Clifford D. May who is president of an outfit of clowns
calling itself Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and a supporter of
Israel, an entity that's the only terrorist state in the world today, has written
this: “The Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's leading sponsor of terrorism,”
without telling why he insists – in his subtle way – to call Iran and not
America the sponsor of Israel's terrorist activities.
May wrote those words in an article that came under the
title: “The early returns on Obama's Iran deal,” published on December
23, 2015 in The Washington Times. To show that a clown who also supports Israel can only advocate thievery, he laments
that the agreement concluded between the world and Iran is meant to return to that
country its own assets.
Imagine the scandal in having to return to its owner what
you “borrowed” without obtaining prior permission. What happened to the Jewish
religious concept of calling what you borrow “disputed” asset, and keeping it
borrowed for ever? Talk to the Palestinians whose country has been borrowed one
piece at a time, and remains borrowed to this day.
While that concept is maintained for Iran , May and all those like him, would have
liked to sue the country on trumped up charges – which is the way that Jews
always do these things – and have a retarded or a corrupt judge give Iran 's assets
to the Jews instead. This would transform the disputed into compensation, a
method by which the Jews have lived like leeches at the expense of others since
time immemorial.
The central point of the May article is that in order to
free Iran 's
assets, President Obama violated the process by which the system works. This is
how he put it: “A deal so consequential ought to have been framed as a treaty …
Obama was uninterested.” Well, it wasn't framed as a treaty because “why make
enormous concessions in exchange for anything so fuzzy?” said an official at
the State department who explained that the success of the agreement will depend
on the extensive verification measures put in place, and Iran's understanding
that the sanctions can be reimposed.
And then, plagued by a low IQ, and not realizing what he
just did, Clifford May lauded that explanation. He did it trying to nail the
Iranians for something they did not do, thus proved the point that was
articulated by the State Department. This is how May did himself in: “In case
you missed it: Both of those claims have since been tested.” Well then, if
that's the case, why did you, Clifford May, start the article by complaining
that Obama did not follow the proper procedure? Bad Jewish habit I suppose,
huh.
Looking closely at the author's reasoning to see what might
have motivated him to proceed in the manner that he did, you find it to be the
same old Jewish habit of trying to have it both ways. In fact, from one side of
the mouth, he says that the Obama process was flawed; from the other side of
the mouth, he says that the process has worked so well, it revealed that Iran has
cheated. What can be more ambiguous, more confusing, and more Jewish than that?
Still, continuing to do things in a typically Jewish
fashion, the author looked for and gathered points from everywhere; points he
lined like dots on a canvas … connecting them into a concoction that resulted
in a picture so artificial, it bore no resemblance to reality.
As a matter of fact, he relied on the weasel saying:
“absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” to make the false claim that
the IAEA said Iran
had a secret nuclear weapons program. This is a blatant lie. The IAEA never
said that. What it said was that a small part of Iran 's declared enrichment program
was undeclared; nothing worse than that. It also said that the inspectors found
no evidence of weaponization. And that's the essential point, not the
enrichment.
Well, this should have been the end of discussion, should it
not? Yes it should have, but not if the author is a Jewish clown that took on
the task of defending what he says are democracies. He goes on to quote another
clown (#2) who said: “Not finding much doesn't mean much.” And why is that?
Because the Iranians “refused to come clean,” said clown # 2.
Can you imagine what this means, my friend? Think about it.
You walk into a store, you buy something, pay for it and walk out. A fake cop
accosts you and accuses you of stealing something. You say you stole nothing.
He searches you and finds nothing. He arrests you anyway on the grounds that
this proves you're not “coming clean.” This is so very Jewish, so very moronic
and so very deserving of a severe punishment.
Clifford May goes on to attack the media, especially the
BBC, for not reporting that the Iranians are not coming clean with something
they did not do. And he rejoices that the clowns in the American Congress of
morons are so distressed, they are joining him and the other clowns in trying
to scuttle the return of Iran 's
assets to Iran .