How do you teach Logic to an illogical Mob?

Logic would dictate that when you have on one side, Kyle Shideler who feels a mysterious connection to Israel, and you have on the other side, Ilhan Omar who cut ties with her native Somalia, the chances are that Kyle Shideler will represent a dual loyalty problem for America, whereas Ilhan Omar will be motivated by a single minded dedication to the American way of life. She may even prove to be a potential solver of the problem that Shideler represents.

Logic would go further and dictate that when Kyle Shideler attacks Ilhan Omar and her likes, he does so to protect Israel. As well, when Ilhan Omar attacks Israel, she does so to protect America. Therefore, it stands to reason that from this logical standpoint, Ilhan Omar is a true friend of America and potentially its savior. At the same time, it stands to reason that Kyle Shideler and his likes may well be the disguised lethal enemies of America, characterized as the most destructive Fifth Columnists ever known to humankind.

You can see how all of that comes into play when you read the article that came under the title: “How Do You Solve A Problem Like Ilhan Omar?” written by Kyle Shideler and published on February 27, 2020 in The Federalist. A blurb that serves as a subtitle comes below the title to explain that, “Ben Weingarten's new book 'American Ingrate: Ilhan Omar and the Progressive-Islamist Takeover of The Democratic Party,' makes a compelling argument that Democrats' sharp leftward turn threatens American ideals and national security”.

This being what goes on out there, the content of the article reflects not only the thinking of Kyle Shideler who is a director at the demonic Middle East Forum––created by the notorious Daniel Pipes––but also the thinking of the Jewish establishment in America. And so, when reading what the Shideler article says is contained in the Ben Weingarten article, an important question poses itself: What could be the preoccupation of the American Jewish establishment these days?

The answer to that question is clear. With the rise of a new team of American legislators as courageous as Ilhan Omar, the Jews will find it increasingly difficult to be loyal to Israel at the expense of America. And they will find it even more difficult to force everyone to pretend otherwise by threatening to accuse them of antisemitism if they admit that what they see the Jews do, amounts to disloyalty to America. This means that sooner or later, the Jews will have to accept being labeled foreign agents in America, and operate on that premise or cease all activities meant to promote the interests of Israel.

But Jews are Jews, and having set in motion the schemes they are currently executing, they prepared no plan B, no way to alter the course on which they put themselves or abandon that course altogether. They'll stay on it come hell or high water till they win the battle, something they never did before, or fall flat on their faces as they have always done since the beginning of time.

That leaves us with one final question to ask: How might it all develop in the future? And we get the answer by studying the narrative that's given out by Shideler and Weingarten. Here are the revealing clues:

“Omar's appeal to intersectional identity politics, including her self-identification as a progressive feminist, won her the support of the predominantly white, middle-class college students. She suffered no damage despite statements such as, 'Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.' Many Jewish Democrats may argue that Omar did not have free rein to engage in her multiple acts of social media antisemitism, but instead faced criticism, and a demand for an apology from Nancy Pelosi. Weingarten preempted this objection, handling the battle for influence, but as he documents, this confrontation ended with a victory for Omar and her friends in the Squad. Omar then criticized Pelosi for opposing the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Support for BDS is mainstreamed in the Democratic Party. The Squad achieved total victory as the Democrats rallied to Omar's defense and condemned the president of the United States, by name, after he criticized Progressive Congresswomen”.

It is not too difficult to spot the clues in that narrative as to what might happen in the future. What we have here is the pattern of Ilhan Omar and her friends in the Squad, gaining more influence with the passage of time. This alone would have been an impressive showing. But more impressive is the fact that people have rallied around Omar when the president of the United States criticized her unfairly.

What this says is that the current trend is strong and getting stronger with the passage of time. It consists of boomeranging on anyone who levels unfair criticism on the good work that Ilhan Omar and her friends are doing. And this has the effect of giving Omar and her friends even more influence and more power.

Will the Jews learn and adapt and join the human race as equals? Not really. They never did at any time in the past, and they'll never do at any time in the future. That's because if they do, they'll cease to be Jews.

Look how Hate can impair human Perception

When you know that someone is an opportunist, and that he'll latch onto the events of the day when possible to score points for whatever causes he happens to champion, how can you tell what his true motivation has been for acting as he did?

To help us answer that question, we are lucky to have two articles written by two writers on the same subject, and printed in the same publication on the same day. The articles are different in their approaches, as day is different from night. This makes it easy to figure out what has motivated each writer, thus help us establish the validity of the causes they might have adopted passionately.

One of the articles came under the title: “Iran's Incompetent Response to Coronavirus Threatens the Middle East and the World,” Written by Seth Frantzman, and published on February 26, 2020 in National Review Online. The other article came under the title: “Beijing's Handling of Coronavirus Has undermined Chinese Public's Trust in State Media,” written by Zachary Evans, and published also on February 26, 2020, also in National Review Online.

Reading the Seth Frantzman article, you can't help but notice that it is loaded with editorial commentary. In fact, out of the 700 words that make up the article, 600 are dedicated to the body of opinions that Frantzman has of Iran's leaders. The remaining 100 words serve to narrate the events that unfolded around the outbreak of the coronavirus. What follows is the narration, stripped of the commentary:

“Iran has responded to coronavirus in characteristically counterproductive fashion. It has covered up an outbreak of coronavirus that threatens the Middle East. Iran’s regime kept the extent of the spread of the virus under wraps, keeping it off the homepages of major local media. It's deputy health minister downplayed fears, claiming that rumors of 50 deaths were false. It's People returning from Iran have spread the virus across the Gulf where dozens are now under observation. Coronavirus has spooked markets, and Iran is adding to the disaster”.

But Seth Frantzman was not satisfied telling a story about Iran without smothering it with a ton of negative opinions representing the talking points that make up the Jewish “hate-Iran propaganda.” The following are passages pertaining to that propaganda. They do not represent the full gamut of what's in Frantzman's article, but they are a taste of what’s there:

“The Iranian government has covered up an outbreak of coronavirus that threatens the Middle East. The regime, which has threatened the region with ballistic missiles, drones, naval mines and militias, has become a health threat as well. The virus has traveled from China to Iran along the route that the Revolutionary Guard Corps uses, illustrating the regime's disregard for its citizens and neighbors. Iran's failure to confront the health crisis is due to the regime's arrogance, conspiracy-minded behavior, and siege mentality. China's coronavirus has spooked markets, and Iran is adding to the disaster. The Iranian regime is using its people as a human shield. It has survived using brutality, killing protesters, shooting down an airliner, and blaming others for its problems while it seeks to attack Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the US. Iran is a threat to the world. Its airlines have transported arms and operatives throughout the region. A similar route enabled the virus to spread. The regime's toxic blend of religion, militancy, and authoritarianism have come together at the worst time in a fragile region”.

These passages say that Seth Frantzman has passionately adopted the Jewish and Israeli causes concerning their attitude toward Iran. But there is not enough here to help us devise a method by which to identify the motivation of someone like him. For this to happen, we need to compare his article against someone else's. Well, we have that of Zachary Evans, and the following is a condensed version of what he is saying about the subject:

“China's government is facing criticism from its own citizens over its handling of the outbreak of the coronavirus. Beijing has launched a campaign in the struggle to contain the virus, meant to unify the country's citizens. However, the government's efforts have faced scorn on Chinese social media. A blog spot by a lawyer excoriated the government over the virus. He wrote that by magnifying one individual's happiness while hiding the suffering of most people, it's hard to say such coverage was truthful. There is widespread anger over the government's condemnation of doctors who tried to warn about the outbreak. China has changed its diagnostic criteria multiple times, leading to confusion over the number of cases in the country”.

We can see that the difference between the two articles sums up as follows:

Seth Frantzman turned the tragedy of the coronavirus into an international issue and used it as a weapon to scare the people of the region; of America and the rest of the world about the Iranian regime. His aim is clearly to stir fear and loathing about that country in the hearts of people.

Zachary Evans, on the other hand, saw the tragedy of the coronavirus as primarily a local Chinese issue. Yes, he is aware that it has international ramifications, but his criticism of the Chinese government was based on the criticism leveled by the Chinese people themselves.

This says that the cause of Zachary Evans is valid because it's aim was to tell a true story, and that's what it did. As to the cause of Seth Frantzman, it cannot be considered valid even if it’s an opinion piece, which the author is allowed to do. His problem, however, is that he tried to demean the Iranians by throwing long debunked stereotypes at them, and people everywhere just got tired of that.

How the Cowards maintain a Slander Campaign

When a big event serves as impetus to the start of a new movement, all kinds of individuals join the movement, and there is no way to differentiate between the noble and the ignoble among them.

But as time passes and the movement marches on, it hits bumps that force its adherents to make tough decisions as to whether they should stay with the movement and go along with the majority, or stay with the movement and speak against its excesses, or leave the movement altogether.

There has been such a movement in the last century whose adherents call Zionist. One of its early adherents was Bernie Sanders who did exactly what was expected of him at the time. But when he started to feel uncomfortable with the direction that the movement had taken, Sanders left it. He did not disapprove of its premise; he disapproved of the direction it had taken. He did not actively or loudly oppose what it was doing; he avoided being drawn into its activities lest he become a part of what it was doing.

But having gained much knowledge about the human condition as a result of his sojourn with the movement, and being American by birth, Bernie Sanders chose to get involved in American politics. To his dismay, he discovered that the movement whose excesses he disapproved of, had permeated America's politics, and was closing in on him as it was on the other politicians. The aim was to make him a “friend” of Israel but he preferred to be a friend of the downtrodden wherever they lived.

The arm of the Zionist movement overseeing that effort in America was and remains the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) whose beginnings had been one of the most demonic undertakings ever devised by people whose hands did more than drip with the blood of innocent Palestinian farmers. These were the hands of people that intended to intensify their murderous activities, engaging as they did in the ethnic cleansing of the land, and giving it to losers they beckoned around the world. But because they thought that America would disprove of the butchery they were committing and were about to intensify, the Zionists created AIPAC to work on confusing the Americans as to what they were doing in Palestine.

Confusing the American elites as well as the masses has remained the mission of AIPAC ever since that time. Knowing all this, Bernie Sanders decided that the best thing to do was to cut all relations with AIPAC. He made his decision known, but as you would expect, he was attacked by the fanatic hardliners who thought they could still bring him back into the fold. They failed but as you'll see, they did not go quietly. Two of those attackers were the editors of the New York Post, and Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner.

Philip Klein wrote: “Bernie Sanders boycotts AIPAC but spoke at conference featuring parade of anti-Semites and extremists,” published on February 24, 2020 in the Washington Examiner. As to the New York post editors, they wrote a piece under the title: “Bernie Sanders' outrageous AIPAC attack,” and published it on February 25, 2020 in the New York Post.

This is how Philip Klein began his discussion:

“Bernie Sanders has claimed he's concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights. He announced his intention to boycott AIPAC's Policy Conference, which features a number of speakers touting the need for a strong US-Israel relationship. But Sanders spoke at the Islamic Society of North America's annual conference. ISNA has long generated controversy for hosting radical speakers”.

Klein went on to slander the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); slander being the specialty of the hate machine to which he belongs. It turned out that the editors of the New York Post, who are members of the same hate machine, had a similar idea. And so, they too joined the slander chorus and spewed their hate at Bernie Sanders the way they have been slandering the individuals they spent years trying to intimidate.

But, in juxtaposing the willingness of Sanders to speak at the ISNA annual conference while refusing to speak at the AIPAC policy conference, Philip Klein shed light on a very important point. It is that ISNA was holding a conference whose intent was to review the year that just ended, whereas AIPAC was holding a “policy” conference whose intent was to strengthen US-Israel relationship, according to Klein. This is euphemism that means Israel will use the AIPAC conference to make new demands on America. The Israelis got Jerusalem, the Golan, the green light to annex more of the West Bank, financial punishment of the Palestinians –– and they wanted more as they always do.

If someone should complain about the conference of the other, it is the adherents of ISNA who should complain about AIPAC that is gathering to get more from America so as to do more of the things that hurt the Palestinian people ISNA wants to protect.

But this being the upside-down world that Bernie Sanders has rejected, it turned out that the protectors of AIPAC were the ones to complain about the ISNA people for doing nothing more than gather to review the year that just ended.

And the protectors of AIPAC, such as Philip Klein and the editors of the New York Post, saw yet another occasion to do more of what they do to dampen the fire in their bellies, they slandered Bernie Sanders for making the noble choices that he did.

They create an issue out of nothing then wail

In the echo chamber housing dozens of Jewish publications and thousands that make up the mob of Jewish pundits, there is a Jonathan Zimmerman and a pair named Mark Goldfeder and Gary Epstein.

Zimmerman wrote an article that came under the title: “Sanders, Bloomberg and the threat of anti-Semitism,” published in the New York Daily News on February 24, 2020. As to the pair Goldfeder and Epstein, they coauthored an article that came under the title: “How Trump can root out anti-Semitism at the UN,” published in the Washington Examiner, also on February 24, 2020.

As can be seen from the titles of the two works, they deal with the same theme, which is antisemitism. And they also have another thing in common. It is that Zimmerman shows how the Jews create antisemitism where there is none, and then wail, whereas Goldfeder and Epstein show how the Jews use America to spread antisemitism around the world, and then wail.

You don't have to be a genius to see how Jonathan Zimmerman spreads antisemitism with the kind of writing he does, as exhibited in his latest work. Look what he said in the first paragraph: “Bernie Sanders is a Jewish socialist. Michael Bloomberg is a Jewish billionaire –– what's wrong with this picture? You don't have to be a Jew to know the answer”.

Let me assure Jonathan Zimmerman that there is nothing wrong with that picture in the minds of the millions of people who donate money to the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and vote for him, election cycle after election cycle. And there is nothing wrong in the minds of those who will vote for Michael Bloomberg if he can get his act together and make a good showing in the debates.

But now that Zimmerman has told the people there ought to be something wrong with that picture, the screwballs of America will look into the history that Zimmerman told them about, and find what he says deserves being judged worthy of antisemitic hate. And the screwballs will do just that. So here it is, in condensed form, what Zimmerman has told the screwballs they should see and what they should do:

“Across the past century anti-Semites have reviled Jews as both rapacious capitalists and revolutionaries against capitalism. Add to the mix Donald Trump, who has traded in his own anti-Jewish rhetoric. Trump echoed the stereotype of Jews as unscrupulous businessmen. Powerful anti-Semites like Henry Ford charged that the international Jew was conspiring to capture the global economy. The Great Depression was blamed on scheming international Jews. People jammed Madison Square Garden carrying banners proclaiming: Stop Jewish Domination of Christian America. Anti-Semitism draws from a diverse range of Americans. If history is any judge, the Bloomberg and Sanders candidacies will be catnip to anti-Semites of every creed and color”.

You couldn't pay an authentic hater of Jews enough money to come up with a text containing more elements that incite the screwballs to go into the streets and publicly display their antisemitism.

As to the Goldfeder and Epstein pair, they spent their energy on creating arguments that were not aimed at explaining Israel to the world, or explaining the world to Israel. What they did was create more of the old arguments, which they knew were making the world see Israel as a murderous entity that lives by killing and looting its neighbors, as well as incite America to go after those that Israel cannot kill or loot. The following are the new demands that Goldfeder and Epstein are making on America:

“The objectives, activities, and effects of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement are anti-Semitic. The Human Rights Council released a blacklist of companies doing business in Israeli settlements. The Council went too far. Several non-governmental organizations employ terrorists, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Hamas. The office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights should be investigated by US authorities. The US should withhold funds from the United Nations equivalent to the funding provided to the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner. The Human Rights Council members can and should be prosecuted for any damage they cause. The State Department should impose visa and travel restrictions on the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Michelle Bachelet”.

Nothing tells the billions who inhabit Planet Earth that the Jews hate the human race more convincingly than when the Jews incite America to attack the United Nations or any of its agencies by taking such measures as withholding payment of its dues. That's what Goldfeder and Epstein have told America to do as if to invite the entire human race to return the favor and hate the Jews.

Now that Jonathan Zimmerman, Mark Goldfeder and Gary Epstein have motivated the screwballs of America as well as the rest of the human race to hate the Jews, watch the three characters go into the echo chamber of the mob and wail their pain at a humanity that's reviving the old stereotypes about the Jews, and repeating the old tropes about them "without any Jewish provocation whatsoever".

A Warmonger bored by the quiet Status Quo

True or not, legend has it that the First World War started because of sheer boredom.

It is said that European leaders who used to be at each other’s throats, got tired of fighting, took a respite but got bored and started needling each other again to add excitement to their lives. Things got out of hand when a small accident led to a response that called for a retaliation that escalated into a full-blown world war.

Take that for what it's worth, but do not dismiss the idea that idleness leads to boredom, which causes many species, including the human, to look for ways to relieve that boredom. As it happens, we now have an example of what goes on inside the skull of someone who is sliding down the slope of boredom, and would most probably have started something dangerous, were he in a position of power.

He is, the now retired, Jed Babbin who was once deputy undersecretary of Defense. He wrote an article under the title: “China's coronavirus failures and Iran's tanking economy can't be talked away by weak leaders,” and the subtitle: “Xi Jinping and Hassan Rouhani's confessions of weakness.” The article was published on February 23, 2020 in The Washington Times.

What you'll take away from reading the article and reflecting on its content, is that Jed Babbin is bored seeing the world as calm as it is. He attributes the state of quietness to the fact that the world leaders who count, on both sides of the divide, are weak. They are weak in the East, he says, and that is a good thing. But they are also weak in the West, he adds, and that's not good, according to him.

Jed Babbin views Xi Jinping of China as being gripped by the coronavirus, and failing to address the crisis properly. He also views Hassan Rouhani of Iran as being helpless, having to face the maximum economic pressure imposed on his country by the United States. And Babbin goes on to say that both leaders, who are opponents of the United States, have confessed to the reality that they are weak.

But how could this have led Jed Babbin to start a war were he in a position to do so? We get a sense of that by studying his thought processes as detected from his use of a quiet tone when he started describing what he was seeing, and his adoption of a harsher tone as he went on to describe what he was seeing.

Here is how Jed Babbin first exposed his thought processes: “Three revealing speeches and actions –– by Chinese President Xi Jinping, by Iranian President Rouhani and by the Trump administration in announcing a 'deal' with the Taliban –– are prime examples of conduct that betrays weakness.” And so, Babbin began with the use of a soft tone to describe the Chinese situation. Here is how he put it:

“The coronavirus has spread from the Chinese city of Wuhan to centers around the world. Mr. Xi claimed credit for containing the disease. He chastised local officials for not dealing with the crisis quickly enough. According to Mr. Xi, he issued demands during a Politburo Committee meeting to contain the outbreak. But the Politburo meets in secret, so his claims are dubious at best. Though Mr. Xi's statements were intended to impress the Chinese people, they will see his claims to be what they are –– as a confession of weakness”.

Jed Babbin then adopted a harsher tone to describe the Iran situation. This is what he said:

“Iran is suffering from a rapidly-failing economy brought about by US sanctions. Rouhani said that Iran will not negotiate with the US until it rejoins the nuclear deal and relieves Iran of the sanctions. He said that the Iranian economy is still thriving in the face of the maximum pressure campaign. The Iranian people see their economy in trouble and they protest against the ayatollah's regime. Mr. Rouhani's false bravado was intended for home consumption. He can't believe that Mr. Trump is going to rejoin the nuclear deal and relieve Iran of all sanctions. He is playing for time while confessing weakness”.

And he adopted an even harsher tone when describing the stance of the Western powers:

“Our weakness in Afghanistan has been evident for years. The latest proof is a preliminary agreement with the Taliban. It will begin with a reduction in violence and continue for a week with a cease-fire to begin afterward. Peace talks with the Kabul government are supposed to begin at that point. The fact that we could not require a cease-fire is proof of our weakness. Whatever promises the Taliban make they will violate without consequence. Once we're gone it would take another 9/11 for us to return. Our weakness in Afghanistan will re-create it as a safe haven for terrorism”.

Seeing the evolution of this intellectual journey, it is not too difficult to imagine that if Jed Babbin were in charge of matters concerning war and peace, and he were asked to make a decision, he would slide down the slope of boredom, gradually adopt a harsher tone of what needs to be done, and finally decide to start a war if only to relieve his boredom.

The Salami Man deserves thirty thousand years

I never thought I'd live long enough to see the Salami Man being serenaded with a literary ode; much less serenaded by a former Canadian, now teaching law in America.

The boneheaded Canadian is F.H. (nothing to do with Fred Habachi) Buckley who wrote: “Michael Milken deserved Trump's pardon,” a piece that was published on February 23, 2020 in The Washington Examiner.

You guessed it, the salami man is Michael Milken, but you're probably too young to remember how and why he earned the nickname salami man. Actually, Milken never worked as a butcher of animals or human beings. But, for two reasons, you can think of him as having butchered ethical financing.

One reason is that, working as a hedge fund manager, Michael Milken fleeced the portfolios of everyone that came within his sight, including his clients. The other reason is that he invented the diabolic method of stuffing a junk-bond with few good securities and a whole bunch of worthless papers. He cut-up the bond into slices like a salami, and sold those slices to unsuspecting clients who thought they were buying a medley of good securities, unaware of the poison they were invited to bite into.

While selling that stuff to others and making big profits, Michael Milken established connection with traders in brokerage houses, who were in a position to know what companies will be taken over and when. In an operation called insider trading, Milken would buy shares in those companies, and make big profits there too after the companies are taken over. To be sure, insider trading is a crime for which Martha Stewart was nabbed, tried, convicted and sent to jail.

Michael Milken also was nabbed, tried, convicted and sent to jail. The difference between the two is that Martha Stewart did not engage in activities aimed at fleecing other people or institutions. What she did was act on the information she received from her broker, and sold a stock she already had. The broker's tip proved useful when the stock fell the next day, and she avoided losing about 50,000 dollars. For this, she was sent to jail for 5 months and put under supervision for two more years.

As to Michael Milken, he served only a two-year jail sentence, having actively schemed to steal billions upon billions of dollars from individuals, from pension funds and from charitable endowments. He stole so much, in fact, that he still has 3 to 4 billion dollars to his name after decades of living the high life. In addition, he was pardoned and Martha Stewart was not. She continues to be a convicted felon, but not him. Why? There is only one explanation: He is Jewish and she is Catholic.

Knowing that history, look how the shameless F.H. Buckley started his serenade of Michael Milken: “In 1990, Milken pleaded guilty to a securities offense. He was an outsider who took on a cozy establishment, beat them at their own game, and then was chewed up and spit out by a shameful criminal law system. His pardon was well-deserved … His rise was a great example of the American Dream”.

Instead of telling the truth about Milken engaging in insider trading, look how Buckley whitewashed his activities: “As his reputation for picking winners grew, Milken attracted some of the wealthiest venture capitalists as clients, people such as T. Boone Pickens and Carl Icahn, and Drexel became known as a firm that could raise billions of dollars to finance a takeover of a company within a matter of hours”.

And that's not all. We can get a sense of how far Buckley has gone to whitewash the criminal activities of Milken by comparing the way that he described those activities, and the scurrilous way by which he described the system of justice that convicted him for those activities.

First, the whitewash: “None of this won him any friends back east … he wasn't sharing his profits with Wall Street underwriters. There had been a tradition that lead underwriters on a deal would pass on part of the securities to be sold to other underwriters, but Milken wasn't having any of that. Drexel found it could raise billions of dollars to finance a takeover all by itself, and it did just that”.

Note that Buckley said not one word to call that situation what it was: A house of thieves who came upon a big jackpot, got greedy and started stabbing one another in the back, each trying to grab a big share of the loot and run. Instead of doing that, Buckley reserved his maligning attacks on the system of justice. That's what he said about it:

“The state used pressure to force Milken to plead guilty. It offered lenient plea bargains to liars in exchange for their promises to implicate Milken. It threatened to prosecute Milken's brother and sent FBI agents to visit his grandfather to get Milken to plead guilty. The state also waved the prospect of a racketeering order at Drexel, securing a guilty plea from it and cooperation in the prosecution of Milken”.

Martha Stewart was sent to jail a month for every 10,000 dollars she avoided losing. If we make it so that every dollar you avoid losing, is the same as stealing a dollar from an orphan, then justice requires that Michael Milken go to jail for 30,000 years.

But who said there was justice in America?

Adolescents wrestling with Adult Concerns

Editors of the Washington Examiner have internalized the Judeo-Yiddish method of sham so well, they cannot make a move without revealing what inspires them.

In fact, they poured their hearts and souls into the futile attempt to convince their readers that a ship of state the size of the American economy was turned around instantly by the magic wand of Captain Donald Trump.

They did so in an editorial they published under the title: “Trump's economy is what Obama always wanted but never got,” printed in the Examiner on February 21, 2020.

To understand the effect of the Judeo-Yiddish culture on people like the editors of the Examiner, we need to know the difference between the temperament of a child and that of an adult. It is that when a child wants something, he wants it now. He has no grasp of the concept of time, let alone that it takes time to accomplish things. He believes that adults can make things happen just by willing them to happen.

No one understands that reality more than the Jews who waited a long time before they could get a homeland in Palestine. Even now, they continue to work patiently to realize a list of wishes that goes from here to infinity, requiring a time to realize that goes from here to eternity. And yet, it is those same Jews who throw a child-like tantrum every time that they say they want something and the Americans do not immediately respond to their demand.

And so, while the Jews will wait a long time if necessary, to get what they want, they preach to the gullible Americans that “effect” can happen immediately after the “cause” that triggers it, is set. And if nothing happens in the short run, which is usually the case, nothing will happen in the long run. The Jews use this kind of false teaching to incite the Americans to attack someone they hate, assuring them that nothing nefarious will happen. What they do not specify, however, is that they mean nothing will happen immediately without guaranteeing that the same will hold for the long term.

Not only do the Jews trick the Americans in foreign policy with that kind of incitement, they use the trick to maneuver the Americans on the domestic stage as well. This is where they play a savage kind of partisan politics whose aim is to divide the American people and conquer the land from sea to sea.

Thus, what the attitude of the Washington Examiner reflects, is the infestation of the Judeo-Yiddish culture that has made the publication what it is. The editors wrote their latest piece to do a partisan-inspired mocking of the former President Barack Obama who expressed the wish that, “We will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide … good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”.

To play their dirty game, the editors of the Washington Examiner wrote in American English, disregarding the American tradition that when the president speaks of “our children,” he speaks not only of his family, and not only of the immediate generation, but also of the American generations to come. But instead of interpreting his words, seeing them through the lens of America’s tradition, the Judeo-Yiddish brainwashed editors of the Washington Examiner passed the President's words through the Judeo-Yiddish filter, and produced a piece of work that’s fit for the Jewish sewer and nothing else.

In addition to all that, instead of being terrified by the reality that the disease plaguing them has infected the crew that's running the American ship of state, the editors of the Washington Examiner celebrated the manifestation of the symptoms on the ship's crew. The editors mounted the celebration by quoting the Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers who said the following:

“Some claim that the strong economy is a continuation of the previous part of the expansion … However, typically GDP and employment growth are faster at the start of an economic expansion … The current recovery differs from the past ones because growth was slow initially and has accelerated since the election in 2016, more than seven years into the recovery”.

The key word here is “typically.” But the events of 2008 and 2009 cannot be seen as typical of a normal business cycle that started to flow under Obama after it had ebbed to a catastrophic level under George W. Bush (43). What actually happened was more like an accident that brought the victim close to death. Saving him required immediate and fast action to stabilize his vital signs.

When this was done, the cautious and steady hand of professional adults was required to ascertain that the recovery will continue unabated and not reverse itself.

A cool and steady hand is what the Obama team provided, realizing a recovery that avoided the depression many thought at the time, was inevitable. In the end, the Obama team handed a robust economy and a steadied ship to the Trump team.

What this team will do with the economy cannot be assessed until it is handed over to the next administration a year from now or five years from now.

Harsanyi unwittingly proves Sanders is right

In the physical sciences, the best discoveries are made when scientists pursue a line of inquiry, fail to find what they are after, but in the process, stumble on a discovery they never suspected was there.

In the social sciences, the most authentic discovery is made when someone pursues a line of inquiry, fails to prove what he was after, but in the process, proves the opposite and not even know it.

This is what happened to David Harsanyi who was trying to prove that Bernie Sanders was wrong, but ended up proving him entirely correct. Harsanyi recorded his failed intellectual journey in a column that came under the title: “Bernie's Wrong: We Are Better Off Today Than We Were 45 Years Ago,” and the subtitle: “Wage stagnation is a myth, we live longer, there's much less crime, and the environment is cleaner.” It was published on February 20, 2020 in National Review Online.

To begin with, Harsanyi's failure of logic is shown in the subtitle where he acknowledges that Bernie's point was to the effect that wages have stagnated for the last 45 years, but goes on to make it sound like wages have not stagnated because, “we live longer, there's much less crime, and the environment is cleaner,” when in fact, Bernie Sanders had said that wages stagnated despite the progress made in those other areas.

But there is worse than this failure of logic. It is that David Harsanyi has dug up a whole bunch of numbers from the archives which, on the surface, look like they might support his theory, but look different when assessed forensically. In fact, when you subject them to that treatment, they turn out to prove that Bernie Sanders was correct. Here is the passage, in condensed form, articulating Harsanyi's point of view:

“The alleged wage stagnation is a myth. For one thing, that argument fails to take into account the health-care benefits, pensions, vacations, family leave, and other perks now embedded in job packages. Once those benefits are added, Americans probably have seen about a 45-percent wage increase since 1964. Does anyone believe that a dollar spent on medical care in 1975 equals a dollar spent today?”

All you need is a simple calculator to establish that there are 55 years between 1964 and 2019. With a calculator that's a little more sophisticated, you can calculate that an increase of 45 percent in 55 years means an average annual compounded increase of less than one percent. The exact number is two thirds of one percent.

According to Harsanyi's numbers, this is what the workers received as reward for the increase in productivity. But given that real productivity has increased by about 3 percent a year on average, to turn around and give the workers less than one percent is meager indeed.

As to the effect of inflation, the average increase during those years has been a little more than 3.5 percent. This means that in 55 years, prices have increased about 6.7 folds. So, the bottom line is this: Someone earning 7.5 dollars an hour today is standing at the same place as someone earning 1.12 dollars an hour in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Was that the minimum wage at the time?

And that's not even the whole story because when you combine the rate of inflation and that of productivity, the picture looks considerably worse. It turns out that someone earning 7.5 dollars an hour today, is in reality as badly served as someone earning 80 cents an hour during those years. Was it like that at the time?

Given that hefty increases cannot be sustained in a globalized economy where low-wage jurisdictions are engaged in cutthroat competition with the advanced economies, no one expects to see the workers make advances as rapidly as they did in the past. But Sanders is arguing that America's corporations are making big profits, and their managerial class is getting handsome increases. They can certainly give higher increases to their workers and still run a profitable enterprise.

In fact, nothing in David Harsanyi's reasoning negates that reality. On the contrary, what Sanders has been saying is proven by Harsanyi's argument. All that’s missing is the proper interpretation of what Harsanyi says he has observed.

Watch an economic Illiterate give Credit where Credit is not due

A dumbo comes up with a stupid idea, yells it in the echo chamber where it is picked up by one dumbo after another, and before you know it, a chorus of dumbos are echoing the same stupid idea.

This is what happened when David Weinberger picked up an idea put out by Brian Riedl and repeated it, not knowing what he's talking about. Weinberger did so in an article that came under the title: “No, President Obama, You don't Deserve The Credit For Trump's Awesome Economy,” and the subtitle: “Federal spending cannot and will not stimulate the economy. That is one thing from the Recovery Act you can take to the bank.” It was published on February 19, 2020 in The Federalist.

Here is the dumb idea: “Believing that government spending causes growth is like believing that taking a bucket of water from one end of the pool and dumping it into the other causes the overall water level in the pool to rise.” Since I do not know in what context Brian Riedl made that assertion, my critique is not directed at him. But I know the context in which David Weinberger used it, and that's where I have concerns.

First, let me tell you something. When I was teaching––before retiring––I discovered that when handling students in a remedial class, the best way to explain a complex subject, was to begin by defining the key words that will come up when the subject will be discussed in detail ... and go from there. And so, I propose to follow that same approach here.

When people speak of “tight money,” they refer to the central bank (the Fed) making it difficult for businesses and individuals to borrow money. By contrast, when someone remarks that the system is “awash” with liquidity, they mean that the Fed has “flooded” the marketplace with money.

So, the question is this: How and why would the Fed do such a thing? The answer is that the Fed is the source of all moneys. It can print any amount it wants and push it into the economy. It can also suck back any amount it wants and cause a tight money condition. This says that neither the Fed nor the marketplace are a pool of money. The Fed is the creator as well as the destroyer of money, but is not a pool. The economy is the wealth producing engine that uses money to function, but is not a pool. The more that money circulates in the economy and the faster it does, the more goods and services it produces. That's assuming the system is not overloaded with too much money, in which case it will heat up and blow the proverbial fuse.

The Fed interacts with the economy in two ways. One way is initiated by the marketplace when the licensed banks that lend money to businesses and individuals, borrow what they need from the Fed to service their clients. The other way that the Fed interacts with the economy is when it initiates the interaction by buying from or selling to the marketplace, assets such as government or corporate securities.

In the first instance, the Fed controls the appetite of the marketplace to borrow or not to borrow by raising or lowering the interest rates. This is called setting the monetary policy. In the second instance, the Fed allows its balance sheet to expand (when buying assets) or contract (when selling assets) so as to complement or offset what the government is doing with its own fiscal policy.

When the government sees the need to stimulate an economy that is slowing down because it is saturated with goods and services and cannot consume much more, or because something terrible has happened that frightened businesses and the public, causing them to stash their money rather than spend it, John Maynard Keynes has suggested that the government should step in and do the spending by launching a program of public works such as the repair or renewal of the infrastructure.

But from where does the Government get the money? In the not too capitalistic regimes, the government borrows directly from the central bank. In the capitalistic regimes, the government borrows from anybody. But since all moneys are created by the central bank anyway, the net result is that even the capitalist regimes end up borrowing from the central bank. But there is a catch associated with that word “anybody”.

To borrow, the government issues bonds (and short-term treasury bills.) The buyers come from the public and from the business community. Most of the time the average Joe will invest in bonds, money that he saves from working. Very few average Joes will take a “bridge loan” even on a temporary basis to invest in bonds. But when they do, they make sure to pay it back as soon as possible. The reason is that Joe will always pay a higher interest on the money he borrows than he will receive on the money he invests. That's because he is considered a subprime level of client and not a preferred borrower.

As to the preferred borrowers, such as the banks and other financial institutions, they'll borrow from the Fed at an interest rate that is lower than what they will receive from the government bonds. They pocket a huge profit, having lifted not one finger to work for it. They’ll do even better with corporate bonds.

Thus, David Weinberger's assertion that, “Federal spending cannot and will not stimulate the economy,” is ignorant because it is based on a misinformed echo picked up in the echo chamber.

You don't delegitimize the already illegitimate

Have you ever watched a fantasy movie or a television show in which a ghost appears in front of a frightened mortal who dithers at first but then regains his composure and looks for a way to kill the ghost? How do you react when you hear the ghost say: You can't kill me; I'm already dead?

Someone ought to remind the mob of Jewish pundits and their sidekicks of that reality, given that they never cease to blurt out the idiotic refrain that someone is delegitimizing the already delegitimized Israel. And bear in mind that Israel was not delegitimized because someone worked on it, but because it was the Jews of Israel and America that did it while trying to give Israel more than it was legitimately entitled to.

The problem with the Jews is that their culture robs them of imagination, creativity, and logical thinking –– so much so that the only way they can function, is by imitating others. But they have a deficiency there too because in watching others, they don't see reality as it is. They see reality as their troubled minds perceives it. Most of the time, that perception proves to be so distorted, it leads them to play out a false mimicry of what they believe they are seeing.

You can see how all of that has played a role in the production of Clifford D. May's latest column. It came under the title: “United Nations Human Rights Council delegitimizes Israel,” and the subtitle: “A motley crew of Orwellian rights violators seeks to harm Israelis and Palestinians alike.” The column was published on February 18, 2020 in The Washington Times.

Having made it clear in the title of the column that his intent is to defend Israel against the entities attacking it, Clifford May proceeded in the first paragraph, to name those entities. As it happens, he noted, they are all members of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Here they are according to Clifford May: Eritrea, Mauritania, Somalia, Qatar, Pakistan, Libya and Venezuela.

But these are not the only violators of human rights, says May, naming a number of others who should have been cited by UNHRC as offenders but were not. They are China, Russia, Cuba and Zimbabwe. And so, he compares all those he named against Israel's record on human rights, which he described as being, “the only state in the Middle East that guarantees rights to its citizens”.

What's wrong with that? What's wrong is that instead of using the designation “only” to say that Israel is singularly doing the right thing, the defenders of that entity should use the designation to tell the truth. They should say that the people who refer to themselves as Israelis or Zionists, adhere to a culture that is singularly the most horrific criminal enterprise to plague Planet Earth for thousands of years.

To comply with the Alan Dershowitz doctrine which says that Israel has the right to do to the Palestinians what every predator has done to their victims, the Jews of Israel and America looked at places like Crimea, Northern Cyprus, Kashmir, Nagorno-Karabakh, Tibet and Western Sahara and saw, not the reality that is there, but what their distorting minds wanted them to see.

In fact, whereas the occupying powers in those places have extended their political and legal systems to cover the lands and their indigenous peoples without displacing the people, the Jews of Israel did something else. They grabbed the land, and started replacing the indigenous Palestinians with losers they imported from around the world.

In effect then, whereas Russia considers the people of Crimea to be full-fledged citizens of Russia; whereas India considers the people of Kashmir to be full-fledged citizens of India––and so on for all the other places as well––the Jews of Israel (and America) continue to treat the Palestinians as if they were aliens in their own Palestine.

Even then, Clifford May is still unhappy because he is not getting everything he wanted for the Jews or for Israel. And so, instead of advocating the reversal of the Jewish demonic activities that keep turning the Jews into eternal pariahs, Clifford May did what Jews always do when they try to have it both ways: he shot himself in the foot.

He did it by attacking two members of the House of Representatives, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, under the pretext that they are intimidating the rest of the House by forcing it to be unfriendly to Israel and to the Jews … as he contends. Do you know what that does? The poor lad did not realize that what he did was cast a shadow of suspicion on Jewish accomplishments during the past half century.

Think about it. If two rookie political minnows (with no think tanks to support them, no media to carry their message and no army of politico-religious prostitutes to sell out their souls for them) can intimidate the House of Representatives despite the Jewish push back to which they are subjected 24/7, imagine how much the whale-size Jewish machine was able to intimidate the House during the half century that it had the field all to itself.

In fact, what the Jewish machine for intimidation had on its side, were think tanks producing propaganda disguised as scholarly papers; publications galore masquerading as legitimate media producing fraudulent opinions; and politico-religious prostitutes pretending to preach the word of God when in reality, they preached a gospel of treason that entailed them to sell out America and promote the interests of Israel and the Jews.

What the Jews have accomplished during the last half century was not based on merit. It was based on intimidation and coercion, which makes that whole enterprise a criminal undertaking.

May Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar have the strength to drain that swamp.

A convoluted haggling that's meant to confuse

Imagine the old Soviet Union or the new Russia saying that there has never been such a thing as East Germany and West Germany in ancient history, and then invade the two parts of Germany, occupy them both and annex them to the Soviet Union or to Russia.

Imagine China saying that there has never been such a thing as North Vietnam and South Vietnam in ancient history, and then invade the two parts of Vietnam, occupy them both and annex them to China.

Imagine Japan saying that there has never been sch a thing as North Korea and South Korea in ancient history, and then invade the two parts of Korea, occupied them both and annex them to Japan.

If you're a normal, non-Jewish human being, your reaction will be: Who the hell came up with the idea that because there was not an East Germany and a West Germany before they were split, the land of Germany ceased to belong to the German people who lived on it for centuries? Can this be a reason for the Soviets or the Russians to steal Germany from the Germans? The same question can also be asked with regard to the Vietnamese and Korean situations.

A question was asked requiring an answer. Here it is: The Jews constantly invent absurdities of that kind, thus provoke the disgust of a largely sane world, but draw the admiration of the North Americans who ramble on Capitol Hill and Parliament Hill, seemingly undisturbed by the most egregious of the Jewish absurdities. This would be the claim that there never was such a thing as Palestine in ancient history, therefore the Jews have the right to grab the land from the Palestinians who lived on it since the beginning of time.

Not only is this logic horrifically absurd, it is also false. The Truth is that there has always been a Palestinian people living in Palestine. By contrast, there has never been an Israel, except in the fantasy that was planted, by the power of hypnosis, into the heads of the zombies that roam the DC and Ottawa Hills.

In keeping with their habit of mutating their absurdities to suit the moment, the Jews have modified their latest absurdity to encompass the status of Jerusalem. The reality is that Jerusalem is an ancient city that has always been inhabited by Palestinians. When the Jews were given a homeland by the sea, it came nowhere close to Jerusalem that is inland. However, after 1948 the Jews steadily expanded the patch of land they were given, placing a heavy emphasis on expanding in the direction of Jerusalem. When they came close to the ancient city, they built a new one and called it Jerusalem.

But because there was already a Jerusalem, something had to be done to denote one from the other. Because the ancient Jerusalem was populated almost exclusively by Palestinian Arabs, it came to be known as Arab Jerusalem. Because it was situated east of the one that was built by the Jews, it was also known as East Jerusalem. As to the city that the Jews built, it came to be known as West Jerusalem. And that was enough for the Jews to say there has never been such a thing as East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem in ancient history, therefore the Jews have the right to grab them both and make them their own.

Now that the Americans have agreed to give the Jews what belongs neither to them nor to the Jews, and now that you've seen the latter pull the old trick of asserting that their logic dictate the annexation of the whole thing, you should read an article you’ll find extremely asinine … so be prepared. It came under the title: “East Jerusalem and the UN/UNHCR 'Blacklist,'” written by Moshe Phillips and published on February 17, 2020 in the Jewish publication, Algemeiner. Here is a condensed version of what it contains:

“According to the UN, the Occupied Palestinian Territory includes East Jerusalem. This is curious because East Jerusalem does not exist. Remember that East Jerusalem is what the Bible means when it refers to Jerusalem. What is East Jerusalem and why is adding the word East of any serious magnitude? East and West in Israel are not simple geographic terms as they are in America. When a specific location in Jerusalem is mentioned, it refers to an area that the UN labels occupied. The UN sees the Temple Mount as part of this mythical creation of East Jerusalem in its Palestinian state. So, East Jerusalem is the Old City according to the UN. There has never been in history an independent entity known as East Jerusalem. And, for the record, there has never been an independent entity known as Palestine either”.

What's that about? What is Moshe Phillips trying to accomplish? He is trying to establish that Palestinians do not belong in Jerusalem or anywhere in Palestine, but that both Jerusalem and Palestine belong to the losers who come from around the world looking for someone to kill and rob.

These losers, who can't get along with anyone, come armed with American weapons, which they use like the horrific savages that they are, as exemplified by the way that normal human beings have reacted to the presence of Jews in their midst throughout space and time.

But if you feel like asking: Who the hell came up with all these wicked ideas? Don't ask the Jews because you'll be vexed to hear them say, they were God's ideas.

A simple Solution to fix the 'rigged Economy'

As an economist, Milton Ezrati has impressive credentials, and he just published an impressive 6,500-word essay under the title: “The U.S. Economy Is Rigged,” printed on February 16, 2020 in National Interest.

Ezrati has a point of view in which he firmly believes. He sees the modern economy as being little different from that of the Fascist era. It is dangerous, he says, as proven by the 2008-2009 near collapse of the financial system, something that can happen again, he warns. Ezrati did a good job defending his point of view, as long as you look at it through the narrow angle which he uses to layout his argument. But is that all you can say about this subject?

The writer's concern is not the “concentrations of commercial and financial power” as such––though he has misgivings about that too––but the concentration that is done in partnership with the government. When this happens, says Milton Ezrati, the government takes control of the operation because it has the levers of power by which to force the corporations to bend to its will. This allows the government to choose winners and losers rather than let the marketplace decide who lives and who perishes.

If and when the government decides that a meritless corporation must live, as it does some of the time, it bails it with taxpayers' money through such program as the “Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)” and by allowing the creation of devious financial schemes such as the “securitization” of bad assets and the “credit default swaps.” The point that Ezrati makes with a hint of anger, is that politicians holding office, collude with the corporations that go along with them. Together, they run the economy in a way that serves the electoral interests of one and the financial interests of the other. They do all this at the expense of the public which ends up paying a heavy price for the mess created by those who profit from it.

Does that mean Milton Ezrati prefers having a system of unfettered capitalism as long as it is not pursued in partnership with the government? It would seem so, but he still wants to see the government get involved by making such laws as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 to prevent the formation of monopolies. These are what Ezrati calls capitalist machines that, “manipulate financial markets, abuse workers, and force higher prices on consumers even as they limit consumer choices by controlling the flows of products to market.” And everyone agrees there is not much to like about that.

Looking at all that Milton Ezrati wants to see in an economic system, we find it to be essentially the system that America is adopting at this time. So, we must ask: what is the gripe that prompted him to warn that the US economy is rigged? There can only be one answer: Beside the inherent unfairness in what he calls a rigged economy, he worries that the 2008-2009 meltdown will happen again.

If that's the case, why did he not propose a solution to prevent such thing from happening? Well, maybe he doesn't have a solution. If so, it could be that the neglected to look at the model known as public-private partnership, which many regimes around the world are experimenting with at this time. Something good may come out of these experiments, and if he delves into the subject by adding his two-cents worth of ideas, he could make a meaningful contribution.

The idea behind the public-private partnership model, is that it is no longer acceptable to make businesses accountable to all their shareholders except one: The public. Because many of the large corporations, such as those that do business internationally, cannot run efficiently without the participation of the government, be it financially or legislatively or diplomatically, the government must have seats on the board of directors where it will articulate the views of the public, and safeguard its interests.

But that's exactly what Milton Ezrati rejects instinctively, seeing it as the ultimate setup that can and will ultimately evolve into a government-business collusion. His argument suggests that absent a system of checks and balances in the economy, such as the one that's working relatively well for the political setup of the United States, the public-private partnership will take us back to square one.

When we look at the problem under this light, a solution that should work well, suggests itself. Here it is: To make sure that the government representatives on a corporation's board of directors, have not been corrupted, a committee acting as both ombudsman and grand jury can be formed on an ad hoc basis when there is credible evidence that collusion has taken place in a corporation.

The mere possibility that such committee can be formed, will serve as a powerful deterrent, and will considerably reduce the possibility of corruption developing.

But if corruption develops anyway, it will be taken care of legally, and will be stamped out before causing much damage to the corporation.

More importantly, it will prevent triggering the chain reaction that can collapse the entire economy such as the one that almost happened in 2008-2009.

He insults the Intelligence of Americans

Whatever the “US-Israel Initiatives” may be, they litter the American landscape under all kinds of different names, and Yoram Ettinger heads one of them in addition to being a former ambassador of something in the service of someone. Ettinger wrote an article under the title: “Beware a Palestinian State,” and had it published on February 16, 2020 in the Jewish online publication, Algemeiner.

Like the title of his article indicates, this is the latest of the Jewish attempts to convince the Western powers that a Palestinian state would be bad for them. What is striking about the argument that Ettinger is using this time, is that it is less about how effective it might be at convincing the Western powers of what he's saying, and more about how desperate the Jews have become to stop the creation of a Palestinian state.

To understand this desperation, we need to recall that since 1967, the year that Israel occupied Palestine, the Jewish argument had been that the Jews wanted PEACE and nothing else, whereas the Arabs were saying that the Jews wanted a PIECE of Palestine if not all of it. The Arabs did not have to go far to explain their point because, while articulating the peace argument, the Jews were simultaneously negating the right of the Palestinians to keep their Palestine or even be in it. The Jews based that opinion on their interpretation of a passage in the Old Testament which they said was God's instruction to the effect that there is room in Palestine for only one people: The Jews.

When that argument proved to be too insulting to the intelligence of the Western powers (except for the Americans who embraced it with fanatic zeal,) the Jews came up with a host of other arguments, which they rattled off one after the other, as they tried to convince the Europeans of what they were saying; and make sure that the Americans will not relent in their slavish support of Israel.

The Jewish arguments were based on false claims; one being that there was neither milk nor honey in the Land of Milk and Honey, and that Palestine was not a part of the Fertile Crescent because there was no Fertile Crescent. On the contrary, said the Jews, there was only desert in Palestine, a place that the Jewish jewelers, musicians and textile workers of Europe, farmed into a lush green oasis, surrounded by a desert that had neither the Jordan River, nor the Tigris, the Euphrates or the Nile.

But when this argument turned out to be not sexy enough to interest the Western powers, the Jews changed their tune and started saying that the Arabs were good farmers after all, whereas the Jews were the high technology start-up people who make nothing that's visible in technology but make invisible components that neither America nor Europe or Asia can do without. They buy the Israeli stuff, say the Jewish propagandists, and hide it inside their products, which is why you don't see what great things the Jews make.

When that argument became too tiresome for the West to hear, the Jews came up with their latest version of hogwash. They are now saying –– such as you can see in the Yoram Ettinger article –– that the Palestinians were so bad to their Arab brethren, having no state of their own, they will be worse to the Western powers if they are allowed to have a state of their own. And this is why, say the Jews, the Palestinians must never be allowed to have a state of their own.

Unfortunately for the hapless writer, while it may be well and good to warn the Western powers that the Palestinians will be bad for them because they have been bad to the Arabs, he still had to put together a convincing argument. In so doing, he projected into the Arabs what is known about the Jews, namely that they are the ones who never forgive or forget. In fact, this becomes apparent each time that they feverishly clamor to deport innocent men in their nineties who were drafted as teenagers decades ago into a foreign army, and did nothing worse than stand guard at the gate of a prison. Ettinger easily lost that argument.

To a world that holds its breath when it becomes apparent that America is about to green-light a violent operation against a neighbor of Israel, or green-light a grand theft operation against the Palestinians, Yoram Ettinger has said this: “The Arabs are aware of the direct correlation between the Palestinian freedom of action and the level of Palestinian terrorism.” And the world saw yet another bucket of Jewish hogwash being added to the Ettinger argument.

At a time when the people of the world had become horrified by the reality that America would bomb a country into the Stone Age for no reason other than the desire to respond to Jewish hate education and incitement, Yoram Ettinger said this: “The Palestinians embarked on a wave of incitement, violence and a wave of anti-Jewish hate education.” And the world saw yet another bucket of Jewish hogwash added to the Ettinger argument.

That being commentary on just the preamble of the Yoram Ettinger article, it is how the rest of it goes through 850 words of pure Jewish hogwash.

And that’s another day in the roster of Jewish insults thrown at the intelligence of the Beltway Americans who drink the stuff like holy water sent to them from heaven.

Read the rest of the Yoram Ettinger article, my friend, and you won't even have to drink from it to get sick to the stomach.

Example of a classy Work outclassing a classless

There was a time years ago when I suggested that the accusation of antisemitism should be criminalized because it was a weapon of character assassination that had the same effect as physical assassination.

It is that I had not heard of Erielle Davidson at the time. I don't believe she was writing then, but if she were and I had known about it, I might have waited to see the effect of her writing before suggesting that the accusation of antisemitism be outlawed. What is bubbling at the surface nowadays, is that a classless horde of young Zionists, Erielle Davidson among them, is transforming the accusation of antisemitism from being a weapon aimed at opponents into a self-administered poison.

Much of what Davidson has written supports that point of view, but nothing illustrates the point as starkly as her latest column. It came under the title: “Bernie Sanders Enables The Corbynistas Of The American Left,” published on February 12, 2020 in The Federalist.

There are ways to measure the effectiveness of someone's artistic output on the audiences if you don't have a live audience at hand whose reaction you can watch and evaluate. One of the ways would be to assess the class level that is attained by the artist’s work –– be that a writer, a painter or what have you –– and determine where it would fit among the pantheon of other similar works.

In fact, this can be done with any of Davidson's articles, but what makes her latest column special is that she provided the means by which to make an instant comparison between what fuels her thinking, and what fuels the thinking of her nemesis. Juxtaposing the output of the two, provides a chance to see the contrast between one that is classy and one that is classless.

The saying that Erielle Davidson chose to attack, is that of her nemesis Linda Sarsour. This is what Davidson has quoted Sarsour as saying:

“In my opinion, on an issue like Palestine, you've got to choose the side of the oppressed … And if you're on the side of the oppressor or you're defending the oppressor, or you're actually trying to humanize the oppressor, then that's a problem, sisters and brothers, and we've got to be able to say that is not the position of the Muslim-American community”.

And here is how Erielle Davidson has attacked that saying while giving her own views on the same subject:

“Sarsour has been accused of antisemitism. The 2020 Democratic runner Bernie Sanders allows her to serve as surrogate despite her supporting the antisemitic BDS and cavorting with antisemitic Louis Farrakhan. Sarsour's defenders will use her support for Sanders as evidence she is not antisemitic. By allowing her to represent his campaign, Sanders assigns legitimacy to her rhetoric. He is Jewish – he can't possibly support antisemites. Wrong; he can and is. The rise of Jeremy Corbyn has allowed the antisemitic rhetoric to infect the party. There is a gap between Corbyn and Sanders, but it is closing. Sanders is mainstreaming the Corbynist wing of his party. Antisemitism within the party has rationalized Jew hatred. Party officials hid accusations of antisemitism. The left's denial of antisemitism within their ranks, mainstreams antisemitism. By allowing Sarsour to remain a surrogate, and accepting an endorsement from Ilhan Omar, Sanders normalizes antisemitic opinions”.

When you focus on the contrast that exists between the two sayings, you cannot help but be impressed by the difference you see between Linda Sarsour's classy and uplifting Arab-style literary study, and Erielle Davidson's Jewish-style classless and debased haggling.

This situation prompts asking the obvious questions: What's wrong with the Jews? After thousands of years of misery, repeating the same performance, do they not realize there is a better way to behave? The answer is that they are aware of the alternative. In fact, they are so good at mimicking normal behavior, they fool the people of the community each time they go into a new one. It's only after they feel secure in their new home that their leaders begin to pull the tricks by which they hope to take control of the community. That's when the ordinary people turn against them, and chase them away.

The latest caper of the Jews is now unfolding in the United States of America. The signs are already there, and if the old pattern holds, a bag of misery should be unleashed on the Jews sooner or later.

But something else has been unfolding at the same time. It is that during the first half of the twentieth century, a harsh kind of rule put roots in several spots around Europe under such names as Nazism, Fascism, Marxism and other offshoots. When the bag of misery was unleashed on the Jews, it proved to be so powerful and thorough, the world pitied the Jews and went out of its way to accommodate them after the Second World War.

No one at the time could have predicted that in no time at all, the Jews were going to pull their bag of tricks and play the same old stunts on the human race. But they did, thanks to characters such as Erielle Davidson and others of her ilk.

The world took notice, and ordinary people around the globe are preparing to make their feelings known when the bag of misery will have been unleashed on the Jews … whenever this will happen.

Come to think of it, maybe it was a good thing that the accusation of antisemitism was not outlawed, given that the Jews have abused it the way they did the Holocaust, turning both into moot cracks lacking in any level of depth for all to see. And this can only be a good thing.

In any case, you can bet that the Jews will run as they always do, but will not hide because there will be no place for them to hide.