Mitt Romney Has Got It All Wrong

The one thing that Mitt Romney does not seem to understand is that he cannot scare people by barking at them and yet, barking is what his Jewish advisers are telling him to do. If he has any wisdom at all, he would know that the worst thing a superpower (or a has-been superpower) can do is get into a fight it cannot win because this would be the best way to lose what little respect it may still have in the world.

The truth is that since WWII – aside from the incursions into the Dominican Republic and in Panama – America has been defeated on the battlefield everywhere it ventured without being asked to participate by the Europeans or by the Arabs. It was defeated in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq 2 and Afghanistan where it went on its own. It was victorious in Iraq 1, the Balkans and Libya where it was invited to participate.

Romney may think that barking is an electoral ploy he will not have to honor after the election. Fair enough or maybe not so fair, after all. But if the people to whom he panders by the fact that he barks at the Arabs and the Muslims – will not be bothered by a broken promise, the Arabs and the Muslims will not forget what he tried to do. And they will react in their own funny way. That is, they will send him a big dose of contempt; a message that will dare him to show off his big manhood rather than his big mouth.

Don't forget, dear reader, that since Vietnam, the image that the world has had of the American soldier is that of a proud man when he is bombing you from the air, but that of a child crying for his mommy when he is captured. No, nobody is going to tremble in their boots or their sandals or their bare feet because Romney is barking at them. But if he starts a fight, they will give him one that is so asymmetric, he will never forget it, especially that every soldier they capture will risk having his manhood chopped off and sent to his commanding officer. This will be done in retaliation for Abu Ghraib and for the pissing on the bodies of dead Afghan soldiers. You see, these people too believe in an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a dick for a dick.

If you want to see how dumb Romney's Jewish advisers are, read the article that came under his name in the October 1, 2012 edition of the Wall Street Journal. It has the title: “A New Course for the Middle East” and the subtitle: “Restore the three sinews of American influence: our economic strength, our military strength and the strength of our values.” Of course, you meet the sentence making up that subtitle later in the article, upon which you immediately understand that the article was written by advisers who first consider themselves Jews working for the benefit of Israel, and then consider themselves Americans who are given the opportunity to exploit America for the benefit of Israel.

This reality becomes apparent because the article is not about America or about America in the world; rather it is about America in the Middle East. As the title suggests, what you see everywhere from the first paragraph to the last is a discussion that concerns the diminishing influence of America in the Middle East, and the effect this has on the security of Israel. Thus, when the Jewish speechwriters say that America must restore the sinews of its influence, which they identify as being the economy, the military and the values, they indicate that they want the restoration to work for Israel first and foremost. Only if there is a leftover, will that go to the American people.

You may think they would want to make a big effort to hide the truth about their allegiance but they don't. They only make a small effort that leaves them as transparent as an open book. They do so by first stating the following: “Disturbing developments are sweeping across the greater Middle East.” They enumerate those developments then say this about them: “They are major issues that put our security at risk.” Here, the speechwriters count on you to think that when they say “our security” you will take it to mean America's security when, in fact, their only concern is the welfare and the security of Israel.

And you notice this fact right away because you see them lament that: “In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has come to power, and the country's peace treaty with Israel hangs in the balance,” when in the subtitle they talked about strengthening American values. Well, my friends, it was the Muslim Brotherhood that strengthened American values in the Middle East by getting elected through legitimate means. But now you see the Jewish writers lament that the old regime in Egypt – which they seem to have cherished without ever admitting it – is no more. So you scream: How in Jewish hell do they propose to strengthen America's democratic values in the Middle East? Bring back the old regime in Egypt? Resuscitate Gaddafi and restore him to power? What in Yiddish hell are these people moaning about?

But if they do not see a free election in Egypt as being a step in the direction of American values, what do they see as being a step in the direction of American values? What a question! What a question this is, my friend! You really want to know what the answer is? Okay, I'll tell you what it is but brace yourself because these people took a convoluted route before putting the answer down. Look at this passage: “by stepping away from our allies, President Obama has heightened the prospect of conflict and instability.” You know what this is about?

I'll tell you what it's about. It's an endorsement of the threat that Netanyahu has been making for a time, a threat to the effect that he will launch an attack on Iran knowing full well that Iran has the wherewithal to retaliate and cream him in the process. When the creaming will start happening, America will be forced to do what it has done before which is to come to the rescue of Israel.

Thus, to attempt suicide so as to pull America into a war it cannot afford is what the Romney speechwriters call a step in the direction of American values. Get it now? These characters are saying you must forget about free elections in Egypt because this is too girlish to be considered American values. Look instead at the attempt to commit suicide which is so manly, it is American values through and through.

And this is why Mitt Romney wants to be President of the United States of America, and this is why he wants the American people to vote for him.

Can you believe this?

Big Project Up For Adoption

The time has come for the election campaigns which are out in force, each trying to get its candidate elected, to talk to the people as honestly as can be done. That is, the people must be told that America will not solve its most pressing problems such as the economy, for example – or any of the other well entrenched problems – by continuing to play politics the way that the game has been played up to now. Something needs to change, something that would be as fundamental as the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, the Constitution is considered to be a hallowed document but it also sets the rules for how the political game is played. And yes, the Constitution is held in high esteem by the American people, which is perfectly understandable, but someone must now promise that if elected President or reelected to the post, he will start a big project to save the nation. This will be the start of an effort to have the Constitution modernized because to preserve a nation that has become sclerotic is more important than to preserve the aura of a Constitution which no longer serves the purpose it was framed to serve.

There is no denying that the American Constitution has served the country well for two centuries, and no denying that the politics which resulted from that document will for ever represent the best in political governance – as it has endlessly been debated and aptly demonstrated by the ideologues of the time, people who unfortunately now stand as advocates of a bygone era. Times have changed, and a new philosophy of governance must replace the old to allow the country to keep up with the times, and allow it to deal with new challenges that the original framers of the Constitution could not have foreseen at the time that they lived and the circumstances in which they found themselves long ago.

In brief, the time has come for America to say goodbye to the ideas of the individuals in its midst who refuse to let go of that which is broken, that which proves to be unworkable every day of the week that the government is supposed to be working and producing efficiently but remains gridlocked as if it were frozen in time. It is now imperative for America to walk through the gates of modernity, and prove that the exceptionalism it attributes to itself does not consist solely of attracting people from abroad who may come with new ideas, but that the American system of government is open to ideas which are generated locally in response to needs that are produced by local conditions.

What makes the American Constitution obsolete, and what renders it even more so as time passes is that it was formulated to serve a newly liberated republic whose people still dreaded the kind of rule they endured under the old colonial masters. Suffering from a bunker mentality and fearing the return of tyranny, the framers of the Constitution cobbled together a set of ideas that balanced the powers of the various branches of government so well; they weakened those branches enough to forbid the rise of a tyrant at the helm of the ship of state.

The result was that the approach did solve the problem it was meant to solve, and no tyrant rose to govern America. But unfortunately for future generations, the approach also paralyzed the government, a development that was not considered a threat to the nation at the time that the framers were alive because the world was then a different place from what it is today.

In fact, from the agrarian society it was then, America has evolved to become an industrial state, getting there in the same way that things have evolved in many other parts of the world. From being sparsely populated, America has become a much denser society with most of the population now living in big cities. Flanked by two oceans, the nation that lived at a safe distance from the rest world, is safe no more from the threats that may come from abroad in an age of supersonic travel, of instant communication and of means to access large gatherings of people.

This is a threat that would not have fazed a sleeping giant in the past but could now hurt a giant that may be wide awake but is not attentive enough to protect itself. Indeed, this is what happened on 9/11 in the year 2001, which is the reason why similar threats are now being dealt with diligently, and why they are guarded against with utmost attentiveness. But a giant can still be foolish enough to have its hands tied behind its back with a constitution that is obsolete and getting more so with each passing day. Sadly, this is where America stands at this juncture, where the ideologues of an earlier era wish to keep it.

In fact, the challenges which are facing America today, and will continue to face it in the future will not be of the sort that manifest themselves in the form of invading armies streaming from abroad to land on the beaches of the nation. And they will not be challenges that manifest themselves in the form of elected leaders harboring the secret ambition of someday setting up a dictatorial administration through which they plan to rule with the iron fist of a tyrant. No, these days are gone forever never to return, thus the Constitution that was meant to guard against them is obsolete and needs to be updated to be relevant in the face of the new challenges which are cropping up all over the places.

Let it be understood that the challenges will now come in the form of a foreign competition that is economic in nature more than anything else. To deal with them effectively will require a federal government that is not paralyzed but one that is able to formulate a quick response and keep up with the immediate demands of every fast moving challenge. More than that, the government that America needs at this time is one that is flexible and can modulate its responses nimbly. It will have the ability to shift its responses at a moment's notice to stay abreast of the changing circumstances if not be ahead of them.

To that end, the courageous candidate in the current presidential campaign should promise the electorate that if elected or reelected, he will propose and fight for a set of amendments to the Constitution that will maintain the system of checks and balances now in existence. But the amendments will also allow for the timely execution of the nation's affairs if and when the political process becomes so paralyzed as to bring the business of the nation to a standstill and keep it there, which – sad to say – is what takes place too often these days.

For example, if it happens that the Congress cannot pass an important piece of legislation for say, six months, the idea is to have an amendment in the Constitution that will give the power to act on this one matter to a troika made of the President and the leaders of the two Houses of Congress. Where two members of the troika agree on a course of action, it shall be so ordained, and will be executed as if Congress had made the decision.

However, to preserve and safeguard the principles of checks and balances, such decision will only unfreeze the current situation and help it move forward but will not become a law onto itself. It will not be allowed to apply somewhere else or serve as precedent to guide future actions or precipitate the enactment of new laws or cause the adoption of new regulations that can become permanent.

Of course, an amendment such as this will need to be debated in public where other ideas will most certainly be introduced. For example, there may be a call to give a role to the Chief Justice who would intervene or refuse to do so when the three members of the troika are of the same political Party, and there is widespread misgiving in the Congress or among the public that the decision of the troika could damage the nation. As to what role the Chief Justice will play is a matter that is open for debate.

Now that the threat posed by the near meltdown of the financial system of 2008-2009 seems to have passed with no more dangerous side effects looming on the horizon, the dysfunction of the system of governance stands as the next major trouble to threaten America and a number of other nations.

Given that this is a subject that will have to be dealt with sooner or later, it will be a good idea for the candidates to the American presidency to tackle it now and thus launch the public debate about it.

The Refined Gentleman And The Cruel Beast

If members of a civilization in a far away solar system out there in a distant corner of the Milky Way have been capturing our communication signals for a time, and have been wondering what we make of the concept of good and evil, they will cease to wonder because the General Assembly of our United Nation would have given them an example of the way that we understand that concept, and how we live it on planet Earth. They may have captured two of the speeches that were given at the world forum; one presented by the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and one presented by the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu.

They will see that Ahmadinejad began the speech by describing his country of Iran as being a founder of human civilization in that it contributed to “knowledge, culture, wisdom, morality, philosophy and mysticism.” He called his country “the land of compassion, enlightenment, scientists, scholars, masters of literature and writers.” And he mentioned some of its great contributors such as “Avicenna, Ferdowsi, Hafiz, Maulana, Attar, Khayyam and Shariar.” He went on to call Iran “a great, proud and conscious nation dedicated to the cause of freedom and compassion … one that values the blessings of peace and stability.”

He called his people “noble,” called the General Assembly of the United Nation “august” and referred to the “sisters and brothers” who came from around the world to assemble here in this week. He said he wanted to show them that his nation – as brilliant as it was in the past and as noble as it is today – has a “global vision and that it welcomes every effort intended to provide and promote peace, stability and tranquility.” And he made it clear that these goals can only be achieved “through harmony, cooperation and joint management of the world.”

This being his eighth annual appearance at that podium, he tackled the same issues he did before but tackled them from a different perspective this time. He began by saying that regardless of their differences, people of all colors, languages and traditions have wanted “a more beautiful life blessed with lasting peace, security and happiness.” Despite the effort of many to achieve these goals, the history of mankind has been “marked with unfulfilled dreams and failures.”

Then, instead of listing the reasons that led to human misery rather than the fulfillment of those aspirations – which would have been a depressing thing for the readers to go through – Ahmadinejad did something so creative, you can say he pulled a vision of hope from the jaws of despair. What he did is begin by saying: “Imagine for a moment,” and then listed the darkest moments in history by inviting the readers to imagine how history might have unfolded had it not been for those dark moments.

In this regard, he mentioned big moments such as the Dark Ages of the medieval period, the wars of the Crusaders, the periods of slavery and colonialism, the two great wars ... those in Korea, Vietnam, Africa, Latin America and the Balkans, as well as the occupation of Palestine. All of which, he went on to say, contributed to the displacement of millions of people and to genocide around the globe. There was also the invasion of Iran by Saddam, the events of September 11, and the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And he invited the listeners of his speech to imagine a world without “selfishness, distrust, malice or dictators violating the rights of others.” A world that was free of terrorism where the pen was used to promote the well-being and amity among nations. It would be a world in which the sectarian and racial conflicts of one were not used to advance the political agendas of another. A world in which the right to free speech allowed the honest criticism of Zionism to shed light on the reality of that regime, instead of the current deceitful gestures that allow offending the beliefs of some by pretending to back the free expression of others.

From there, he went on to discuss the unfair distribution of power on the global stage such as the Security Council that is dominated by a small number of governments. As well, there are the international economic institutions which are not allowed to perform fairly or justly. And he ended this part of the presentation by offering the following thought: “Imagine how beautiful and pleasant our lives would have been [without those irritants] and what a lovely way the history of mankind would have unfolded.”

Well, this was the imagination but there is a reality that is different from it. To discuss that reality, he divided it into four situations: Economic, Cultural, Political and Security, and then there is the Environmental. However, his discussion in these areas being no different from what passes for middle of the spectrum assessment of the world order, I shall not take it up here.

Having drawn up that list, Ahmadinejad now asks the question: “Who is responsible for all that suffering and for these failures?” He answers the question by saying there are people who blame the victims then justify the situation by describing it as being based on the theory of “Survival of the fittest” which they continue to propagate. But he goes on to say that this is not what the majority of the people want, be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist. Instead “the current abysmal situation … is due to the bad management of the world by the centers of power that sold themselves to the devil.”

He then describes these centers of power in a way which conveys the notion that the people who donate millions of dollars to election campaigns do so not because they have the interest of the people in their hearts but because they invest in the quest to monopolize power, thus expand their domination of the world. He asks what would be the way to rectify the current situation; and he answers that the world needs a new order as well as a fresh way of thinking.

What he offers in this regard are platitudes that speak of the belief in God, the adherence to truth and justice, the quest for human dignity, happiness, perfection, peace, security and the welfare of all. Not to forget kindness, justice and equality before the law ... You name it; it's all there. But then he asks if this can be achieved. And he answers, yes it can be achieved by acquiescing to the joint management of the planet, and the creation of global structures that will make possible the implementation of the right sort of policies.

If by now, the beings out there in the Milky Way would have asked themselves who would be in charge of overseeing these changes, Ahmadinejad had an answer for them. He said in his speech that Marxism being no longer around, that Capitalism being in a self-made quagmire, and the United Nation lacking the efficiency to bring about the sought after changes, the responsibility for doing the heavy lifting should fall on the shoulders of the Non Aligned Movement (known by the acronym NAM) and whose 120 member nations congregated in Teheran not long ago.

To end his presentation, Ahmadinejad played on the vision of the three divine religions where the Jews still await the coming of the Messiah, where the Christians await the second coming of Jesus, and where the Muslims await the coming of the Mahdi – an event that will take place in the company of Jesus. When this happens, said Ahmadinejad, humanity will have been reborn and will, from then on, enjoy the good life as life was meant to be.

Now the beings who are out there in the Milky Way turn their attention to the Netanyahu speech where they encounter this passage: “And of course, Iran's rulers repeatedly deny the Holocaust and call for Israel's destruction almost on a daily basis, as they did again this week from the United Nations.”

And the beings look at each other and yell: WHAT? Where in earthly hell did the Iranians mention the Holocaust or Israel? Is this thing they call Netanyahu a human being or is it the rug pissing dog it is reputed to be?

They label Ahmadinejad the refined gentleman who represents the good on Earth, and they label Netanyahu the cruel beast that represents evil on Earth and possibly the whole Universe.

And they turn off their equipment to go to bed.

Lies, Spins And The Lack Of Forgiveness

To seek the truth and to forgive are powerful tenets of Christianity and of Islam, not of Judaism. I learned of this truth not because someone taught me a lesson on the subject but because I discovered it myself. I learned of that truth ever so slowly as it dawned on me over a period of many years that horrible things were happening all over the places, and I struggled trying to understand why the things were the way they were. More precisely, I struggled with the question: Why human beings are made to suffer needlessly even in the places where suffering must never be allowed to happen?

I alluded to such notions in my previous writings but had no example till now that would illustrate what I had in mind. What changed are three passages in the speech delivered to the UN General Assembly on September 25, 2012 by the American President, Barack Obama. The first passage is this: “It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds ... without fear.” The second passage is this: “...when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views … the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond.” And the third passage is this: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when ... the Holocaust is denied.”

There is in those passages a contradiction so massive; I could write a book about it. But this is not what I plan to do because that contradiction pales when compared to what else is revealed by those passages. What there is, my friend, is an example of how the self-appointed leaders of the religion they call Rabbinical Judaism, have managed to institutionalize the lies they manufacture, and to inflict capital punishment on the people who refuse to consider those lies the new gospel truth.

What follows is a brief history of what happened over the past few decades. As it stands, it happens to be an eloquent account addressing the three passages in the President's UN speech. It responds specifically to his query: “The question, then, is how to respond.” It also tells why the President's presentation may prove to be inadequate, and why a followup is necessary if the intent is to make the world a better place for mankind.

How did the Jewish leaders do it? First, they used the media to pound into the heads of the populations that hosted them – mostly in Europe and North America – that they are Semites and that to deny the Holocaust, is to exhibit an antisemitism whose goal is to annihilate all Jews. They spun every item that crossed their desk in such a way as to argue that harboring a sentiment that tends to deny the Holocaust was to have a criminal intent whether or not you have the wherewithal to annihilate any Jew.

This done, they worked to pass a law forbidding the denial of the Holocaust, a move that had the effect of intimidating the whole of society. And this intimidation is what acted as a deterrent whether or not a law was eventually passed to criminalize the denial of the Holocaust. The main point to retain from this, is that the relentless effort conducted by the Jewish leaders, and the publicity that resulted have acted as a deterrent for the rest of society not to venture into certain territories. And this should answer the President who asked: “The question, then, is how we respond.” Well, the Jewish leaders knew how to respond.

Now outlawed by the enactment of an actual law or by the social pressures that were generated by the process, the mention of the Holocaust – let alone its questioning or its outright denial – became a crime that most people were afraid to commit intentionally or inadvertently. An internal system of self-censorship was instilled in people, a setup that remains in effect to this day because it keeps reinforcing itself with the passage of time.

But matters did not stop here because, in fact, the setup became a powerful weapon in the hands of those who used it, who abused it and still do to achieve many of the other purposes they have in mind. It is that they call deniers of the Holocaust the people they dislike for any reason at all. This gives them a license to inflict maximum punishment on them – such as a lifetime sojourn on the blacklist, for example.

Watching these people go through those steps over the decades, you come to realize that the Rabbinical Judaism which powers them is a religion so different from Christianity, the two can only be at war with each other. And this, my friend, is what explains why the Jews have been rejected in Christendom over the centuries, and why they are shunned all over Europe even today by the local populations there. But this is not all that you learn about them because when you study them closely, something else hits you in the face.

What you learn is that these people only know how to start something, and they never think of an exit strategy or a plan B that would tell them where to stop or when to go in reverse if something goes wrong. Instead, they launch every project that turns them on, and they keep going unguided like a ballistic missile because they believe that no matter what they do, and no matter what happens in the end, God will always come to their rescue.

However, because experience has taught them that God can be a very patient Being with a horizon that extends to eternity, they decided it is always better to get someone else to do the dirty work for them. If things go well, they collect; if things go bad, they trash the sucker that helped them and go look for another sucker. Over time, they discovered that in a democracy which is beginning to rot, the quintessential pushover they can use, abuse and take for sucker is the politician who gets to be elected and the bureaucrat who gets to be appointed. And so they started to work on the people that run the various branches of government as well as their agencies.

Having also discovered that this was a slippery slope they can use to their advantage, they worked to codify the lies that they manufactured, thus institutionalized them and made them irreversible. For example, without explaining why it was necessary to pass a law that makes it a criminal offense to communicate with a terrorist organization, they generated no opposition when they pushed such a law through the legislature. Come to think of it, who would have objected to that? But once they had the law in their pocket, they started picking on the people and organizations they disliked; had them designated as terrorist, thus criminalized talking to them or dealing with them – even if your purpose is to find out who they are or what they want.

When it came to this project, the Jewish leaders had more luck with the Americans than the Europeans. Bit by bit, they succeeded in isolating America from the rest of the world as would a sex master who gets jealous when his male bimbo tries to hang around with other men. Being in complete control of America by now, they used the media, the so-called think tanks, the various branches of government and every institution they could lay their hands on to extend their influence to the rest of the world. They had a few successes executing this plan in the places where they wanted to demonstrate how tightly they controlled superpower America.

As to the places where they had a difficult time intimidating the people or getting them under their control, the Jewish leaders got the Americans to insult these people for no reason that looked like a rational thing to do. For example, the Jews instilled in the American officials the habit of disparaging the Arabs each time that they mentioned buying oil from them. The hell with this, said the Arabs, if you don't like our oil, don't buy it. But don't come here looking for a bargain buying from us then go home and insult us every time that a Jewish speechwriter stuffs your mouth with foul words. We had it up to here with this childish behavior.

Related to that notion was the wondering expressed by President Obama during his speech to the UN General Assembly: “The question, then, is how we respond.” The answer is that you consider Rabbinical Judaism to be not a religion but a group of evil people implementing an evil agenda whose purpose is to plunge the world into chaos. You do not hire these people for sensitive positions, and you do not let them write speeches for you. This done, you make a herculean effort to rescind all the laws and resolutions (binding and non-binding) which are Jewish-specific or Israel-specific that were passed by either House of the Congress.

And you never forget this fact: a dogma is a creed to which people adhere if they want to be a part of the religion that propounds that creed. Thus, a dogma is not open to query or discussion in whole or in part. It is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition which means you either stay in the religion or you be excommunicated from it. Thus, to turn the Holocaust into a dogma that people must believe in, or see themselves be excommunicated from society by law or by social pressure, is to turn Rabbinical Judaism into a super religion to which all other religions must be subjugated.

This puts the Jewish leaders into the position of being God-like creatures. And there is no doubt in my mind that this is how and why America's Christian pastors of the boob tube got on their dumbbell podiums and told their flocks of sheep to worship the Jew like a God. But this is the kind of pornography to which no child should ever be exposed as you can already see the effect of it on the children who grew up believing you do not achieve success in life by working or praying; you achieve it by kissing up to a Jew, if not do worse than that.

Thus, for the President of the United States to say that we must: “condemn the hate we see when ... the Holocaust is denied” is to suggest that a query into that historical event is akin to violating the dogma of the super religion they call Rabbinical Judaism, perhaps a sacrilegious act that is so sinful, one would go to hell for it. Not only that but the American President seems to suggest that the mere fact of making a query about the Holocaust is to commit an act of hate.

No, Mr. President, the Holocaust is not a dogma; it is a historical event that is open to query like any other historical event. And the President of Iran has every goddamn right to ask questions about it, and you have no right to bomb his country because he committed that heresy – if this is what questioning the Holocaust has become in America.

In fact, Sir, if you bomb Iran, you will have committed the ultimate act of hate that will kill Iranians and Americans alike. Furthermore, to redeem itself, such act of madness will transform the denial of the Holocaust into a dogma to which every human being will aspire to adhere for the next thousand years and beyond. That line of thinking, Mr. President, is a self-defeating proposition no matter what excuse you find for it.

So then, what was the big lesson that I learned over the years studying such events? I learned that Christianity and Islam have one common bond you do not find in Judaism. It is the power to forgive. When you forgive, you start anew. When you don't, you keep going till a catastrophic event stops you.

This is why Christianity and Islam always had a new beginning despite their shortcomings. Such was never the case with the Jews whose religion absolutely forbids them from forgiving anything at all. And this is why these people never stop repeating the provocations that send them to their calamitous end each and every time.

Our duty now is to save them from themselves. And we do so not by pandering to them but with tough love.

Romney And The Mideast Cultural Revolution

The Chinese had their cultural revolution a while ago, and look what came of it. The Arabs and the Muslims are having their twin cultural and political revolutions at this time; imagine what will come of them. While you do this, think of the place that America used to occupy at the time of the Chinese revolution, producing as it did 80% of the world's industrial output. And compare this with the place that America occupies today, producing as it does 10% of the world's industrial output – one eighth what it used to be when you measure things in relative terms.

Now, go back to the literature and the audio-visuals of that time, and you will see for yourself that no one in America was as delusional as some people are today. In fact, none of the political or intellectual giants in the Eisenhower-Kennedy epoch thought that America could shape the events in China by the sheer power of the will or by the words that its leaders might utter or by the gunboats of diplomacy they might deploy near the shores of China. Instead, everyone in America was wise enough to stand back as did most other people in Japan, in Europe and everywhere else in the world to look at China's history take its course as the events over there were unfolding in accordance with their natural rhythm.

Contrast this with what you read today on the pages of many publications, and what you hear and see in the audio-visuals of networks affiliated with the Neocon movement in America where the political and intellectual midgets live and feed on each other like a swarm of cannibalistic bugs. These characters never stop expressing an opinion that suits every half-cycle of the news, telling each other and the public how certain they are that America's leaders would do well to bark their frustration at the Arabs and the Muslims so as to frighten them and put them in the places they picked for them.

These Neocon characters get a kick fantasizing about and psyching themselves into visualizing the peoples of the Arab and the Muslim worlds as being frail little things trembling with fear as they hear the warnings and they listen to the lectures and the dictates that come to their ears from the Neocon high command. Such orders would be delivered to them by one American official or another, even the President of the United States of America, something he would do whether he believes in the Neocon philosophy or he wishes to see their political power base obliterated.

Mind boggling, you think to yourself, but how did all this happen? How could a handful of nobodies with the collective IQ of a bug infiltrate a superpower and take it over from the inside with such ease? The answer is that you can do it by igniting a slow burning cultural revolution in the society you aim to transform and turn it to your liking. While doing this, you bring the society under your control one small step at a time by deceiving its people every step of the way as would a magician that makes the audience believe it is seeing one thing when in fact it is seeing something else.

The Neocons are the magicians who should, in all fairness, be called cultural engineers of the turncoat variety because they have the ability to change their color spontaneously so as to instantly satisfy the demands of a changing situation. The trick they employ most often is to take advantage of the deficiencies they uncover in the society they aim to transform and bring under their control. When these people first came to America as refugees, fleeing as they did the pogroms and holocausts inflicted on them in Europe for being Jews, they discovered that America had a deficiency which is common to all human beings, and they exploited it.

To understand how they did this, we need to know that there is a time to get close to the trees and look at their minutia; and there is a time to step back and look at the entire forest. It happens, however, that the human brain suffers from a kind of inertia which tends to keep it in its current mode. That is, if we are in the habit of looking at the minutia of the things we observe, we tend to stay in this mode thus have trouble stepping back to look at the things from a distance. But if we are in the habit of looking at things from a wide perspective, we tend to stay in this mode and resist looking at the minutia of the things.

This is one deficiency in the character of human beings but not the only one to hinder our quest to create a world more perfect than what we have now. Another deficiency that is plaguing our species is the fact that many of our bad habits are contagious and liable to spread like wildfire. This makes it so that all human cultures tend to rise as much on the bad habits that we transmit to each other as they do on the great accomplishments we consider to be exemplary.

Given that the most productive way to look at something is to see both the forest and the trees at the same time, our inability to do so with ease has resulted in that we constructed a world that can easily be polarized by a flimsy reason. And no one is more apt to suffer from this inability than do the politicians of America who are trained by their handlers to be one dimensional in their views, one-liners in their speeches and one-of-a-kind idiots in their pronouncements. This is the reality that the Jewish leaders have taken advantage of to slowly bring the American society under their control.

To get there, the Neocons have operated not under their own banner but under the liberal, the conservative and the independent banners, accusing a handful of Arab and Muslim kids, they call Islamists, of working to control the Arab and Muslim societies, having the ultimate aim to control America and the World. Thus, the Neocons have managed to pit the American military against those kids, a trick that made it easy for them to gain control of America and slowly transform it into the irrelevant thing it has become. If you want to witness a spectacle of this nature, look at the Congress of the United States when it goes into action. You will see not political sausage in the making – which is what they pretend they are showing you -- but see a cesspool of dying notions and habits begging to be put out of their misery.

And while all this is happening in America, the societies in the Arab and the Muslim worlds move on with their cultural and political revolutions. They do it quietly most of the time, do it rowdily some of the time, and they erupt in the spasms we see in the news on some occasions. But having participated in the provocation of the latter situation, the Jews tell the Americans that the cure to their irrelevance is to do more of the things that made them irrelevant in the first place. Bark at the Arabs and the Muslims, they say, and the world will admire you as it did Eisenhower and Kennedy. Bark ... bark again ... and bark some more, they advise, and the old glory will return to America, they promise again and again.

You can see the effect of this work in the way that the Neocons have groomed a candidate to run for President of the United States and be their poodle in the White House. He is Mitt Romney who has no compunction throwing 47% of the American population under the bus, accusing these people of choosing to live like victims. And while treating 150 million Americans in this way, he never ceases to lament what he falsely accuses President Obama of doing which is to throw 5 million Jews living in Israel under the bus. This act victimizes the culturally superior people out there, says he, an intolerable situation in his view.

Thus, it can be seen that for every Israeli Jew that Romney holds in high esteem and wishes to serve and protect, he despises 30 red-blooded Americans of any faith or skin color because in his eyes, the Americans are victims by their own choosing while the Jews are victims by the failure of the American President to protect them, a deficiency he intends to correct. Well then, cry if you feel like it, my friend or laugh if you feel like it or do both if you feel like it. You have the right as well as the compelling reason to do any or both of these.

Thus, the Romney position has been that he wants the people of America to elect him so that he may throw under the bus the American victims who would not fight and die for Israel trying to protect it from Iran or anyone else. He will put the Jews of Israel inside the bus to sit comfortably in the passenger seats; even let them occupy the driver seat and take control of the superpower. And he will do so despite the fact that the Neocons have admitted that their ultimate aim is to take control of the American military so as to conquer the world and turn it into a Pax Americana that will be safe for the Jews to live in, and live like the gods described by the league of American television pastors.

Moreover, having gone to Israel as candidate to be bribed over there with American taxpayer money, he now promises to make Israel his first destination abroad if and when elected President. In fact, there is nothing that Romney will do for America that is not beneficial to Israel. He will send money and weapons to the Israelis. He will take advice and commands from their leaders. And he will launch a war against anyone they say they do not like – which is just about every living human being on this planet.

As to the Arab and Muslim cultural and political revolutions, they must be stopped here and now because these people are on their way to become like China. This gives the Jews of Israel and the self appointed Jewish leaders in America the sense that destiny is once again victimizing them, thus the need for the newest project they came up with. It is to pit the strength of superpower America against the power of destiny, and force history to change its course. Imagine that if you can.

It takes a lunatic to go along with a scheme like this, and they found the right one in the person of Mitt Romney.

The Romney Tax Summary Still Obscure

Mitt Romney has asked his tax preparers to divulge what percentage of his income was paid in taxes and in charitable donations for a number of years. They did so for a period of 20 years but the wording of their testimony keeps the sought-after facts as obscure as ever. Here is how that wording was formulated: The average of the annual tax rates as computed based on the returns as prepared during the period was 20.20%.

It must be understood that there can be a huge difference between the straight average of a set of numbers, and the weighted average of a set of paired numbers. To make things simple, we take an example representing only 2 years instead of the 20 years mentioned above. As far as the math is concerned, what is true for 2 years will apply just as well for the 20 year period.

If Romney paid taxes at the rate of 26.74% in one year and the rate of 13.66% the next year – which is the minimum he says he paid – the straight average method would yield 20.20% as reported. The way you arrive at this value is by adding 26.74 to 13.66 which comes to 40.40. You then divide that result by 2 (because there are 2 years), and this will yield the average value of 20.20%, what the tax preparers and the Notary Public say Romney paid.

In fact, working with the percentages alone, you do not need to know how much money Romney made in either year to arrive at that result. But if you need to compute the weighted average of the taxes he paid, you need to know how much money he made in each of those years. So then, let us assign a fictitious number to each year. As far as the math is concerned, what would be true for these fictitious numbers would be true for the actual numbers should they be divulged someday.

Let us say Romney made 1,000,000 dollars the first year and 5,000,000 dollars the second year for a total of 6,000,000 dollars. If we go by what the tax preparers and Notary Public say – which is that Romney paid an average of 20.20% – without asking further questions, we come to the total value of 1,212,000 dollars paid in taxes. But did he pay this amount? Probably not.

And here is why. It is that there is another way to calculate things. Instead of a set of simple numbers, we work with the weighted average of the paired numbers. They are the 1,000,000 dollars at 26.74%, and the 5,000,000 at 13.66%. Computing the yield of the first pair, we obtain 267,400 dollars paid in taxes that year. Computing the yield of the second pair, we obtain 683,000 dollars that year. The total taxes paid for the two years would be the sum of the two numbers. That total comes to 950,400 dollars. And this is below the 1,212,000 dollars computed by the straight average method.

Now, to compute the average rate in percentage terms using this method, we divide 950,400 by 6,000,000 and multiply by 100 (to put it in percentage form) and obtain 15.84% which is the weighted average of the pairs of numbers. And this is below the 20.20% obtained by the straight average method. If this is what Romney did, it would indicate that the more money he made, the more deductions he took in order to lower his taxes. And this poses the question: What kind of deductions were they?

All in all, what this says in the end is that a true picture of Romney's tax situation cannot be accurately assessed from the summary that his tax prepares have produced. When you add to this the fact that he delayed submitting the tax returns for 2011 to do them over, claim less in charitable donations and thus remain within the 13.66% minimum he promised he would not breach, you wonder what else this man would not do to get elected.

Nothing will save his credibility now but the full disclosure of those 20 years of tax returns. He would be wise to release everything come what may because the speculation will otherwise never end.

Censored Freedom Of Speech Jewish Style

At the same time that a dozen or so Jewish writers and their intellectual running dogs have been huffing and puffing their peculiar style of dismay at the fact that freedom of speech is once again being debated, they have been doing something else. To begin with, these people would be the fake Semites who did as much as tear the hair out of their skulls, tear the entrails out of their bellies, moan their pain at the chest, bang their heads against the wall and cry out the aching in their bellies each time that someone said something that made them feel “uncomfortable” because it may or may not have carried an “anti-Semitic” connotation.

And what are these people doing now? They are tearing the hair out of their skulls, tearing the entrails out of their bellies, moaning the pain at the chest, banging the head against the wall and crying out the aching in their bellies because they fear they may no longer be able to insult the authentic Semitic religion of the Muslims – without someone asking them to explain what the hell they think they are doing.

Is that all they are doing? Oh no. No. These people never stop when it is necessary for them to take a breather. They keep going till they get hurt and get someone else hurt along with them.

What they did this time is force the CNN Business website to yank a nice little article that was there for a few minutes about the Egyptian economy. It is that the hate in the heart of these people is so massive and so explosive, they are now doing to CNN what they did to me more than 40 years ago.

It was then that they censored me for writing a nice little article about Egypt in the Toronto Star, and blacklisted me to make sure I shall never again write such articles. This was an act that many people now feel shame for letting it happen and for participating in it; yet do not know how to end.

But I know how to end the predicament in which CNN finds itself, I here publish that which they were forced to yank out. Thus, instead of reading:

“Not Found”

“Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.”

Here is what was there but is no more:

Suez Canal zone on hunt for foreign investment

CNN Sept 19, 2012

Suez, Egypt (CNN) - The Suez Canal is a crucial seaway and money maker for Egypt. Around 10 percent of oceanic trade will by pass through these narrow waters, earning Egypt over $5 billion a year. It is now helping to boost Egypt's economy even more.

It has long been a vital link between East and West. The Suez Canal sits at a crossroad, linking Asia, Africa and Europe.

Now Egypt wants to squeeze more out of this strategic location.

The idea is to turn this dusty 20 square kilometer patch of land into a special industrial zone called SEZone or Suez Economic Zone.

And one of the first order's of business: making it easier for companies to do business in Egypt by cutting through red tape and government bureaucracy.

Chairman Ahmed Amin told CNN’s Ian Lee that it's all about streamlining investment.

“It is a one stop shop and it avoids the part when it comes to the red tape, the corruption, and things like that. It is very important for the investor when he wants to start a project anywhere in the world to know the procedures in advance,” said Amin.

This building will be that one stop shop, and house everything a company needs to set up and operate in Egypt. The idea was taken out of the Chinese playbook.

The Chinese are helping Egypt set up this zone – and signs of the partnership are clear. The Chinese investment firm TEDA is the first company poised to start development.

“The new area of the 6 km of land Teda is going to develop in eight to 10 years will include six different types of industries. At the end of the day we hope to reach a total investment of $1-$1.2 billion,” said Li Daixin, vice president of TEDA-Egypt Investment.

It's the area's easy access to ports and foreign markets that attracted TEDA, part of the company's "New Silk Road, New Oasis" initiative, according to Li Daixin.

“Chinese companies are trying to establish a new Silk Road to grow the relationship between the East and West. Egypt is important in establishing this new Silk Road,” he said.

Not only is the location optimal but also Egypt's labor pool, access to duty free imports of materials and favorable trade agreements.

“When it comes to being an investor, it is opening up several markets with a population of 1.8 billion people, so I think it's a great opportunity to utilize these agreements in Egypt,” said Amin.

That's free trade access to roughly a quarter of the world's population and includes such markets as the United States, Europe, the Middle East and parts of Africa.

Egypt is set to benefit greatly. The plan predicts 120 thousands jobs will be created once the project is completed and a new city, Sokhna will rise from the desert.

The old ways of doing business are fading according to Amin. If it comes together, the Suez Canal will soon be known as more than just a shortcut, but as an economic hub.

Which Mirror, Thomas Friedman?

Tom Friedman published a column in the New York Times on September 19, 2012 under the title: “Look In Your Mirror.” This is a puzzling piece of writing because the author advances two seemingly contradictory ideas at the same time.

Discussing the protest that erupted in Egypt regarding the trailer of a film made in America for the apparent purpose of insulting the Muslim Prophet, Tom Friedman says that he lived and worked in the Muslim world which means he understands it. He then says he has a problem with a sign that was held by a demonstrator which read: “We never insult any prophet – not Moses, not Jesus.”

He goes on to explain the nature of his problem by giving examples in the form of links to several video clips. When you view these clips you realize that the real problem is not the sign that Friedman saw; it was Friedman himself. It is that not one of these examples shows any Muslim, anywhere in the world insulting the Prophet of Judaism or that of Christianity; the two religions besides Islam recognized by them as being divine religions.

For him to say he understands the Muslim world then say he has a problem with a sign held by a demonstrator, the message of which proves to be corroborated by the links he provides, says there is something wrong with his understanding of reality. Not only that but if he – who is supposedly one of the most knowledgeable American journalist on Arab and Muslim matters – can be confused to this extent, it means that the entire Middle Eastern frame of reference inside of which the American media and political setup operate, is hopelessly out of whack and seriously dysfunctional.

In fact, there were other signs held by the demonstrators that explained the anger of these people. The formulation of these signs, such as “Anything but the Prophet” made it clear that the Arabs, if not all Muslims, would tolerate a great deal of attacks against them but that the limit of their tolerance did not extend to insults hurled at their Prophet. This was their red line; one that was deliberately crossed, in their judgment, as a way to signal to them that something more ominous was in the offing.

It is that history has taught these people when this red line is crossed, it means that America is communicating to them it is still at war against Islam. Furthermore, experience tells them that the next move will be for America's leaders to look for and find a flimsy pretext based on which they will rain bombs on yet another Muslim country. And so, the demonstrators took it upon themselves to defy America, and send a message of their own to its leaders to the effect that they are ready and eager to have that fight.

If not insulting Moses or Jesus, what then is in the video clips to which Tom Friedman is referring? Well, they are the kind of insults we here tolerate when hurled against any religion or any ethnic group. In fact, most of the insults in those clips were Muslim on Muslim attacks more than anything else. There might have been one reference to Jews as being an ethnic group, not even as being a religious group.

And there was one reference to Iraqi Christians uttered by an angry someone in the middle of a savage war of Abu Ghraib proportions, a war he views as being heaped on him and his family by Christian America. Is Tom Friedman moaning about this? Could he not put himself in the shoes of this poor bugger, and understand what he was going through?

Friedman ends his column by talking about hate speech, and I have a message for him: Hear me well, Tom, the hate I sometimes see expressed by a single Jew can be a million times more virulent than a million Muslims spending a lifetime insulting someone. You know why? Because the Muslim will want to get a temporary anger off his chest whereas the Jew will express the wish that the whole world would burn so that he may become king. And this is why the Jews often end up in the oven, not the Christians or the Muslims.

Look in your own mirror, mister, and leave the Muslims alone. They know how to conduct themselves when those around them conduct themselves in a civilized manner.

They have many friends in this world; you have none.

A Tortured Example Of Self Serving Analysis

Andy Kessler used to be a hedge fund manager who apparently wrote a book I have not read, do not intend to read and will obviously not discuss -- all the more so because it is called: “Eat People,” a title I do not particularly find appetizing. But Kessler also wrote an article that was published in the Wall Street Journal on September 19, 2012 under the title: “The U.S. Needs More i-Side Economics” and the subtitle: “The misallocation of capital is one reason the recovery is stuck between lack and luster.” And this article is what I wish to discuss.

The writer begins by citing a half-truth which he puts in the form of a question: “No jobs?” and quickly answers with an ironic attack on something: “No wonder, given what passes for economic thought these days.” But the full truth is that there are jobs in the United States; as many as 3 or 4 million for which there are not enough skilled people residing close to where the jobs are. Such people may live in another state but cannot move because of one reason or another such as the inability to sell the house at a reasonable price, for example.

But Andy Kessler uses this reality to advance a theory that is glaringly self-serving. The way he does it is by challenging a theory that has been around for a century. The theory was formulated by none other than the industrialist Henry Ford -- and more than that, he put the theory into practice. In fact, Henry Ford put his money where his mouth was by doubling the pay of his workers.

To attack the salutary effect that this theory has had, Kessler quotes President Obama who used it to describe his own plan for reviving the American economy. No, says Kessler, it is a myth to believe “that you can just give money to the middle class and good things happen.” He goes on to say that the belief in that theory is “why the recovery is stuck between lack and luster.” With this, he begins the process of advancing an alternative theory.

To do so, he quotes a passage from the website of the Ford Motor Corporation where it is written: “While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attrition...” after which he concludes that raising the pay of the workers did not contribute to the creation of the middle class. Instead, he attributes the creation of that class to the fact that Henry had managed to raise the productivity of his operation a year earlier. When this happened, says Kessler, it allowed Ford to sell his cars cheaper than the competition.

At this point, we see that the Kessler logic disintegrates because it fails on a number of crucial points. For one thing, he ignores the fact that attrition existed in Ford's operation before the man raised the pay of his workers. This meant that the workers had other places to go to where the pay, the working conditions or both were superior. Thus, the middle class was being created in America not because Ford was making more cars but because the workers from those other places could afford to buy them. And then Ford had the good sense to add to the size of that middle class by raising the pay of his workers. The truth that Kessler fails to understand is that more people earning good wages make a middle class, not more cars that nobody can buy.

But having this colossal failure under his belt thinking it is a magic charm; Kessler now relies on a tortured logic to advance the rest of his theory. What he wants us to believe is that the creation of the goods and services we call wealth, may be produced more efficiently not by industrialists like the Henry Fords of this world and the workers they employ in their factories but by people like say, the hedge fund managers who play with other people's money, and know how to allocate these monies. Give these people the money, he says, and they will fix the economy. Some magic charm, this is, some magic charm!

As to the logic on which Kessler relies to make his point, it is so tortured it cannot be explained. Thus, the thing to do for those who are interested, is to read the passages where the author of the article mentions Paul Tough, The New York Times Magazine, Lawrence Summers, Tim Geithner, Jason Furman, Mark Zandi, Moody's Analytics and Friedrich Hayek to make the point that the President's plan is “economic malpractice” because it shows it is a “huge misunderstanding between spending and investment.” You put it all together; I won't try.

And then Kessler tries to buttress his point not by mixing apples with oranges which would be bad enough, but mixing hot oil with cold water which would be explosive. He does that by mentioning “Investor Peter Thiel [who] put $500,000 into Facebook in August 2004, a company now worth $50 billion.” Without saying that this was purely a gamble that paid off without Thiel doing anything to created real wealth, Kessler juxtaposes that story with the following: “This month, after investing billions over the years on R&D, Apple released the iPhone 5. The company is worth $666 billion.”

Well, Sir, Mr. Andy Kessler, you cannot equate the R&D of Apple with the gambling act of a Thiel. If you think that the betting of say, a hedge fund manager such as yourself, is going to invent a new iPhone and build it by the millions, you believe in the power and the charm of “fairy dust” like says your President. Get it through your head, a gambler that is bathing in a pool of money does not make a middle class; millions of well paid workers will invent and produce those phones. These people will then constitute the middle class that can afford buying and using the phones it produces.

For this reason, the best way to revive the economy is not to give the Andy Kesslers of this world more money with which to gamble, but use the money to train enough workers to fill the millions of jobs which are near to them – jobs that could use skills these people do not yet have.

As far as I can tell, this is what President Obama is striving to achieve.

When Reality Is Turned Upside Down

Once in a while I hear from someone who asks: “Why is it that someone with your talent isn't out there on the lecture circuit and out there on the airwaves saying in public the things that you write about?” And I tell them they must be new to my blog, thus counsel them to read my older entries, especially the one titled: “Post Number 100 And Counting” published in July of 2008 where they will find a partial answer to their question.

I also hear from people who tell me they are “insiders” here in Canada or in the United States. These people keep in touch to inform me that someone prominent has staged a one person strike and went home for the day because they had wanted to invite me to discuss something I wrote but were told I was blacklisted and was banned from appearing or speaking in public.

A few people from that last group advised me to call on certain shows and say I would be available if and when they decided to use me – and that the move will most likely help break the ice after which I would receive an invitation. No, I said, I shall not do that because I am of an age I do not relish spending as much as a nanosecond doing something I got tired doing a long time ago.

My friend, this is not the first time I was tempted to write this story and have it on the record before my time in this world has come to an end; I have been hesitant for a while but not anymore. The hesitation has disappeared not because I believe my time is coming close to the end, but because I believe that telling my story will serve a good cause at this juncture. It is that the people who decided to blacklist me, and have imposed the decision on everyone else, are the people who now moan about the fact that someone has done what they wanted me to do only to see that their project has not worked like they hoped it would.

When they approached me, as they did on several occasions -- offering a different incentive each time -- to do a project that would spark a sectarian war somewhere in the Arab world especially Egypt, I told them to go to hell. I was also aware of the fact that they were trying to entice other Christians of Egyptian or Lebanese descent to work with them, but that they were rebuffed. And despite strong indications that the people of FrontPage Magazine had something to do with the latest project which insults the Muslim Prophet, I shall not say they found someone so weak as to succumb to their temptation. Whatever the case, however, they now see that instead of starting a sectarian war, they got a reaffirmation of sectarian solidarity in much of the Arab world, especially in Egypt, Lebanon and the Arab Diaspora.

What is especially gratifying to me is seeing that the same sort of people who tried to bribe me with promises they will work to get me to win this prize or that one, are now moaning because the man who did the latest dastardly deed has not only failed to reach his objective and theirs; he was reviled by much of the world not held in high esteem as they thought he would be.

You can see and hear the Jewish moaning for that failure everywhere you look because it fills the air as if the whole world had transformed into a giant wailing wall. One such example is the Bret Stephens column that was published in the Wall Street Journal on September 18, 2012. It has the title: “Muslims, Mormons and Liberals” and the subtitle: “Why is it OK to mock one religion but not another?” What is remarkable is that the author complains in the subtitle about an exception he dislikes, yet fails to mention Jewish or Neocon in the title. Is it OK to make exception of these two, and not mention them at all? Or what really is involved in this matter?

There was a time, some fifteen or twenty years ago, before I started publishing in Arabic, before I launched an English newspaper and before I started this website when I openly discussed with non-Jewish “insiders” what it would take for me to get off the blacklist. I was told many people wanted to do that right now but they did not know how to handle the matter because normally someone would start imperceptibly then grow in the eyes of the public a little at a time.

But my case was such that they feared I shall start with a loud thump and keep going non-stop – a situation that will take the matter out of their control. This revelation told me that the democracy these people say they enjoy would be as enjoyable to me as having to drink a glass of puss for breakfast every morning. I wanted to have nothing to do with their brand of democracy, and nothing to do with their brand of freedom where the only freedom you enjoy is to be a part-time literary prostitute or a full-time political prostitute. The very thought that they believe they are free or democratic makes me sick to the stomach.

Having been banished from the face of the Earth (to use a cherished expression of theirs) for about 44 years because I published an article in the Toronto Star in 1968 under the title: “Don't listen to propaganda, Egypt is a civilized country” and went on to list Egypt's accomplishments, I now read someone who wasn't born then moan in the following way: “...the most 'progressive' administration in recent U.S. history will make no principled defense of free speech to a Muslim world that could stand hearing such a defense.”

And so I have this message to give to Bret Stephens and to all those who think like him: If you manage to become a fraction as free as any of the Muslims I met in my life – and I met many of them having lived several years among them – you will be ten times the human being you are today.

Work on it, try it and you will know what it is to live a satisfied life knowing you are free on the inside; not pretending to be free trying to impose your fake concoction on those who have no use for it.

Israel's Soldiers Of Fortune, Horror And Terror

There are two remarkable pieces to read on this day, September 17, 2012. The first came in the Wall Street Journal under the title: “The Video Did It” and the subtitle: “The White House finds a root cause of anti-American violence.” It is an editorial reflecting what the Journal has been advocating since it was taken over by its current honcho, Rupert Murdoch. The second article came in the New York Times under the title: “A Preventable Massacre” It was written by Seth Anziska who is a doctoral candidate in international history at Columbia University. The Journal article tells you what the World Jewry wants; the Times article tells how it goes about getting it and what the consequences are.

Discussing the protests that erupted in much of the Arab and Muslim Worlds, the Journal chided Ms. Susan Rice who is the American Ambassador to the UN, and Jay Carney who is the White House spokesman for saying that the protests were the result of an anti-Islamic video made in America and shown on the internet. However, the Journal also admits that “Ms. Rice did concede … that the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya might have been the work of 'individual clusters of extremists.'”

The Journal goes on to say that the debate continues “with the view of Libyan officials, who say they believe the attack was the work of Islamists linked to al Qaeda.” This said, the Journal editors add their two cents worth of opinion. It is made of two parts; one part impugns the motives of Ms. Rice, and one part exploits the situation as only the leaders of Israel do things -- working hand in hand with World Jewry and the Jewish lobby in America. Here are the motives as they see them: “Ms. Rice … explanation is no doubt intended to shield Obama Administration policies...” And here is the exploitation: “But far worse is the message it sends to adversaries and even friendly governments abroad...”

So now, you want to know what the editors of the Journal conclude from all this. Here is the first part of their conclusion: “...it should be obvious that there is no end to the insults that Islamic radicals can imagine or cite as an excuse to foment anti-American ... violence.” And here is the second part of their conclusion: “The far greater provocation to violence is the appearance of U.S. weakness … The Administration's feeble response … invites radicals to use more such excuses to kill more Americans.” Thus ends the Journal editorial.

And you ask yourself: What have the editors said that might be instructive or helpful? Nothing really. In fact, all they did was attack Ms. Rice and Mr. Carney for saying that the protests were the result of an anti-Islamic video, to which they added that the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya was the work of radicals – what Ms. Rice called “individual clusters of extremists.” You see no difference between the two except in the philosophical stance of each. It is that the editors of the Journal are pushing the idea that the “radicals” can be scared by an American response which is not a feeble one. But given that you cannot scare a radical who is prepared to die for his cause, you question this premise and try to determine what really motivates the Journal editors.

You find the answer in the Seth Anziska article that is published in the New York Times. It is the history of the massacre that took place on September 16, 1982 in Sabra and Shatila, two Palestinian camps in Southern Lebanon where: “In the ensuing three-day rampage, the militia, linked to the Maronite Christian Phalange Party, raped, killed and dismembered at least 800 civilians, while Israeli flares illuminated the camps' narrow and darkened alleyways. Nearly all of the dead were women, children and elderly men.” So you ask: How could something like this happen? And you hit on the following answer:

“I found … documents that chronicle key conversations between American and Israeli officials … The verbatim transcripts reveal that the Israelis misled American diplomats … and bullied them into accepting the spurious claims that thousands of 'terrorists' were in the camps … As a result, Phalange militiamen were able to murder Palestinian civilians, whom America had pledged to protect just weeks earlier.”

The article is a long one, and it gives a detailed account of what happened during those days of authentic Jewish horror as it was carried out not by Jews this time, but by mercenaries they recruited to do the dirty work for them the same way that they now recruit the American military to do the dirty work for them in Arab and Muslim lands. It is worth reading the entire article.

Here is a revealing passage: “Mr. Draper warned: 'the IDF … will let the Lebanese go and kill the Palestinians in the camps.' Mr. [Ariel] Sharon replied: 'So, we'll kill them. They will not be left there. You are not going to save them … If you don't want the Lebanese to kill them, we will kill them.'” Later on you hit on this passage: “When it comes to our security … When it comes to existence and security, it is our responsibility and we will never give it to anybody to decide for us,” which is exactly what you hear them repeat again and again these days as they have always done it.

In fact, it is always about an existential threat that they want the Americans to help them stave off without having a say in the matter except that if and when they get into trouble doing something they cannot finish, they want the Americans to come to their rescue. In a case like that of Iran where they cannot even begin an aggression against that country “in self defense” of course, they want the Americans to do it for them – and they will want to tag along just to show the world they are still potent and in control of America.

And this, my friend, is the horror that the editors of the Wall Street Journal under the direction of Rupert Murdoch are working to duplicate on a much grander scale.

American Values According To Mitt Romney

When the Arabs erupted in anger at America, and when they were followed by Muslims everywhere in the world in response to the trailer of a film that insults the prophet Mohammed, Mitt Romney who is running for President of the United States, said something to the effect that President Barack Obama -- against whom he is running – has sympathized with these people which makes it that he apologized to them for something that represents American values. A number of what can be called mouthpieces of the Jewish lobby took their cue from Romney and ventured the opinion that the Arabs and the Muslims do not understand what freedom of expression means.

There are three concepts to discuss here. The first is the meaning of freedom of expression. From the looks of it, Romney considers anything that is said to be expression, therefore anyone and everyone has the right to say anything at anytime and anywhere. Apparently, this man who wants to be president of the United States is not aware of the principle which says: “You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater.” However, whether or not he is ignorant of the existence of that principle, he must be aware that a number of people – on whose side he firmly stands -- have advocated the bombing of Iran for reasons which include the accusation (true or false) that the president of that country has denied the Holocaust.

What we are talking about here is the bombing of a country of nearly 80 million people because its president was accused of saying, among other things, that he has doubts about a historical event. In fact, people go to jail in Europe for that same offense, and someone actually did serve time for that. As to America, if you deny the Holocaust, you are as good as dead professionally and socially which is worse than going to jail for a few months or a few years then be out and free again. And yet, Romney has never advocated the bombing of say, the Jewish Anti Defamation League in New York whose purpose in life is to curtail freedom of speech in Romney's own country. Why the double standard?

But in the end, does this mean that Mitt Romney and his Jewish advisers are so hopelessly out of touch with reality, they can never be made to understand the bitter truth that they have no clue what freedom of expression means? Will these people ever realize that when Netanyahu guarantees to his collaborators he knows “how to do these things” he means to say things that have serious implications? It is that he knows how to mobilize his mouthpieces in America and organize them to abuse the First Amendment past the limits of what is reasonable, thus pressure and force any American in charge of anything to hand them what they ask for even if that is the launch of a war against a Muslim nation in which American boys and girls will die killing others. The Arabs know this truth; the Muslims know this truth -- for God's sake why can't Romney educate himself enough to know it also? If this can be done, would he then do something to blunt it rather than fall prey to it?

The second concept has to do with the fact that the film in question was not meant to be the free expression of someone. In case Mitt Romney is ignorant of what a film is, here is a brief lesson. A film is a collaborative effort that is realized when a script writer, a director, a producer, a number of actors and a host of technical people come together and work on a project. They all know what the work is about, and everyone plays their part exactly right to transmit to the audience the exact meaning of what they collectively wish to express. Yet, the truth came out early on that the actors of that film, among others, were duped into believing they were participating in one kind of film when in reality, they were deceived into making another kind of film.

Given that Mitt Romney must have known about this, does it mean he is telling the world that American values are a pile of fraudulent pretenses? Does it mean that he considers himself to be an acceptable fraud and a pile of delicious pretenses? Does he mean to say that President Obama has the duty to read the Constitution the way that he reads it, and uphold fake principles to satisfy the demands of Netanyahu and the Jewish lobby? What the hell is Romney saying to himself, to his compatriots and to the world?

The third concept has to do with the fact that the maker of that film is an ex-con who has been in and out of jail several times for committing fraud among other infractions, and is now out on probation. Did Romney see in this man values that make him an ideal American individual? Did Romney raise his children on these principles? Will he exert influence to have his grandchildren raised with the same principles? If not, then why the hell does he want America's children to grow up and believe that this is the example they should die for, and die trying to shove down the throat of the Iranians, the Arabs and the rest of the Muslim world? Why do you want this Mitt, why do you want it?

I'll tell you why he wants it. He wants it because he wants to be president, and he believes that in America, the way to get to that post is to prostitute himself to the fake organizations that call themselves Jewish even though they could not deliver the Jewish vote. But they have gobs of ill-gotten money with which to reward him if he plays the role of devoted prostitute, or punish him if he fails to behave like the sissy boy who is supposed to turn hot to trot at the sight of his sex master getting horny. Romney gets hot enough, in fact, to maintain that his master has a culture superior to that of the Palestinians then prove it by doing the political equivalent of pulling his pants down and bending over to take in campaign contributions from foreigners in a foreign land. This was a filthy act, Mitt; it was filthy, filthy, filthy.

And this brings us to three of his surrogates. The first is Jonah Goldberg who wrote a column published on September 14, 2012 in the National Review Online under the title: “Misplaced Blame for the Embassy Attacks” and the subtitle: “Are we really ready to throw out the First Amendment to appease lynch mobs?” In it, he says this: “...the makers of this film, who clearly hoped to start trouble.” Even this character Goldberg understood that reality, but what is bugging him is that he watched a television show in America which he describes as follows: “It's interesting to see ... liberals in ... agreement with ... Egypt which implored the U.S. government to take legal action against the filmmakers. Interestingly, not even the ... Egyptian government demanded these men be tried for murder.”

Obviously, someone in Egypt knows more about the way that the American system of justice works than does Jonah Goldberg who, perhaps, never learned that Alphonse Capone was nailed -- not because of his Mafia activities -- but for evading taxes. All of which says that Goldberg and Romney need to learn more about their country, at least to sound better than a fart each time that they feel the itch to open the mouth and compare themselves to the boys in the back alleys of Arab capitals who prove each and every time to have a better sense of where America stands than those who live inside the Washington Beltway nourished only by the moral syphilis that is endlessly being ejaculated in their ears.

The second article was published in the Huffington Post on September 14, 2012. It was written by Sabrina Siddiqui about Michelle Bachmann who is still out there running around and running off the mouth as she campaigns for Romney. The article has the title: “Embassy Attacks In Libya And Egypt Expose Obama's 'Genius' Foreign Policy.” In it, Bachmann is quoted as saying the following: “This isn't just about a movie … This was an intentional act that was done by radical Islamists who seek to impose their set of beliefs.”

Too bad, Bachmann does not read Arabic because one of the signs would have given her a hint as to what the anger was about. The sign can be translated into something like this: “Anything but the Prophet.” And this would have told her that the demonstrators felt they had been at the receiving end for too long already without responding to the malefactors and without warning that a red line was about to be crossed. By insulting the Prophet, someone crossed that line, and the time had come to tell America they will from now on fight fire with fire. They don't do this to impose their set of beliefs; they do it because they know that when America escalates the attacks on them to this level, the next step will be to: bomb and bomb and bomb them again.

These people feel they have been bombed long enough; their governments have not protected them and so – like good militias -- they are taking the matter in their own hands the way that UBL did, and they will fight back. They don't just say give me liberty or give me death, they live the concept because they know something that America forgot; they know what freedom really means because no pastor ever got on television and told the to worship the Jews because these are their gods. There is no God but God, they say, no Elah but Allah. For those who do not know Arabic, the word Allah has no plural thus, to speak of the gods of mythology, for example, the Arabs use the word Elah which in the plural becomes Alehah. As to Allah, He is the God of the three divine religions as well as everything else in the Universe.

Now to the next article which is about the bombing of yet another Muslim country. It has the title: “The Abandonment” and the subtitle: “Not since its birth has Israel been so cast adrift by its closest ally.” It was written by Charles Krauthammer and published on September 14, 2012 in the National Review Online. What is remarkable about this article is that Krauthammer lives up to his reputation as being more intelligent than the crowd in which he operates. This is why he can learn from his mistakes when it is so impossible for the others to do likewise.

Talking about Iran which he recommended bombing several times before, he now conveys the same old ideas but without actually repeating them word for word. Instead, what he does is begin by clobbering President Obama then letting someone else – an expert in the field – repeat the old refrain. This is how he does it: “The Obama policy is in shambles. Which is why Cordesman argues that the only way to prevent a nuclear Iran [is] U.S. red lines: deadlines … benchmark actions that would trigger a response...” The response being the bombing of that country.

And bombing Iran is what Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, has also been calling for. It is something he has called for loudly and often. But so far, he has failed to convince the American Administration to do it for him. When something like this happens, the Israeli leaders who take America for granted but feel they have now been rebuffed, become physically ill -- a condition that can be detected in their demeanor as it has in Netanyahu, now showing clinical signs of turning insane. In the meantime, what their propaganda machine does is put on a make-believe game to project a brave face – if a fake one -- to the rest of the world.

That is, these people pull every trick they can to make the world believe they own America, and can still get it to do anything they want because the press and the Congress are a private urinal that is theirs and theirs only. And because the wish of Netanyahu must be satisfied, they get the Romneys, the Bachmanns and a hundred other hot to trot sissy boys and girls in the Congress and the media to push Obama to say yes to Netanyahu, and meet him in New York as soon as possible to show the world who is master and who is subordinate.

But everyone involved in this scandalous act if it materializes, knows that nothing will come of the meeting except the “symbolism” of it which is the way that they put it themselves. And what would that symbolism look like? It would look like a number of treasonous and filthy dogs will always be there in America to go down on their knees and fellate a foreigner for a handful of campaign dollars, then pressure their president to do likewise. This is the new morality in America, a horror that was brought to them by the system of multi-Jewish gods preached on television by pastors who call themselves Christian.

And these are the values that Romney, Bachmann, Goldberg, Krauthammer, and a hundred other snorts refer to as being true American values. To uphold them, safeguard them, protect them and impose them on others, they demand that American boys and girls be sent to kill and die trying to impose them on people who are so self-respecting, it will take the crowd of snorts a million years of evolution to understand the meaning of freedom the way that those other people understand it, live it and enjoy it.

To these people freedom is not simply talk; it is a real and tangible thing. May America rediscover the old heritage it used to enjoy; that which the Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC have quietly murdered over the decades.