You know someone is playing with a weak hand when he
associates something that is happening now with something that is unrelated and
worse, has happened some time ago, having left no clue as to its worth.
Look at the first paragraph in the editorial of the Wall
Street Journal which came under the title: “Obama, Congress and Iran” and the
subtitle: “The President objects to support for what he claimed was his
policy,” and marvel at the extent to which these people will go to let the
world believe that the Israelis govern America. That infamy was published on
January 20, 2015.
What you encounter in the first paragraph is the argument of
the Journal's editors on the Iran
nuclear deal; an argument they try to buttress with this: “The President's
interpretation of 'six months' turns out to be as elastic as his reading of U.S.
immigration law.” What was that again? Was it the invocation of a debate
regarding immigration policy to reinforce the premise of a debate on the Iran nuclear
deal? This debating style may sound acceptable when done by Jews having a
heated discussion in Yiddish. But when done in English, it sounds like
desperate idiots latching on to a straw they hope will make their argument
sound worthy.
Having done this, the editors attack Mr. Obama, accusing him
of being exercised because the Congress wants to hold his administration to its
word. And what was the word? It was something that John Kerry had written some
time ago. Here it is: “The United
States and our partners will not consent to
an extension merely to drag out negotiations.” Thus, the editors lament: “Two
deadlines to finalize a deal have come and gone.” But why lament when the
administration made it clear the extensions were consented to because the
negotiations were going well, and were NOT “merely” being dragged out?
The inescapable conclusion is that the editors are lamenting
precisely because the negotiations are going well, which means that if a final
deal is reached, the Obama Administration will take credit for a foreign policy
initiative. This being the nightmare scenario terrifying a Jewish Establishment
that has been telling the world it controls American foreign policy; the
editors of the Wall Street Journal have gone out of their way to call on the
traitors in the Congress to prevent Obama from americanizing America 's foreign policy.
And here is another strange thing these characters have
done. First, they explain that neither the Administration nor America 's
allies want to see the Congress interfere. Second, they call this stance
“remarkable claims about legislation that would penalize Iran only after the current deadline expires and
if Iran
does not come to terms.” But the reality is that these claims are not what's
remarkable.
What is remarkable in all of this is the fact that every
administration negotiated with foreign powers, and the Congress often gave them
“fast-track” authority even in matters which, under the Constitution, fall
under the jurisdiction of the Congress. Thus, to call remarkable what is normal
is to make themselves look and sound abnormal … which is how the world has
become accustomed to seeing the Jewish logic.
So the question: Despite all that, why would the Journal
want the Congress to do something that the world will see as being abnormal and
threatening to world peace? Because the Journal editors want to see the Jews
get credit for negotiating a deal they want Israel to own and have the right to
interpret anyway it will want in the future. It will have to be this, or the
America-Iran negotiations will have to be sunk, and the deal torpedoed.
Another remarkable aspect of this affair is that the editors
acknowledge: “Moscow
is an outlier in this negotiation, if not bidding to be a spoiler.” And if the
Jews manage to sink the negotiations and torpedo the deal, they will have
handed Putin of Russia yet another victory over America ,
courtesy of the Jews who prefer to see this outcome than see an American
victory over Israel .