His Legacy is restoring America's self-Respect

The idea of returning the favor to someone that helped you when you needed help and they did not have to extend their hand to you, is a trait that is unique to the human race … and not known to the animals. Likewise, giving back to society is a human trait you adhere to if and when you do well in life and discover, as you approach the twilight of your years on Earth, that you have accumulated material possessions you will not take with you when you depart.

Yes, some animals such as dogs can be man's best friend if they are trained as puppies to depend on you for food and companionship. But if you help an adult dog, coyote, lion or tiger that finds itself snared in a trap, you can be certain they will not stop to thank you, or come looking for you later on to return the favor. They are animals, after all, and all they care about is staying alive, and fulfilling what their biological impulses – such as forage, mate and fight or flee – compel them to do. And they would bite your hand if you tried to feed them.

You would think, therefore, that if you put your life on the line to rescue someone from an assured death at the hand of their enemy, and ask for nothing in return – this someone would remember what you did and appreciate your gesture. In fact, many in Europe and elsewhere have done just that by placing the American military on a pedestal where they hold it as a model of courage and selfless devotion to the best that there is in human values. They do this much in Europe because America rescued them during the Second World War.

As I said: many in Europe and elsewhere … but there is an exception. It is those nasty Jews who benefited most from America's goodness and largess … not only during the war when they were rescued from the Holocaust, but also after that, and to this day where Israel depends on America on everything from A to Z. These specimens cannot be compared to human beings because they demand that they not be compared, and because they fail to show they have something in common with humanity. They must, however, be thought of as living organisms that resemble in some ways the savage animals that bite the hand that feeds them.

And you have an example of this kind of behavior; one that screams at you realities which are related to the Jewish character. It is the Benny Avni article that came under the title: “Obama's nuke deal will leave Iran funding even more terror,” published on May 28, 2015 in the New York Post.

Starting with the not so subtle accusation that “President Obama's repeated assurances are suspect at best,” Avni builds a case that basically says, Obama is not doing enough for the sake of Israel and the Jews – which he could do if he wanted to – and this makes him … well, kind of suspect in the eyes of the Jews. And so you look at what Avni himself says Obama is doing for Israel; let alone what else you know he is doing and you roll your eyes and you scream as loudly as you can: What more do these things want from America?

They have a problem with their neighbors, which is nothing new to them as they have been pogrommed and holocausted everywhere they went, and throughout time by all sorts of people, all sorts of races and all sorts of ethnic groups … for the things they do; the very things that Benny Avni is now displaying. And what do they do about it? They do not ask America to help them be at peace with their neighbors, no they don't do that. Instead, they accuse America – more precisely its President – of something they do not specify because they are, in fact, getting from America more than they know what to do with … except for the one thing they crave to have.

To understand the size of that thing, you need to recall the performance of Mitt Romney who went to Israel, and for a million dollars, shattered the image of his manhood by denigrating the Palestinians, calling them inferior. You also need to recall the sayings of Lindsey Graham who is fighting to earn the label: Quintessential male bimbo of American politics. And you need to recall the sayings of Marco Rubio who rivets his colleagues in the Senate with a display of exotic verbal diarrhea on how perfect Israel is. He does it each time that the Jewish propaganda machine stuffs his belly with talking points that stink to high heaven and beyond.

Now that you have recalled these realities, you should compare them with the performance of Barack Obama who rejected all manner of pressure put on him by Israel and the Jewish lobby to compromise himself; something they desperately want him to do to show the world that when the Jew says dance, the American President does the Salome number, throws himself at the feet of the Jew, and asks if the master is pleased.

Well, it happened on many occasions that the Jews commanded Obama to dance, but he refused. And so, they considered him a suspect. They attacked him and incited every feeble mind in America – politicians, business leaders, commoners and what have you – to get on the bandwagon, and work to crucify the one President who held his head high and restored to America the honor and self-respect it lost during other presidencies.

Above all else, this will be the legacy for which the world will remember Obama.

To sort out the Mess, sort yourselves out

On May 28, 2015 James Jay Carafano published an article in the Pittsburgh Tribune under the title: “Sorting out the Middle East mess.” As promising as the title may sound, you'll get disappointed reading the article because you'll find it to be far removed from what you wish to see in it.

Instead of telling America to stay out of the mess it has create so that others – such as the neighbors – may have an easier time sorting things out, Carafano tells America to get more involved in the affairs of the Middle East. He acknowledges that “ISIS and al-Qaida are making a great deal of progress over there,” and opines that even if they lost territory “there will be plenty to worry about.” Despite all this, however, he fails to see that the solution to the problem is to go to its root causes and tackle these before doing anything else.

But why is it that Carafano fails to see and hear what is screaming at him in the face? Well, he fails because he has a preconceived idea as to what is supposed to lie down there. He thus refrains from going to that place, preferring instead to imagine seeing the picture that was drummed into his head long ago. And even though he is aware of the many changes that were brought to the region – changes that have caused a profound effect on the various struggles unfolding over there – he dismisses the prowess in the use of the social media that the terrorists have developed.

He rightly calls that prowess “symptoms rather than causes of the threat” but then fails to identify those causes … or more precisely, identify the root causes of the problem. Instead, he abandons that line of inquiry like the rider that replaces his horse in the middle of the race; and takes up the canard that ISIS is succeeding solely because it “can advertise that it's winning against the West.”

Uncertain as to whether or not ISIS has the robust infrastructure in the Americas that would allow it to mount sophisticated operations on these continents, he concedes that the group can still motivate local amateurs to kill many people and cause a great deal of damage. Of course, measures will be taken to deal with the situations as they arise, but Carafano says that nevertheless “defeating ISIS may not be the end of ISIS.”

He thus suggests that “the U.S. will have to remain a strategic partner to prevent conditions that might allow ISIS to come back.” Here again, he demonstrates how badly he misreads the situation, calling for the administration of the old remedies which caused the malady in the first place, having rejected the idea of looking for and tackling the root causes of the problem.

And his hanging on to the old remedies does not stop here. As per the habit these days, he finds a way to drag Iran into the discussion, accusing that country of exerting a destabilizing influence on the region. He tells of this fallacy despite the fact that the bragging done with regard to the ability to destabilize the local regimes – aiming to change them – was done and continues to be done by America and Israel.

Having made the point that the threat and the evil of ISIS are here to stay, and having made the point that Iran has helped it take root by destabilizing the region, Carafano now warns that “no matter what happens to ISIS and al-Qaida, that part of the world is going to get worse.”

That is an important point to make for the sake of Israel which plans to continue destabilizing the region, assisted by America. The expectation being that other groups, modeled after ISIS and al-Qaida, will rise; groups that will pose a threat to Israel. Thus, the plan is to have America stay permanently in the Middle East, to stand as a sentinel protecting Israel while the latter goes on a rampage from time to time, again and again.

Come to think of it, this is what the Jewish/Israeli agenda is about. It must be that Carafano was retained to promote that agenda. What supports this idea is what comes next in the article. In fact, two things come next. First, there is this: “The US has to re-engage in the war of ideas.” Second, there is this: “America has to start naming the enemy.” These are vintage Jewish propaganda machine.

The goal is to achieve something big by naming the enemy radical Islam or some such name, and by engaging simultaneously in a war of ideas that preaches the notion: “Judeo-Christianity is good, Islam is bad.” As to the big thing, it will be the start of a war of the religions; one that will wipe Islam from the face of the Earth, will weaken Christianity, and will allow the Jews to inherit the world … in fulfillment of an ancient promise.

Past Events no Rehearsal for what comes next

A mistake that some people make is to look at historical events that may resemble what is happening now, and believe that history is about to repeat itself in the exact same manner as before. This may be true in physics and chemistry where the same conditions always reproduce the same reactions. It may also be true, to some extent, in the realm of the animals ... such as the cows that know hay is coming their way when they see and hear the farmer start the tractor in the morning.

The difference between those instances and what happens in the realm of humans is that people do not usually respond mechanically or automatically to stimuli. Except for the habitual copycats who are too lazy to think up something new or modify something old, people tend to think for themselves and, more often than not, exploit the current situation by making it work for the self. They do this, having considered the multitude of factors that could interfere with the process of implementation, thus avoid the notion that history is a rehearsal for what will happen next.

Even smart and well educated people such as Victor Davis Hanson make this sort of mistakes, as can be seen in his latest column; the one that came under the title: “Why the next President Will Face a Dangerous Predicament Abroad,” published on May 28, 2015 in National Review Online. You see in it how he juxtaposes past events with his analysis of what is happening in the present, to say that history is about to serve as model for what will happen next.

He begins with what he says is a resemblance between what Hitler figured out about America, Britain and the Soviet Union almost a century ago with what happened during the Jimmy Carter era decades ago. In both instances, says Victor Hanson, the fact that the democracies neglected to arm themselves and be ready, has led the autocrats to do nasty things to the world. In the case of Hitler, he militarized the Rhineland, annexed Austria, and gobbled up Czechoslovakia, he says.

As to what happened during the Carter era; it is that the American President cut the defense budget to make human rights govern his foreign policy, a move that led to what he calls the implosion of Iran. That is, the American embassy in Tehran was stormed, diplomats were taken hostage, and radical Islam spread throughout the Middle East. In addition, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and China went into Vietnam. All that, says Hanson, because the dictators of the more recent era had figured what Hitler figured before them, which is that they have the green light to do as they wish.

To continue with the analogy, our author goes on to say that Ronald Reagan was elected President, denying Jimmy Carter a second term. It happened because Reagan promised to restore American power. He delivered on his promise; a reality that led the world to recognize him as being the statesman who restored America's prestige and brought stability to the world. And this, says Hanson, is what eventually brought down Soviet imperial Communism.

And like Carter, the current President, Barack Obama, came into office promising a sharp break from past American foreign policy, says Hanson. Obama withdrew American troops from Afghanistan, and extended a friendly hand to the Muslims, claiming that the West owed them a cultural debt for everything from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment.

Worse, Obama cut the defense budget, says Hanson, and this is what led to America becoming an observer of world events rather than a participant. The result has been that the Islamic State went into Iraq. Syria and much of North Africa imploded. Iran sent special forces into Iraq, Syria and Yemen while pressing on to get the bomb.

As if this were not enough, China violated the waters and airspace of America's allies in the Pacific region while Russia did the same thing in Eastern and Northern Europe. Eventually, this state of the world became the new normal, says Hanson, which is why he foresees that to restore order in the world, the next President of the United States will have a hard time convincing the allies that America is committed to their security. But this must be done, he goes on to say, because the Obama foreign policy cannot continue without provoking more chaos or a larger war.

Well then, what is wrong with that? What is wrong is that Hanson is not predicting the future. What he is doing is reflect what has been the normal American thinking during the current era. Like the habitual copycats who are too lazy to think up something new or modify something old, those who infested the American culture made everyone believe they have a blueprint for the road ahead, one that must be followed to get to the elusive Nirvana that forever remains beyond the horizon.

Thus, while America pursues that blueprint – repeating the moves of yesteryear every step of the way – the foreign leaders in the rest of the world realize they are playing a sophisticated chess game. While America plays yesterday, they play today and tomorrow … and America recedes further and further behind them.

Contain Jewish Influence, amplify the Arabs'

For decades, Thomas (Tom) L. Friedman of the New York Times has been telling the American elites and commoners what to do in the Middle East to create a Nirvana out there; one that will rival the biblical account of the Garden of Eden … also referred to as paradise. His formula is simple; it entails the suppression of the Arabs and the looting of their possessions. It also entails the empowerment of the Jews so as to help them dominate the region if not acquire it entirely by creeping annexation.

Of course, the Americans never came close to achieving anything like that, but Friedman and all those like him kept giving unsolicited advice to the Americans, as if they were totally immune to feeling any sort of shame for the mountain of failures they have inflicted on the country year after year, decade after decade.

Then came the fateful day when Tom Friedman stood on foreign soil – Israel to be precise – and warned then President George W. Bush that if he did not invade Iraq, he will suffer the same fate as did his father who refrained earlier from invading Iraq – during the first Gulf War – and was defeated in his quest to be reelected President as a result.

Never mind that the above assertion was completely false given that Bush Senior lost the bid to be reelected because the economy had tanked under him. But when a chorus of Jewish voices and their running dogs drowned all voices urging restraint, the W. took the Jewish bait and invaded Iraq (the second Gulf War) only to see America's back getting broken there, and leaving behind no sign of a rising Nirvana anytime soon.

Undeterred by that colossal failure, and shameless to the core as only a Jew can be, Tom Friedman is at it again advising the Americans what would be good for the Middle East. He says it in an article he wrote under the title: “Contain and Amplify,” published on May 27, 2015 in the New York Times.

To see how far off the mark Friedman can be when he speaks of the Arabs as if they were different from everyone else, it is worth remembering that the drive of ethnic groups everywhere on the Planet to gain independence and be “masters in their homeland,” was detected in the 1970s and has been gaining momentum ever since. It happened and continues to happen in Africa, Asia, the Timor Islands, the Balkan states, Spain, Canada's Quebec, Belgium and many other places.

Just think about it; go to any of these places and “take out” the central governing authority. What do you think will happen? The answer is unavoidable: people of the same ethnic background will coalesce ... first to protect themselves, and then to assert their authority over a piece of real estate they will call their homeland.

This is why people, such as the leaders of Israel, getting all the help they need from American friends such as Friedman and the Evangelical running dogs, have pulled that trick on defenseless societies such as the Palestinians and the Lebanese, and have pushed further by inciting America to do likewise everywhere else in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Now that America took the bait and did it in some places under the guise of creating a Nirvana in the Middle East; and now that a monster has been created – however toothless it may still be – that guy, Tom Friedman pops up again, and tries to convince the Americans he has the formula to fix the problems that he, Israel and the mentally retarded in America have created.

After a rambling pseudo-analysis of what is happening in the Middle East at this time – based on the sayings of Simon Henderson and Otto Scharmer – Tom Friedman writes about his deep seated wishes for the region but does it in a bemused style to hide his true feelings. This is how he said the region can be fixed: “If an outside power totally occupies them, snuffs out their sectarian wars, suppresses the extremists and spends the next 50 years trying to get Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis and Libyans to share power as equal citizens”.

Lamenting that this will not happen, he mentions the alternative which is that the civil wars in the region will continue unabated till both sides in each conflict, become exhausted and seek reconciliation. He gives the example of Lebanon where the civil war lasted 14 years, and the example of Tunisia where all sides came together without civil war.

But look at that picture closely, my friend. What do you see? Well, let me tell you. There is the natural Arab tendency to reconcile. It happened quietly in Tunisia where there was no outside interference, and happened in Lebanon after a civil war that was instigated by the Israeli invasion of that country … the way it happened in Iraq and Libya after America and its friends interfered.

The lesson to be learned here is that the time has come to contain the Jewish influence in America, and to amplify that of the Arabs and the Muslims.

Don't do it for the sake of the Arabs or the Muslims; they know how to take care of themselves, and have been for centuries. Do it for the sake of the American people who find themselves held captive by a moral and religious Svengali hold they call Judeo-Christian ideology.

A nostalgic Trip for a geopolitical Alpha Male

Three articles in the Wall Street Journal, one published on May 26, 2015, and the other two the next day, tell the story of America, the superpower of the day, going through a period of nostalgia about a glorious past that its population now realizes cannot be perpetuated for ever.

On May 26, the editors of the Journal published: “Rise of the Regional Hegemons,” a piece that also came under the subtitle: “Russia, Iran and China are advancing as the U.S. retreats.” The next day, William A. Galston published: “Don't Blame Trade for Slow Growth,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “The North American Free Trade Agreement's track record tells us little about today's concerns.” On that same day, Michelle Flournoy and Richard Fontaine published: “Economic Growth Is a National Security Issue,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Policies on trade and energy that foster prosperity also strengthen America's military and political power.”

When it comes to opinions as to how and why America got to this point, the writers of the articles are all over the map, and they speak of a public that is also all over the map. For example, speaking of regional hegemons, the editors of the Wall Street Journal look through the political lens, and see that their own President, Barack Obama, is responsible for the rise of authoritarian regional powers such as Russia, Iran and China.

They stand on a number of historical occurrences to show that Obama is to blame, and then get into a discussion on what to do about the new realities. They tell of some readers who say: “So what?” and push back against this view by opining that: “These emerging regional hegemons reject democratic values and post-World War II liberal world order. They view the U.N. and other institutions as a means to check U.S. power not adhere to global norms.”

Right there and as usual, like the clumsy bomb thrower that explodes the bomb he is making in his face before getting to where he is going with it, the editors of the Journal blow their own argument to pieces by saying in the same breath that the hegemons are using the UN and the global norms it sets to check American power by not adhering to global norms.

And so, they conclude that “this is the dangerous new-old world that Mr. Obama is leaving his successor.” Okay, you say, fine. But you want to know what their wisdom is telling them the next President should be doing. And you find in the article what it is they recommend: “The next President will need an urgent strategy to contain and counter the rising threats.” Okay, so you look to the next paragraph for a hint on what that strategy should entail. But ... next paragraph? What next paragraph? There is no next paragraph. The editorial ends here with a suggestion that echoes that of hundreds of other “opinion makers” whose opinions sound more like the bark of another dog in the pound than the voice of a thinker contributing something useful to the debate. Too bad.

The next day, Flournoy and Fontaine come to the rescue. They say, and they show that national security is tied to the health of the economy. They assert unequivocally that: “A bright economic outlook is a powerful counter to the narrative of American decline.” They suggest an agenda that includes trade and investment, energy and international institutions; all of which they discuss intelligently whether or not you agree with them. They also mention something very important: “Congress should stop holding up reappointment of voting power at the International Monetary Fund.”

You know what, my friend? This is an example which shows it is American legislators – influenced by bomb throwers such as the editors of the Wall Street Journal – who are threatening the world order, not the rise of what the editors call authoritarian regional powers.

Finally, there is the contribution of William Galston which makes the point that free trade is good for world prosperity, therefore for American prosperity as well. Whether you agree with him fully, or you have caveats to add to those views, you must respect the fact that he came up with several new points, some of which were drawn from personal experience and observations.

Saying that: “No trade treaty or economic policy has benefited everyone,” or that a “better future will be available in the same place,” he advises families in hard-hit locales to update their skills, and to move to where they see a better opportunity for themselves.

Prepackaged Potions that void Jewish Arguments

Here is another article to show why you cannot trust anything that is authored by a Jew on the Middle East. Written by Trudy Rubin under the title: “Egypt's Sisi is fueling discontent,” it was published on May 23, 2015 in the Philadelphia Enquirer.

The article tells the story of an Egyptian professor named Shahin who is apparently well known in America. The truth is that I never heard of him in Canada, and have no idea as to the particulars of the case that's discussed in Rubin's article. And so, I am not here weighing the validity of that case; I'm only looking at the style employed by Jews, such as herself, when they tackle Middle Eastern subjects. I see them use prepackaged potions that void their own arguments.

Our author wrote nearly 900 words to reach conclusions that have nothing to do with the case she pretends to discuss, and everything to do with an Egyptian Revolution that will require dozens of volumes to be explained, and decades of history-writing before it can be fully understood. So you want to know from where she gathered the information to do all that she did.

Believe it or not, she set out to encapsulate in 900 words the entire history of the Egyptian Revolution, based only on the following tidbits: “According to U.S. academics who know Shahin well ... [such as] Nathan Brown, a well-known expert on Egypt at George Washington University. I agree.” To be fair to her, it must be said that there is something else.

It is that the story has two other connections with America – a fact that may have helped Rubin understand in an instant a situation that would have required an army of historians, and several lifetimes to stitch together. The first connection has to do with another Egyptian American who was sentenced to life in prison in Egypt and yet, no American diplomat ever succeeded to have him deported to America despite the “annual U.S. aid to Egypt”.

As to the other connection, it involves the American President Barack Obama. Well, at this point, you may have guessed that because a Jew is writing about Obama, only one thing would have been said … and you would be correct. It is that the man acts the way he does because he is motivated by an obsession with a legacy that dictates all of his actions, she points out.

In fact, because Obama is pursuing a nuclear accord with Shiite Iran, Rubin sees him appeasing the Sunni Arab states – such as Egypt – by not responding to the severity of the sentences handed down by judges in that country. But, like all Jews, she hastens to inject her little advice. It is that “Egypt's war on dissent is bound to boomerang. President Obama should be making this point forcefully to Sisi.” You don't just make your point when talking to an Arab; you make your point 'forcefully'.

A few more points – actually, potions that act like poison pills – strewn throughout the article, tell that it is vintage Jewish, and must therefore be void of any useful meaning. There is this point: “an Egyptian who could help his country.” Do you see what is meant by that? It is meant that Egypt is sitting helpless when it has one of its own that can help it, and yet Egypt is mistreating him.

And because it is impossible to have an article about the system of justice in Egypt – written by a Jew – that does not include the obligatory sentences and phrases, you find two of them in this article. The first is this: “The charges are ludicrous;” the second is this: “Another sham trial”. It seems they never have clean trials in Egypt.

There is also the never missed subtle suggestion that when a number is mentioned by the government of Egypt, the Jewish writers will say they met someone who told them the real figure is double that. You often see it happen with the unemployment rate. If the government says 10 percent, someone tells the Jew, it is 20 percent.

This time, the principle was applied to the number of people arrested in Egypt last year. The government said 22,000 people, and the Jew wrote: “Egyptian human rights groups claim the number is double that”.

And then there is the distinctive signature of the Jew who tries to have it both ways by asserting something and hedging against it in the same breath. Here is how it went this time: “The 'tragedy' is that the heavy hand is 'likely' to worsen the terror threat the country faces.” It is as extreme as a tragedy and yet, it is only likely.

That's not thin Skin, it is thick Skull

Sometimes, when you listen to the Jews, or when you read what they write, you get the impression they are burdened by a skin that's very thin. You get this impression because instead of letting some things pass and “move on,” which is what they advise everyone else to do, they freeze on the spot and refuse to budge.

They stay there till they get an apology or compensation or whatever … for something that someone may have said or may have done; something that would normally not merit a moment's attention – but not when it comes to the Jews. And when, in hindsight, you look closely at what happened, you find that the Jews were the ones who instigated the incident that brought the situation to this point.

Knowing this much about the way that these people operate; knowing how they have been operating for hundreds of years, and knowing that they have been punished for their habit time after time, you wonder why they continue to embrace that philosophy of life knowing that the approach never worked for them. And so, you devote all the time that's necessary to fully analyze the matter, and you finally conclude that the problem is not that these people have a thin skin they can do nothing about; it is that they have a thick skull they fashioned centuries ago and have been thickening ever since.

This becomes apparent from the column that Bret Stephens wrote under the title: “The Rational Ayatollah Hypothesis” and the subtitle: “If President Obama can forgive us our trespasses, he can forgive the Ayatollah Khamenei's, too.” It was published on May 26, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal. If you are modestly familiar with the ways of the Jews, you would know of their saying that the truth will come out if you ask him this “one question,” which they pronounce “waaaaan question”.

Thus, Stephens asks the readers one question at the start of his column: “Can there be a rational, negotiable relatively reasonable bigot?” And that's because he is about to discuss the 'waaaaan' question that another Jew, Jeffrey Goldberg, had asked of President Obama: to reconcile his view of an Iranian regime steeped in venomous anti-Semitism with claims that the same regime is practical and responsive to incentive and reason.

As shown in the subtitle, the prime objection that Bret Stephens raises about the President's answer is that he equated two situations, which is a no-no in Jewish parlance, because the practice tends to demolish the hierarchy of worthiness of causes that the Jews have established, and where they always put themselves at the pinnacle of what is worthy. Here is Obama's supposed infamy: “There were deep strains of anti-Semitism in this country.” To this, Stephens comments: “If the president can forgive us our trespasses, he can forgive the ayatollah's too.” And forgiveness to a Jew is what Jesus did when he was on the cross – perhaps the reason why he deserved to be crucified in the first place, according to Jewish thinking.

And so, our author sets out to “recall some basic facts” about the nature and history of antisemitism. Reading this, the first thing that comes to your mind is that this guy is finally going to call the spade a spade. He will tell of an Israel where Jews of every race – most having nothing to do with the Semitic race, and only a fraction descending from it – have displaced the authentic Palestinian Semites and stolen their country. Not only that, but the more removed from the Semites someone is, the more privileges they would have in Israel. This is why European Jews occupy the top parts of the totem pole whereas the Asian, Mideastern and Ethiopian Jews occupy the bottom parts.

Sadly, however, this is not what Bret Stephens does. Instead, he gives a history of the long and cordial relationship that used to exist between the Jews and Persia (now Iran,) trying to make a point he totally misses. Instead, he inadvertently highlights what normal people have been saying to the Jews for a long time. It is that: “We don't hate you because of who you are; we lived with you in peace for thousands of years. We hate what Rabbinical Judaism has made of you in more recent times. We find out about it not by looking at you but by dealing with you. This is when our tolerance turns into disgust. Since you insist that we love you even when you stab us in the back, we say go do it to the Americans who seem to like the feel of your knife in their backs.”

As if to emphasize the validity of humanity's understanding of the Jewish character, Bret Stephens who started by rejecting the idea of equating two things, now does equating of his own. He writes this: “Modern Iran is not Nazi Germany, or so Iran's apologists like to remind us. Then again, how different is the thinking of an Eichmann from that of a Khamenei who [said] that Israel was a 'cancerous tumor that should be cut?'”

What our author did not say is that it is legitimate to denounce an apartheid regime such as that of Israel, even wish it to disappear from the face of the Earth the way that it happened in Rhodesia and South Africa. Thus, there is no equating Iran and Nazi Germany.

But if there is the semblance of a perfect equation between two regimes, it is that of the Nazis and the one that calls for the destruction “of the entire Palestinian people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.” This is the declared intent of the current Zionist regime of Israel, as reported by Henry Siegman in an article that was published on May 20, 2015 in the New York Times, and discussed on this website that same month. It is in the archives under the title: Welcome into the Brotherhood of civilized Man.

Thus, 'thin-skinism' is but a ploy used by the Jews to divert attention from the real problem of Jewish 'thick-skullism.' In fact, these people invite the poking of their skin so that they may howl an artificial roar and stun you while committing the most horrific crimes since the Stone Age of biblical times.

Jewish America raising Terrorists for ISIS

If you want to know why young men and women from the West – not to mention the East and the South – are flocking to the message of ISIL, and why they die to serve the cause of terrorism, consider May 24, 2015 to be your day of enlightenment for, on that day there appeared two articles that will answer your question.

One of the articles is an editorial that came under the title: “The monsters take over as ISIS rolls forward,” and was published in the New York Daily News. The other is a Reuters report that was published in the Guardian under the title: “Netanyahu thanks US for blocking push for Middle East nuclear arms ban” and the subtitle: “US, UK, and Canada opposed Egyptian plan for nuclear-free region.”

It may be true what some people say about human babies being born with an instinct that tends toward the selfish, and a nature that leans toward the wild. However, it does not take these babies too long to develop the intellect that overwhelms their instinct, turning them into the idealistic young men and women that can mystify adults who, by now, would have learned to look at the world through the lens of realism rather than idealism.

And the most powerful sign that the young adults look for to determine if something has gone awry with the world, is the question of equal treatment. Whether raised poor or with a silver spoon in the mouth, whether treated badly or were indulged, kids always feel that something was missing in their lives by virtue of the fact that they started life small and helpless. Thus, being the first underdog they have encountered in life, they see themselves in every person that is badly treated, and identify with them.

And so, when they see young men and women of their age group arm themselves with stones they pick on the ground to do battle against tanks and armored vehicles, and when they hear of warplanes and helicopter gunships blowing up homes in the middle of the night, murdering sleeping women and their babies, the young idealists of the West feel fired up enough to want to help those underdogs even if they face death in the process.

But why is it that the West, including America, fail to see those realities, and proceed from there to solve the problem of what they call terrorism, by eliminating its root causes rather than deploy their vast resources to fight the proverbial windmills of their imagination … and lose the fight the way it is described in the editorial of the New York Daily News?

They fail to see those realities because Jewish America has formed a lobby whose work over the past half century has been to fill the air with noise. It did such a thorough job that the American elites in politics and in the media became so confused, they could not, on their own, tell who in the Middle East were the victims and who were the aggressors.

Thus, the Americans relied on the Jewish lobby to tell them how to proceed in every instance and the Jews took America for a ride. This included the young men and women who had no independent source of information from which to get confirmation for what they were told, or get a point of view that could rebut the constant Jewish voice ramming anti-Arab and anti-Muslim propaganda in their ears.

Then came the internet and the social media, and the young idealists of America – and everywhere else in the West – saw not only the reality of what was happening on the ground, but also the reality of the Jewish horror that had grown to monstrous dimensions in their midst. Still, despite this reversal, America has not yet cleansed itself of the Jewish infestation as it is apparent in the report that was published in the Guardian.

Here, you see an English speaking world obeying the Jewish/Israeli edict of threatening Muslim Iran with annihilation if its leaders only thought of developing nuclear weapons while at the same time protecting Israel from having to divulge whether or not it has an arsenal of nuclear weapons – a possibility it has dangled in the face of the Arabs and the Muslims to say to them: We receive preferential treatment because the big boys of the colonial West wish to keep you as permanent underdogs.

And that's what is firing up the young idealists of the West, and that's why the West is losing. Until and unless America annihilates the Jewish lobby in its midst, it will keep losing to the young militia it is trying to annihilate.

When Obsession turns into actual Delusion

Here is a situation that is so extreme, you wonder if it's not a case of someone writing an article as a prank and sending it for publication by mistake. It's a piece that came under the title: “Egypt's Sisi Is Getting Pretty Good … at being a Dictator” and the subtitle: “But will the army continue to back the president if the economy starts to tank?” Attributed to Thanassis Cambanis, the article was published on May 22, 2015 in Foreign Policy.

Speaking of Egypt's President, the author reveals at the outset both his fear that Egypt may succeed at securing domestic tranquility, and his hope that it will fail under this President: “Sisi has cemented a ruling coalition that will propel him into a long-term project of power consolidation … [he] cobbled together a workable formula [that] might be doomed in the long run, but the long run can be very far off.”

That fear and that hope are based on the belief that the Sisi governing agenda is based on three things which Cambanis says “give the impression of vision and positive momentum,” but could in the long run – the very long run – fail. And so he sets out to tell why these things might work now but not tomorrow or the day after. They are: first, a crackdown on terror; second, the maintenance of a flow of cash into Egypt from the Gulf states; and third, the need for economic reform that must be more than modest.

But as you go deeper and deeper into the article, you realize that the writer may not be relating empirical observations or analysis thereof with regard to the situation in Egypt. Rather, he could be relating deep seated wishes for things to go badly in that country. The things he has under discussion being the following:

First, the “war on terror” will resonate with the Egyptian people, he says, because even the supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood are repulsed by the terrorist tactics of the insurgency. But he goes on to opine (or to wish) that as a unifying ideology to mobilize support for Sisi, it may prove to be insufficient in the long run.

Second, money from the Arab Gulf states rather than the war on terror is what brought Sisi to power, he asserts without explaining how this came to be. And he says that Egypt struggles to import enough fuel to keep the country functioning, and enough food staples to keep the poor quiescent. Without that money, he opines (or wishes), the summertime power outages would likely turn into long-term blackouts and electricity rationing. And without money to import food, the rulers of the country fear a revolution of the poor. That is, he wants you to believe he can read the mind of these people.

Third, he says that piecemeal improvements to the subsidy system will serve Sisi for the medium-term. But, he opines (or wishes) that the President's autocratic ways will preclude creative governance, and thus keep significant reforms off the table. Having had little to say about the first two points, he has much to say about the third. And this is where his leanings, political or otherwise – as well as his mental state become apparent as starkly as can be.

Clearly expressed as a wish more than an observation, he says that the proposed new capital outside Cairo will probably never be built. He adds that massive public housing, irrigation, and road works projects will give the impression (only the impression) of a nation on the move. Nevertheless, he fears that this will cement deep support for the government in some quarters such as the wealthy business owners, the influential middle class, the powerful military; even the political opposition that is the labor movement. This being the whole country, Cambanis opines (or wishes) that if this will bring medium term stability to the country, it “may lead to more trouble for Egypt down the road.”

Just imagine Netanyahu or any of the cherished leaders accomplishing a fraction of that during their first year in office. What kind of gods, the author of the article and those of his ilk would have called them?

If you want to know why he believes that Sisi's efforts will not work, he tells you why. He says that Sisi is paranoid, and the proof is that the government has banned the soccer fan clubs of hooligans known as the Ultras. This pattern, he goes on to say, will frighten Egyptians into silence ... contrary to what they did twice before when millions of them marched in the streets unafraid, to demand the removal of Mubarak and then Morsi. But – and there is a but as always in this kind of articles: “But there's no evidence to suggest that in a crisis, Egypt's generals would protect Sisi.” He does not say protect the President from whom or from what if the people will be so afraid they will keep quiet.

Now you want to know what kind of crisis he is talking about to begin with. And he opines (actually wishes openly): “An economic collapse or a widespread popular uprising.” How will this happen? “corruption, unaccountability, and serial failures to accomplish the basic bread-and-butter business of the state,” he answers. This incompetence will negatively affect the war on terror upon which Sisi is building his legitimacy, he goes on to say. And the net result will be that the insurgency will continue to destabilize the country, he openly wishes.

And that's not all because Egypt also has an untenable national balance sheet, unacceptable levels of subsidies, growing unemployment and inadequate water for agriculture under current usage practices, he prays openly to the gods of his superstition.

The problem is that those gods – wherever they may be – must know more than he does about what's going on in Egypt. The fact is that many countries, considered to be doing well now, would gladly trade places with Egypt.

Alien Economics 1001

Even though the title of the article is “Combating Inequality the Right Way,” Irwin M. Stelzer who wrote it has failed to deliver on the implied promise that he is about to describe what he sees as being the “right way”.

In the article that was published on May 23, 2015 in the Weekly Standard, the author says the whole world agrees the problem of inequality has worsened everywhere on the planet, and opines that something must be done but – other than rehashing old ideas that proved unworkable – he does not say what that thing should be, or how he proposes the problem of inequality be approached.

One of the components contributing to the problem, according to him, is politics – or as he put it: political power. But then, instead of describing a way to doing things, he engages in the political game of attacking the proposals that were put forward by his liberal opponents. The net result is that Stelzer contributes very little if anything to the ongoing debate.

Does that mean I'm here proposing a definitive solution to the problem of inequality? No, I'm not. But what I propose to do is broaden the scope of the discussion to help engender more options from which to choose a possible solution in the quest to find one that will satisfy the largest number of stakeholders and work. To this end, I suggest that we begin with a thought experiment.

Imagine a demon taking possession of you and me. He tells us of a planet that is at the mercantile stage of development where fiat money has not yet been invented, and barter is the order of the day. He sees signs that, unlike Earth, where we made a mess of our economic system, the aliens of that other planet seem on the verge of whipping up a more equitable system. He says he'll send us there to try and convince those aliens their best bet is to duplicate the system on Earth.

He wills us to the planet, and we discover to our delight that the planet is so pure at heart; the influence of the demon on others is zero. It means we are no longer possessed by him, except for one thing: You and I have become as bad as the demon. Stranded on an alien planet, we plan how to use our knowledge of what went wrong on Earth to take over the alien planet by taking possession of its entire economy.

We convince the leaders of the planet to introduce the idea of a central bank that will print fiat money, and have that money distributed throughout society by a sector of the economy called financial institutions. The aliens put together the system we designed, and they inaugurate it. You and I get remunerated with money which we use to start playing the games we learned on Earth; games designed to help us take over the planet's finances before someone has had the time to realize what we're doing.

At first, we start a scheme in which only the two of us participate at doing what is known on Earth as churning stocks and flipping real estate. That is, we buy assets and sell them back and forth to each other at an ever higher price; a trick that allows us to use the higher priced assets as new collateral to borrow still more from the bank, and use that money to send the prices even higher. We thus create a bubble whose fate remains totally under our control.

When we decide the time has come to solidify our bloated balance sheet, we sell the assets to others and stash the cash. Because we now have most of the cash, and the others have little of it, the bubble bursts the moment that we stop churning and flipping. The prices come down to near the original levels, and we buy them back at the low prices. We take time off for a few months, and then return to start the cycle all over again so as to make more cash, and gobble up the new wealth that was created while we were on vacation.

To make sure that people do not rebel and topple the system of governance, we turn the financial institutions into the very infrastructure that allows us to continue doing what we're doing. We get there by arguing that “this is how the system works; it cannot be tampered with, and no other system can deliver as much as this one for the largest number of people.”

We get the support of the employees in those financial institutions because they too benefit from what we're doing. They form the core of our base of operation, and to protect them, we engage in what is known on Earth as crony capitalism. That is, we establish contact with a few other sectors in the economy, and we feed these people too as they praise the financial institutions and preach the merits of our “capitalist” gospel. They do this without ever mentioning that this is the dark side of capitalism; the side that was never meant to overwhelm the system or bury its good side.

Publishing in all its forms employs the best positioned people to do that for us. Its employees praise the business associations while attacking the workers' trade unions. They call us and call themselves makers even though we make nothing. And they call the workers who create the wealth of the nation takers even if they only take a small fraction of what they make.

By the time we have repeated the cycle of bubbling up and bursting down the economy a dozen times, you and I – together with one percent of the planet's inhabitants – would have been in control of almost the entire economy, leaving very little for all the others to own and to live by.

We send an invitation to the demon that caused this chain of events to unfold, and he comes. To thank him, we give him a hell of a party we hope he'll remember for all of eternity.

Creatures of the Deep writing sham Headlines

There are many ways to assess the professionalism of journalists and that of the editors behind them.

A thorough analysis of what the journalists write over a period of time will do that for you. What you will also detect as you go through the process of constant analysis, is the evolution of young reporters who tend to mellow as they grow older, but not always.

The one thing that will astonish you, however – though not surprise you – is the determination of some editors and some publishers of any age, to crank up the hate machine when they so decide. These people may or may not damage the entities they are targeting, but they possess the ability to do considerable damage to America's journalistic tradition, which they often do.

An example of the hate machine at work can be seen on the website of CNN. It is an article that came under the title: “Could Egypt's empty animal mummies reveal an ancient scam?” and was published on May 22, 2015. The writer of the article is Eliza Anyangwe who wrote an excellent piece. In fact, this is the sort of article that CNN does not normally publish. It did this time, however, because it must have been desperate to find a vehicle that would carry that bogus headline. It is a title of the kind that is produced in the cesspool of Jewish horror.

In fact, anywhere in the English press you look today, you'll find a headline whose purpose is to denigrate Egypt. This is because Egypt is doing so well these days, the Jewish sense of “balance” kicks in, and turns the adherents to that religion and their running dogs, into rabid monsters programmed to destroy everything that smells of goodness or progress.

If those editors or publishers find an article that denigrates Egypt, they use it as is. If the marketplace of ideas runs out of such articles, they take those that would not have served their purpose but use them anyway under a sham headline, to mislead their readers. In fact, these people do more than mislead; they ejaculate the Jewish moral syphilis into the heads, hearts and souls of their readers.

Examples to that effect abound. One of the most extreme is the time when the CBS reporter that was touched inappropriately in Egypt four years ago went to hospital recently to get a flu shot or to be treated for something that was no more serious than that. But guess what happened. The journalistic response has been an explosion of big headlines linking this visit to the event that happened in Egypt … as if to say there was a cause and effect relationship between the two.

Another of their favorite tricks consists of quoting excerpts from an interview they say was conducted in Egypt, and they use it to construct a fake theory. The one they like best relates to female circumcision which they assure the readers they have Egypt's own statistics that tell a bad story. And they reveal the numbers in an article. Usually, the headlines go something like this: 95% of all women in Egypt are subjected to sexual mutilation. You read the article to see the details, and what you encounter blows your mind. They say that 98% of women in the rural areas, and 34% in the urban areas are circumcised.

To begin with, because female circumcision was banned in Egypt years ago, no one will admit they circumcised their daughters even if they did. But that is not what blows your mind. What does is the entrepreneurial spirit of the swindler who, for a fee, gave the kind of statistics that the interviewer wanted to hear. Coupled with that is the ignorance of the interviewer himself, and the eagerness of the media to use the garbage he came up with, in print and on the air.

So then what's wrong with those numbers? Two things are wrong. First, they show that the people who handled the statistics had no idea what the population of Egypt is composed of. Second, even if they knew it, their mathematical skills are so low; they would have made the same mistakes. The reality being that the population of Egypt is 50% rural and 50% urban, it means that only 66% of all women in Egypt are circumcised, not 95% as claimed by the media. In addition 10% of the population is Christians who do not circumcise their males or their females. This means that any statistics mentioning more than 90% circumcision is Jewish quackery.

CNN, like many outlets run by Jews, is a bag full of moral syphilis that has become an insult to America's journalistic tradition. It is a disgrace.

The foreign Carrot and the domestic Stick

If you want to know how comical the editors of the Wall Street Journal can be at times, read the latest piece they published on May 22, 2015 under the title: “I Don't Think We're Losing” and the subtitle: “President Obama sees light at the end of the ISIS tunnel.”

You must be warned, however, that as you laugh, you may also get teary eyed because what you'll encounter is not just a comedy but a tragicomedy where the tragic component is as real as the comical component. It is the situation that America has been living for a number of decades now … from the time when the voice of the Neocons started to rise above all other voices to become the deciding factor in the conduct of America's foreign policy – and by implication domestic matters as well.

In fact, even though the Neocons have lately been cut to size, their insidious influence can still be felt in most aspects of American life. Among these, the new economics of the “Far Right” where these people argue – in their own insidious manner – that the best way to make America a wealthy nation again is to starve its workers, forcing them to work harder and harder thus produce more and more if they want to eat and feed their families. You will come to realize that this approach to economics represents nothing less than the use of the stick (or the whip) in the conduct of domestic affairs.

That image will come to mind when you read the following passage in the Journal's latest editorial:

“At least Mr. Bush ordered a change of strategy that left Iraq stable by the time Mr. Obama took office. On present trend Mr. Obama will leave his successor an Iraq in turmoil and a mini-caliphate entrenched across hundreds of miles. If this isn't 'losing,' how does the President define victory?”

Those who know the history of that colossal mistake know that to make Iraq look like it had been stabilized by the time George W. Bush left office, his administration borrowed like crazy from domestic and foreign lenders, and used the money (among other things) to bribe the Iraqi Sunni tribes of the Anbar province into keeping their followers quiet till at least the new administration had taken office.

What was happening in the meantime is that something was brewing on the American domestic front while the Iraqis were munching on the carrot just handed to them. It is that all the borrowing that was done had caused the financial system to collapse in slow motion till it finally came down in a thud. It triggered a near depression in America at the time that W. Bush was leaving office, thus handing to Obama, the new President a miserable Neoconish mess.

The net result has been the painting of a new American portrait under the management of the new conservative Neocons handing out carrots abroad in the form of monetary bribes and military aid, thus eroding the American economy and leading to the inevitable suggestion that the American workers at home be starved and whipped like slaves on a Roman ship that is out at sea looking for foreign lands to conquer, and new provinces to add to a crumbling empire. And they named that portrait Pax Americana.

By the time that the American economy had been stabilized – a feat that was achieved by ending the bleeding, which was the only tool available to the new President – Iraq had become the mess that the Neocon invasion had fated for it. And in the same “Cool Hand Luke” manner that Mr. Obama managed to stabilize the American economy, he is now seeking to stabilize the Middle East.

This is what the Neocons are huffing and puffing about, something they do every time that they decide to repeat the successes they had in the past. That was the time when they were able to con America's public and its politicians into believing they possessed the secret that can make the empire live long and prosper – to borrow a saying from the fictitious Vulcan Civilization.

And this is what the new Wall Street Journal editorial is about. It is the sound of a fading voice that will soon die out, and hopefully will not be heard from again for a long time.

And Bobby Jindal isn't an authentic Redneck

Bobby Jindal is again trying to out-red the Rednecks that populate the swampy bayous in his neck of the woods. He is doing this in the hope of gaining their confidence and win their votes in the upcoming election cycle. One thing he did to advance his dream is to write: “Iran Isn't Iraq, and This Isn't 2003,” an article that was published on May 20, 2015 in National Review Online.

In taking this approach, Jindal does to himself what the apartheid regime of South Africa used to do to people of color. When it could not keep the White professionals from leaving the country, and could not attract enough White immigrants to replace those it was losing, the regime labeled the Asian applicants honorary Whites and welcomed them into the country. In a similar fashion, Bobby Jindal wants the world to believe he is now an honorary Redneck whose neck can turn as red as that of a turkey at the start of the mating cycle.

The one area in which the human turkeys of the bayous have gained special notoriety, is the combination of ignorance and cowardice that is said to power their political activities. Unlike the conservatives everywhere else in the world who campaign by explaining to their constituents what parts of the old wisdom they will conserve, and how they will adapt them to better serve the modern era, the redneck conservatives of America promise their constituents to make them feel exceptional by doing things which are exceptionally dumb; things like send American boys and girls to far away places where they hope to kick asses, and in return, get kicked in the ass … a symbol, perhaps, of lowering America's standing in the eyes of the world.

So then, what can a self-proclaimed honorary Redneck do to endear himself to his new constituents? Well, he can begin his article like this: “Instead of rehashing the Iraq War, let's face today's much more serious threat from Iran.” And if you want to know why that is, he tells you why. It is because hindsight is 20/20, and that Monday-morning quarterbacking is useless, he says.

Being the agreeable and easy going fellow that you are, you say fine. You accept Bobby Jindal's presentation, and promise to adapt your thinking to see things the way he sees them. You take a deep breath and ask: What now, Bobby? And he tells you what. Speaking of President Obama, he says this: So unwilling to contemplate a military engagement in the Middle East is he, he appears scared of his shadow.” Well, you don't tell this to Bobby, but you think to yourself that if Mr. Obama is scared, he is not scared of being wounded or dying himself; he is scared for the American boys and girls whom, as their commander in chief, he would be sending to get wounded or die.

True to character, you restrain yourself long enough to calmly ask the next question: What does it all mean, Bobby? And he tells you what. Doing his own quarterbacking in hindsight, he references the two wars of the Twentieth Century saying this: “After the horrors of Verdun … Neville Chamberlain and his contemporaries so feared the outbreak of another Great War for years they handsomely rewarded aggression in their midst – setting the stage for an even bloodier global conflict.”

This is where you almost burst with anger, and feel tempted to confront him. But lucky for you, he comes to the rescue by saying something so primitive, you cool off instantly, feeling it is not worth getting exercised over a turkey that will probably not make it into the league of rednecks. It is that speaking of Hillary Clinton, he tells you this: “it's how she and the president have learned the wrong lesson from the [Iraq] conflict.”

And the lesson, according to him, is this: “Because this decade's answer to an Iraqi regime that did not possess chemical or biological weapons is not to leave Iran within striking distance of a nuclear bomb.” Fine, you say, but where is the lesson that says America must do something about Iran? In response, Jindal makes his point by reminding you of the words that were spoken by Mr. Obama when he was a senator.

He says that at the time, Mr. Obama said he believed that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent and direct threat to the US or his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy was in shambles, that the Iraqi military was a fraction of its former strength, and that the international community could contain a petty dictator … all of which proved to be true, says history, now that a decade has passed. So you want to know, what point is Jindal trying to make? It is this: “Contrast his [Obama's] comments about Iraq then to the situation in Iran now.” He goes on: “Iran is much more of a threat now than Iraq was then.”

You recall that he got you to this point to explain why he says Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama learned the wrong lesson. It is that Clinton was wrong because she voted for the war, and then admitted she made a mistake, he had said. It is also that Obama was wrong because he opposed the war from he start, he had said. And so, he can now assert that he, Bobby Jindal, who approved of the attack on Saddam and does not regret it, is in a position to opine that Iran cannot be contained … which is euphemism that means Iran must be bombed into the Stone Age. This is the kind of redneckism that the authentic rednecks of the bayous will reject.

To close, Jindal recalls that Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992 using a song of the time “Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.” But now, he believes that the game over Iraq echoes the song “It's so hard to say goodbye to yesterday.” What he will soon realize, however, is that he'll be singing a more recent song to the Rednecks: “Fool that I am for falling in love with you. And a fool that I am for thinking you loved me too.”

Welcome into the Brotherhood of civilized Man

Finally, a former big wig from inside the bowels of horror has decided to come out the hole of Jewish depravity and enjoy life in the open where there is light and civilized interactions among all men and all women. His name is Henry Siegman who used to preside over the American Jewish Congress, but does more useful things now.

He wrote: “Give Up on Netanyahu, Go to the United Nations,” an article that was published on May 20, 2015 in the New York Times. As you read the article, you feel it in your bones that the man understands the message which humanity has been sending to these people, a message that says: Final-solution the ideology of sheer horror you adhere to, or humanity will try and try again to final-solution your followers, both the guilty among them and the innocent ones who did nothing to deserve such fate.

To make certain that what he is about to say will not be lost on the American people or the captains of the ship of state, Siegman begins the article with this: “Continued peace talks with the Palestinians serves no purpose other than to provide cover for Israel's expansion of Jewish settlements and to preclude the emergence of anything resembling a Palestinian state.” And he ends by warning that if the lesson is not well understood “America will be seen as collaborating with Mr. Netanyahu's government in the continued subjugation of the Palestinians. That would irreparably damage the United States' honor and its national interests.”

As to the lesson he is giving to America, he begins it by saying, in his own way, that there are no moderates in Israel. In fact, speaking of what is perceived as the more moderate faction in Israel, he says the following about it: “An agreement based on the 1967 lines never appeared in the Zionist Union's platform or crossed Mr. Herzog's lips.” It cannot be said clearer or more concisely than that.

As to the most extreme faction, he says the following about it: “Mr. Netanyahu is providing offense [to American democratic sensibilities] by appointing as justice minister Ayelet Shaked who posted an article on her Facebook page that called for the destruction of 'the entire Palestinian people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.'” No, this is not Ahmadinejad talking about the Jews; it is Israel's minister of justice talking about the Palestinians. And the US Congress of fools never condemned it.

This being the reality of what has been going on in the Middle East … a reality that was kept hidden from the American people during the past half century, Siegman views Israel's recent victory of the far right as providing an opening for Mr. Obama to call for a reassessment of America's peace policy. And because “it is certain that a two-state agreement will never emerge from negotiations,” he advises that “such agreement can only be achieved if the United Nations Security Council, with strong support from the United States, presents the parties with clear terms.”

If this is rejected by any of the parties or by both, says Siegman, “America would then join other countries in asking the Security Council to resolve the outstanding final-status issues.” He predicts that Israel will reject the idea of ending the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state. Thus, he goes on to say: “such decision would encourage international boycotts of Israel and challenges to its legitimacy.” He opines that America's unconditional support for Israel will erode -- a circumstance that will be far more likely to change Israel's policies than any of the present strategies.

Despite the fact that he sees “fierce domestic opposition from the Israel lobby and many members of Congress” if the Obama administration were to shift its Middle Eastern policy, Siegman urges Mr. Obama to move decisively in the direction he outlined. Yes, he used the word decisively, because he knows what happens when you dilly dally with these people; they keep diluting what you're proposing till it loses its significance.

To make sure that Israel gets the message, he warns its leaders that America's commitment to Israel's security will be in danger of eroding if the administration continues to prevent the UN from pursuing a two-state agreement while continuing to provide Israel with the military assistance that helps it maintain the occupation.

This means that sooner or later, Israel will have to choose between the occupation of Palestine and America's guarantees for its security, because it will no longer have both. Siegman then makes his final moral plea: “America's commitment to Israel's security obliges it to push the Security Council to seek an end to the occupation and pave the way for Palestinian statehood.”

Not a speeding Car but small Avalanches

Anyone – such as teachers or others – engaged in a profession where disputes arise from time to time, and the teachers are called upon to resolve the conflict between students, will tell you that most disputes start small and, if not resolved, can escalate to become a major incident. But they will also say that not every conflict escalates to become a major incident, even if it is not resolved by a third party.

The above is something we should bear in mind when reading, in the Wall Street Journal, the editorial that came under the title: “The Iraq Diversion,” and the Bret Stephens column that came under the title: “Everything Is Awesome, Mideast Edition,” both published on May 19, 2015 in the Journal. Whereas the editorial came also under the subtitle: “Liberals want to talk about anything but the current world disorder,” the Stephens column came under the subtitle: “It takes a special innocence to imagine that the chaos unfolding in the Middle East can be put right.”

The key to understanding what has shaped the thinking of these people can be found near the end of the Stephens column. It reads as follows: “The Middle East, along with our position in it, is unraveling at an astonishing pace. Reckless drivers often don't see how fast they're going until they're about to crash.” The problem with this analogy, however, is that it does not fully match the reality on the ground.

But if we must stay with it, the thing to do is acknowledge that America – which used to be in the driver's seat in the Middle East under a different administration – bears full responsibility for speeding the car. And now that a new administration has taken charge, the nation of America is being steadily taken out of the car. Still, because this picture is incomplete, a more fitting analogy will have to be invented.

To this end, imagine several groups of skiers working the slopes of the mountain, causing small avalanches that do little harm most of the time and serious harm once in a while. This resembles a world where small conflicts abound, and a big flare-up erupts once in a while. On that mountain, one group of skiers is called Middle East, and it happens to be taking instructions from one named W. America.

After a while, W. America is replaced by O. America who immediately senses that a big avalanche is now gathering, and may have been for a while. He tells his team to get out of there … and do so in and orderly fashion, setting the good example himself. Because the mountain has been disturbed for some time now, the small avalanches continue to happen, but the pace at which they do, begins to diminish. Seeing this, O. tells his people there is hope that the situation will stabilize.

Not so, says Bret Stephens who points to incidents that happened from April 2, 2015 to May 17, 2015 as proof that the situation is dire. Instead of seeing those occurrences as being small avalanches that will die out before causing a major damage – such as, for example, Dresden or the Battle of Britain or Pearl Harbor or Hiroshima – he sees them as being the gathering storm that will culminate in a mushroom cloud ... to borrow a phrase from W's lexicon.

And this brings us to the editorial of the Journal. Unlike the Stephens column which avoided the politics that usually come with the territory, the editors' piece is entirely about politics. More precisely, it is an expression of the ongoing jockeying playing itself out between the two Parties in preparation for the upcoming presidential primaries and subsequent general election.

Being very much a part of that jockeying, the editors do all sorts of fancy trotting (if not horsing around) to say that they were correct in approving the invasion of Iraq in 2003, as were all the Republicans who had the chance to vote on it; even those that missed the chance.

But when it comes to the Democrats, the one that counts the most is the current frontrunner for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton, who voted for the resolution to invade Iraq … and she was wrong, say the editors of the Journal.

They now present their own list showing what they consider to be the hot spots on the Planet. And they advise that “Voters might want to know what the candidates will do about them.” Or maybe not, being tired of this kind of politics.

Restrict Lindsey Graham to one Meal a Day

Lindsey Graham wrote an article under the title: “Much More Is Needed to Stop Iran From Getting the Bomb” and the subtitle: “Obama will reluctantly sign a bill giving Congress more say over a final deal. Here's what we should be looking for.” It was published on May 18, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

From what comes in the second sentence of the first paragraph, you can tell in what mood Graham was when he wrote that thing. He says this: “He [Obama] was forced to accept.” Obama was forced, he says. Yes, he deliberately wrote the word forced. You know what, my friend? Let me tell it to you as bluntly as it can be said, even if it unsettles a nation of 300 million caught in the grip of a politically correct wave.

What I am deliberately saying is this: before the Jews took over America, that nation never used the denigrating word “forced” even as it spoke of the Asian Yellow Bellies, of the Wogs of the Middle East, the Communists of Eastern Europe, or the Niggers of Africa. Now the Jewish infested Graham speaks of an American President that is forced to do something he would not otherwise do. How much farther will he go to denigrate that man?

Diseased to the core by what has infested him, Graham calls Iran “the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East and the world,” knowing full well that the greatest sponsor of terrorism is none other than America itself which is sponsoring Israel, the only terrorist state left on the Planet. And it must be said that America has acquired this status by virtue of the work that mentally diseased legislators such as Graham and many more have been doing to secure and cement the Jewish domination of America.

He goes on to describe where Iran sits geographically without mentioning that it is the victim of American and Israeli intrigues in the region – machinations that created the crisis in Iraq which in turn spawned the Syrian crisis, the rise of ISIS, and the resurgence of al Qaeda. And he calls Iran a pariah nation when the high pitch howling that is done by the Jews is that it is they and Israel who are treated like pariahs while Iran is treated like one of mankind's most cherished states.

Trying to capture the understanding and sympathy of the readers, the man now pulls two Jewish tricks that used to work in the past but were so abused by the Jews who sought to impress their readers; they transformed the tricks into powerful agents, now only able to put the readers to sleep. What he did was to say (1) Israel faces an existential threat at the hands of Iran (yawn), and (2) he predicted a future in which a regional war will erupt with a guarantee that it will have global implications (you may now snore).

Hooked mentally and spiritually to the Jewish screwy method that was hammered into his head, he advances the principle that in the negotiations which are ongoing between Iran and the West, the desired outcome is not guaranteed beforehand. For this reason he proposes eight principles to ensure that outcome regardless as to how the negotiations may proceed.

The first principle is that “Iran must not be allowed an enrichment capability greater than the practical needs to supply one commercial reactor.” Make no mistake, he is not talking about one reactor for a university research lab; he is talking about one nuclear power plant for Iran, knowing that the country will need dozens of those when it runs out of hydrocarbons. Well, I have a suggestion to make: Why not punish Lindsey Graham by restricting him to only one meal a day?

He also wants to close all hardened sites to make the country as vulnerable as Iraq was when Israel bombed its civilian nuclear power station. Graham wants this for Iran despite the fact that he also wants “anytime, anywhere inspections of all military and nonmilitary facilities." This is like asking Iran to emasculate itself, and then run naked in the open so that the world may see its impotence.

And here is a principle that is as Jewish as matzo bread: “Iran must not be allowed to conduct research and development on advanced centrifuges.” Well, I have a second suggestion to make: Why not punish Lindsey Graham by banning him from every library, from consulting the internet, from reading any book and from watching any educational program on television?

The man also wants to see the “removal of all enriched uranium from Iran.” And why is that? Because in his opinion, Iran has no need to possess a large stockpile of uranium. He does not explain this view except to say in closing that the implementation of these suggestions “will reassert American leadership in the Middle East.”

Obviously, the guy is ignorant of the fact that it was a whiff of this kind of attitude – hinted at by the Jews – that started eroding America's standing in the Middle East and the rest of the world.

I have a third suggestion to make: Why not award Lindsey Graham a one way trip to Mars?