Separation of Powers and the Package Deal

The week during which the Trump administration certified for the second time that Iran was complying with the nuclear deal, the veil was lifted on the most damning weaknesses inherent to the so-called liberal democratic system of governance.

It happened when the mob of Jewish pundits and its slavish followers descended on those weaknesses like a family of crocodiles gathers around the carcass of a wildebeest that had fallen into their pond. And like the crocodiles, the mob took advantage of the weaknesses, ripping apart the safeguards that were put in place to protect the philosophy of governance that served the American Republic reasonably well for more than two centuries before the advent of the Jewish mob.

The important safeguard inserted into the system by the Constitution being the principle of separation of powers between the institutions, the Jews deliberately targeted it for dismantlement. That's because the principle protects the right of the institutions to check and balance each other. In fact, this is how the system cleanses itself and remains free of corruption as much as this can be done in practice. But all of that stood in the way of the Jews being able to monopolize the resources of the Republic, and this is why the Jewish mob kept attacking it whenever it could. It did so this time, hitting the principle of separation with unprecedented savagery.

Out of the dozens of verbal and printed condemnations that were  thrown at the administration's certification of the nuclear deal in the days that followed the certification, I mention nine printed articles, and recommend them for reading. They are the following:

1 – “The U.S. Should violate the Iran Deal,” an article that was written by Jonathan S. Tobin and published on July 20, 2017 in National Review Online. Like the title indicates, the Jews have grown so galling, they openly advise America – that used to be the respected enforcer of the rule of law – to break the law so as to better serve the interests of Israel.

2 – “Certifiable Madness,” a piece that was written by the editors of National Review Online and published on July 19, 2017. Like most of the National Review editorials, this one contains not a single idea that's not a rehash of what was said previously, repeated several times over, and echo-repeated several more times.

3 – “The Iran-Deal Swindle,” an article that was written by Elliot Kaufman and published on July 18, 2017 in National Review Online. Kaufman's main complaint is that Iran is too smart and getting smarter; too powerful and getting stronger. He wants to see something done to stop it in its tracks.

4 – “Compliant but dangerous Iran,” an article that was written by Patrick Meehan and published on July 18, 2017 in The Washington Times. Meehan admits he opposes the deal not because Iran would fail to comply with its provisions but because he believes the deal is flawed.

5 – “Time is Running Out on Iran,” a piece that was written by the editors of the Weekly Standard and published on July 18, 2017. As always, the editors of the Standard listened to the goofiest voices on the subject, and repeated them in their editorial. This time they heard the voice of the four bozos in the Senate's apocalyptic quartet: Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, David Perdue and Marco Rubio – and seconded their refrain.

6 – “On Iran, Trump Is Obama 2.0,” an article that was written by Reuel Marc Gerecht and published on July 18, 2017 in the New York Times. Gerecht struggles trying to prove the point that Iran kidnapped an American student of Chinese origin because the nuclear deal is not perfect. He thus recommends that “the US needs to scare Iran's ruling class, convince it that hostage-taking carries an unbearable price”.

7 – “Iran on the march, Trump's tough talk aside,” a piece that was written by the editors of the New York Daily News, and published on July 18, 2017. As always, the editors of the Daily News – who parrot the sayings of Netanyahu, always Netanyahu and no one but Netanyahu – have done it again: they repeated what he said.

8 – “The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn't Working,” an article that was written by Timothy Stafford and published on July 20, 2017 in The National Interest. Stafford says that preventing Iran's long-term nuclear-armed trajectory is more important than compliance. And he hopes the Trump administration will take that into consideration.

9 – “The Iranian Express,” an article that was written by Emanuele Ottolenghi and published on July 21, 2017 in the Weekly Standard. Ottolenghi blames the nuclear deal for Iran obtaining the money, and for getting the green light to purchase airplanes. He says the planes are used in the Syrian war and in other offensive activities such as flying Hezbollah operatives on Boeing aircraft. He wants Trump to put a stop to that.

But how did the Jews come to the point of getting away using any incident in the news of the day to buttress the arguments that serve Israel's interests? They did it by playing a game you may call the double-path labyrinth. It's something they started playing in the sixties, and have been perfecting ever since in the absence of push-back from an Arab community that was not allowed to respond or to explain what the Arab governments were thinking.

This is how the game is played. The Jews set-up one path and call it “separation of powers.” They simultaneously set-up another path and call it “the package deal.” The Jewish lobby tells the American government to offer the Arabs “A” and “B,” if they will do “X” and “Z.” The Arabs protest that there is no connection between “A and B,” and there is none between “X” and “Z.” They don't see how the scheme can be made to work. Sorry, say the Americans, this is a package deal. Take it or leave it.

The Arabs mull over the American offer, tweak it enough to make it work without altering it too much so as not to upset the Americans. And they present it to them in this form: If you offer us “C” and “D,” we'll respond by doing “V” and “W.” The Americans take the modified proposal to the Jews whose representative explodes in a fit of rage, accusing the Arabs of knowing nothing about the fundamental principle of separation of powers which says that you cannot connect “C” and “D” anymore than you can “A” and “B.” And you cannot connect “V” and “W” anymore than you can “X” and “Z”.

This completes the Jewish labyrinth in which no one can find a way out. Now, my friend, read those nine articles again, and see how many As, Bs, Cs, Ds, Vs, Ws, Xs and Zs were conflated to achieve what purpose on behalf of Israel; and how many were separated to achieve what purpose.

And when you're done with all that, ask yourself what principle motivates these people. Is it a noble principle or a crass principle painted with the colors of nobility?