“Egypt 's
military should hear from Obama administration” screams the title of the July
27, 2013 editorial in the Washington Post. It is a cry that came out the mouth
of people who practically told Obama to shut up when he spoke about Trayvon
Martin, a murdered teenager who could have been his son. The difference between
the two situations is that in the latter case, the killer was a Jew – one of
those whom the editors of the Washington Post get down on their knees and give
a prolonged blow job; a condition they accept to have a job and keep it.
And because they hate themselves for what they have become,
they jump on every occasion they think will give them the chance to prove their
manhood. They suspend the suckling for a moment to run with the occasion, not
realizing how stupid they look. Thus, while it is becoming increasingly clear
that the Trayvon court case and its aftermath have been a story so toxic it
could diminish even an already low valued Third World country, the American
media – Left and Right, Conservative and Progressive – work together to
fabricate stories about the Jewish killer having saved a family caught in a car
accident.
Thus, instead of the editors saying to themselves:
goddammit, this is a young man as American as any of us; goddammit this is a
Jew who believes he belongs somewhere else; and goddammit we're going to find
out what happened in the jury room that got the jurors of that case to come up
with the verdict they did even though they had something else in mind. Instead
of doing any of this, the editors of the Washington Post went searching
overseas for a reason to tell their President not to keep his mouth shut this
time, but to bark what they think will attest to their manhood – something that
will make the world respect them again.
In the meantime, the fact that the jurors in the Trayvon
Martin Case had something else in mind is amply evident by their behavior – all
six of them having pronounced themselves after the fact. There was the one who
is the wife of a lawyer (most likely Jewish) who went on television and praised
the godly qualities of the Jewish killer. There were the four who quickly
distanced themselves from her. And there was the sixth who publicly expressed
her sorrow for consenting to a verdict she did not agree with originally.
It is obvious that this woman was pressured; even railroaded
by the wife of the lawyer to go along with her, even forgo the explanation she
sought from the judge as to the meaning of the law. And she got her to consent
at a late hour on that fateful night absent the explanation that was
preoccupying her. Thus, the hypothesis that must guide the American media at
this time is the following: What did the lawyer's wife promise the reluctant
woman? Was it a promise she reneged on? Was it an abrogation that seized the
reluctant woman with a crisis of conscience as if she had betrayed Christ for a
few silver pieces she did not receive after all?
This may well be a case of jury tampering from the inside, the
type that only Jews who think they are above the law would engage in. These are
people who believe they can do anything they want and get away with it simply
because they always do what they want and get away with it in America . And
yes, this is the America
where editors such as those running the Washington
post get down on their knees and blow job their Jewish masters to have a job
and keep it.
What a miserable superpower, America