On June 13, 2013, Clifford D. May wrote a column and had it
published in National Review Online under the title: “Iran 's Meaningless Presidential Elections” and
the subtitle: “We should focus on the clear objectives of Iran 's real
rulers – not a sham vote.” Clifford May is the president of a joint he founded
and to which he gave the name: “Foundation for Defense of Democracies.” He
describes the joint as being an “institute” that focuses on “national security”
though he does not say if national means Israel
only or if America
is included in the deal.
Like the defendant who goes before a judge and tells him or
her: I was lying before, but I'm telling the truth now, our esteemed author
comes before us, the readers who will judge him by the veracity of what he
says, and he tells us he was an old Liberal (presumably a liar) who turned coat
and became a new Conservative (presumably a truth teller) which is what makes
of him a Neocon. Since it is impossible to think of someone more Liberal than
Bill Moyers doing a documentary at PBS, Clifford May presents his credentials
like this: “[In 1979] I was a reporter in Iran working for Bill Moyers at
PBS.” He may have been proud then but he does not look it now.
He hopes, however, that this confession will take the sting
out of the liberally minded work he did at the time with regard to Iran 's
election. Lest someone think of him as having been fooled, he accuses everyone
else of being fooled by what they saw – then quickly adds that deep down, he
was the only one skeptical. This is how he put it: “ten years ago, Richard
Armitage called Iran a
democracy … In recent months John Kerry and Chuck Hagel have said that Iran has an
'elected' government. Hagel even added that it was 'legitimate.'” Phew! He can
breathe easier now having come this close to defaming himself.
But who would vouch for him being skeptical at the time? Oh
well, that's an easy thing for him to do; he is a Jew after all. Look how he
does it, and marvel at his skill: “The Iranian producer with whom I was working
regarded my skepticism as unjustified and unfair.” See how he does it? He
plucks a reliable witness out of thin air and dares us, 34 years later, to find
out who he may have been. We can then ask the witness if he still remembers
whether Clifford May was skeptical or trustful of what he was seeing. If we
cannot do that, the May claim will stand as the gospel truth. Skillful, isn't
it? You really have to be a Jew to be endowed with this sort of genius.
By now he reckons he is firmly in command of the fake
narrative he has erected. He feels secure enough to build on it and go as high
as he wants because from this point on, the sky will be his limit. And so, he
gives a hint as to the roots of his old liberalism: “What struck me was how
much the [Khomeini] system resembled what I had seen as a student in the Soviet Union .” He does not tell what he thought then of
the Soviet system but he repudiates it now: “the officials they elected held no
real power. That was reserved for the Communist party.” But what was he
thinking then? Did he think Uncle Joe (Stalin) was a great guy? Cliff is not
confessing now.
He got to this point with ease, however, and so he feels he
can start drawing parallels between the old Soviet Union
and the Iranian regime which remains the same today as it was in 1979: “the
supreme leader wields supreme power. He does not answer to the people. To
insure that his will is done, there is the elite Revolutionary Guard and the
militia.” And this is where you, the reader, begin to wonder if this is not
what is happening in America
today with AIPAC, the Jewish lobby that wields supreme power and does not
answer to the American people. To ensure that the lobby's will is done, there
is the elite Thought Police (of political and Semitic correctness) and there is
the militia of journalists who take their orders from the TANY (Tel Aviv/New York ) axis of
threats and blackmail.
Clifford May continues with the description of what he says
is happening in Iran, but sounds more like what is happening in America. Look
at this: “The Guardian Council – appointed, not elected – together with the
supreme leader decide who is and who is not qualified to be a presidential
candidate.” Hey, this sounds very much like: The AIPAC clowns – appointed, not
elected – together with the clowns of the Jewish anti-Defamation League and the
Jerusalem Post decide who is and who is not qualified to be a presidential
candidate in America .
He goes on to cite the following remarkable parallel:
“Khamenei made clear to the finalists that they are not to suggest Iran might be better off pursuing a policy of
peaceful coexistence with America
and Israel .”
Hey, this sounds very much like: “The Jewish honchos made clear to the American
finalists that they are not to suggest America
might be better off pursuing a policy of peaceful coexistence with the Arabs or
the Muslims – most especially Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran .” Hey, this sounds like a
parallel universe; what happens in one happens in the other almost exactly the
same way.
But – and there is a but – in America , the Jewish honchos go even
further than that, and they tell everybody who they can talk to, and who they
cannot. They tell them who they can sell weapons to, and who they cannot. They do
all this at the same time as the Israeli officials meet “in secret” with all
sorts of people from everywhere, including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranians.
They do this while Israel continues to sell not only weapons to every buyer
that has cash to spend, but do it with American military secrets as well –
which they sell to China, America's rival superpower in the making.
This scandalous Jewish behavior is so obvious to every
observer that the author had to find a way to strengthen his basket of deceptions
while confusing the readers about what they might have seen on television. He
did it by cramming three separate ideas in one short paragraph: “You'll recall
that when the election results were announced, Ahmadinejad was the winner.
Millions of Iranians took to the streets shouting: 'Death to the dictator!' and
asking President Obama, 'Are you with us or against us?'” The truth is that
while a large number of people took to the streets, they were not in the
millions. The number that shouted their dismay at the “dictator,” was no
greater than a few dozens. As to those who asked President Obama a question,
they were no more than a handful. But when the author juxtaposed the three
points, he made them sound like cause-and-effect when, in fact, they are not connected,
and are false or exaggerated to begin with.
Then comes the obligatory Jewish tripping of the self. Look
at this: “Why do Iran 's
rulers bother with this Charade? Because most dictators still like the sound of
the word 'democracy.' Think of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Democratic Republic of the Congo .”
Hey, Cliff, you forgot “Foundation for Defense of Democracies,” your own baby.
You like the sound of the word “democracy”? It must be that you do because it's
what you say you are defending. Next time, however, you should begin by
defining what you mean when you say democracy because people think of Jewish
democracy as the mobilization of America
to serve the interests of Israel
and the Jews everywhere in the world.
And it is in this autocratic spirit that he ends the
article: “It is this reality – not an Iranian election – that we should be
discussing.” You see, my friend, Clifford May is a high ranking member of the
Jewish Thought Police. He is now telling the Americans what they can think and
what they cannot. What they can discuss and what they cannot. It is his job to
do that; the job for which he gets paid handsomely. And guess who pays him? The
American
taxpayer, of course, with tax free donations.
But why be so adamant about what to think and what to
discuss in America America has
to go bankrupt and die when necessary to defend Israel