EGYPT AND IRAN ALLIANCE

A Nightmare Alliance

January 7, 2010 | From theTrumpet.com

The warming Iran-Egypt relationship could become Israel’s greatest security threat.

For much of their history, the ancient Israelites were a friendless and despised people with more foes than friends. Among their enemies were the Philistines, a people fearsome in demeanor, brutal in war and equipped with state-of-the-art weaponry.

For 400 years the Philistines were the archenemy and number-one security threat to Israel. But it wasn’t the size of their army, their iron swords and chariots or their penchant for conflict that gave the Philistines the advantage. That was largely a function of their geographic situation.

In the northern and eastern parts of Israel, the land was mountainous and covered with thick forests, giving the Hebrews a rugged buffer and geographic strong point against encroaching enemies. The Mediterranean sat to the west. Geographically, it was on the open, undulating plains of their southern underbelly that the Israelites were most disadvantaged and vulnerable.

More than 3,000 years later, this geographic reality—and the strategic equation it imposes—has barely changed. The national security of the Jewish state depends largely on the entity that controls and dominates the southern Levant and eastern Mediterranean.

Stratfor founder Dr. George Friedman acknowledged this reality in 2007 in the context of Hamas’s takeover of the Gaza Strip. “The only thing that could threaten the survival of Israel, apart from a nuclear barrage, would be a shift in position of neighboring states,” he wrote. “The single most important neighbor Israel has is Egypt” (June 19, 2007; emphasis mine throughout).

In modern times, Israel’s existence was especially precarious during the 1950s and early 1960s, when Egypt, under President Gamal Abdul Nasser, was at the vanguard of Arab hostility toward the Jewish state. This suddenly and miraculously changed in the late 1970s, when President Anwar Sadat reversed Nasser’s anti-Israel policy with the Camp David Accords and formed a “peace” treaty with Israel.

Since then, Israel’s peace treaty with Egypt has been the backbone of the national security equation of the Jewish state.

One reason for Cairo’s comparatively warm overtures toward Israel over the past 30 years has been its political and ideological divorce from Iran. This occurred after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and was sealed by the Iranian-orchestrated assassination of President Sadat in 1981. Naturally the disintegration of ties between Cairo and Tehran, and Egypt’s realignment with Israel, worked in Israel’s favor. In fact, Egypt’s antipathy toward Iran has been a pillar of Israel’s national security and a tremendous source of national confidence. The assurance that Egyptian-Iranian relations were non-existent enabled Israeli security officials to sleep at night.

But as the Trumpet has been reporting for some years now, those peaceful dreams are being replaced with a horrifying new reality: A major geopolitical realignment appears to be unfolding between Iran and Egypt. These countries are edging toward resuming a full-blown friendship.

On December 20, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak sat down for a rare two-hour, face-to-face talk with Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani. Larijani had broken the ice with Mubarak on an earlier trip in December 2007, and flew to Cairo last month to represent Tehran at a committee meeting for member states of the Parliamentary Union of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

During his short visit—which Egyptian sources revealed was an attempt by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to end tensions between Iran and Egypt—Larijani also conducted talks with his Egyptian counterpart Ahmed Fathi Surur and Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit. “The message is offering a new Iranian approach to resolve outstanding issues,” an anonymous source inside the Egyptian government told the Los Angeles Times.

In what few considered a coincidence, Egypt’s president, who rarely travels because of his poor health, departed the day after his meeting with Larijani for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. In meetings with fellow Arab heads of state, Mubarak reportedly placed Arab-Iranian relations at the top of the list of discussion items.

Upon returning to Tehran, Larijani made a statement that ought to alarm every Israeli. Egypt and Iran do not differ in strategies regarding Israel, he said. “There may be differing views in tactics [over Israel] between Iran and Egypt but the strategies of the two countries are not different.” Larijani, who is also a top aide to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that the strategy Iran is now pursuing aims to rally all of the Muslim world behind the Palestinians in a campaign against Israeli occupation. He also said Israel is upset by the growing cooperation between Egypt and Iran.

Meanwhile, in Israel, very few appear to be taking seriously the ramifications of an Iranian-Egyptian rapprochement. Caroline Glick ranks among the few: “For years Egypt has been the most outspoken Arab opponent of Iran’s moves towards regional hegemony. … Yet on Sunday, Mubarak hosted Ali Larijani, Iran’s former nuclear boss and current speaker of Iran’s parliament in Cairo. Following their meeting Mubarak traveled to the Persian Gulf for consultations on Iran’s nuclear program. Given Mubarak’s poor health, the fact that his meetings with Larijani sent him flying to Saudi Arabia indicate that something of major importance has just occurred.”

Very soon, it will become clear that a major new alliance is emerging in the Middle East. “The possibility of some sort of reconciliation between Iran and Egypt has substantial implications. … An opening between Egypt and Iran changes the entire dynamic of the Islamic world. Until recently, Egypt has played an extremely quiet role. If it opens ties with Iran, it is certainly a signal that it is prepared to play a more active, important and unpredictable role” (Stratfor, Jan. 2, 2008).

Consider that: Egypt as a “more active, important and unpredictable” player stands to revolutionize Middle Eastern politics!

Stratfor continued: “Egypt and Iran gain by flirting with each other. However, the United States and Israel do not want to see any sort of reconciliation between the two …. Iran, meanwhile, knows that Egypt will use the opening to extract concessions [from the U.S. and Israel]. Assuming that Egypt gets what it wants—which is likely to happen—what are the Iranians expecting as a reward for shilling for Egypt?” Glance at a map of the Middle East, or take a moment to consider the Philistines’ geographic position in relation to the Israelites.

By forging better relations with Egypt, Iran gains a much stronger presence at what is, geographically, Israel’s most vulnerable point!

For nearly 20 years, we have forecast that the moderate government in Cairo will be replaced by hardcore Islamists who will quickly align Egypt with the anti-Israel, radical Islamic administration in Tehran. Our editor in chief first said this in the November/December 1990 Trumpet, after the assassination of Egypt’s speaker of parliament: “Egypt’s President Mubarak could [also] be assassinated …. This could radically change Egyptian politics ….” Mr. Flurry went on to explore the prophecy in Daniel 11, which states that Egypt will be destroyed along with the king of the south by the king of the north. Why is Egypt also destroyed? he asked: “Is it because Egypt is somewhat allied with the king of the south …?”

By July 1993, Mr. Flurry’s prophecy for Egypt had grown even clearer: “Islamic extremism is gaining power at a frightening pace in Egypt. … This verse [Daniel 11:42] indicates Egypt will be allied with the king of the south. … I believe this prophecy in Daniel 11:42 indicates you are about to see a radical change in Egyptian politics!”

When we first wrote about Egypt, reality didn’t seem to back our forecast. During the early 1990s, Cairo and Tehran were barely on speaking terms. Egypt was the most moderate Arab state in the Mideast and widely considered to be America’s and Israel’s firmest ally in the region. Iran was an unfriendly Islamic theocracy. But as the years passed, events validated our forecast. During elections in December 2005, the Muslim Brotherhood won 88 seats in Egypt’s parliament, a six-fold increase over the previous election. Although that was fewer than a quarter of the parliament’s seats, the Brotherhood’s success exposed radical Islam’s growing influence and popularity.

Since then, radical Islam’s footprint has grown even more definitive. In the lead-up to Egypt’s 2008 election, Mubarak’s government became so concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood’s popularity that it brutally suppressed the Brotherhood’s potential candidates, resulting in the Muslim Brotherhood boycotting the election.

Increasingly, however, Mubarak is conceding to the Islamic shift in the country—and in the region.

Iran has begun to court Egypt, cautiously and steadily—yet successfully enough that it now appears Egypt’s “moderate” leadership is prepared to take the relationship to the next level. Watch for this relationship to grow stronger—setting the stage for a far stronger alliance likely to be cemented under a more radical Egyptian government in the future.

The result is sure to produce some nightmares for Israel. •

"PRAVDA"

From a Russian Newspaper -

The irony of this article appearing in the English edition of Pravda (Russian newspaper) defies description. Why can a Russian newspaper print the following yet the American media can't/won't see it?

American Capitalism Gone With A Whimper

October 1, 2009

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years... The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas than the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a Burger King burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America .

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America 's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Weimar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, losses, and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties, and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more than a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motors) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self-given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK 's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "free man" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance, and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Frank, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort.. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible.. In other words, divest while there is still value left.
The proud Americanwill go down into his slaverywithout a fight, beating his chest, and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is.. The world will only snicker.

"RUSSIA"

Robert MorleyColumnist

How Russia Is About to Dramatically Change the World

January 5, 2010 | From theTrumpet.com

In a remote corner of the world, a port bristles with cranes, smokestacks, mammoth ships—and trouble for Europe.

Over the next few days, Russia will change the world. It has completed a new oil pipeline and port complex that sets Russia up to become a more powerful oil exporter than Saudi Arabia. The ramifications for Europe and Asia are profound: The shape of the global economy—and the global balance of power—will be altered forever.

December 28 was a big day of ceremony in Russia. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin pushed a button that transformed global oil dynamics—especially for Asia and Europe. The button released thousands of barrels of Siberian crude into a waiting Russian supertanker and heralded the opening of Russia’s first modern Pacific-based oil export facilities.

The multibillion-dollar, state-of-the-art oil terminal was a “great New Year present for Russia,” Putin said during the inauguration. The strategic terminal, located in the city of Kozmino on the coast of the Sea of Japan, is one of the “biggest projects in contemporary Russia” he said, not only in “modern Russia, but the former Soviet Union too.”

Putin has every right to be enthusiastic about his new port. Kozmino will unlock a two-way gate through which Russia’s vast Siberian oilfields will gush into Asia’s energy-hungry economies—and Chinese, Korean and Japanese currency will flow into Russia.

If just the seven ships currently waiting to berth are all filled during January, the port of Kozmino will instantly become Russia’s third-most important oil outlet.

According to Reuters, the first oil transport loads on January 15. In a symbolic move highlighting Russia’s warming relationship with China, Hong Kong will receive the first shipment.

After that, Kozmino’s importance will exponentially grow over the next year. Currently, all Siberian oil shipments into Kozmino are delivered by train—but that will soon change. Phase one of the East Siberian-Pacific Ocean Pipeline (espo) was also completed during December. Phase two will soon connect the Siberian fields directly to the new port. When phase two is finished in 2012, total exports could jump from the current rate of 250,000 barrels per day to over 1 million. Kozmino will transform into one of the largest oil centers in the world—capable of handling 16 percent of total Russian oil exports. It will be one of the most strategic geopolitical assets in Russia’s arsenal.

Russia pumped more than 10 million barrels of oil per day during November. With Saudi Arabian production falling, Russia is now the world’s largest oil exporter. Toss in Russia’s natural gas exports, and Russia is the biggest energy superpower in the world, by far. That does not even count Russia’s massive uranium resources and nuclear expertise.

But here is why the new port in Kozmino could radically affect the future of both Asia and Europe. For over a century, Russia’s entire energy infrastructure has focused mainly on supplying Europe. That has now changed forever!

The first and now-complete phase of the espo pipeline, which connects Russia’s Siberian oil fields to China, is already destabilizing global oil dynamics and shifting them in Russia’s direction. “espo is what political strategists might call a ‘game-changer,’” writes the Telegraph. “It means that Russia will be able to send its oil either east or west—so it can drive a harder bargain when selling crude to Europe” (emphasis mine throughout).

Previously, when Russia has had pricing disputes with Europe, Moscow had to play the embargo card with an obvious bluff. It had no other alternative outlet for its oil. Without the Europeans, its oil would sit in Samotlor and Tyanskoye, costing money instead of making it. But now Moscow can turn off the tap to Europe and still pump in the profits by opening the pipe wide to its energy-hungry Asian partners.

But Russia’s stranglehold on Europe is about to get even tighter—much tighter. By 2012, the espo pipeline will be twinned with a pipeline for natural gas exports so Russian gas supplies can also flow east instead of west if necessary.

This development is truly scary to Europeans.

Moscow has already demonstrated that it isn’t afraid to turn off Europe’s energy supplies when it feels it needs to. In the middle of winter 2006, Russia shut off gas supplies to Germany, and several other countries, in order to punish Ukraine. Since then, it has repeatedly used the same method to strong-arm its former Eastern European satellites back into accepting Russian dominance.

The message is clear: Russian oil and gas supplies are a weapon to be used—or not used—to freeze opponents into submission.

Europe, in a tenuous relationship with Russia to begin with, desperately needs to secure another source of energy. Only one other region in the world can supply the energy to warm and lubricate modern Europe’s homes and industries: the Middle East. Countries like Germany, which imports 90 percent of its oil, are now much more dependent on one of the most volatile regions of the world for power supplies.

It is inevitable that Berlin will seek to expand its ties with oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Council members: the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and especially Saudi Arabia, the world’s second-largest petroleum producer. Europe has no choice but to become much more intimately involved with the affairs of the Middle East—a region from which 40 percent of its oil is currently derived.

It is therefore no surprise that Germany, the most dominant nation in Europe, has made sure it has troops on the ground surrounding this Middle Eastern “golden triangle” of energy production (Gulf Cooperation Council members plus Iran and Iraq). On the seas, the European Union’s naval presence is growing too. The European anti-piracy task force operates in both the Gulf of Oman and the Gulf of Aden. Forty percent of the world’s ocean-borne oil is shipped through the Gulf of Oman.

Europe is critically dependent on imported oil. And Germany knows it must have a strong presence in the world’s most oil-rich region if it is to secure its flow and the country’s future.

The Bible predicts that a major military clash will soon occur in the Middle East—specifically between a European power, led by Germany, and radical Islam, led by Iran.

Daniel 11:40-45 indicate that Iran will continue to push at this European power until it finally responds in “whirlwind,” blitzkrieg-type fashion. As we have explained for almost 20 years—and has been borne out repeatedly in real-world events—the “king of the south” spoken of in these verses is radical Islam under the leadership of Iran. And as Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry has written, a big part of Iran’s push against Europe will involve oil.

The Middle East is a powder keg that could explode at any time. Syria dominates Lebanon and is stirring up trouble there. Iran is about to create a nuclear weapon and has said it wants to wipe Israel off the map. It is test firing missiles that can strike European capitals. Israel knows that the window to prevent Iran from getting the bomb is closing. Hamas is preparing to violently take East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital. Israel is about to release 1,000 terrorists back onto the streets in return for one captured Israeli soldier.

And to top it off, the world is in the midst of its worst depression since the 1930s. Oil prices remain above $70 per barrel, and the International Energy Agency has indicated that world oil production will now peak in 2020—10 years sooner than prior estimates. Some analysts think the world has already reached peak oil production.

In this climate of global instability, Russia’s recent moves on the world’s oil stage will be amplified in dramatic fashion. By unlocking Siberia’s energy reserves, Russia is simultaneously binding Asia together and lighting a fire under Europe. Watch for the development of an Asian alliance between Russia, China and Japan. And watch for Europe’s next moves toward the Middle East. •

THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE

IRAN AND THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE

December 31, 2009 | From theTrumpet.com

Events unfolding in Iran and the Middle East will help forge the German-led European superstate.

When the New York Times runs an op-ed making the case for a U.S. military strike on Iran, you know the Iranian nuclear saga is probably direr than most people know.

“We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons,” the Times wrote last Thursday. “Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better” (emphasis mine throughout).

As the sun sets on 2009, there is widespread consensus that Iran will dominate global headlines in 2010. “The year 2010 is the make or break year for stopping Iran,” Barry Rubin ominously warned this week. The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes agreed, insisting that “In 2009, we tried to engage the Iranian regime. In 2010, let’s try to change it.” “One way or the other,” noted Charles Krauthammer, “Iran will dominate 2010. Either there will be an Israeli attack or Iran will arrive—or cross—the nuclear threshold.”

Last Friday, Stephen Flurry addressed the prophetic significance of the U.S.-Iranian standoff, particularly as it relates to the future of America and Israel. “What is … possible, if not probable, is that for all our rhetoric, [America] will stand idly by and do nothing about the problem,” he wrote. Whatever happens, Mr. Flurry explained, Bible prophecy tells us that neither Israel nor America will eliminate the Iran threat, and that military action would ultimately serve to hasten America (and Israel’s) precipitous decline in global power and influence.

Yet as fruitless as military action by America or Israel would ultimately be, Bible prophecy “does not explicitly say that Israel or America won’t attempt to forcefully eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat.” So as conditions in the region appear to converge toward a breaking point, and the historically and prophetically significant date of January 16 edges closer, the Trumpet stands at its post, vigilantly watching, eagerly anticipating.

Beyond the continued abatement of America and Israel’s power, what else, exactly, do we anticipate could emerge from the Iran saga in 2010?

Regular readers know that the Trumpet watches Iran through the eyeglass of a prophecy in Daniel 11: “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen …. He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown ….” As we have explained for almost 20 years—and has been borne out repeatedly in real-world events—this “king of the south” is radical Islam, under the leadership of Iran.

Daniel’s prophecy illuminates our understanding of the Middle East. Indeed, no rational person would dispute that Iran rules this region like a king. If you read Daniel 11:40-45 carefully, it’s obvious that the king of the south’s emergence is merely the first chapter in this prophetic narrative.

Moreover, this passage clearly indicates that while the king of the south is a key actor in this end-time drama, it does not play the lead role. Actually, it plays a secondary role—which Iran is fulfilling even now—that primarily consists of aggravating the “king of the north,” the protagonist in this prophecy. Notice, Iran pushes, and pushes and pushes, until eventually this great northern combine barrels into the Middle East, smashes the king of the south, establishes itself as the regional hegemon, and then “enters” peacefully into the “glorious land,” a biblical term for Jerusalem.

Ultimately, this prophecy in Daniel 11 is more about the king of the north than it is the king of the south.

This distinction is pivotal: Daniel’s towering prophecy informs us that the king of the north actually rises to a great extent out of the actions of the king of the south. If we want to grasp the ultimate significance of the Iran saga, we must look through events in Iran and study the king of the north.

Who, precisely, is the “king of the north”? As we have explained extensively, it’s the seventh and final resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire!

The Trumpet agrees with the assessment that Iran will be a dominant feature in global affairs in 2010. But it most likely will not be the dominant issue of 2010. Why? Because Bible prophecy tells us that the closer the Iranian nuclear saga builds to a climax, and the more Iran pushes and prods and destabilizes the Middle East and the world, the harder and faster the king of the north will work to cement itself as a global power, after which it will roll into the Middle East and deal once and for all with Iran, the king of the south.

Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry wrote a powerful article about the “king of the north” for the February 2010 issue. “We have been prophesying [about the final resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire] for 65 years!” he wrote. “Now it is here.”

Perhaps it’s difficult for some people to see this reality right now. In 2010, we can expect world events—especially in Iran and the Middle East—to reveal the reality that the Holy Roman Empire is back!

Read “The Holy Roman Empire Is Back!” Written for our 20th anniversary issue, it is one of the clearest, most enlightening, urgent and emotionally stirring articles Mr. Flurry has written for the Trumpet. News gurus expect 2010 to be incredibly active, a year in which far-reaching and potentially historic events and transformations will occur in the United States, the Middle East, Asia and Europe—and in the relations between these countries and regions. This article sets the tone for the Trumpet’s reporting on these events and gives prophetic context to what is certain to be an ever quickening stream of significant news in 2010.

What better time to read this article than right now, the last day of 2009—the day before the Holy Roman Empire becomes official! •

PSALM 109 - YOU MUST READ IT NOW

Psalms Chapter 109 תְּהִלִּים

א לַמְנַצֵּחַ, לְדָוִד מִזְמוֹר: אֱלֹהֵי תְהִלָּתִי, אַל-תֶּחֱרַשׁ.	1 For the Leader. A Psalm of David. {N} O God of my praise, keep not silence;
ב כִּי פִי רָשָׁע, וּפִי-מִרְמָה--עָלַי פָּתָחוּ; דִּבְּרוּ אִתִּי, לְשׁוֹן שָׁקֶר.	2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of deceit have they opened against me; they have spoken unto me with a lying tongue.
ג וְדִבְרֵי שִׂנְאָה סְבָבוּנִי; וַיִּלָּחֲמוּנִי חִנָּם.	3 They compassed me about also with words of hatred, and fought against me without a cause.
ד תַּחַת-אַהֲבָתִי יִשְׂטְנוּנִי; וַאֲנִי תְפִלָּה.	4 In return for my love they are my adversaries; but I am all prayer.
ה וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלַי רָעָה, תַּחַת טוֹבָה; וְשִׂנְאָה, תַּחַת אַהֲבָתִי.	5 And they have laid upon me evil for good, and hatred for my love:
ו הַפְקֵד עָלָיו רָשָׁע; וְשָׂטָן, יַעֲמֹד עַל-יְמִינוֹ.	6 'Set Thou a wicked man over him; and let an adversary stand at his right hand.
ז בְּהִשָּׁפְטוֹ, יֵצֵא רָשָׁע; וּתְפִלָּתוֹ, תִּהְיֶה לַחֲטָאָה.	7 When he is judged, let him go forth condemned; and let his prayer be turned into sin.
ח יִהְיוּ-יָמָיו מְעַטִּים; פְּקֻדָּתוֹ, יִקַּח אַחֵר.	8 Let his days be few; let another take his charge.
ט יִהְיוּ-בָנָיו יְתוֹמִים; וְאִשְׁתּוֹ, אַלְמָנָה.	9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
י וְנוֹעַ יָנוּעוּ בָנָיו וְשִׁאֵלוּ; וְדָרְשׁוּ, מֵחָרְבוֹתֵיהֶם.	10 Let his children be vagabonds, and beg; and let them seek their bread out of their desolate places.
יא יְנַקֵּשׁ נוֹשֶׁה, לְכָל-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ; וְיָבֹזּוּ זָרִים יְגִיעוֹ.	11 Let the creditor distrain all that he hath; and let strangers make spoil of his labour.
יב אַל-יְהִי-לוֹ, מֹשֵׁךְ חָסֶד; וְאַל-יְהִי חוֹנֵן, לִיתוֹמָיו.	12 Let there be none to extend kindness unto him; neither let there be any to be gracious unto his fatherless children.
יג יְהִי-אַחֲרִיתוֹ לְהַכְרִית; בְּדוֹר אַחֵר, יִמַּח שְׁמָם.	13 Let his posterity be cut off; in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
יד יִזָּכֵר, עֲו‍ֹן אֲבֹתָיו--אֶל-יְהוָה; וְחַטַּאת אִמּוֹ, אַל-תִּמָּח.	14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be brought to remembrance unto the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
טו יִהְיוּ נֶגֶד-יְהוָה תָּמִיד; וְיַכְרֵת מֵאֶרֶץ זִכְרָם.	15 Let them be before the LORD continually, that He may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
טז יַעַן-- אֲשֶׁר לֹא זָכַר, עֲשׂוֹת חָסֶד: וַיִּרְדֹּף, אִישׁ-עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן--וְנִכְאֵה לֵבָב; לְמוֹתֵת.	16 Because that he remembered not to do kindness, {N} but persecuted the poor and needy man, and the broken in heart he was ready to slay.
יז וַיֶּאֱהַב קְלָלָה, וַתְּבוֹאֵהוּ; וְלֹא-חָפֵץ בִּבְרָכָה, וַתִּרְחַק מִמֶּנּוּ.	17 Yea, he loved cursing, and it came unto him; and he delighted not in blessing, and it is far from him.
יח וַיִּלְבַּשׁ קְלָלָה, כְּמַדּוֹ: וַתָּבֹא כַמַּיִם בְּקִרְבּוֹ; וְכַשֶּׁמֶן, בְּעַצְמוֹתָיו.	18 He clothed himself also with cursing as with his raiment, and it is come into his inward parts like water, and like oil into his bones.
יט תְּהִי-לוֹ, כְּבֶגֶד יַעְטֶה; וּלְמֵזַח, תָּמִיד יַחְגְּרֶהָ.	19 Let it be unto him as the garment which he putteth on, and for the girdle wherewith he is girded continually.'
כ זֹאת פְּעֻלַּת שֹׂטְנַי, מֵאֵת יְהוָה; וְהַדֹּבְרִים רָע, עַל-נַפְשִׁי.	20 This would mine adversaries effect from the LORD, and they that speak evil against my soul.
כא וְאַתָּה, יְהוִה אֲדֹנָי-- עֲשֵׂה-אִתִּי, לְמַעַן שְׁמֶךָ; כִּי-טוֹב חַסְדְּךָ, הַצִּילֵנִי.	21 But Thou, O GOD the Lord, deal with me for Thy name's sake; {N} because Thy mercy is good, deliver Thou me.
כב כִּי-עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן אָנֹכִי; וְלִבִּי, חָלַל בְּקִרְבִּי.	22 For I am poor and needy, and my heart is wounded within me.
כג כְּצֵל-כִּנְטוֹתוֹ נֶהֱלָכְתִּי; נִנְעַרְתִּי, כָּאַרְבֶּה.	23 I am gone like the shadow when it lengtheneth; I am shaken off as the locust.
כד בִּרְכַּי, כָּשְׁלוּ מִצּוֹם; וּבְשָׂרִי, כָּחַשׁ מִשָּׁמֶן.	24 My knees totter through fasting; and my flesh is lean, and hath no fatness.
כה וַאֲנִי, הָיִיתִי חֶרְפָּה לָהֶם; יִרְאוּנִי, יְנִיעוּן רֹאשָׁם.	25 I am become also a taunt unto them; when they see me, they shake their head.
כו עָזְרֵנִי, יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי; הוֹשִׁיעֵנִי כְחַסְדֶּךָ.	26 Help me, O LORD my God; O save me according to Thy mercy;
כז וְיֵדְעוּ, כִּי-יָדְךָ זֹּאת; אַתָּה יְהוָה עֲשִׂיתָהּ.	27 That they may know that this is Thy hand; that Thou, LORD, hast done it.
כח יְקַלְלוּ-הֵמָּה, וְאַתָּה תְבָרֵךְ: קָמוּ, וַיֵּבֹשׁוּ--וְעַבְדְּךָ יִשְׂמָח.	28 Let them curse, but bless Thou; when they arise, they shall be put to shame, but Thy servant shall rejoice.
כט יִלְבְּשׁוּ שׂוֹטְנַי כְּלִמָּה; וְיַעֲטוּ כַמְעִיל בָּשְׁתָּם.	29 Mine adversaries shall be clothed with confusion, and shall put on their own shame as a robe.
ל אוֹדֶה יְהוָה מְאֹד בְּפִי; וּבְתוֹךְ רַבִּים אֲהַלְלֶנּוּ.	30 I will give great thanks unto the LORD with my mouth; yea, I will praise Him among the multitude;
לא כִּי-יַעֲמֹד, לִימִין אֶבְיוֹן-- לְהוֹשִׁיעַ, מִשֹּׁפְטֵי נַפְשׁוֹ.	31 Because He standeth at the right hand of the needy, to save him from them that judge his soul. {P}

AMERICA WILL NO LONGER FIGHT TO WIN

Pirates Prove America Won’t Fight to Win

December 8, 2009 | From theTrumpet.com

As the U.S. Navy frets over lawsuits, pirates park huge hijacked ships in plain view while they go off to divvy the plunder among their stock investors.

In 1808, a grand and powerful fleet mustered in the south of England. The ships appeared like mighty men-of-war, but these were merchantmen readying sail for India to transport home a priceless cargo of saltpeter. In the war against Napoleon, Britain’s very survival depended upon those supplies.

The British captains didn’t know it, but they were sailing into an ambush. Even as these ships prepared to leave port, British shipping in the Indian Ocean was already being ravaged—by fierce pirates. Many of these merchants would meet similar fates.

Two hundred years later, America is ignorantly sailing into the same trap. On November 29, another supertanker en route to America was hijacked by pirates—carrying the equivalent of 20 percent of Saudi Arabia’s daily oil production.

As the Somalis brazenly sailed their $150 million-plus prize home, the most powerful navy in the world sat impotent. Sadly, America’s impotence is not due to a lack of firepower, but willpower. Why is America so weak when it could be so strong?

The plight facing the world in the Indian Ocean today is not new. In 1808, it was French frigates and privateers (aka pirates) who were preying on English shipping with spectacular success. In one two-month spell, over 19 fully loaded merchantmen were captured as they attempted to run the gauntlet to get their valuable war stores—the ingredients of the most potent gunpowder known—around the south of Africa to the battlefields of Europe. Over the ensuing months, three more massive fleets would leave England for India. The few battered hulks that limped back told a tale that shocked the country. Combined with ships lost to storms and others that disappeared, never to be heard of again, it almost bankrupted the East India Company. The results threatened the war in Europe and Britain’s status as a great power.

Today, America faces a remarkably similar situation.

Back then, it was Britain’s link to India and its strategically crucial gunpowder supplies that were in danger. All these years later, in that same tract of ocean, it is America’s link to the Middle East and the single most important source of global oil supplies that is increasingly at risk.

Patrolling 1 million square miles of ocean is no easy task—a lesson Britain learned the hard way. French privateers could materialize like ghosts, blast English ships to pieces with cannon fire, then disappear into the vastness of the ocean—anywhere, any time. British Rear Adm. Sir Edward Pellew, probably Britain’s most brilliant and successful commander after Nelson, famously lamented: “For the most part, the first intelligence of their appearance … is announced by their success.”

And if British warships approached, the pirates would turn around and sail away. Standing orders for French ships were to focus only on Britain’s commercial lifeline. In 1807, the famous French pirate Robert Surcouf in his 18-gun sloop captured more than 30 prizes. Britain was being choked.

Back then it was the British Navy that the politicians and big merchant companies lambasted as impotent. The enemy brazenly sailed the captured vessels to the “Isle of France distant nearly 3,000 miles,” and “not a single instance of recapture has occurred,” they charged.

Pellew, a fighting man, was bitter—and rightly so. Two years earlier, he had been denied the opportunity of dealing with the piracy at its source. The problem lay with the so-called Gibraltar of the East, the twin islands of Île de France and Bourbon, or as they are now known, Mauritius and Reunion. From these pirate havens, located due east of the vast island of Madagascar, the pirates could sally forth to terrorize the seas and then return to safe harbor, sell their plunder, and refurbish their ships.

For various reasons, Pellew’s plan for a joint army and navy invasion to annex the pirate stronghold was shelved to gather dust. It would cost too much. It would be too difficult. The defenders were too well-equipped. Too many soldiers’ lives would be lost. The old familiar weakness. With familiar results.

It wasn’t until Britain’s very link to India was in danger because so many ships had been captured or sent to Davy Jones’s locker that politicians finally resolved to take meaningful action.

But when Britain did strike, it was swift and decisive. British ships blockaded the ports. Marines and soldiers stormed coastal batteries and boarded pirate ships in port. Pirates were executed. And after a few surprisingly small skirmishes, the local government sued for peace. Slaves were released, and the slave trade was abolished on the islands.

In fact, the resistance was so feeble that it was anticlimactic. Only 28 British soldiers died before the defenders asked for peace terms. Two to three times as many soldiers died just on the voyage to the islands.

As it turned out, the cost to Britain wasn’t in lives or money. The monetary cost of the invasion was more than offset by capturing the pirate lair and freeing the seas for trade. The cost in lives too was offset by the future lives saved due to the vast reduction in piracy.

The real cost was will. Britain had the power to stop the piracy; politicians just needed the will to use it.

But once Britain exercised the national will to defend its interests, the results were dramatic. Pirates and pirate-harboring nations knew that if they preyed on British shipping, one day a British man-of-war, or a fleet of ships, was going to show up and make them pay the price.

In 1808, at the height of the piracy in the Indian Ocean, the British East India Company had contracted to supply 6,000 tons of saltpeter to the government. In 1810, the year of the elimination of the pirate strongholds on Mauritius and Reunion, the company was able to deliver 12,000 tons. That supply was crucial to Wellington’s victories in Spain.

This is a lesson America should heed today.

It was almost one year ago that America lost its first oil tanker, the Sirius Star. This was the largest ship in history to be captured by pirates. But now America has lost a second one. At 300,000 metric tons, the Maran Centaurus is only slightly smaller and ranks as the second-largest ship ever taken. And still America will do nothing.

Pirates based out of Somalia and backed by local warlords now hold 587 hostages taken from captured ships. The list of stolen ships overtly anchored in Somali ports and awaiting ransoms include an oil tanker, a chemical tanker, bulk carriers, cargo ships, container ships, luxury yachts and fishing trawlers.

And unless someone acts, the frequency of pirate attacks may be about to go full-sail ahead.

Somali pirates are going corporate. A recent Reuters report indicates that Somali pirates are organizing as business enterprises, complete with ceos, accountants and recruiting staff. Impoverished Somalis faced with embracing strict Islam or joining the pirate life are swelling the ranks of wannabe pirates.

Pirate cartels based out of Somalia have even opened a “stock exchange” for attracting investors and raising capital to purchase more sophisticated weaponry and equipment. Each share purchased by an investor entitles the stockholder to a cut of whatever booty the company captures. One woman interviewed by Reuters says she received a $75,000 dividend just 38 days after investing in one pirate company.

Four months ago, there were 15 pirate companies operating on the Haradheere “stock exchange.” Today there are 72. According to the report, the stock exchange is drawing wealthy backers from around the world.

In 2008, there were 194 pirate attacks worldwide. As of October this year, there have been at least 174 just from Somali pirates. Globally, the total number of attacks has grown to 324—that’s a 67 percent rise, and the year isn’t over.

Commenting on the lack of success in deterring the pirates, U.S. naval officials describe the difficulty of protecting such a vast area. “It’s 2.5 million square miles we’re dealing with,” said Lt. Matt Allen, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain and charged with protecting the Gulf of Aden and the waters adjacent to Somalia. “It’s a very large area. It’s a daunting task.”

Yet, America knows exactly where the pirate lairs are. It knows where the ships are anchored. It even knows where many of the pirate bosses live.

Why is America not taking any meaningful action? Its oil supplies have been threatened twice now!

Even when America is successful in catching pirates in the act, many times, believe it or not, the pirates are just released. In fact, the U.S. Navy is very reluctant to even apprehend pirates, fearing that they will violate some aspect of human rights law. Because of this fear, and the fact that it is very costly to transport and prosecute captured pirates, most pirates are only stopped and released, reports the Cornel Daily Sun. Thus the pirates are set free to hunt the seas again.

Get that? America is more concerned about the rights of pirates than those of its own citizens.

Last month, the U.S.-flagged Mersk Alabama was attacked by pirates for a second time. This is the same ship that pirates captured in April, holding the captain hostage for five days until Navy sharpshooters freed him.

Pirates attacked the same American ship twice! What a slap in the face to the world’s “most powerful” nation. Obviously people don’t fear American power like they used to.

Unfortunately for American merchants, America’s general policy of weakness is set to continue, because America lacks the will to face the pirate problem head-on. What a far-reaching change from how America used to be.

America’s pride in its power is broken.

But it wasn’t always this way. As Stephen Flurry wrote when the Sirius Star was captured, there was a time when leaders were more inclined to act courageously against the forces of terror. When North African pirates, for example, demanded tribute from the U.S. government to ensure safe passage for American ships through the Mediterranean, Thomas Jefferson’s reply left nothing to the imagination: “The style of the demand admitted but one answer,” Jefferson said. “I sent a … squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean.” Those frigates waged war on the Barbary pirates until the North Africans sea lanes were freed for American ships.

And that was when the United States had a tiny fraction of the power that it has today. Back then, America had much less power, but a lot more pride.

There may still be plenty of power in America today, but the will to use it—as God has prophesied in Leviticus 26:19—has been completely crushed.

Don’t expect American ships to dock in Somalia anytime soon—unless they are brought in under the pirate flag. •

CZAR - CASS SUNSTEIN

Cass Sunstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (July 2009)

Cass Sunstein
Born	September 21, 1954 (1954-09-21) (age 55)
Residence	Cambridge, Massachusetts
Nationality	American
Fields	Constitutional law, Administrative Law
Institutions	Harvard Law School University of Chicago Law School Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Alma mater	Harvard College Harvard Law School
Known for	soft paternalism, choice architecture, cyberbalkanization

Cass R. Sunstein (born September 21, 1954) is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School,^[1] where he continues to teach as the Harry Kalven Visiting Professor. Sunstein is currently Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he is on leave while working in the Obama administration.

Contents 1 Early life and education 2 Career 3 Views 3.1 Legal philosophy 3.2 First Amendment 3.3 Animal rights 3.4 Taxation 3.5 Marriage 4 Personal 5 Publications 5.1 Books 6 See also 7 References 8 External links

Early life and education

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2009)

Sunstein was born on September 21, 1954. He graduated in 1972 from the Middlesex School in Concord, Massachusetts. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1975 from Harvard College, where he was a member of the varsity squash team and the Harvard Lampoon. In 1978, Sunstein received a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was executive editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review and part of a winning team of the Ames Moot Court Competition. He served as a law clerk first for Justice Benjamin Kaplan of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (1978-1979) and later for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court (1979-1980).

Career

Sunstein worked in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department as an attorney-advisor (1980-1981) and then took a job as an assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School (1981-1983), where he also became an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science (1983-1985). In 1985, Sunstein was made a full professor of both political science and law; in 1988, he was named the Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence in the Law School and Department of Political Science. The university honored him in 1993 with its "distinguished service" accolade, permanently changing his title to Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence in the Law School and Department of Political Science.

Sunstein was the Samuel Rubin Visiting Professor of Law at Columbia Law School in the fall of 1986 and a visiting professor at Harvard Law School in the spring 1987, winter 2005, and spring 2007 terms. He teaches courses in constitutional law, administrative law, and environmental law, as well as the required first-year course "Elements of the Law", which is an introduction to legal reasoning, legal theory, and the interdisciplinary study of law, including law and economics. In the fall of 2008 he joined the faculty of Harvard Law School and began serving as the director of its Program on Risk Regulation:^[2]

The Program on Risk Regulation will focus on how law and policy deal with the central hazards of the 21st century. Anticipated areas of study include terrorism, climate change, occupational safety, infectious diseases, natural disasters, and other low-probability, high-consequence events. Sunstein plans to rely on significant student involvement in the work of this new program.^[2]

On January 7, 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that Professor Sunstein will be named to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).^[3] That news generated controversy among progressive legal scholars^[4] and environmentalists.^[5]

In his research on risk regulation, Professor Sunstein is known for developing, together with Timur Kuran, the concept of availability cascades, wherein popular discussion of an idea is self-feeding and causes individuals to overweight its importance. Professor Sunstein's books include After the Rights Revolution (1990), The Partial Constitution (1993), Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech (1995), Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict (1996), Free Markets and Social Justice (1997), One Case at a Time (1999), Risk and Reason (2002), Why Societies Need Dissent (2003), Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (2005), Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America (2005), Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary (2005), Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge (2006), and, co-authored with Richard Thaler, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (2008).

Sunstein's 2006 book, Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge, explores methods for aggregating information; it contains discussions of prediction markets, open-source software, and wikis. Sunstein's 2004 book, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever, advocates the Second Bill of Rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Among these rights are a right to an education, a right to a home, a right to health care, and a right to protection against monopolies; Sunstein argues that the Second Bill of Rights has had a large international impact and should be revived in the United States. His 2001 book, Republic.com, argued that the Internet may weaken democracy because it allows citizens to isolate themselves within groups that share their own views and experiences, and thus cut themselves off from any information that might challenge their beliefs, a phenomenon known as cyber balkanization.

Sunstein co-authored Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Yale University Press, 2008) with economist Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago. Nudge discusses how public and private organizations can help people make better choices in their daily lives. Thaler and Sunstein argue that

People often make poor choices - and look back at them with bafflement! We do this because as human beings, we all are susceptible to a wide array of routine biases that can lead to an equally wide array of embarrassing blunders in education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, happiness, and even the planet itself.^{[citation needed]}

The ideas in the book proved popular with politicians such as Barack Obama, David Cameron, and the British Conservative Party in general (Cameron is party leader).^[6][7][8] The "Nudge" idea has not been without criticism. Dr Tammy Boyce of public health foundation The King's Fund has said:

We need to move away from short-term, politically motivated initiatives such as the 'nudging people' idea, which are not based on any good evidence and don't help people make long-term behaviour changes.^[9]

Sunstein is a contributing editor to The New Republic and The American Prospect and is a frequent witness before congressional committees. He played an active role in opposing the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998.

In recent years, Sunstein has been a guest writer on The Volokh Conspiracy blog as well as the blogs of law professors Lawrence Lessig (Harvard) and Jack Balkin (Yale). He is considered so prolific a writer that in 2007, an article in the legal publication The Green Bag coined the concept of a "Sunstein number" reflecting degrees of separation between various legal authors and Sunstein, paralleling the Erdős numbers sometimes assigned to mathematician authors.

He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (elected 1992) and the American Law Institute (since 1990).

Sunstein's confirmation had been long blocked because of controversy over allegations about his political and academic views. On September 9, 2009, the Senate voted for cloture on Sunstein's nomination. The motion passed in a 63-35 vote. The senate confirmed Sustein on September 10, 2009 in a 57-40 vote.

Views

Legal philosophy

Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism, arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects. Some view him as liberal^{[citation needed]} despite publicly supporting some of George W. Bush's judicial nominees, including Michael W. McConnell and John G. Roberts, as well as supporting rights under the Second Amendment ^[10] and providing strong theoretical support for the death penalty^[11]. Much of his work also brings behavioral economics to bear on law, suggesting that the "rational actor" model will sometimes produce an inadequate understanding of how people will respond to legal intervention.

In recent years Sunstein has collaborated with academics who have training in behavioral economics, most notably Daniel Kahneman, Richard Thaler, and Christine M. Jolls, to show how the theoretical assumptions of law and economics should be modified by new empirical findings about how people actually behave.

Sunstein (along with his coauthor Richard Thaler) has elaborated the theory of libertarian paternalism. In arguing for this theory, he counsels thinkers/academics/politicians to embrace the findings of behavioral economics as applied to law, maintaining freedom of choice while also steering people's decisions in directions that will make their lives go better. With Thaler, he coined the term "choice architect."

First Amendment

In his book Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech Sunstein says there is a need to reformulate First Amendment law. He thinks that the current formulation, based on Justice Holmes' conception of free speech as a marketplace “disserves the aspirations of those who wrote America’s founding document.”^[12] The purpose of this reformulation would be to “reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”^[13] He is concerned by the present “situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another,”^[14] and thinks that in “light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.”^[15] He proposes a “New Deal for speech [that] would draw on Justice Brandeis' insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship.”^[13]

Animal rights

Some of Sunstein's work has addressed the question of animal rights, as he co-authored a book dealing with the subject, has written papers on it, and was an invited speaker at "FACING ANIMALS," an event at Harvard University described as "a groundbreaking panel on animals in ethics and the law."^[16] “Every reasonable person believes in animal rights,” he says, continuing that "we might conclude that certain practices cannot be defended and should not be allowed to continue, if, in practice, mere regulation will inevitably be insufficient—and if, in practice, mere regulation will ensure that the level of animal suffering will remain very high." ^[17]

Sunstein's views on animal rights generated controversy when Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) blocked his appointment to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs by Obama. Chambliss objected to the introduction of Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, a volume edited by Sunstein and his then-partner Martha Nussbaum. On page 11 of the introduction, during a philosophical discussion about whether animals should be thought of as owned by humans, Sunstein notes that personhood need not be conferred upon an animal in order to grant it various legal protections against abuse or cruelty, even including legal standing for suit. For example, under current law, if someone saw their neighbor beating a dog, they currently cannot sue for animal cruelty because they do not have legal standing to do so. Sunstein suggests that granting standing to animals, actionable by other parties, could decrease animal cruelty by increasing the likelihood that animal abuse will be punished.

Taxation

Sunstein has argued, “We should celebrate tax day.”^[18] Sunstein argues that since government (in the form of police, fire departments, insured banks, and courts) protects and preserves property and liberty, individuals should happily finance it with their tax dollars:

In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live? Without taxes, there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public… There is no liberty without dependency.^[18]

Sunstein goes on to say:

If government could not intervene effectively, none of the individual rights to which Americans have become accustomed could be reliably protected. [...] This is why the overused distinction between "negative" and "positive" rights makes little sense. Rights to private property, freedom of speech, immunity from police abuse, contractual liberty and free exercise of religion--just as much as rights to Social Security, Medicare and food stamps--are taxpayer-funded and government-managed social services designed to improve collective and individual well-being.

Marriage

In a recent book, Sunstein proposes that government recognition of marriage be discontinued. "Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government," argues Sunstein. He continues, "the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people." He goes on further, "Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage," and refers to state-recognized marriage as an "official license scheme."^[19]

Personal

In the 1980s and early 1990s, Sunstein was married to Lisa Ruddick, whom he met as an undergraduate at Harvard.^[20] She is now a professor of English at the University of Chicago.^[21] Their marriage ended not long after the birth of their daughter, Ellyn. He then began seeing Martha Nussbaum, philosopher, classicist, and professor of law at the University of Chicago.^[22]

On July 4, 2008, Sunstein married Samantha Power, professor of public policy at Harvard, whom he met when they worked as advisors to Sunstein's friend, and former colleague at the U. of C. Law School,^[23] President Barack Obama on his presidential campaign. The wedding took place in County Kerry in Power’s native Ireland.^[24]

Sunstein had a pet Rhodesian ridgeback, Perry. During the Clinton impeachment hearings, Sunstein grew tired of appearing on news programs, and agreed to appear on Greta Van Susteren's CNN program only if he could bring Perry on the show with him; she agreed.^[25] Perry died in the fall of 2008. The University Of Chicago Law School has created the Perry/Sunstein fund in Perry's memory, a scholarship fund for a student with an interest in animal welfare.

Sunstein is named after the 19th century American politician Lewis Cass.