It should begin to worry the American people that a
publication as renowned as the Weekly Standard does not have an editor with the
intelligence to look at a submission, spot its deficiencies and fix them.
It happens often and everywhere in America what just
happened at the Weekly Standard. It is that the editors look at a piece of
writing and see food for thought that's good for public consumption when in
reality, the product is nothing more than a moral void that's good for the
trashcan. Those among the unwary public who eat from it not realizing what it
is, are bound to be sent on a trip down the tube of confusion, and be forced to
live with a shallow intellectual life unworthy of a superpower.
See for yourself by reading: “Ocasio-Cortez Should Be Lesson
for the Democratic Establishment,” which is the title of an article that also
came under the subtitle: “What happens in voters' backyards can affect their
choices as powerfully as what is happening in D.C.” It was written by Andrew
Egger and published on July 19, 2018 in the Weekly Standard, of course.
At a time when the populist cry in America echoes the
refrain “drain the swamp,” as repeated by the populist of all time, Donald
Trump, you catch Andrew Egger reminding the bosses of both political parties
that politics was always done in accordance with this piece of wisdom: “There's
a reason most politicians try to stick to boring, smiley platitudes in
interviews.” It is the writer's effort to make the party bosses believe they'll
do well in elections if they reject the Ocasio-Cortez's approach of open and
honest politics, and continue doing things the old way.
The bottom line of Egger's philosophy is revealed at the end
of the article. Here is how he expressed it: “What happens in voters' backyards
can affect their choices just as powerfully as what they detect happening far
off in D.C.” That is, Egger gives equal weight to what a candidate running for
national office does locally on one hand, and what happens at the national
level, such as in the Congress and the White House, on the other hand.
To make his point, Egger accepts what Joe Lieberman wrote:
“Her [Ocasio-Cortez] election in November would make it harder for Congress to
stop fighting and start fixing problems.” And yet, he rejects Lieberman's
scolding the voters of the 14th District, “for picking a candidate who may make
it more difficult for Democrats to win races in, say, Nebraska.” And for adding:
“But who says the voters of the 14th should care?”
What this says is that both Lieberman, the politician
(supposedly a Democrat,) and Egger, the journalist (supposedly a Republican,)
care only about winning elections, and not about what's good for the country.
They both want to see Ocasio-Cortez out of the way, and the question is why?
The key to answering it is one word: Bipartisan.
The only thing that's bipartisan –– which means widespread
in American politics –– is support for Israel. This is why, aside from fixing
Israel's needs, the bipartisan only-for-Israel Congress does not “stop fighting
or fixing problems,” as pointed out by Lieberman. And yet, the latter wants the
public to believe that honesty of the Ocasio-Cortez variety will get in the way
of fixing a broken Congress that’s supposed to fix America's problems but doesn’t
because it’s too busy fixing Israel's needs … over and above the real needs of
the little fart.
And Lieberman is seconded in that view by Andrew Egger who
called Ocasio-Cortez's reference to the occupation of Palestine, a symbol of
radicalism. In making this assertion without explaining it, Egger turned himself
into a living example for the public to spot and study the weird phenomenon
that he is.
Like the multitude of Jews who wrote about this subject and
said the same thing, not one has defined the word occupation. And yet, this was
the prerequisite to explaining why they believe that Ocasio-Cortez was mistaken
to call the presence of Israeli troops in Palestine, an occupation.
In fact, being vague was the approach adopted by the Jewish
establishment in America for half a century in its quest to “educate” the
American public and the politico-journalistic elites about Jewish
sensitivities.