The swamp that's affecting America with political and
diplomatic malaria at home and abroad was designed, built and filled with toxic
waste by the Jews to serve their agenda. Not surprisingly, that agenda lists as
priority the promotion of Israel 's
interests, which is something the Jews do relentlessly at the expense of
everything and everyone, including America .
A great deal must be understood before the swamp can be
drained, and the study of broadcasting in America can help in this regard.
Broadcasting is a huge subject that’s taught in several institutions at many
levels, but one aspect of the subject remains untouched, which is why it is
tackled here.
Up until a decade or two ago, anchors or news readers were
not allowed to express their opinion. For example, Walter Cronkite only red the
news, and left it to Eric Sevareid to express opinions. When cable networks
changed all that by allowing anchors and news readers to also express opinions,
the regular networks loosened their rules a little. This was manifested at the
end of each news session when the anchor or news reader would interject a
remark like “that's the world we live in” or “I wouldn't bet on that” or “keep
this in mind next time you go for a walk”.
Believe it or not, despite his generally solemn face and
professional rendition of the news sessions, Walter Cronkite was a rebel at
heart. He did not like being restricted to just reading the news, and wanted to
express his opinion on certain issues. He did so by modulating the intonation
of his voice, which may have communicated the state of his sentiments to a
handful of listeners. When he felt strongly about an issue, and wanted to
impress a larger number of viewers, he used facial expressions to reinforce his
voice intonation.
A memorable moment came when he felt disgusted about the
Israelis being ambiguous about everything yet demanding that the American
government clarify the already clear statements it was issuing. He responded by
sharpening his voice and making a face while telling the audience that the
Israelis were again asking for “an explanation.” He accentuated the “n” as if
to say “nuts” to the Israelis.
That was then. A recent publication should help illustrate
how Jewish ambiguity continues to refill and maintain the swamp. It is a piece
that was written by the editors of National Review Online under the title:
“Trump's Non-Radical Decision on Jerusalem ,”
published on December 7, 2017.
The editors say that President Trump made a “laudable” decision
when he moved the American embassy in Israel
from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem .
Why is it laudable? It is laudable because there is a 22 year old American law
that says this should be done, say the editors. But that's only half the law.
The other half says that the decision should be deferred because of national
security considerations. National security? Whose national security? Don't you
know? America 's
national security, stupid! Oh that thing? America 's national security! Well,
let me tell you something; forget that thing … security! … shmocurity! … What
the heck!
But aren't you going to explain why concern over America 's
security––the reason why successive presidents deferred the move––should no
longer be considered a factor? Well then, let us just say that deferring the
move for 22 years was a lamentable tradition, and leave it at that. You see, my
dear, more important than America 's
national security is that Donald Trump has fulfilled the part of the law which
gives Israel
what it wants.
But why is that more important than the security of the United States ?
You don't get it, do you? Haven't you heard the expression it is Israel , always Israel
and no one but Israel ?
Look here, “diplomatic tradition allows states to name their capitals, and Israel has named Jerusalem as its own.” I get that, but no one
names their capital on someone else's territory or a neutral territory until
ownership is established.
You still don't get it! I don't get what? You don't get it
that “there is no conceivable peace agreement between Israel and Palestine
that wouldn't recognize Jerusalem
as the capital of the Jewish state.” Do you get it now?
Well … I'm not sure I do. But let me try to express what you
just said differently. In fact, I put it to you in the form of a question: If
my kid leaves his tricycle in the driveway, and the thing rolls all the way
down to the road that is neither mine nor my neighbor's. Can the neighbor's kid
take the tricycle and make it his own on the ground that no conceivable verdict
in a court of law would not rule in the neighbor's favor?
I ask you again: Is that what you're saying? Yes, you're
absolutely correct; it is what I'm saying. But what kind of world are you
describing? It is a world where the judge is also the sheriff, and the sheriff
happens to like your neighbor more than he likes you.
Are you saying that America
likes Israel more than the
Palestinians; therefore America
could not care less about the rule of law when the law does not line-up with
the interests of Israel ?
You got it this time, mister. You got it. We always said it
… We, being editors of National Review and we, being Americans, always said it:
you may call us law-abiding or you may call us outlaw, we are pro-Israel.
But how do you suppose you can get away with being an outlaw?
How tiring! You're getting back to not getting it. Let me say this to you once
and for all: The outlaw is the sheriff. The sheriff is the judge. The sheriff
will not arrest the outlaw, and the judge will not prosecute the sheriff. Get
it now?
But from what I hear, the outlaw always stabs the judge in
the back. What do you say to that? I say I'll cross that bridge when I come to
it.