Before Chicago — where gangs now rule the streets — there was Los
Angeles where two of their Street gangs came to be known by their names. They
were the Bloods and the Crips.
It happened that in 1992, an all-White jury in Los Angeles
acquitted the police department of wrongdoing after watching a video that
clearly showed several policemen beat-up Rodney King, an African-American who
was in such a bad shape, he remained motionless on the pavement, unable even to
move an arm to block the kicks that were delivered to his body repeatedly and
savagely. The Bloods and the Crips rioted, as they promised they would do if
the jury acquitted the police department.
The riot was such a big event, it was covered extensively by the
print and audio-visual media. There was also a good amount of background
coverage on how street gangs form and how they operate. The one thing that
stood out from all this, was that street gangs use methods similar to those we
observe in some political quarters. For example, because members of gangs need
to be motivated all the time lest they slacken and turn lethargic, the rhetoric
they use to communicate with each other, is imbued with words and images that
allude to fearlessness, manhood, courage and so on.
This was noteworthy because it employed a motivational approach
that is prominent in the lexicon that's used by Jews when addressing the
political honchos of the democracies. In fact, the approach had become so
repetitive in Canada, people could not help but notice the gap that existed
between what the Jews sounded like, and what they actually meant to
communicate.
For example, the Jews were telling the political honchos to be so
courageous as to stand with Israel against the Palestinians. But ordinary
Canadians saw Israel as a rapist, and the Palestinians as the victims of rape.
Thus, in the eyes of the public, the Jews were asking the Canadian honchos to
condone the rapists and condemn their victims for resisting the act of rape.
The sad part is that the same method can now be seen deployed by
Jews on the political honchos of the United states. In fact, you can see a
current example in the piece that came under the title: Steny Hoyer again shows
top Dems don't dare stand up to anti-Semites in the ranks,” an editorial of the
New York Post that was published on March 26, 2019.
The editors are lamenting that one day, House Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer stuck his neck out to defend those who were offended by the remark
that some supporters of Israel have dual loyalty, and the next day, Hoyer
seemed to backtrack on his stand. Which is why the editors accused him of
lacking courage.
Let's for now, set aside the reality that the editors of the New
York Post have a knack for speaking like the Los Angeles street gangs, the
Bloods and the Crips. And let's instead, concentrate on what Steny Hoyer has
said both times to merit being accused — let's call it by its name — cowardice.
Referring to a freshman that supposedly made that accusation, and
the two freshman that supported her, here is what Hoyer has said the first
time, and then the second time:
First, he said this: “When someone accuses American supporters of
Israel of dual loyalty, I say: Accuse me. I am part of a large, bipartisan
coalition in Congress supporting Israel. I tell Israel's detractors: Accuse
us”.
Second, speaking to an AIPAC gathering of Jews, Steny Hoyer said
this: “There are 62 freshman Democrats. You hear me? Sixty-two — not three”.
Given that there is not one iota of contradiction in those two
sayings, what could have so upset the Jewish editors of the New York Post, they
called Hoyer a coward? There can only be one explanation. It is that they would
have liked to see him go to AIPAC with a surprise gift under his arm. But what
kind of gift would have satisfied a bunch of bloodthirsty beasts?
Well then, recall the saying that never fails to prove its
validity. It is this: Give the Jews a finger and they’ll want the whole arm.
They saw the freshman rebuked for saying what she said. Now the bloodthirsty
Jews expected Steny Hoyer to double-down on the punishment of the freshman by
announcing her expulsion from the Foreign Relations Committee where she has a
seat. Hoyer failed to deliver on this one, so they called him coward.