If everything that the Jews do gets gripped by paralysis; it
is that they plan for it in advance. If everything they touch meets a
calamitous end; it is that they design it this way. The proof can be found in
everything they say and do because nothing escapes treatment by their
fundamental ideological principle; the notion that everything is preordained to
have an apocalyptic end till such time that the Messiah arrives and changes all
that.
John Bolton is a Jew that best expresses this ideology. He
does so in an article that came under the title: “The U.N. vote on Palestine
Was a rehearsal” and the subtitle: “An influx of new Security Council members
means a likely 'yes' vote – and a veto dilemma for Obama.” It was published on
Jan. 2, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.
The essence of the Bolton
presentation is that: We made it this time but we may not next time. Well, is
he talking about the rule of law being affirmed despite the attacks on it by
evildoers? No. On the contrary; he is saying that the rule of law has once
again been subverted by the United
States of America , the one-time champion of
the rule of law, now wearing the glorious mantle of evildoer. But because America may not
be able to pull off the same stunt again, he tells it what to do now to prepare
for the next time. But what does that mean when viewed through the prism of
Jewish ideology?
What it means is that the making and implementation of
Jewish law is done through a process which stands at odds with the principles
of both the English Common Law and the French Civil Law. In the Common Law, you
respect what society has been practicing, and you preserve it as long as it
does not violate norms acceptable to human reason. In the Civil Law, you give human
reason a chance to establish new norms, which you then respect as long as they
do not deviate markedly from the long established practices of society.
At odds with those two approaches is the principle that the
rule of law is based on dogmas held by a handful of elders, and understood only
by them. When a development that has no precedent takes place, one or more of
the elders enunciates what amounts to a Jewish or an Islamic fatwa ... an edict
that tells everyone how to proceed with this development.
That's how the law used to work in Judaism up to the time
that America 's
Jews decided to tamper with it and make it appear compatible with the
prevailing Common Law. With time, however, the Jews discovered that they were
surrounded by so many ignorant Americans who were engaged in the business of
making laws for the nation; they decided to graft their Jewish dogmas onto the
process of making and implementing American law.
To do that, the Jews have violated one of the most sacred
principles in American law; the prohibition that is placed on the act of “prior
restraint.” The one time that America
violated this principle in a spectacular way, it saw its reputation pay a steep
price because the internment of the Japanese Americans during WW II could never
be justified. Now, the Jews violate that same principle regularly, and do so in
the name of America .
They do it in less spectacular ways, but the result is damaging to the
country's reputation as much as ever.
To circumvent the due process of law and get away with it,
the Jews do things similar to prior restraint in the American Congress by
labeling as terrorists the individuals, organizations and nations they dislike.
They then pass laws to punish those demons for offenses they may commit in the
future but never actually did. And when in that same spirit, Bolton
found it necessary to call for prior restraint on a demon, he had to find a
creative way to doing so. It is that he hit on the problem of having to face
the whole world, including such allies as France
and Britain ,
which did not perform the way he would have wished them to. What did Bolton do?
He came up with the idea of doing something in two steps.
First, he said there is something that Obama dreads. It would serve as demon
for now. Second, he said this: “The Obama administration can only prevent what
it dreads by openly embracing a veto strategy, hoping thereby to dissuade
pro-Palestinian states from directly confronting the U.S. ”
That is, he is counseling that before anyone has done
anything, we must circumvent the due process inherent to the American style
rule of law by restraining ahead of time those who may see merit in the
Palestinian position.