No Limit will ever satisfy these People

There was a time long ago when the ethnic communities in North America began to sense that the Jews were slowly but surely strangling the freedom of expression that the newcomers had expected to see, to practice and to enjoy by virtue of being citizens of this continent. Some people even studied the phenomenon and found a way to explain it to those who couldn't figure out why such things were happening here.

They explained it this way: imagine a beautiful house that everyone in the neighborhood loves. If a Jew has a fall out with its owner and wants to hurt him, he goes to city hall and convinces the zoning officers that what counts is not the overall look of the house but the fact that it has one brick – one single brick – whose color is slightly different from the others. For this reason the house must be condemned and demolished, says the Jew, and the zoning officers say yes sir, amen sir.

Now imagine a dilapidated house that inspector after inspector has labeled a hazard to the neighborhood, and called for its demolition and yet, city hall does not move to have it taken down. You check the reason why, and discover that it is owned by a Jew who has convinced the zoning officers that what counts is not the danger that the house represents but the fact that it has one brick – one single brick – whose color is slightly different from the others; therefore the house must be spared. And the zoning officers say yes sir, amen sir.

Decades have passed since those days, and we find that the Jews have now taken full control of the North American continent using that trick and a bagful of other similar tricks. We also find that some of the predictions made by some of the people at the time have materialized. They said then that the Jews were careful enough to attack only the newcomers who could not defend themselves. But sooner or later, they went on to say, the Jews will feel confident enough to attack everyone else up to and including the American President for doing his job – that of serving the interests of the United States.

This is what's happening now, and if you look at the tricks that the Jews are using, you'll find them to be an updated version of those they used long ago. Two articles illustrate how that works. The first is a column that came under the title: “The Syria Sham and the Iran Deal” and the subtitle: “Syria cheated on its chemical commitments. Iran will cheat on its nuclear ones. Obama provides cover for both.” It was written by Bret Stephens and published on July 28, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal. The second came under the title: “Iran: The Real Deal,” written by Howard J. Klein and published on July 29, 2015 in the Weekly Standard.

In his column, Stephens brushes aside what “has been confirmed by the organization internationally charged with eliminating chemical weapons,” mainly that such weapons have been removed from Syria … at least to the tune of 92.5 % if not better. He then quotes a short passage from an article that was written in the Journal alleging that US intelligence concluded that Syria didn't give up all the chemical weapons “it was supposed to” when, in fact, Syria did.

To see what game the Journal people are playing, it must be understood that every element in the universe is a chemical element or a compound thereof ... from the food preserving substances we consume to the detergents we do not. The same goes for everything that's used in the machinery of war, such as gun powder and the fuels that power the vehicles. A number of chemical compounds constitute banned weapons of mass destruction, among them phosphoric bombs and napalm bombs. Syria never used them nor does it possess them at present. In fact, the only military that used them, and continues to stockpile them are the Israelis. They were condemned for using these weapons in the past, and they refuse to relinquish them now.

As to Howard Klein, he frames his argument in such a way as to sound like he is accusing President Obama of betraying a promise he made to the “public” if not betraying his oath of office. He then speculates that “there can only be two reasons for this failure.” He discards one reason, and maintains the notion that “the negotiations regarding Iran's nukes were a smokescreen for the pursuit of a different agenda.”

He calls it a “hidden agenda” and explains it this way: “to agree on the terms by which Iran would re-enter the family of nations…” which is good for America and for the world. But to make it sound like it is a bad thing to do, Klein goes on to say: “...at the price of acceptance of Iran's eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons.” This is the paranoia that makes the Jews always hungry for more. And someone needs to tell them: enough is enough.

He must shut his Mouth to protect his Ass

If my neighbor across the street tells me I should worry about my neighbor on the other side of the driveway because he has bad motives, I nod and say I'll keep that in mind.

If he tells me I should worry about the fellow that lives ten blocks away because he might kill me some day, I ask who the neighbor of that person is so that I go ask about the fellow next door to him. If he says it's his brother, I tell him to take a hike because I'm not in danger; his brother is. Or maybe it's the neighbor that should worry about the brother … if not worry about the safety of his entire family.

This is what America is coming around to telling the likes of Ido Aharoni. He is Israel's consul general in New York, and he wrote an article that came under the title: “The problem: Iran's underlying motives,” published on July 30, 2015 in the New York Daily News. He tells America it should worry about far away Iran and Israel's neighbor because that country may someday threaten America with nuclear war.

To explain all this, he does the very Jewish thing of inventing on the spot what needs to be said to strengthen his argument. Here it is in abbreviated form of it: “Every security expert will tell you that the enemy succeeds when he has the desire to attack, and has both the capabilities and the opportunity to do so.” He goes on to say that the nuclear deal with Iran may have curbed the capabilities and the opportunity to attack America, but have not curbed the desire to do it because this goes to the very nature of the Iranian regime.

And so Aharoni summarizes: “An agreement that does not address the root of the problem is incomplete at best, dangerous at worst,” and then quotes Israel's minister of defense who put it this way: “The international community looks at Iran as the solution; we see Iran as the problem.”

He now makes use of something that was invented by the Jews a few years ago, and repeated by the mentally deficient in some places. They said that Israel is a democracy, and democracies do not fight each other because they are responsible to their people who do not like wars. They kept repeating this refrain at a time when the entity that is Israel and the nation that is America never went through an election cycle during which the most powerful populist promise was not to boost the military-industrial complex and threaten war, war, war. It may not have been a threat to attack another so-called democracy, but it was usually a threat directed at those who could not defend themselves. This is how democratic courage is defined.

So then what did Aharoni do in this regard? He wrote: “Iran's regime has been a destabilizing force in the Middle East and the leading producer of terrorism in the world. It is not about democracy and freedom; it suppresses the student-driven movement inside the country … allowing Iran to walk away with a diplomatic achievement will undermine those fighting for freedom and democracy in Iran.”

And this – believe it or not – is what leads the Israeli consul general to conclude that “the mullah's goals are Islamic rule and regional domination.” He calls this meddling in the affairs of others, and then opines that “it is utterly undisturbed by the nuclear deal.” This means, that the Western negotiators should have dictated to the Iranians how to run their internal affairs in order to have the sanctions lifted.

The problem with this guy – and all guys like him – is that he ignores the fact that what he does is but a small part of the tsunami of incitements that the Jews and their mouthpieces are directing at the Americans to move against Iran. And so he grotesquely comes up with the accusation that “they [the Iranians] have no intention to stop the incitement against America and the other free and open societies.” Go figure.

He gives as example the chants “death to America, death to Israel” that the people break into when the Jews and their mentally retarded followers in America utter “all options are on the table.”

So I take the opportunity to whisper a few words in the ear of the Israeli consul: “Listen here, Ido of the Aharoni kind, you can bet your sweet little ass that every time someone in the so-called democracies will utter all options are on the table, the people of Iran will chant death to America, death to Israel. Now, if you want to keep your ass; keep your bloody mouth shut.

He created a new Beast from Parts of Dogma

It is easy to see why the fanatics always get it wrong; it's that they begin with a preconceived mental image of what the beast should look like. When they have a clear image of it in their heads, they start looking for the parts which, when put together, will create a picture-perfect replica of the beast they have imagined.

This is what Clifford D. May does in the article he wrote under the title:”Defeating the mortal enemies” and the subtitle: “It's going to require more determination than the West has so far demonstrated.” It was published on July 28, 2015 in the Washington Times.

Rather than follow the normal process of observing the situation on the ground, analyzing its parts and synthesizing the whole into a coherent theory, Clifford May picks a thin sliver of the monumental work that Bernard Lewis spent a lifetime putting together. On that sliver, May hangs parts of arguments made by others, and parts of conclusions arrived at by still others, to stitch together a picture-perfect replica of the image he had imagined long ago out of dogma and fanatic belief.

But he does not mention Bernard Lewis until the second paragraph. Instead, he starts his presentation with a quotation from what the American Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter had told his troops. He said then that the barbarians are always defeated by civilization. Of course, Carter had in mind the Nazis and the Fascists of Europe, as well as the Imperialists of Asia who were defeated by the allies during the Second World War.

But May dismisses all that, brushing it aside with this: “regrettably [this] is not supported by historical evidence.” He then praises Bernard Lewis who, somewhere inside the mountain of work that he constructed, noted that the Roman Empire and the medieval Islamic Empire “were conquered by less civilized but more vigorous people.” This is exactly what May was looking for to argue that the conquest was “made possible [because] things were going badly wrong within the society.” Upon this, our author begins to stitch together the image he had formed in his head long ago.

He begins his work with a question: “Would anyone argue that things are going well in America and Europe today?” He follows with two more questions, one designed to show that Western societies are not as vigorous as they used to be; the other designed to show that the Muslim kids who savagely wage jihad are. He quickly draws the Islamic Republic of Iran into the picture to say that even if its people know how to smile for the camera, and know which forks to use at elegant Viennese restaurants, they still do bad things.

One of those – in fact, the first bad act that the Iranians committed against America – occurred in 1979, he says. That's when students seized the American embassy in Tehran and held the diplomats hostage for more than a year. Clifford May now invokes Mark Bowden's remark to the effect that this moment was “the first battle in America's war with militant Islam.” He leaves Iran for a second to say that “today, militant Islamic forces are engaged in battles across the Middle East, North Africa and beyond.” He then gets back to saying that “of late, a battle has been fought and won by Iran's rulers.” And he explains in subtle ways that he means the nuclear deal.

May now feels he has put together a complete picture of a Muslim beast that's vigorous and doing battle with a West that lost its vigor … and getting worse. The proof is that “American leaders continue to shrink the armed forces Secretary Carter oversees.” To show how bad the situation is, May grabs another part and adds it to the picture he is drawing. This time it is a quote from Mackenzie Eaglen who said that the U.S. military is today “smaller than it was before 9/11.”

His point is that the military should be beefed up. To buttress this conclusion, he questions the wisdom of Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter: “Does he seriously believe the road we're now on leads to the defeat of the enemies? If so, his belief is based on faith or wishful thinking – not fact, experience or precedent.” Thus, armchair admiral Clifford D. May summarily dismisses the fact that Carter was talking from experience to his troops based on the precedent of current and previous wars he studied at the war academies or participated in as soldier and commander of forces that engaged in real combat.

May ends his presentation by telling the admirals in the Congress of morons, and those running for office what to do now. So you ask yourself if this is a joke, and discover that Clifford D. May is president of the comical Foundation for Defense of Democracies. You have a good laugh, and say: Good night, Cliff.

The big Farce from the Horse's Keyboard

Those who remember the theatrics that were staged by Israel, by its Jewish mouthpieces and its non-Jewish echo repeaters in the Anglophile world, will see an attempt to re-stage these theatrics – albeit with some modifications – in the article that Norman Podhoretz has published in the Wall Street Journal on July 29, 2015.

The clowning at the time rested on the theme that Israel may or may not have an arsenal of nuclear weapons; that it may or may not have submarines capable of launching these weapons; that it may or may not have a tacit agreement with Saudi Arabia to use its territory to bomb Iran; that it had the ability to send planes westward as far as they would need to fly eastward to hit Iran; that plans were prepared to start a war with Iran so as to get Israel into a perilous situation and force the United States to come to the rescue.

Norman Podhoretz, who is one of the horses' mouths representing American Jewry, has written a sequel to that spoof; one that is different from the original show by only a little. He put it under a title that reads: “Israel's Choice: Conventional War Now, or Nuclear War Later” and a subtitle that reads: “There was no 'better deal' with Iran to be had. Now this calamitous one offers Tehran two paths to the bomb.”

He first proclaims that he considers “Mr. Obama's deal a calamity.” That's because the deal offers Iran the choice of cheating or simply waiting for the sunset clause to kick in while preparing for the “glorious day” when it will have acquired the bomb. Having tried as hard as he can to prove Obama wrong, he finds himself “unable to escape the conclusion that Mr. Obama is right” in dismissing the better deal that his critics propose. And since the other parties to the negotiations are eager to do business with Iran, “the upshot is that to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, the only way to do so is to bomb Iran.”

Speaking as if deputized by humanity to speak on its behalf, he expresses the sorrow that “once upon a time … every other country on earth believed” it was necessary and possible to prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb through negotiations. But as it happened, those “not blinded by wishful delusions [discovered that] diplomacy would never work” with Iran.

Alas, these people were prevented from speaking up, he says, while others declared that “force remained on the table” when in fact, they had decided never to resort to force. Not only that, but “Mr. Obama was hellbent on stopping Israel from taking military action on its own.” The result was that “they all set about persuading themselves … we could live with a nuclear Iran as we had lived with Russia and China during the Cold War.” That's how the self-induced delusion infested the world except those, like Bernard Lewis, who knew better.

The situation at this time being that the negotiating partners wish to do business with Iran, and that Obama has fulfilled his dream of establishing detente with Iran, the only thing left to do to prevent Iran from getting the bomb is to consider “war as the only alternative.” Thus, what Obama has wrought will not avert war, as he claims, but “sets the stage for a nuclear war between Iran and Israel,” he asserts with confidence.

Having spoken for all of humanity, Podhoretz now speaks for all Israelis. He says: “with hardly an exception, all of Israel believes that the Iranians are deadly serious when they proclaim they [will] wipe the Jewish state off the map.” This leads him to see the parallel with the Cold War theory named Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) according to which either side is deterred from attacking the other lest the other be forced to respond.

However, there is a wrinkle here that is unsettling Podhoretz. It is that the Iranians believe “the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything [but] will only harm the Islamic world.” Given this reality, he asks: “How can deterrence work?” And he answers: “The brutal truth is that the actual alternatives … are conventional war now or nuclear war later.”

Well, well, well. This forces us to look again into the Iranian saying about a single bomb inside Israel. Podhoretz tells us it was the former President Hashemi Rafsanjani who said it. When was that? In 2001. This was a time when the Israeli stud wanted the world to believe he was endowed with an arsenal of nuclear tools potent enough to heap destruction on the Muslim world. That's when Rafsanjani responded: You do that, baby, and one throw from us and you're blown away.

Norman Podhoretz wants to stage a sequel to this farce perhaps because he wants to see Israel blown away.

Weekly Standard converts and still takes Credit

David Adesnik of the Weekly Standard wrote an article to tell those who approve of the nuclear deal with Iran that they were correct in everything they said. He even used their argument to build on and reach that conclusion … but he had a caveat that allowed him to give credit to the side that said no to the deal.

To avoid saying that the side defended all that time by the Weekly Standard was the wrong one to take, Adesnik came up with an ingenious trick to save face while admitting defeat. He plays that trick in the article he wrote under the title: “Here's the Alternative to a Bad Deal with Iran,” and had it published on July 27, 2015 in the Weekly Standard.

When you give the article a quick read, you get the gist of what he is saying which, in a nutshell, is this: We were wrong and they were right except that, contrary to what they claim, there will be no war if the Congress rejects the deal now. So you comb through the article … this time looking for the reason why he is confident that a rejection of the deal by the Congress will not lead to war. And what you discover astounds you.

He starts like this: “Defenders of the deal are right to ask what the alternatives are. What's excessive is their confidence that the alternative is war. In fact, the alternative is not terribly dramatic … because the structure of the deal now on the table gives Iran very strong incentives to remain cooperative.” In other words, David Adesnik is saying that the team which Obama assembled to negotiate on behalf of the United States was smart to have negotiated the terms of that deal, and the Iranians are too civilized to mess with it now.

That's what is astounding about the article. What's fascinating about it is what the author does to save face for the no side which argued on the basis that the Iranian leaders are raving mad, apocalyptic, religious fanatics having no regard for human life, and would sacrifice everything under their control, including their entire population, for the pleasure of killing us who are saints on this Earth.

How does he backtrack from that position to now say that Iran will not, after all, mess with the deal on the table? Here is how he begins to say that: “War is not imminent … at least until the next American president takes office and Tehran finishes negotiating long-term contracts with multinational firms so eager to claim a share of the Iranian market.” But what after that? Will the Iranians risk it all having come this far to put down the foundation for a rebound of their economy and a return to normalcy?

Well, this is where the author pulls a fast one on his readers. Having frozen the Iranians in a position where they will do no harm, he starts telling how America could now exploit the situation: “the result will not be an Iranian sprint toward the bomb, but rather the first step toward restoring America's diplomatic leverage.” He goes on to explain: “the next president and the next Congress will have the same opportunity as today to accept [or reject] the terms negotiated in Vienna.”

There is one more problem that Adesnik needs to resolve. It has to do with legality if the Congress votes no to the deal. Because this will determine whether the rest of the world will side with America or with Iran, the author first explains why nothing will happen till at least April 2016. Still, Congress rejecting the deal may “upset the political balance in Tehran, leading the Iranians to withdraw from the deal … while Obama is working to implement it.” This will make them the villains in the eyes of the world, and America would have won the day.

But, he goes on to say there are good reasons for the Iranians to support the deal. It is that the door will be open for extensive foreign investment to come into the country. This means, the author expects that sanity will again prevail in Iran, something America will exploit to gain time till a new president is elected. He then explores what could happen under different electoral outcomes and concludes that electing an opponent of the deal who will renounce it will allow Iran to walk away from it while pocketing its gains. But this need not happen, he says, because he or she “would retain critical leverage to negotiate a better deal.” That would be an offer to lift American sanctions.

This done, Adesnik gives credit for the side that the Weekly Standard had taken: “Tehran will avoid the activities that would put the U.S. in the difficult position of choosing between war and the acceptance of a nuclear-armed Iran. That is why disapproval by Congress would strengthen America's position without risk of armed conflict.” Well, whatever. But let the Congress now vote on a good deal that was negotiated with reasonable people.

Eunuchs on the Prowl looking for 'Action'

Most of the world has at last come to realize that at least America's foreign policy, if not more, is run not by Americans, but by Jews whose loyalty is vested in Israel and the ancient dream of ruling the world via a Pax Americana or some other method that would work.

The result is that the Jewish studs who used to run the world from behind America's facade have found themselves detested and dejected by the world. Feeling castrated, having no one to rape or threaten to rape, and still unable to adapt to their new condition, they remain as hot as ever. And so, they have decided to go out on the prowl, trying to figure a new way by which to satisfy their urges … and get paid for it.

One of those is Elliott Abrams of the so-called Council on Foreign Relations. He wrote an article that came under the title “Where is Egypt Heading?” and had it published on the website of the so-called Council on July 26, 2015. He begins it like this: “The past week has brought two comments on the situation in Egypt.” And he tells what they are. One is an article that was written by Robert Springnord, and the other is a letter sent to Secretary of State John Kerry, written by (get this now) himself on the official letterhead of the so-called Council.

All this happened on the same week, if not the same day that the greatest symbol of Egypt's new path was tested in preparation for the inauguration day on August 6, 2015. It is the twinning of the Suez Canal that used to be a one-way waterway and is now a two-way waterway. When the contractors told President Sisi it will take 5 years to do the job, he said he wants the time shortened. They said 3 years, and he said he wants it done in one year … and so it was.

The Canal is one of the many colossal projects that were started by the new government. Because of its history, the Canal is inextricably linked to that of the Sinai Peninsula, having been targeted by Israel and now by the terrorists. This is why the project was put under the supervision of the military. The effect on the Egyptian population – which loves its armed forces to begin with – has been to increase the affection the people have for those who protect their sovereignty and most importantly, maintain their stability.

To get a sense of how deeply that sentiment runs among Egyptians, go back in memory to a time when the people went out in the streets and asked the military to remove a government they did not like; one that would not leave by itself. The people were chanting: we and the army are one. And when the country was going through some difficult moments, the pundits in America – among them those of the so-called Council on Foreign Relations – were predicting the collapse of the country, its disintegration and its descent into civil war.

When that situation did not materialize, the same pundits started saying that the economy was evaporating, and predicted that it will dissolve into the ether in a matter of weeks if not days. As a result, they went on to opine that there will be mass starvation and all the chaos that come with that. This did not happen but the talk had two effects. The first is that the normal rolling of the bonds that come to term was not rolled by investors who got scared. The second is that the normal courtesy the IMF used to accord to Egypt was stiffened.

Well, even though Egypt never relied too much on loans, and did not need much to pull out of the difficulties caused by the Revolution, it needed short term bridge loans to avoid the weakening of its currency. It turned to the Arab governments who not only extended credit to Egypt but also gave a few gifts, and switched their investments from the places where high returns were hard to get, to Egypt where the investors saw proof of an economy that is so resilient, it registered growth when most of the world was stalling.

And now that Egypt is over the hump, and on its way to regaining its status as the economic tiger of the upcoming cycle, the clowns, the imbeciles, the mad and the good-for-nothings are coming out to do the bidding for the Israelis, the terrorists and World Jury; entities that cannot survive by working for a living, thus seek to create chaos where they can and snatch a few things to sustain them for a while.

Just watch Israel and the Jews ask the American Congress for another handout. And watch the Congress as it hands out what it must borrow, to Israel and to the Jews.  That's what this whole crap is about. That's what Elliott Abrams is all about.

Exploiting America's Democracy to eat it alive

How can a place that was called the greatest deliberative body in human history go from being the Congress where ideas that made America great were baked, to being the graveyard that's slowly pulling America into its final resting place? It happened because the Congress caught a disease called Jewish morality, thus became the graveyard where useful ideas were buried never to see the light of day again.

Examples abound as to how ideas designed to advance the causes of the American people were killed and buried in a Congress where no life that was not meant to advance the causes of Jews or Israel, was permitted to attain full fruition and used to serve the American nation. There is a new example illustrating how this cycle of doom comes about and how it unfolds. It is an article that came under the title “Making stuff Up,” written by Lee Smith and published on July 26, 2015 in the Weekly Standard.

The article is about the Iran deal for which the Jews have mobilized their formidable resources to try and kill but failed … at least until now. This left the Jewish mob of throat slashing pundits in a state of shock, whining about a defeat that only the Congress can now turn into a partial victory for them, and save their reputation as being the killer machine you must please if you want to get somewhere in America.

To convince the cells of death; members of America's graveyard which continues to be called U.S. Congress, Lee Smith starts the article with a personal attack on John Kerry, the man that worked tirelessly to keep alive the dream of an America where young men and women are no longer put in harms way to protect the ego of Israeli monsters that feed on blood, destruction and mayhem. In doing this, Kerry also saved trillions of dollars that America would have had to borrow from friends and foes to finance the deaths of its young.

After the attack on John Kerry, the author of the article unwittingly describes the elements of Jewish morality that end up being the poison which kills every idea meant to serve America while force-feeding growth hormones to every idea that's destined to inflate the Jewish and Israeli interests. Here is how he does that: “When the administration started its negotiations, the Iranians were going to have to dismantle their entire nuclear weapons program...”

This raises the question: If the end was preordained, why have the negotiations in the first place? Well, when you are Israel, and when America has kept you armed to the teeth while keeping the people of Palestine disarmed and helpless, you can dictate to the Palestinian negotiators what the end result will have to be or the occupation, the shedding of  blood, the destruction and the mayhem will be maintained. This, however, could not have happened to an Iran that has the means to defend itself – a rising power that was negotiating not only with America but also five other countries not affected by the Jewish disease.

Having clearly stated his Jewish position, Lee Smith justifies it by playing the subtle card of racial supremacy. The Nazis also played that card but were not subtle about it. Instead, they said things like: “You, France, may be great because you had Charlemagne who once united Europe. You Britain may be great because you invented the steam engine. But we are greater because we invented the jet engine.” The Jews, however, contributed nothing useful to humanity, and so they could only say: “You, Palestinians are inferior because you are terrorists; and you Iranians are inferior because you are untrustworthy,” all of which translates into: this makes us better than you and you and the rest.

Seeing that this may not be enough to discredit and kill the deal, Smith felt it necessary to extend his attack on the American administration. Here is how he does that: “Who in their right mind would trust the Islamic Republic? … As it turns out, an equally pressing problem is on our side. The White House is making a habit of deceiving the American people and lawmakers.”

After telling what should have happened that did not happen, Smith reiterates: “The Obama team is doing an end run around Congress and lying to the people who elected it." He expands on that theme to conclude: “The administration must believe it's okay to make stuff up, that the American public doesn't really care and would rather be tweeting about Sharknado.”

Now even Lee Smith realizes why the American people love stories about sharks. They discovered that Jewish morality is the shark that's eating their America alive. And they don't like it one bit.

They advocate the double Standard again

A Jew named Rafael Medoff is so unhappy that Secretary of State warned that Israel will be blamed if Congress opposes the Iran agreement, he wrote an article about the subject. It came under the headline “Kerry Warns: Jews Will Be Blamed If Congress Sinks Iran Deal” and was published on July 26, 2015 in the Weekly Standard.

Now, Medoff is not just any Jew; he is the founding director of the Institute for Holocaust Studies, and co-editor of the Online Encyclopedia of America's Response to the Holocaust. For this reason, and before we get into the substance of what he is saying, a few occurrences should be noted. The first is the claim in the headline that Kerry used the word Jews when in fact, he used the word Israel.

That may have been the fault of the editor or that of the headline writer rather than the fault of the author … but look what the author says in his opening sentence: “instances in which Israel or Jews were warned they might be blamed for international conflicts.” Also what he says in the paragraph that follows it: “The implication seems to be that Israel, the Jewish state...” The significance of this is that in order to give strength to his current argument, this Jew has demolished arguments that were made previously by himself and by people like him. They were to the effect that Jew and Israel are two different things, therefore must not be confused.

So then, why is he now going out of his way to fuse the two entities as if they were one and the same thing? Well, there are at least two reasons. The first is that the early critics of Israel's policies in the Middle East never used to mention the Jews. The supporters of Israel – mostly rabbis at the time – responded by saying that any criticism of Israel was disguised anti-Semitism because Israel and the Jews were one and the same. Therefore, they went on to say, to criticize Israel (get this now) is to use code words to incite the public to stage pogroms and holocausts against the Jews.

That trick scared the critics so much; they stopped criticizing Israel, which is what the rabbis wanted in the first place. The consequence of this, however, is that Israel was so encouraged it will no longer be criticized no matter what it does; it ratcheted up its savage behavior against the helpless people of Palestine and the defenseless people of Lebanon beyond anything you can imagine.

The other reason why Medoff fused the two entities is that he thought he can blame the fusion on others, and then use the confusion he will have created to advance his argument. Look how he does that: “The implication of Kerry's statement seems to be that Israel, the Jewish State, would be to blame for the war … The possibility that the blame would be extended to Israel's supporters in the United States has already been raised by Obama.”

Now that we know how the Jews confuse the subject they are about to spin, we can get into the substance of what Medoff is saying without getting dizzy by his gyrations. He mentions the example of Pat Buchanan who observed – before the first Gulf War – that the Jews were “beating the drums for war in the Middle East.” He also tells how A.M. Rosenthal and Abraham Foxman responded. That done, he says this: “Such blame-the-Jews rhetoric was all too common on the eve of World War II”.

He gives a few examples of what happened then, including the example of Charles Lindbergh, and then comments as follows: “President Obama is no Charles Lindbergh, and Secretary of State Kerry is no Pat Buchanan. But they should be aware that suggesting that Israel or its supporters will be blamed for war will remind many Jews of unpleasant episodes from the past.” Well, that's the idea.

The Jews are the people who always invoke the past to warn that it is about to be repeated. But when someone else does the same thing, they complain it makes them feel unpleasant. Also, the Jews are the ones who cry incessantly that the two words Islam and terrorism must be linked (which is done all the time considering that they control the media) because, they say, this will lead to the clarity that will defeat terrorism.

True or false, the one thing we are certain of is that despite all that the Jews and their supporters are doing in this regard, the Muslims did not compile a list of who said what, neither did they complain about the Jews running off the mouth. If the Jews are innocent of what they are accused, they will be treated as well as the Muslims who are innocent of what the Jews are accusing them. And the American people know that.

This is my Christian view of the situation in America today.

Open ended Religion, open ended Delusion

For the skeptics who still believe that the Jewish religion has nothing to do with the delusion which characterizes the Jewish behavior around matters as important as war and peace, the editors of the New York Daily News offer solid proof that should convince them Judaism and delusion are one and the same thing. It will help the skeptics see the light and change their minds.

Under the title: “Listen and vote no on Iran deal,” the editors wrote a piece they published on July 24, 2015 in the Daily News. The title alone gives an indication as to how badly slanted the logic of these people has become. They tell the full Congress to vote “no” on the Iran deal based not on what the members will hear when the time will come, and they will be duly briefed – but based on what the editors of the Daily News say they heard Secretary of State John Kerry testify at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Why then listen to something – whatever the thing may be – having made up their minds that they will vote no because the editors of the Daily News told them to?

Well, maybe the editors are telling the members of Congress they should read the rest of the editorial and decide, here and now, to vote no rather than attend the meetings which the various committees and the White House will hold to brief them. The editors even seem to argue that their method will be the better course to take. Here is what they say in this regard: “The Obama administration is trying to keep the Congress from correcting his insanely dangerous mistake.” Get it? They say Obama is insane, and they are not. This makes their advice more valuable, and so they call on their fellow Jew, Senator Schumer to “reject the President's recklessness.”

And while most Jews realize that the Messiah has not come yet, and that they do not own the world as yet (even if they own a good chunk of the American Congress of dumbbells) the editors of the Daily News speak as if they have the deed to a piece of real estate called Earth – sometimes referred to as Third Rock from the Sun. Look what their delusion allows them to believe: they chide John Kerry for “ruling out uniting the globe behind sanctions” as if he had the power to do so just for the asking. What makes them believe this? That America's foreign policy is owned and operated by Jews? No. Not really. Well then, what is it?

It is that they have a theory which refutes what Kerry has said. He did say that rejection of the deal would give the Iranians the green light to double the pace of uranium enrichment, proceed with a heavy water reactor, install more efficient centrifuges, and do it all without the world inspecting what they do. No, no, no, say the editors of the Daily News because they have it from a higher authority that this is false. Mind you, that authority is not the Messiah they are waiting for but a worthy replacement – or so it seems they are saying.

Their authority is the Iranian Rouhani, they say. He is the one who told the truth on national television ... Iran's national television, that is. What the man has said is this: “At first they wanted us to have 100 centrifuges; now we will have 6,000.” Because we do not have the rest of the speech, we do not know what else Rouhani told his people on this specific point. But we know a few things from other sources. It is that as of now, Iran has 19,000 centrifuges. This number will be reduced to 6,000 – the number they needed to fuel the civilian power station they already have.

The editors go on to say that Rouhani boasted he won the right to have advanced centrifuges capable of enriching weapons-grade uranium, and that he ended the sanctions on missiles. These are two deceptions, made not by the Iranian but the Jewish editors. Maybe they deceived their readers out of ignorance, or maybe they deceived by deliberate intent. The fact is that advanced or not, all centrifuges are capable of enriching uranium to weapons-grade. It is just that the advanced units do it faster. As to the missiles, they represent no greater danger than conventional weapons since the nuclear warheads are banned.

To end the editorial, the full flowering of the editors' Jewishness blooms not like roses adorning the garden of equal treatment, but like weed poisoning it. Here they are – Jews who weep because Iran will get its money back, when they never cease to weep as they beg for charity from those naïve enough to be touched by fake tears. Look what is making them weep this time: “the enrichment of Iran by what could be more than $100 billion.” They surely would love to get their hands on this money.

There remains one more Jewish thing for them to do: “Congress must fight to stop the deal, and no one more vigorously than New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.” With that, they seek to keep the case open – as they do with everything else – till the Messiah of their folklore comes like he promised he will, and formally hands them the piece of real estate called Earth – sometimes referred to as Third Rock from the Sun.

Shaping the other in the Image of the Self

Human beings have an ambiguous relationship with the image of the other. We like what looks different from us because we like variety and are amused by it. However, we tolerate the company of the other only as long as we have no reason to fear it. But the moment that something happens to reveal that the other represents danger, we distance ourselves from it, and never forget how it looks in case we encounter it again.

Still, it can happen that things unfold in such a way as to compel us to be in the company of others. In this case, we instinctively begin to work on changing the other, and make it look like us. The reason for this is not simply aesthetic; it is existential at its roots. That's because when we work on changing the other, we make ourselves a strong leader while making the other a weak follower. This tends to reassure us that the other will not get ahead of us; a situation that guarantees our security.

However, this strategy is not always free of danger. That's because the other may combine the strength we helped it develop with the strength we failed to detect in it – to end up with a combination that surpasses our strength. This will allow it to overtake us – and spare us or harm us – depending on its instinct and how we treated it while instructing it. In fact, the social unease that used to prevail in America at one time had to do with the fear that the Whites developed when Blacks began to display an uppity tendency.

Because America is made of people that usually left a bad situation in the old country, and usually met with success in the new country, America developed the tendency to try and change the old countries in a drive to make them look a little like itself in matters of governance, industry and finance. Several doctrines were developed in this regard, and were implemented with results that range from good to indifferent to disastrous.

The good happened in two places. It happened when the Europeans fought each other viciously, and then called on the Americans to help them pull out of their morass. It also happened when the Japanese turned against their neighbors then made the mistake of turning against the Americans. They were defeated, and America imposed its doctrines in some parts of Asia while some other parts of the Continent willingly chose to adopt the American methods.

In other places around the world, mainly Latin America and the Caribbean, some countries experimented with the American ideals but then turned indifferent towards them. When America tried to interfere, the locals revolted and developed anti-American sentiments. That's still there but things may change now that America kissed Cuba and made up with it.

As to the countries where America met with disastrous results, they fall mainly in the regions of the globe where ancient civilizations once rose, and where they left a strong tradition that may not always suit modern times but is too difficult to shed – and in some places, too slow to marry with the new. These places would have remained indifferent to America's doctrines except for the fact that the Jews saw an opportunity to implement their own agenda by pretending to implement America's agenda.

That would be the Middle East where serenity used to be the norm, and where chaos has reigned since the advent of the Jews. The situation was made worse when the Jews took control of America's foreign policy and dragged the superpower into a region of the globe that can easily become America's Vietnam on steroid. A three-sided melodrama is unfolding at this time; a situation in which America, the Jews and the collective Arab/Muslim world represent the three sides.

The problem for America in a nutshell is that the Jews wish to impose on those countries the governance part of America's doctrine but not the industrial or financial parts. They wish to see the governance that will allow them to infiltrated those countries and dominate them the way they pulled it off in America. But they fear that the industrial and financial development of those countries will eventually mesh with the ancient traditions and keep the Jews out. Thus, their fantasy is to see a democratic but otherwise backward Middle East and North Africa.

In essence then, while the Jews are pushing America to “democratize” the Middle East, they also push it to destroy the infrastructure of the countries in the region as fast as these countries develop. They once teamed up with the French and the Brits to attack Egypt's Suez Canal, and they incited the Americans to deny that country the ability to develop the Aswan region. Subsequent to that, they did it to Iraq and to Libya.

They are now doing it to others in a more or less open fashion. With this in mind, read Michael Makovsky's latest creation which came under the title: “Deal Brings Iran Closer to Obtaining Nuclear Weapons Capability,” published on July 24, 2015 in the Weekly Standard. Here – Makovsky who should be thought of as one of the most slippery snakes in the group of Jewish debaters – is lending his subtle voice to the argument that Iran is preparing to annihilate the world and go down with it, which is why it must be lapped for breakfast before it devours the world at lunch time.

Having a deal with Iran means having peace with Iran. This will have the effect of nullifying the Jewish effort to sabotage that country's program to modernize. And this is why the Makovsky's of this world are desperately trying to keep the animosity going between America and Iran.

See for yourself and pass your own judgment.

Dying to resurrect a dead Churchill

To some people, Winston Churchill represents the image of the leader who grabbed the reigns of power at a time when Great Britain had given hope it can escape the Nazi onslaught – and saved the day by turning the spirit of the people around, replacing their sense of hopelessness with the sense that they can triumph over the enemy by trying harder to defeat it on the ground, in the air and on the sea.

In America, William Kristol of the Weekly Standard, is one of those who bask not only in the larger than life image of Churchill but in the exaggerated version of it; the one in which Churchill is endowed with the magical powers of the speech – powers that are not much different from what the witches and the warlocks acquire when they recite incantations from the book of secrets.

What happens at times when a matter becomes compelling in the eyes of people like Kristol – while it is not in the eyes of others – is that they view their leaders as being incapable of rising to the level of the Churchill they hold in their imagination. This is when they begin to think of themselves as harboring the resurrected spirit of Churchill; also believe as being personally charged with the task of saving the situation that's consuming them, thus save the world by snatching a victory from the jaws of defeat … so to speak.

You will get a flavor of this psychodrama when you read the article that came under the title: “Fait Non-Accompli,” written by William Kristol and published in the online edition of the Weekly Standard on July 24, 2015.

The first thing that hits you as odd is the realization that this guy's rhetoric is no Churchillian rhetoric by any stretch of the imagination. Would Winston Churchill have uttered something like this: “The Iran deal turns out to be so no good, so very bad, so awfully ugly, that there is a chance – an outside chance – that a congressional process...”? No, he would not. But that does not matter at this time because Kristol thinks he can encourage the people of the Congress to reject the deal, thus save the world from those awful Iranians.

What the man must do first, is tell the readers how strong the enemy is. But be careful, dear reader, because he is not now speaking of the Iranians who are the enemy out there. Rather, he is speaking of the enemy within – the Iran enablers that created the situation he is trying to reverse. Here is how he describes that situation:

“The administration is pulling out all stops. The left is mobilizing. Pressure is being applied.” But how does he reverse that? He does it by the power of incantation. Look how melodious that sounds: “But what's striking is how many congressional Democrats are balking. Serious Democrats look at the deal … and can't quite believe the horror the administration is asking them to approve … The public can't quite believe it either.”

To buttress that last point, he invokes the magic of numerology and plays it to the hilt. In modern parlance, this is called statistics. But like the saying goes: “While figures don't lie, liars can figure,” and so he figured a way to say there is hope in a poll that was conducted not long ago. Here is how it went: “The poll had those Americans who knew something about the deal – a striking high 79 percent of the public – disapproving 48 to 38 percent.” Given that the Americans are notorious for pretending to know – if asked – that (the dead and buried) Abraham Lincoln will go to Phoenix tomorrow where he will give a speech, the poll takers or Kristol must explain what they mean by “those Americans who knew something.” Who are these Americans? What is the “thing” they knew?

Based on this, Kristol uses several paragraphs to urge members of the Democratic Party to break with their President, and vote to reject the Iran deal without telling them what will happen next. That's because he is a Jew – at least half a Jew – and Jews do not think of the consequences of what they do; the things they consider to be in their interest at this time.

To succeed, he performs the symbolic gesture of bestowing on the Democrats the spirit of Churchill. Look how majestically he does that: “While Churchill is more a hero to Republicans than to democrats, there is bipartisan admiration for his lonely fight against appeasement. That fight was against a government of his own party. So it is congressional Democrats who have a chance to be Churchillian.”

This is like telling a child that he or she can become Popeye by eating spinach, and be able to perform feats of Superman or Superwoman caliber.

The War's over, Time to kiss and make up

Most people who speak against the nuclear deal with Iran invoke history to tell of parallels they see between it and what's happening in the world today. And they conclude that the bad developments of the past are about to be repeated because President Obama is accommodating Iran instead of working to destroy it.

But the fact is that for nearly four decades, there have been regional wars in which America or Iran or both have participated. The people opposed to the nuclear deal point to them and say that the two countries have been at war with each other ever since. Be that as it may, the war is now over; a finality that was brought about by the signing of the nuclear deal between the two countries.

This being the case, it defies logic to invoke the prewar history of past events and conclude that the peace treaty of today will lead to war. The parallel that these people make is an absurdity … an intolerable one at that. Call it an armistice or call it a peace treaty, the time has come for those who invoke history to accept that reality and seek ways to kiss and make up with Iran.

But this is not what the Jewish mob of warmongers is willing to do as can be seen from reading the article that came under the title: “Scuttle Obama's Iran deal, or surrender” and the subtitle: “The future of U.S. Sovereignty rests with Congress now.” It was written by Clifford D. May of the comical troupe calling itself Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and published on July 21, 2015 in the Washington Times.

To make his case, Clifford May begins by lamenting that as a result of the peace “Iran's rulers will receive tens of billions of dollars.” He further explains that this money “will both empower and enrich a regime that is responsible for more than 1,000 American military deaths.” Even though he is among those who invoke history, he does not juxtapose that figure with the millions of military deaths that the forces of the Axis inflicted on America, yet the country kissed and made up with its previous adversaries and nobody lamented then.

What May does next is ask the rhetorical question: “Can you tell me when such policies have led to good outcomes?” upon which he tells the Congress of the United States to reject the deal with Iran. But because such action will have repercussions worldwide given that the Security Council of the UN has adopted it and made it binding on all member states – including the United States, Clifford May devotes the rest of the article to show that the repercussions will not be serious.

He focuses on the lifting of American sanctions now in effect on Iran. He mentions in this regard that the Iranian Foreign Minister warned America “will have committed a blatant violation of international law” if the agreement were revoked by the next President as some had suggested may happen. However, May writes that a former Republican legal adviser to the White House pointed out that the UN resolution does not require the lifting of American sanctions as a matter of international law.

Thus, Clifford May concludes that “if Congress disapproves this deal and refrains from lifting sanctions, the US will not be an outlaw nation, but will [only] be violating the spirit of the UN resolution and contravening the political commitment made in the agreement.” As to the argument that it would be futile to maintain American sanctions while those imposed by Europe and others will be lifted, May responds: The members of Congress who endorse this deal will own it and will share responsibility for what it brings.

Fearing hat this may not be enough to convince the Congress it must reject peace with Iran and set the country on a path that will see the “war” continue for an indefinite period, May plays the sovereignty card. He says “it would be a grave mistake to set a precedent that the UN Security Council constitute a global government with the power to make decisions for the American people.”

To reinforce his argument, he quotes Walter Russell Mead who never accepted Obama's presidency as being an equal branch of the American government. Indeed what Mead had said was that the precedent Obama is setting by making foreign policy as stipulated in the Constitution changes the Constitution. Go figure.

And so May recommends that the deal be returned to the White House with instructions to renegotiate, amend and improve – knowing full well that this will doom the deal not just violate the spirit of the UN resolution and contravene the political commitment made in the agreement. Fat chance this will happen.

The Calamity of Romney's Logic and Wishes

The guy that was paid a million dollars to go to Israel and tell the world the Palestinians are an inferior people because America equipped the Jews to keep crushing them the way that they now seek to crush the successful nation of Iran – is back.

His name is Mitt Romney, and he just wrote an article under the title: “The Calamity of Obama's Iran Deal” and the subtitle: “If the ayatollahs have a nuclear weapon, they will use it. Now they're on the path to get on.” It was published on July 22, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

Romney begins his presentation by quoting the Jewish Old Testament. Perhaps there is a grain of truth in those words, but they would make more sense if we bear in mind that the way time was measured and described by the ancients is different from the way that we measure and describe it today.

These are the words: “He will visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.” Replace the word generation with the word millennium, and you have the story of the Jews whose past wickedness continues to haunt them to this day, and will haunt them for many more millenniums.

Instead of looking squarely at the words he quoted, and correlating them with the reality on the ground as history has been unfolding on Planet Earth, Romney matches those words with “President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran” and says that he is now confident of “two undeniable facts.”

First, he attributes the apocalypse that was first mentioned in the Jewish Old Testament not to the Jews but to the Iranians. Second, he says that “the Obama deal prescribes a pathway for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.” What this man is totally ignorant of is that the Iranians do not need someone's deal to have a pathway to the bomb. If they wish to have the bomb – which they don't – they can have it relying on their own resources.

He goes on to say without offering proof that Iran may cheat “like Russia cheated.” Well, Russia never admitted cheating, and no one provided evidence to this effect. In fact, the only one that was forced to admit cheating – having been detected by the Soviets – was the United States of America.

What happened is the following. While there was an agreement, if not a treaty, never to use outer space to conduct nuclear testing, the Americans did so. Thus, what the reader may do now, is apply to America what Romney accuses Iran of being capable of doing but has not done. It is this: “Its [Iran's or America's] leaders are entirely bereft of restraint, decency and respect for human life.”

As if to show that the Jewish disease of attributing their bad motives to others – can be as enduring as the radio active material whose half-life is measured in the hundreds of thousands of years, Romney projects that “In some ways, the deal may actually speed Iran's nuclear ambitions.”

He goes on to say that “lifting sanctions will provide new oil revenues that can be used to finance nuclear research and development. The revenues will also strengthen Iran's hand as it underwrites terrorism, regime change and sectarian mayhem throughout the Middle East.” This being what the Jews did after urging the Americans to sanction the economy and/or destroy the infrastructure of every Arab and Muslim country that made progress.

It all started in the early 1950s when America pressured the World Bank to deny Egypt a loan to build the Aswan hydroelectric project, and continued with the destruction of Iraq and Libya. Now, the Jews are urging America to do the same to Iran, and Romney is singing their song. Maybe he is running out of money … and singing that song is his way to beg for another million dollar Jewish charity.

He ends the article saying that future generations will suffer because Obama brought peace to America and the world today. Guess what he does next. He wraps this pile of verbal rubbish in the political package of “millions of illegal immigrants [Obama] welcomed; the human tragedy of poverty he refuses to address; the millions of children who grow without a competitive education because he bowed to the teacher's unions.”

With this, he shows he is among those who are bereft of restraint, decency and respect for humanity.

Everything is new; as new as yesterday

There is a difference between the way that amateurs talk about inspecting nuclear sites, and the way that professionals do. It is sad – very sad – to see that the professionals are serious people who come mostly from the Eurasian Continent whereas the amateurs are clowns that come mostly from the Anglophile world.

The only bright spot in all of this is that the White House is putting out adult-like explanations telling audiences what's in the inspection regime it has negotiated with Iran as a member of (P5+1) team. The disheartening thing is that an increasing number of clowns in America are coming forward and doing the disservice of noise-polluting the airwaves as well as the pages of the print media, with useless verbiage on the subject, not knowing what they are talking about.

Again, you could count on the editors of the Wall Street Journal to gather the most laughable arguments and build around them a case that can only make you smile derisively. You can see a sample of that in the editorial they wrote under the title: “The Iranian Inspections Mirage” and the subtitle: “Tehran will have much time and many loopholes to exploit.” It was published in the Journal on July 22, 2015.

Using a version of the newly discovered and already tiring technique of attacking the White House with a tool you might call “here's is what they said then and here's what they say now,” the editors begin their dissertation by listing what they say were the claims made then by President Obama. However, because they could not find something he says now that would contradict those claims, they went on to reveal that: “A closer look tells a different story”.

To do that, the editors point to the sayings of “experts [that] have long insisted needs to be a condition of any agreement.” But looking over the entire editorial to see where they might have found such experts, you find them quoting one member of the Iraq inspection team who said very little that's useful, and you find them refer to the troupe of clowns who call themselves Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Here is the passage in which they refer to the former Iraq inspector:

“There is a lot the regime can do [to hide material] in a few hours, let alone days, Charles Dueffer, the former Iraq weapons inspector, told us last week. 'So this allows room for Iran to maneuver and potentially hide much of what it is doing regarding weapons design or component testing.'”

Note that the editors do not say what exactly the expert was referring to when he said “this allows.” Note also that he said “potentially hide.” And note that he spoke only of weapons design or components testing. The reality is that in this kind of inspections, the thing that matters most is the degree to which uranium was enriched. And given that the half-life of this material is measured in the hundreds of thousands of years, the Iranians are not going to hide it in 24 days.

Because the agreement gives “Access to Iran's entire nuclear supply chain,” such material – if not discovered by inspecting the sites – will be deduced by the discrepancies detected along the supply chain. As to the weapons design, it has been pointed out repeatedly that there is enough information on the internet to help even a high school student design such weapon on a computer in his room without the parents knowing about it.

Speaking of components testing, the one thing that matters is the performance of capacitors determining in nanoseconds the simultaneity with which the nuclear mass is hit on all sides. This can be tested in a one-room machine shop equipped with a high performing oscilloscope the size of a computer monitor. If that's how these people wish to catch the Iranians cheat, they might as well chase a wild goose.

Anything else that's said with regard to the inspection regime is useless talk. But perhaps what disturbs the folks at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies – beside the fact that they are naturally disturbed – is the absence of the things that were allowed in Iraq, and are not in Iran.

Stories surfaced then about Jewish influenced so-called inspectors who amused themselves by “attacking” the kitchen refrigerators where they poked sharp objects into jars of marmalade and bars of butter to see if Saddam was hiding WMDs in those items.

It may be that this is so important to these people, they called on the Anglophile Congress of the United States to “locate, inspect and then broadcast those holes [in the inspection regime] to educate the public.”

Perhaps they will also resurrect the rabbis of yore who used to educate the American public as to the sensitivities of the Jews. This whole thing is so sickening.

They wish to open-end a closed Deal

The reason why the Jews do not experience finality in anything international they touch, is because they are required by religious dogma to keep things open-ended till such time that the Messiah will arrive and close the deal for them. That deal will amount to handing them the Earth where they will sit on a planetary throne and reign as absolute monarchs for all of eternity.

Just think about it, who would close a small deal now, and with that forfeit a future project of such magnitude? Would you settle for a little peace of mind now, and reject eternal glory? Of course you wouldn't … well, except maybe for one thing. While you know all that is bunk, they believe in it religiously. Thus, you choose to live a normal life in the realism of your everyday experiences; they choose to live an abnormal life in the fantasy of their everyday religious beliefs.

The problem with the Jews stems for the fact that their project involves the entire planet. And so, not only did they continuously live a horror for three and a half millenniums; they dragged other peoples with them whenever they moved, wherever they went. And they remain true to that history even today … in this age of unlimited knowledge and sophisticated science.

That is why nothing was settled for the Jews in Palestine, nothing was settled for them in the neighborhood where they planted Israel, nothing was settled for them in Europe where they suffered countless pogroms and holocausts, and nothing seems to settle for them in America where the people are beginning to turn uneasy at their never ending demands.

You get a feel of this perpetual drama when you read Benny Avni's column that came under the title: “Will Schumer let his political ambitions trump his conscience?” published on July 21, 2015 in New York Post. The key word here is 'conscience' because it refers to an internal force which prevents human beings from doing the things they would normally do.

Thus, while some form of spiritualism gets involved and grips any of us when the conscience intervenes; we are released of it after a while whether or not closure was attained.

Things are different with the Jews, however, whose spiritualism stretches into eternity. Thus, the moment that they determine a situation is important to their planetary project, the concept of existentialism is conjured up because their subconscious mind kicks in and reminds them of the fact this is the reason why humanity has pogrommed them and holocausted them again and again, everywhere they went at the hands of everyone they met ... whether or not they broke bread with them.

But despite all of that, the Jews do not end the activity which brought them to this point no matter what it is, however toxic it might be. On the contrary, faced with a similar situation, they always double and redouble the effort to maintain the moment as an open-ended project. It is something they will stretch to eternity if they must. In fact, individual Jews will even urge other individuals to do likewise … which is what Benny Avni is doing in his appeal to the conscience of Chuck Schumer.

The Iran nuclear deal being an international concern that's also of interest to the Jews, it becomes an existential project to them. For this reason, they would not have let it come to a closure even if they had gotten 200 percent of what they initially asked for. They would always have found something to add to it at the last minute.

But now that the project has come to a closure despite the monumental effort that hundreds of them have mounted to scuttle it, they still seek to sink it in the knowledge that even if the Congress rejects it, the project will not have been sunk.

Well then, why do they keep trying? They do because the action of the Congress will not be their final act. In the same way that they worked to have the UN repeal its own resolution equating Zionism with racism, they quietly plan at this very moment to start a future drive which they hope will have the UN repeal the nuclear deal, and America bomb Iran.

These people are hopeless, and we're all paying for that.

Obama's America, not Netanyahu's America

The world took one look at the bimboesque performance of the American John Boehner and shouted: We're outta here. As soon as the P5+1 reached an agreement with Iran, the unanimous view of a world that wishes to return to a state of peaceful existence as well as maintain a high level of sanity, decided to formalize the achievement of its negotiators with Iran by giving the deal the UN stamp of approval. And so the world went to the Security Council of the United Nations and did just that. The deal is now international law.

And guess what happened after that. Instead of accepting the normal process which America has forged, and followed for decades, Netanyahu's American harem, composed mostly of male bimbos and a few female ones, started to wail its sorrow, crying out that Obama honored the pledge he made to the American people to end wars and not start new ones, instead kicking the American people in the stomach, and doing what was good for Netanyahu's ego, for Israel and for the Jews.

But having been voted into office by a people that loved his message, Obama kept the promise of the message and avoided having a war with Iran; one that was planned long ago by the same sort of traitors who got America into previous wars, killing thousands of its young and ruining the country financially.

And now, you have these same characters tell the bimbos of America to hit the media outlets and wail as loudly as they can, accusing their President of kneecapping the Congress of male and female shameless hookers – by going along with the world in obtaining the UN stamp of approval for the Iran nuclear deal instead of letting the Boehner Congress of harlots torpedo the thing, thus risk plunging America into yet another war.

You can get a sense of that wail by sampling two of the many articles that were written on the subject. The first came under the title: “How Obama kneecapped the US Congress on Iran – again,” written by Rich Lowry and published on July 20, 2015 in the New York Post. The second article is actually an editorial that came under the title: “Obama's UN-acceptable Iran route-around,” published on July 21, 2015 in the New York Daily News.

After spinning the history of what happened up to the point when the Security Council of the United Nations voted unanimously to approve the P5+1 deal with Iran, Rich Lowry let out a moan that was heard by those who echoed him later. What he did was quote what President Obama had said, and then gave his impression of it, which he did as follows: “In other words, follow the lead of the United Nations on a matter of utmost importance to the national interest of the United States.” The problem is that he did not explain how that would have been in the national interest of the United States, and not in the interest of Israel … since the price of having no deal would have been paid with the life of American soldiers, and a drain on the American treasury.

Rich Lowry also quoted Secretary of State John Kerry who warned: “If Congress says 'no' to this deal, then there will be no restraints on Iran. There will be no sanctions left. Our friends in this effort will desert us.” At this point, Lowry does the very Jewish thing of blaming a sin that was not committed on Mr. Obama that did not commit one. He asks: “And who's responsible for that?” to which he responds by giving not only a mutilated history of what did not happen, but a fictitious something that is so disfigured, it looks horribly mutilated, whatever it might have been. Still, using this fabrication, he then concludes: “The agreement is written to favor business with Iran” which, even if true, cannot be construed as sin by any stretch of the imagination.

As to the editorial in the New York Daily News, it begins by saying that “President Obama is trying to neuter congressional oversight of the pact.” But the fact is that the Congress did not need Obama to be neutered. The thing castrated itself long ago when it assigned a value to its assholes – one that was higher than the potency of its Dicks or that of its Janes.

Imitating the style that was adopted by Rich Lowry a day earlier, the editors of the Daily News render their version of a mutilated history so disfigured it cannot be described. Upon this, however, they reach the conclusion that the President had effectively said: “It's my way or war.”

And so they ask that such claim be disregarded, calling on the Congress of bimbos, especially “we're looking at you, Sen. Chuck Schumer,” to do what is good for Israel and for the Jews “whatever the rest of the world thinks.”

Now you know why the world shouted: We're outta here.