It is said that making decisions in the American democracy
is like making sausage. The process may at times appear disgusting, but when
all is said and done, the final product is a delightful thing to have and to
live with.
This should apply to decision making in all aspects of
democratic life, including the making of decisions in the realm of foreign
policy. In fact, the process in this case should appear even more disgusting
since it requires interacting with foreign powers whose kitchen manners may be
less appetizing than those of America .
This being the case, you would expect that the media refrain
from reporting on the making of the political sausage, restricting their
discussions to the substance of what's being decided. In addition, when a
decision is made and turned over to the executors, you would expect that the
discussion on both the substance of the decision and its making will cease. In
fact, this should become an obligatory restriction because to continue attacking
the final product will signal rejection of the democratic process itself.
Now a pertinent question: Is this what's happening in America today?
Or is it an ideal situation that may never see the light of day? The answer is
that it's not happening in America
today. However, the idea is not so ideal that it was never implemented in the
past. In fact, that was the norm till the advent of the Jews who infiltrated
the media, took them over, and used them to dismantle the pillars upon which
the American culture stood.
One of the pillars being a foreign policy that made America
the shiny city on the hill everyone looked up to, admired and respected – the
Jews pulled down that policy with ruthless efficiency, and replaced it with the
biblical imperatives of blood, mayhem, fear, suspicion, hate and revenge. But
despite all this, a few good things have managed to get through the Jewish
filter. And that's when the Jews got to work again, trying this time to take
down what may be the last pillar in America 's foreign policy apparatus.
You can see how they go about doing this in two articles
that were published on the same day, May 27, 2016 in the same publication, the
Weekly Standard. One article came under the title “The selling of the Iran
Deal” and the subtitle: “Lies on top of lies,” written by Mark Hemingway. The
other article came under the title: “Wendy Sherman Defends U.S. Human Rights
Record in Iran ”
and the subtitle: “Despite lack of sanctions on human rights cases there since
nuclear deal,” written by Jenna Lifhits.
The Iran
nuclear deal is a political and diplomatic sausage that was negotiated between
seven nations comprising Iran
and the five permanent members who sit on the Security Council of the UN, plus Germany . It was
signed, sealed and delivered after two years of intense negotiations during
which time the Jews attacked it with the ferocity of a school of piranhas. For
the Jews to continue attacking it can only signal that they wish to remain out
of step with the human race. That's how they lived since the day they came into
being, and that's where their leaders wish to maintain them.
Doing something never done before while describing this kind
of international endeavor, the Mark Hemingway article tells how the sausage was
made, and how it was communicated. He calls the process “a disturbing picture
of how the Iran
deal was sold.” You understand the source of his discontent when you see what
stands out in the article, hence his preoccupation. It is the heavy emphasis he
places on the Judeo-Israeli angle of the story. Here is a montage of that:
“...including commentary from Stephen Walt, coauthor of a
book that claims Jewish interests dictate American foreign policy … the emails
were riddled with antisemitic conspiracy theories … pro-Israel Christian groups
were secretly funded by Mossad … bombing of the Jewish center was a false flag
operation by the Argentine government to cover up its complicity with the
Nazis”.
And then came the inevitable coup de grace that the Jews
always deliver when they part company with those who helped them. Look at this
demonic treachery: “Michael Doran, a member of the NSC in the George W. Bush
administration … proposed that Congress cut the size of the NSC by limiting its
budget and putting tight restrictions on the number of detailees it can borrow
from other departments and agencies.” That is, Michael Doran is advocating that
the NSC be restructured so as to better serve Israel ,
always Israel and no one but
Israel
… not even the American people.
As to Jenna Lifhits, she reports that on the question of
violating the nuclear deal or violating human rights or violating the ban on
supporting terrorism, Iran
has remained as clean as a whistle. However, she is not happy because America did not retaliate against anything since
the signing of the agreement with Iran .
Lifhits does not say what America should have retaliated
against, but that's a minor detail that should not have prevented America from
hitting Iran for something … anything that may have happened or may not.