They made their bed and they can't sleep in it anymore.
Unfortunately, it is also the bed in which they dragged America , and so
they bemoan the fact that the bed has sickened their current partner for life.
But they are troubled by it only slightly because it is something that happened
to all their previous partners for life.
These are the Jewish members of an outfit which proudly
refers to itself by the comical name “Foundation for Defense of Democracies”
whose president is Clifford D. May. He is troubled, having realized what he and
people like himself have done to America . And so, he took to his
computer and wrote: “Can America
change course?” an article that also came under the subtitle: “The next
president needs a new approach to national security.” It was published on April
12, 2016 in The Washington Times.
Regardless of what he really thinks about the situation,
Clifford May wants the American public to believe this is a “perilous period.”
Despite all that, he points to the 2016 presidential campaign and calls it a
circus. And he says he knows why. It is because “voters get what they ask for,”
he says. Thus, what the people of America want, according to the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies, is neither defense nor democracy but
“politicians to entertain them”.
All the while, you have jihadi regimes rising in the Middle
East and beyond it, a North Korea
that is developing nuclear weapons as well as missile delivery systems, a China that is entering a period of
neo-imperialism, and a Russia
that is exercising revanchism, says the author. Note that the word revanchism
is coming back in vogue, echo-repeated by the Jewish comrades of Clifford May.
He advises that because the world is a bad place, the presidential
candidates ought to be talking about national security, and they should agree
on the best way to protect America .
Well, he admits that the candidates have hired teams of advisers to fill them
in on matters of national security and foreign policy, but instead of agreeing
on anything, they only “meet, talk and churn out papers,” he complains.
At this point in the article, May does something that must
have come not from his frontal cortex but his subconscious mind. Look at this
passage: “I recognize that if you're Obama or a supporter, you don't agree that
the next president ought to change course.” Fair enough, you say, because you
will not argue against that. But then, he goes on to assert: “On the contrary,
you believe that Americans should stay the course charted by the current
administration,” and you're confused. Doing some thinking, you guess that he
must have meant to say something that did not come out right. Surely, he must
have meant to say Americans believe that America should stay the course.
You feel you guessed correctly when you see how he starts
the next paragraph. He says this: “Evidence to support that argument is not
abundant.” Well, you may or may not be aware of statistics that say so, but you
expected him to elaborate on what he just asserted … something he did not do.
Instead, he went on to blame Obama for a security situation that he says is
deteriorating all over the world, and lashing out like this: “Over the years
since Obama entered the White House, there has been an increasing number of
terrorist groups carrying out an increasing number of terrorist attacks in an
increasing number of countries resulting in an increasing number of victims.”
What does that mean?
You ask yourself: Is he suggesting that America should
be everywhere in the world protecting everyone from every local gang of
criminals that suddenly decides to pledge allegiance to one terrorist group or
another? Does he want to see the body of American soldiers dragged in the
streets of cities never heard of before a la “Black Hawk Down”? What's wrong
with this guy?
You now realize that Clifford May skirted the obligatory
elaboration on what he had asserted – blaming Obama instead for something that
had nothing to do with his assertion – because his subconscious mind and his
frontal cortex are at odds with each other. It looks like the subconscious mind
is telling him he is wrong, whereas the cortex is refusing to face the truth.
And here is the truth: Clifford May knows that Obama is implementing the wish
of the American people – which is the democratic way to govern – but Clifford
May, the supposed defender of democracies, does not like that approach one bit.
But if he does not like this brand of democracy, what does
he like? Here, in his own words, is what he likes:
“Bold new approaches require public support, especially
after a campaign in which public opinion was catered to rather than shaped. Is
there a candidate who strikes you as having the skills to 'bring us together'?
… I'd argue that a new national security doctrine will be needed … [one] that
will serve to clarify objectives and outcomes”.
So here we have a Jew calling himself defender of
democracies who likes to shape public opinion rather than cater to it. Such
approach will “bring us together,” he says because it will clarify objectives
and outcomes concerning national security.
And so, we are asked to presume that this will happen
because a single voice that's animated by a single mind will always be clearer
than a cacophony of voices … a democratic cacophony of voices.