He also cited data that shows we may now be in a period of global cooling. Carlin’s supervisor refused to pass his study on to the department responsible for EPA’s climate change program.

Critics of Carlin, who has worked in the EPA for 35 years, have tried to discredit him by claiming he is an economist, not a scientist. Carlin, in fact, also has a degree in physics.

Carlin is not the only critic of the science behind the push for cap-and-trade legislation. An in-depth report just released by The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) documents in great detail the errors in the United Nations report on climate change. The authors state that the UN’s Fourth Assessment Report “… is marred by errors and misstatements, ignores scientific data that were available but were inconsistent with the authors’ pre-conceived conclusions, and has already been contradicted in important parts by research published since May 2006.” Furthermore, the NIPCC report says the UN report “… violates many of the rules and procedures required for scientific forecasting, making its ‘projections’ of little use to policymakers.”

The report also includes a petition signed by 31,478 American scientists, including 9,029 individuals with PhDs, endorsing the statement that there is no scientific evidence that human-released greenhouse gases are a threat to the Earth’s atmosphere.

The bottom line: the cap-and-trade bill passed by the House is not about saving the planet from catastrophic climate change, it is about catastrophically changing the American economy and society. President Obama and his liberal mates in Congress are going full-speed ahead in their efforts to remake American society and they will torpedo anything that gets in their way, including the American economy.

To see how this bill will effect your personal income and state, see Table 1 to Karen Campbell and David Kruezter’s article “Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill: Economic Impact by Congressional District

——————————

By Gary Palmer, president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Advertisements

General Motors to Invest $1 Billion the $3.5 Billion Bail-Out Dough in Brazil Operations February 3, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Congress, corporations, globalism, NAFTA, news, politics, South America, taxes.
add a comment

According to the Herald Tribune, “General Motors plans to invest $1 billion in Brazil to avoid the kind of problems the U.S. automaker is facing in its home market.”

How do we know it is from taxpayer bailout money? The president of GM Brazil, Jaime Ardila says so.

“[T]he funding will come from the package of financial aid that the manufacturer will receive from the U.S. government and will be used to “complete the renovation of the line of products up to 2012.”

Why on earth would GM trandfer U.S.tax dollars to Brazil instead of reinvesting in at home? What kind of problems are GM facing at home that would motivate them to invest it elsewhere? Here the Herald Tribune does us a service by providing an answer:

“It wouldn’t be logical to withdraw the investment from where we’re growing, and our goal is to protect investments in emerging markets,” he (Ardila) said in a statement published by the business daily Gazeta Mercantil.

So there you have it. Not only do our thoughtful representatives on Capitol Hill support corporations like GM to send jobs over seas, they also encourage them to send our dollars overseas as well. I’m sure the corporate stimulus qua bailout money will create or at least maintain jobs but not at home. I’m almost as certain the global corporation stimulus package will help assure that their partners maintain the economic empire.

GM Brazil expect production to decline a little in 2009. Company estimates production of 2.6 million units down from 2.85 vehicles in 2008. They hope with the $1 billion stimulus from the U.S. and an additional $3 billion stimulus from the Brazilian government sales with increase to 2.9 million instead. That amounts to a depressing reduction of sales revenues from $11 billion to $9.5 billion projected for 2009.

Eh, what’s a few billion anyway.

Source: http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=12396&ArticleId=320909

From the Views of Early Americans on Moral Virtue to Darwinian Secularism and the Repression of Liberty December 17, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in freedom, globalism, moral virtue, nature, politics, religion, secularism, tyranny.
1 comment so far

Plato said, “All laws came originally from divine revelation.” He taught that virtue is not by nature or by instruction, but by a divine gift.
Plato’s teacher was Socrates who taught that men become good not by nature but by divine inspiration. This universal view was fictionalized by Homer who had his famous lawgiver, Menos, claim that he received his religious institutions from Jupiter after 9 years of conversation with him. Aristobulus, as recorded in the Second Book of Maccabees, claimed that many of the philosophical and moral ideas of Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and Orpheus were influenced by their study of the writings of Moses. They had all read the Septuagint that was a Greek translation of the writings of Moses and the Hebrew prophets. Its first publication was about 300 years before Christ, and was generally read by the philosophers and historians of all nations.

These ancient philosophers, historians, poets and statesmen knew that the light of nature was not the foundation of moral law or moral virtue. Experience taught them that moral virtue was a divine gift received by revelation. In 192 AD, Clemens of Alexandria, who was President of the College in Alexandria Egypt, also came to the conclusion that the Greek philosophers took their main principles from the writings of Moses and the prophets. Ancient church historian Eusebius and Theodorit later confirmed this.

The above is a liberal paraphrase of a small part of Thomas Clapp’s “Essay on the Nature and Foundation of Moral Virtue and Obligation” written in 1765 for the students of Yale College where he was then president.

Clapp goes into much detail about how various people including the previous black citizen of Madagascar and a deaf man claimed they had known nothing of God and morality until after these conceptions were proposed (revealed) to them. These accounts further support Clapp’s argument that natural law is not the source of moral law or of God. Revelation is as it was attested by the ancients.

Like John Locke, Clapp admits the possibility of men and women discovering at least some of those moral laws originally inherent in human nature that reflected a finite portion of the holiness of their divine Creator. Yet, both deny the likelihood of their being very many who in fact do. Why? Because of the corruption of their nature being alienated from their Creator by their perpetual crimes against the same moral law, which Calvinists and Puritans called depravity.

Even today, human depravity is proclaimed proclaimed world. In fact, the preaching and dramatizing of the doctrine of depravity has grown into a multi-billion dollar industry. The primary prognosticators of human depravity is the new media. From morning to night, the media proclaims the reality of the Calvinistic doctrine of depravity. Murder, rape, robbery, greed, fraud, extortion, cheating, lying, debauchery, addiction, domestic violence, terrorism, war, and this list of depraved behavior could go on proving that Americans a serious lack of moral virtue.

The very thing real freedom requires—moral virtue—is the quality most requiring the knowledge of God and his moral law. That is also the likely reason why all 17th and 18th century texts on the law of nature, the law of nations, moral philosophy, and even the common law text of William Blackstone began by acknowledging that the foundation of all law is the moral law of God received by revelation. It is also the reason why early Americans, including the leading founders, claimed freedom and good government began with religion.

Religion is the guardian of divine revelation. Revelation is the source of moral law. Moral virtue is that law lived. The power enabling people to live a virtuous is through a covenantal relation with the one who originally gave it. That makes it more than an idea. It is the physical and mental means by which God is able to communicate and affirm its validity.

Modern secularists, especially followers of Darwinism, would have us believe that religion is a dangerous idea that must be regulated out of public and institutional life. As revealed in Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled, Darwinists and other secularists believe religion is merely something people should do on the weekend.

According to those who created our national compact, the revealed moral law of God is the essence of all law, and that moral virtue is gift of God for a life of liberty, peace, and prosperity. Without it, no good government can exist–a fact being proven in the 21st century.

Are Americans now so duped by those who regard them as stupid (i.e., Richard Dawkins and other) to believe that America’s founders were wrong? Early Americans already knew about evolution, the cell, and atoms. They also were intimately acquainted with government’s suppression of inquiry, ideas, dissent, and religious reformation beliefs and practices. They had already witnessed the impoverishment of many peoples by internationalists and their big industries with government approval.

Yet, many American do adhere to the values and ideals of Darwinism, the science of atheism and the justification and rationale for secularism. Modern secularism gives nominal adherents its blessing to impoverish people today. It’s a strategy of people who hate the moral restraints of God, religion, and moral law. That is one part of the history of the secularist movement for the total separation of religion from the state. And, because moral restraint diminishes under secularism, the suppression of free inquiry, of free speech, of peaceful assembly and protest, evangelical (Puritan) practices, economic independence, and the like is common practice sanctioned by the federal, state, local authorities.

It will change not by politicians like George W. Bush or Barak Obama. It will change when a majority of Americans regain the moral virtue that made freedom from tyrants a reality in 1620 and in 1776. When Americans regain it, then real change in society’s institutions and government will be possible.

by Daniel Downs

NAFTA, One of Many Issues Proving the Founders Right About Freedom’s Requirement December 15, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Constitution, Declaration of Independence, globalism, moral virtue, NAFTA, news, politics, tyranny.
add a comment

Last week I attended a local John Birch Society (JBS) meeting. The topic of the presentation was the problems resulting from the North America Free Trade Agreement. One of those problems has been the loss of thousands of American jobs. Another problem is the underlying plan of which NAFTA is a part. According to both Tim Rice and Alan Scholls, the plan of our national leaders is to create a North American equivalent to the European Union. NAFTA is a first step in the accomplishment of this ultimate goal. What this means is not just a loss of more jobs but a loss of our national sovereignty and our citizenship under a U.S. Constitution.

One of the things I appreciated about the JBS meeting was the literature received. In particular, I liked the fact that Andy Meyers, a local organizer, distributed a copy of the Constitution of the United States. This little booklet that was produced by the National Center for Constitution Studies contains more than the mere text of the Constitution. It includes the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and statements by various founders on the importance of providence as well as the necessity of virtue.

I believe all Americans should read our national compact—Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Right—and other of our nation’s formative and legal documents at least once every few years. I believe this is the minimum prerequisite that would enable all citizens to both understand and judge whether past and present laws perpetuate or violate those rights and legal safeguards that are supposed to guarantee our life, liberty, property, and happiness.

One of the most important guarantees of true freedom is moral virtue. Consider the following views by a number of leading men of the founding era.

Concerning the necessity of moral virtue, John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” James Madison regarded it as the only means to secure real liberty. He said, “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty and happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.” In the same way, Benjamin Franklin believed people are not even capable of freedom without moral virtue. Franklin said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Here masters do not mean political leaders but slave lords.

Have you noticed the reports of viciousness of evolutionists towards proponents of intelligent design? In Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled, several scientists noted the vicious of evolutionists toward them because of their expressed doubts about Darwinian evolution. I have read reports of gays bullying old ladies who were peacefully protesting against their movement. They have viciously attacked young people quietly protesting on street corners or have violently disrupted meetings where authors or ex-gays were presenting contrary views and their personal experiences. I posted some reports of this in previous posts. Viciousness is commonly displayed during political campaign. Supporters of Obama and McCain were no different. Both pro-abortion and anti-abortions have demonstrated similar viciousness towards each other.

I have been guilty of expressing some vicious feeling towards some whose unjust statement or agendas I oppose. However, I have almost always tempered those feelings before publishing my thoughts.

The viciousness spoken of by Benjamin Franklin and witnessed today is the outcome of a corrupt and corrupting social milieu.

Can anyone honestly claim that the American government is not corrupt? It is corrupt because its leaders are corrupt. Based on this fact, early Americans would presume American society and its citizens have become corrupt as well. They would assume this based on the form of government they created, which consisted of a written national compact to secure their national goals. One of those goals was the maintenance of national morality. This corruption is measured by the degree to which American society and its public policies violate our national compact. Probably the best indicator of political, economic, and social corruption is the measure of how Americans nullify Constitutional and moral limitations.

As previously mentioned, the goal of our national leaders is to create a European Union equivalent in North America. Canada, Central America, South America, and the United States will become one nation governed by regional law and regional politicians, not by our Constitution and elected representatives to uphold it. The North American Union (NAU) could wind up being led by Hugo Chavez, the current president of Venezuela. I think the Iranians would applaud such a development. An NAU parliament would represent not just United States interests but could easily be skewed toward favoring Central or even South American interests.

For the supposed economic good of all peoples in the Americas, our leaders pursue a quest that violates not just our national sovereignty, but also one that conspires to overthrow our own loyalty to the principles and ideals of freedom intrinsic to our popular republican form of government by small and intentional steps.

Corruption accurately defines politics as usual today. Add to NAFTA, past and current economic crisis, welfare, income tax fraud, scandals both political and financial, gay rights agenda, sexual promiscuity, scientific prejudice, abortion, efforts to end gun ownership and to separate of religion from public life, and a composite picture emerges showing how corrupt a society we have become. The paternalistic views of many national and state leaders reveal they too believe masters are needed to rule over the unruly that they helped train. These new benevolent tyrants fill the halls of our legislators, public schools and universities, media, corporations, religious institutions, and other organizations. They comprise the new vanguard of injustice of the kind that the early American generations fought against and won first through creating a colonial civilization of religious, economic, and political independence and later through a war for national independence of all states.

If you still doubt our national politicians and business leaders are corrupt and intend to trade our freedom for regional and global power and profit, then read an article by Daneen G. Peterson titled “Treason Abounds – Gov’t Cabal Plots North American Union (NAU)” or the following speech by John MCManus on You Tube.

For more information about the John Birch Society, visit their website.

For Andy Meyer’s Meet Up site, go here.

A State of America Update December 10, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Constitution, freedom, globalism, NAFTA, news, political economy, politics.
add a comment

Those who have graced this blog with their interest and readership may be wondering what happened. My answer to your theoretical question is that I have been busy at work. I’m in the process of creating a new image, and I’m in the planning stages of refocusing my writing a little.

This evening I attended a John Birch Society meeting. The main topic of discussion was NAFTA–the free trade of all of our national liberty and rights.

I even heard our beloved Vice President Dick Cheney speak. Well, he was speaking to his fellow members of the Council On Foreign Relations in the video shown. Like most of the news anchors and media gurus, our nations leaders are members of the one new world order club.

An old Indian saying appropriate to the discussion is “Me Thinks You Speak With a Forked Tongue.” Robert Pastor, a member of the CFR and author of “Toward a North American Community,” denies promoting an end to America’s national independence while writing and speaking for a North American government (not governments but one government). This is the common practice of most politicians and government leaders today.

While our so-called national representatives scheme away our Constitutional heritage, state leaders are planning to hold a Constitutional convention. Our current Constitution was created during such a convention.

Politicians claim they intend to focus on one amendment issue: a federal balanced budget. The problem is they are not restricted to one issue; they are not restricted from recreating our entire Constitution.

I admit that current economic crisis and the trillions of bailout tax dollars seems appropriate. As the JBS regional field rep pointed out, politicians balancing the budget doesn’t require a constitutional amendment. What is required are representatives of the people and not representatives of global business, powerful special interest lobbies, socialist and other ideological agendas, or personal aggrandizement.

The President of JBS made this conclusion: “Wake Up America.” Americans must defend the only security of their rights, freedom, and independence–the rule of law by the supreme law of the land–the Constitution.

If we will not, in due time we will no longer be called citizens of the United States. We will be betting our economic future not on the value of the U.S. dollar but on the Amero.

That is the news about my very short break.

As I continue the slow process of making my blog a little prettier, I invite you to tell me what you think of my redesign.

A Global Economic Rule : Big Government Bails Out Bad Corporate Finance November 24, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in capitalism, corporations, Democrats, economy, globalism, monetary policy, national debt, politics, Republicans, war.
add a comment

“If companies (e.g., banks) are big enough, and the country is rich enough, corporate managers and investors can use the government as the ultimate insurance policy to bail them out if speculative risks go wrong.”

— Robert A. Isaak (2005)

The above quote (also was written in Here’s A Thought section) is a rule of the global economy, according to Pace University professor of International Management Robert A. Isaak. This rule is evident in the history of the concept of competitive advantage that began with Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations was further developed by British Economist David Ricardo. Competitive Advantage is Ricardo’s application of Smith’s idea about growing national economies by maximizing individual interests. Ricardo’s believed all nations would benefit more equally if all nations concentrated on one or few competitive strengths like producing steel, automobiles, oil, computer technology, etc. This was Ricardo’s idea of balancing trade and maximizing national prosperity.

German economist Frederick List and British philosopher John Stuart Mills both saw the necessity of protectionist policies by means of tariffs to allow the incubation and maturation of new national specializations, especially new manufactured goods and new technologies. These policies worked well for many years. The British hegemony of the 19th Century and America’s domination during the 20th Century prove that competitive advantage works. However, global economic hegemony is not possible without possessing the world’s key reserve currency.

America assumed global economic leadership (hegemony) with the creation of International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) at Bretton Woods. Through these institutions, America gained control of the global economy. At the same time. the dollar was fixed to the value of gold, which in 1934 was $34 an ounce.

American politicians began violating these policies of their own making to fund the rebuilding of countries devastated during World War II. It was not out of the goodness of their hearts; the aim of the Marshall Plan was economic growth and the creation of deterrence against Soviet aggression. Under the leadership of President Lyndon Johnson, our government continued to print money (increase the national debt) to fund the Vietnam War and his Great Society programs, which were meant to further the socialist domestic programs of FDR’s New Deal.

Yes, Democrats believe in war and its debt. FDR, LBJ, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton were all Democrats and warring commanders-in-chief. Don’t expect Obama to be any less. This means Republicans like Bush are no more warmongers than democrats.

When it comes to screwing up the economy, liberals in Republican garb deserve as much credit as democrats. This is especially true of Richard Nixon, who removed America’s global currency from the gold standard. Why? He had to maintain big government spending. While Charles de Gaulle was dumping the U.S. dollard for gold, Nixon was dumping gold for a new system of floating IOUs. According to Professor Isaak,

Now a dollar was a good as you think it is. That paper IOU in your pocket is just a piece of paper based on a lot of belief. Currencies have become bets placed on the short-term futures of the national (or regional) economies that they represent. As money not just paper but credit cards and blips on computer screens, not only did the world economy speed up, but the uncertainty about the value of any of these symbolic commodities increased as well.

Liquid gold — oil — became one of those industry favored by competitive advantage with the legal blessing of government. Before the 1970s, western nations held that advantage. Then arose a bunch of disgruntled Arabs who formed OPEC to take away some of that economic advantage for themselves. Today, we here more about OPEC than the western oil cartel. But, as Equatorial Guinea’s national leader has demonstrated, the blessing of competitive advantage conferred on EG by the American oil cartel does not benefit the poor natives who still live on $1 a day. The citizens of EG do not benefit from their God-given natural resource. Only tyrants, both African EG and American, do.

When the World Trade Organization (WTO) replaced GATT, the rules changed to further benefit only the rich and powerful nations. The same has occurred with massive revolution of information distribution. The rich came to own and control the media, the cheap and often free means of information and its distribution, only to dominate culture, politics, and the economy. Only those who gain the attention of the world’s masses can control the information economy and modern technology–so much for democracy and capitalism.

Anyway, as an example of how the above quote works, Professor Isaak uses the rise of Mexico as a competitive oil producer. When oil was discovered in Mexico, Marxist economists from the Cambridge School of Economics in England advised Mexican officials to take out more loans than they could afford to pay back. By doing so, the Marxist believed “Mexico would ‘have the banks by the debt,’ and the U.S. government would have to step in and bail out the banks or the banks would have to write off the debts to avoid a global financial crisis.” This worked for by the 1980s the price oil fell making it impossible for Mexico to repay their loans, which initiated the severe economic recession of the 1980s.

Whereas British Marxist saw the demise of American hegemony, David Rockefeller, head of Chase Manhattan Bank, saw Mexico’s liquid gold as a treasure to be exploited. He too encourage Mexico to take out huge loans knowing the principal would not likely be paid back. Rockefeller believed that Mexican oil profits would continue to increase, which meant enormous repayment of loan interest. Based on this hypothetical growth, he and other American and European bankers believed risk would be worth it. However, his expectations were crushed with steep declines in oil prices.

As reported in 1987 by Melanie S.Tammen of The Heritage Foundation, Mexico’s oil-based debt was $100 billion and almost $30 billion was owed to American banks. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker encouraged Mexico to increase borrowing based on the belief that it would spur economic growth as well as solve the international crisis that began in 1982. By 1987, the American government initiated a 14 billion dollar bailout of our failing banks. This plan was the brain-child of both Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and James Baker, Treasury Secretary to Republican President Ronald Regan.

We should not forget that this was also the decade of gasoline rationing and the savings and loan debacle.

In 1995, oil-rich and Marxist Mexico was bailed out again. Fed Chairman Paul Volcker again advised Democrat President Bill Clinton to help bailout the Mexican economy as well our banks. This time the it took $50 billion.

Obama and other Democrats claim deregulation is one of the main underlying causes of the current economic crisis and bailouts. They were right. What they and the media withheld from the American public is the fact that deregulation began under Democrat President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat-controlled Congress, and a Supreme Court favoring deregulation.

Thus, Isaak shows why Rep. Ron Paul’s advocacy of returning the dollar to the gold standard, the economy to the original ideal of capitalism, and limiting federal government and its spending are necessary now. America’s political and corporate leaders are leading us down the path to disaster. If Gerald Celente of Trends Research Institute is correct, they are leading us into a crisis worse than the great depression, one resembling communist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ (USSR) pre-Perestroika food lines.

Sources:

Robert A. Isaak, The Globalization Gap: How the Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get left Further Behind (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Printice-Hall, 2005), pp.161-182.

Heritage Foundation, Foreign Aid and Trade, Backgrounder #588, September 25, 1987

PRWeb, August 20, 2008

The Democratic Party Community Blog, October 11, 2007; Pipeline News, February 7, 2006

Trends Research Institute

What I See In Barack Obama by Paul Eidelberg October 15, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, civilization, Declaration of Independence, globalism, Islam, multiculturalism, news, politics, tyranny.
add a comment

In an article dated October 14, 2008, Iranian-born journalist Amir Tahiri writes: “PREPARE for a new America: That’s the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at [Evian, France] … last week.” Jackson went on to say: “Obama is about change. And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it.”

Jackson has more or less confirmed the present writer’s assessment of Barak Obama or what I perceived in his campaign slogan of CHANGE. But let me be more precise.

Senator Obama has nothing less in mind than regime change—a radical change in the political philosophy on which the American government is based, namely, the basic principles and values of the American Declaration of Independence.

This revolutionary document affirms that man is endowed with certain inalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. An Obama government would substitute a right to happiness for the pursuit of happiness. Such a government would thus be utterly paternalistic—a tyranny.

The Declaration of Independence derives our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness from the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. These laws, like any law of nature, are universal and immutable. They are not subject to the will or whim of man or of any government, be it a government of the one, the few, or the many. These laws transcend time and place. They transcend culture.

Obama, however, is a product of multiculturalism or postmodernism. He has been tainted by the university-bred doctrine of cultural relativism, which denies the existence of universally valid standards of good and bad, of right and wrong. He does not profess this relativism openly. Rather, he speaks of people’s cultural “narratives,” as if the cherished ideas and values of a people are purely subjective, hence, have no objective validity.

This multiculturalism is destroying Europe. It is destroying the nation-state and is thereby undermining America’s national sovereignty. Indeed, multiculturalism is leading to World Government via the United Nations. This means unmitigated tyranny,

Like any sovereign state, World Government necessitates a monopoly of power. In an era of weapons of mass destruction, a World Government would necessitate the equivalent of a KGB in every country to prevent any dissident group from developing such weapons—and they are being miniaturized.

It is in this light that we are to understand why Obama wants to cut U.S. defense spending. It is in this light that we are to understand his desire to redistribute the wealth of the United States to the Third World. It is in this light that we are to understand the extent to which Obama was influenced by radical socialists and communists like Saul Alinsky and William Ayres and has the backing of a billionaire like George Soros, an anti-American globalist.

Nothing in Obama’s upbringing and education offers the promise of a President committed to the basic principles of the American heritage. What else is to be expected of a man who, for twenty years, attended the church of “God-damn-America” Rev. Jeremiah Wright—an admirer of Louis Farrakhan, a Jew-hater?

Every politician speaks of “change.” For Barack Obama, however, change means changing America’s way of life; it means the end of American “exceptionalism”; it means the end of a nation that saved Europe from Nazi and Communist tyranny; it means the end of the only nation that can save civilization from Islamic imperialism and totalitarianism.

Whatever may be Barack Obama’s real convictions—as opposed to his campaign rhetoric—he should be judged by the character of those with whom he has long been associated. I have mentioned only a few anti-American individuals suggestive of the real Obama.

Add his notorious slip of tongue. Thus, when Obama said he had visited all 57 states of the Union, he was unconsciously alluding to the 57 countries classified as Islamic. Only the unholy alliance between the Cultural Left in America and Islamism can undo the United States. In Barack Hussein Obama I see the personification of this alliance.

Prof. Paul Eidelberg is founder and president of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy. In 1976, he joined the faculty of Bar-Ilan University where he taught political science. Before that time, he served as first lieutenant in the United States Air Force, and earned his doctoral degree at the University of Chicago, and wrote a trilogy on America’s founding fathers: The Philosophy of the American Constitution, On the Silence of the Declaration of Independence, and a Discourse on Statesmanship. Since then, he has written over 1,000 articles, policy papers, and books on Israeli, European, and American politics.