If you are omnipotent and wish to renege on a contract
(whether written or verbal) you entered into with someone, you simply state
that you'll not honor the agreement, and that's that.
But if your potency is somewhat limited, and you need
friends to join you when entering into a contract with someone … and then
decide that you want to renege on it, you look for a roundabout way to do so.
The idea is to make it look like bolting out of the deal was a preordained proposition
you had nothing to do with. To help you pull off a trick like this, you'll most
likely seek the counsel of experts in this kind of games. They would be the
Jews who engage in this sort of thing as a matter of habit if not religious
obligation.
This is what John R. Bolton and Paula A. DeSutter must have
done before writing a piece in which they advise the White House on how to pave
the way for reneging on the Iran
nuclear deal. They co-wrote “Tangled in Obama's Iran nuclear trap,” an article that
also came under the subtitle: “Certification of Tehran's compliance is neither
wise, necessary nor accurate.” It was published on April 26, 2017 in The
Washington Times.
Because the subject of Iran
entering the Nuclear Age was deemed to be of great importance to the security
of the world, America called
on the other permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as Germany to join it in negotiating a deal with Iran that will
guaranty the country will never develop nuclear weapons. The (P5+1) as they
were called met with Iran ,
negotiated the deal and signed it.
Upon this, the Jews who had managed to establish Israel as a kind of Jewish version of al-Qaeda
in occupied Palestine
immediately started pulling strings to do what they have been doing since they
got into the region. In the same way that they called on Joseph Stalin to help
them get established, and called on Anthony Eden and Guy Mollet to help them
attack Egypt, and called on John Foster Dulles to deny Egypt a bank loan to
build the Aswan hydroelectric station – they called on America to destroy an
Iran that was becoming too influential. Instead of doing that, the Obama
administration partnered with its allies and forged a nuclear deal with Iran .
True to form, the Jews waited for the next American
administration to come into office, and try convincing it to renege on the
nuclear deal. To this end, the Jews recruited the usual mouthpieces – Bolton and DeSutter among them – and showed them how to
go about educating the new administration and the Congress on how to renege on
the deal. They showed the mouthpieces how to conduct the kind of haggle that
will overload the mental capacity of their audiences, thus force them to accept
the Jewish position just to end the haggle and have some quiet.
The opportunity to do it was there because the President is
required by law to certify to Congress whether or not Iran is
honoring the terms of the agreement. The White House did just that but the two
writers objected. Here is what they say in this regard, and it's up to you to
make sense of it: “The president was required only to decide whether he could
avow Iran 's
implementation of the agreement. He was not required to make a choice, either
certifying that Iran
was complying or that it was not. He could have sidestepped not to mention what
we know about Iran 's
violations”.
Whatever that means; when translated into simple English it
can only mean one thing. It is a plea for the President of the United States to lie about Iran not
complying with the terms of the agreement the next time he reports to Congress.
The goal is to trigger the consequences that stipulate expediting “legislative
consideration of new anti-Iran sanctions legislation.” In other words, Bolton and DeSutter are telling the President he must lie
to Congress so as to commit a legal travesty, and hope to get away with it.
What puts the Jewish stamp on this kind of haggle is what
comes next in the article. Simply put, the writers call Trump's first
certification to Congress a mistake. Worse, they attribute the mistake to the
evil motivation of the two main actors: Former President Barack Obama and
current President Donald Trump.
They say that Mr. Trump failed to rise to the challenge of
distorting the truth in the name of the greater good; something he should have
done. And they say that Mr. Obama was gripped by the idea of fulfilling the
promise to save lives by keeping America out of wars; something he
should not have done.